-14

There was a number of anti-Trump demonstrations in the US (aka "the resistance") during his 1st year in office. I don't know if anyone has publicized what role the following countries had in organizing and/or sponsoring those demonstrations in the US:

  • England
  • Russia
  • France
  • Mexico
  • China
  • Japan
  • Canada

It maybe that some (or even all) of those countries took no part in organizing those demonstrations in the US. But I would like to know if there is an authoritative view on the subject.

I am not trying to suggest that any one of those countries did have an impactful contribution to the organizing. So if there is a good reason why the answer to the question is "none of them", I would a appreciate a well-sourced answer.

Edit: in order to make the question more specific, I would only consider demonstrations which attracted 10,000 attendees or more. I am going with the assumption that logistics necessary in organizing such large gatherings of people would make it easier to track who was behind them.

closed as off-topic by Drunk Cynic, tim, Giter, Philipp Jul 23 '18 at 10:15

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." – Drunk Cynic, tim, Giter, Philipp
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    @grovkin The question is clear. The premise of the question, perhaps wholly unintentionally, is so broad that it questions the claim that the 2016 election had "interference"; if only because there is great risk and little reward for such a course of action. "Demonstrations" basically help hotel sales. Demonstrations by the People do occur and are organic without the aid of third-parties. The technology is already here. Facial recognition is deployed to map "demonstrators" though that is not a searchable database to compare known agents or "contractors" of or paid by nation states – guest271314 Jul 23 '18 at 4:58
  • 1
    State-sponsored is still ambiguous. For example, if a quasi-autonomous public broadcaster which receives state funding and which is available in the United States reported on an upcoming protest, does that count as state sponsorship, or is it enough layers of insulation? – origimbo Jul 23 '18 at 5:11
  • 1
    @origimbo, it would require an explanation and a few qualifiers. I guess it would be "lukewarm" rather than "hot". But any disavowal of a direct relationship can cause questions about an entity being state-controlled. I am not sure if media based abroad promoting a future demonstration (rather than reporting on a demonstration in progress or a demonstration which has already happened) should count. I guess if someone wants to make a case for it, the community can decide on the strength of the argument by voting the answer up or down. – grovkin Jul 23 '18 at 5:17
  • 6
    I've downvoted and voted to close this question for a multitude of reasons. The premise is bizarre and proposed without supporting references. It seeks to link the 'resistance' with a seemingly international cabal, as if these nations were investing in the political unrest. – Drunk Cynic Jul 23 '18 at 7:31
  • 11
    Your question can be boiled down to "I'm not claiming it happened and nobody else is claiming it happened, but did it happen?". If you can find some decent source claiming that other countries were involved in the protests then it would be a legitimate question, otherwise it seems like baseless speculation. – Giter Jul 23 '18 at 10:13
7

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Silver Blaze, in Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle1.

Imagine that there was any kind of information supporting the idea that some of those manifestation were sponsored by a foreign country. Do you think that would have been ignored?

Such an information would have been widely spread:

  • it would be noteworthy even in a more relaxed political climate.

  • given the backdrop of intervention by a foreign country, public would be very interested in such an information.

  • in a more partisan mode, a party or administration that accumulates lots of evidence pointing to foreign interference would be interested in publicizing this as a way to show a moral equivalence.

Now, compare how many unfounded claims were widely spread by several mass media:

  • members of a political party were involved in a pedophilic organization based in the underground of a pizzeria.

  • a citizen of the USA was not a citizen of the USA.

  • the POTUS was lying about his religion.

  • a presidential candidate put USA uranium reserves under foreign control.

Don't you think that, if there was any proof which could be interpreted as supporting your hypothesis2, that proof would have been already extensively known (especially in this site)? Consider the very low bar that some news organizations have established in order to spread the above examples.

This is no small issue. While the free press (on one hand) and the political attacks on rivals (on the other) can lead to some abuses, it also gives a strong incentive for politicians and other public figures to respect the law3.

It also allows me to confidently say, for example, that there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Trump is a were-rabbit who transforms each full moon; as any available evidence available pointing to that would be immediately public knowledge.

So, while it is hard to prove a negative (which is, I guess, exactly the reason of why the OP has posted the question) it is pretty easy to see that, in fact, the dog has not (so far) barked.

That said, and tangentially related to your question, there is evidence that the Russian campaign in social networks supported some anti-Trump movements, like Black Lives Matter. As can be expected from my explanations, those evidences have been reported by the press; the general consensus seem to be that the aim was to increase polarization to help more radical candidates. Still that is a long shot from "organizing anti-Trump demonstrations".


1No, I did not read it. But it was mentioned in a CSI: Las Vegas episode.

2Note that I do not talk about "evidence beyond doubt". The previous examples clearly note that the standard to spread such information can be rather low.

3In the very improbable case that some politician happens not to be a completely honest and ethical human being.

  • I didn't ask about Connan Doyle. I am certain he was not alive by the time the demonstrations occurred. I'll flag to delete this "answer" as not an answer, but I am sure the same army of trolls that downvoted the question will do its best to keep this non-answer alive. – grovkin Jul 27 '18 at 23:46
  • 1
    @grovkin as it has been noted both in comments, close votes and in my answer, the question seems to try to establish a "moral equivalence" by asserting some facts and hoping that nobody can "prove a negative". My answer explains why this negative can be proved. Nonetheless, if you honestly did not realize what your question looked like you can edit it. And, if you just want to delete the question, I can delete my answer so you can delete the question (of course, if I delete my answer and you don't delete your question I will just "undelete" my answer). HTH. – SJuan76 Jul 28 '18 at 10:50
  • A question of how many of the people in a group X met the criterion Y can be definitively answered "none" without proving a negative. It requires simply enumerating all members of X and noting that none of those members meet the criterion Y. And while the demonstrators were numerous, the organizers were not. Which makes the size of the group X small enough to be enumerated. – grovkin Jul 28 '18 at 18:04
  • I don't know why you are attracting upvotes. This is not an answer. It's rant. And an attempt at sarcasm, I think. – grovkin Jul 31 '18 at 4:57
  • 1
    @grovkin Succinctly, this answer is saying that "if it existed, it would have been publicized, therefore since it wasn't publicized it doesn't exist". See Evidence of absence. It's taking a long and light-hearted way to get there, but that's the short form and why I upvoted it. – Bobson Jul 31 '18 at 16:53
-3

From a cost effectiveness and risk and reward perspective, it is highly unlikely that a nation state would invest in a "demonstration"

during his 1st year in office.

or after the election was settled.

So-called "demonstrations" are a means to allow the People to vent their emotions, not solve political problems for the simple reason that little if any actual political organization is done at demonstrations. Then the People go to work the next day, if they did not spend currency for a political tourism trip to the site of the demonstration, from which they will need to spend more currency to travel back home, then go to work the next day. Which ultimately results in tourism revenue for the shops surrounding the "demonstration" site, airlines, buses, restaurants, t-shirt sales, not changes in policies.

Nation states would need to spend hard currency on "demonstrating" without any clear objective which could be reached by "demonstrating".

The architects of policy do not "demonstrate", save for placing their words on the record on the floor of the House or Senate for hours at a time.

If there are nation state activities for or against a politician, it is to monitor both sides of the demonstration for information.

Nation states invest in paths to power, not venting of emotions on the streets. It would be more cost effective to fly over the demonstration and drop millions of leaflets than to actually participate in a "demonstration" on the ground.

  • I am not sure why this answer is more applicable to anti-Trump demonstrations than it is to all other demonstrations. People do have rallies for causes and they occur in order to sway public opinion. Why assume that foreign nation states would not try to change public opinion about a President who literally got elected on the promise to benefit the US by renegotiating our standing with other nations. – grovkin Jul 23 '18 at 5:26
  • 1
    @grovkin The analysis at the answer is applicable to all demonstrations. People have rallies for social acceptance. Political planning is minimally if at all performed at demonstrations where opposing parties are in an excited, animated state, public safety is engaged with one or more sides of the demonstration, and all sides are on alert. It is a venting ritual, mistaken for political substance. Allowed due to its natural evolution: it will end, it cannot last forever; similar to a siege. Again, the vast majority of the "demonstrators" are the People. That is their only political act: vent. – guest271314 Jul 23 '18 at 5:27
  • In democracies, people perform other political acts. For example, they vote and run for political offices. But since many people look for a feeling of belonging, I don't think creating a large crowd which supports a political view point does nothing to spread the message or otherwise promote that view point. – grovkin Jul 23 '18 at 5:35
  • @grovkin You are free to think what you want. The only common theme that have found at "rallies" and "demonstrations" is exhaustion. The "crowd" ultimately disperses and the policies of the ruling class remain. Demonstrate all you want. Get your point of view across. That is indeed your right. If you personally believe that demonstrations are effective, demonstrate. That does not mean a foreign nation state will have your point of view to the degree they will decide to fund a "demonstration". A nation state can reach far more people without the risks of demonstrations by means of propaganda. – guest271314 Jul 23 '18 at 5:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.