"No Kings Day" protests turn out millions, rebuking Trump | Our unofficial estimate is that around 4-6 million people attended a protest event yesterday. Anti-Trump resistance is outpacing 2017.
"No Kings Day" protests turn out millions, rebuking Trump | Our unofficial estimate is that around 4-6 million people attended a protest event yesterday. Anti-Trump resistance is outpacing 2017.
Our unofficial estimate is that around 4-6 million people attended a protest event yesterday. Anti-Trump resistance is outpacing 2017.
You're viewing a single thread.
We gotta keep the momentum up. History suggests the threshold for achieving change is a turnout of 3.5% (roughly 12 million active participants)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
That number keeps getting thrown around but this admin dgaf. That number only works when the admin believes in human rights and when the admin cares about it’s popularity.
Turns out someone who looks like Luigi but is definitely not Luigi proved it takes only one death certificate to initiate change for scores of people
But nothing changed... Can you show a change in healthcare since? have acceptance rates gone up? premiums gone down?
Nothing changed.
Edit: Bunch of downvotes... but nobody can tell me anything that's changed... interesting isn't it?
Several health insurers reversed some of their latest shitty policies within days of the event. Like the one that would put a time limit in the anesthesia they'd pay for. That's an immediate course change from hundred billion dollar companies.
Like the one that would put a time limit in the anesthesia they’d pay for.
Elected officials in Connecticut and New York both said they stepped in Thursday to intervene with Anthem’s new plan before the company announced the reversal. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on X, formerly known as Twitter, the change was "outrageous" and she would “make sure New Yorkers are protected.” Connecticut’s comptroller Sean Scanlon said his office had already reached out to Anthem and the policy would “no longer be going into effect here in Connecticut.” Scanlon shared that update hours before Anthem announced the reversal.
So a could politicians managed to block it in just their states, but the company reversed it for everyone... And you think that somehow refutes what I said?
Yes... Anthem is a subsidiary of BCBS that operates geographically and doesn't compete with other BCBS subsidiary...
So literally yes. If they were blocked in their few geo locations... Literally yes.
Edit: They service 8 states. When your biggest state says "fuck no" to your new policy... you reevaluate or roll-back (or go to lawsuit).
Well that's settled then, politicians would never lie to provide cover for companies. Nothing else that happened that week could have explained it, the government has done this so often (without even announcing it to the people they want votes from) that this is for sure the only explanation.
Apart from all the claims that were suddenly approved or execs of other companies suddenly removing all personal info from websites?
Fear. Nothing meaningful will change until the rich fear for their lives, and we saw just how much they’re scrambling after 1 CEO.
Apart from all the claims that were suddenly approved
Source this please... To date, I still see United Healthcare at dead bottom. And rate fluctuating only nominally over the past 12 months.
execs of other companies suddenly removing all personal info from websites?
If you're counting this as a meaningful change to healthcare... Then I guess you found one that I can't contest. Congrats!
Fear. Nothing meaningful will change until the rich fear for their lives, and we saw just how much they’re scrambling after 1 CEO.
No, this is my point. Even with "fear" nothing changed.
They need to fear more, clearly.
Y'all tried tens of thousands of protests but are giving up at one CEO? That's a shitty sample size.
Y'all
Speak for yourself please.
British India didn't care about human rights
And Gandhi didn't do jack shit.
Only once violent resistance had forced the Brits away they went "oh by the way it was totally the guy who would have laid down in the street to be flattened by our tanks, in case anyone else wants to try it"
Gross over simplification and also false.
Edit, for those interested, there hadn't been violent mass resistance in India since the uprisings in 1857. While terrorism and assassinations continued, the Imperial intelligence services (which were one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world) effectively neutered and public opinion in Britain wasn't affected at all.
The Indian National Army which grew in WW2 with Japanese support certainly worried the Imperial governors but it had been obliterated during the botched invasion of India in 1944 and was never able to fully recover, despite strong support in some regions.
The now hugely powerful and well armed British Indian Army was another source of concern but there was no appetite among the officers for revolution and the ordinary soldiers had mixed loyalties.
Most of the violence within India at the time was actually between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority and not directed against British occupation in any large degree.
It was the non-violent passive opposition of Gandhi and the Quit India Movement, and crucially, the British violent crackdown of it, that shifted public opinion within Britain. Once Churchill was ousted, there was neither the public support, or the political desire for further defense of British rule in India and forced them to the negotiating table.
To say violence was what caused the British to pull out is factually incorrect and that the non violent resistance totalled "jack shit" is ignorant beyond belief.
They cared about their public image.
It only works when you are near an election, and the election are coming. This administration is working on a different path: at least one year before the next election and is actively working to make sure (fair) elections might not happen anymore
The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.
Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them "get to 3.5% and things will happen", so with everyone saying "if we get to 3.5%, things will happen", that could itself break the "rule", as a sort of self-denying prophecy.
Would you say that Ferdinand Marcos believed in human rights and did not care for his popularity?
What do you suppose happens at this magic threshold? I'll give you a hint- it's nothing. We still have to do the work to actually make a difference. Protesting and building momentum is good, but we can't just wait until we hit this magic threshold and pretend that will fix everything and rest on our laurels.
This is the right take. There's more that goes into than just achieving that number. It is necessary, but not sufficient.
This
Anyone else remember how the Women's March saved reproductive rights? Of course not, and now women are dying in Texas because doctors are afraid they'll be arrested for murder if they treat them for life threatening conditions.
Of course, that was well below the claimed "magical" 3.5% level.
Are you sure? Cause it was pretty damn big
Way way too much stock is placed in that study.
For one, their total sample size was only 323 events, only 3 of which met the "3.5%" level. So the statement that change is inevitable based on only 3 instances is really crazy.
Further, none of those three instances had participants thinking that 3.5% was some sort of goal, it was a correlation. So now you have a lot of protestors treating 3.5% as a goal rather than some organic emergent property of the broader movement. Even if there was something inevitable about having a 3.5% participation rate when no one is aware of that metric, simply knowing of the metric can change a lot.
Yea I think you can have 35% of the country at the steps of the White House , Trump ain’t stepping down