> Protests and societal disruptions aren't mutually exclusive. Agreed. Though the difference with the Canadian Truckers vs all other protests was that it was o

> Protests and societal disruptions aren't mutually exclusive. Agreed. Though the difference with the Canadian Truckers vs all other protests was that it was ongoing 24/7 and they were advertising for donations with the promise of continuing the protest. Sure the government could have done nothing and let them do their thing but the voter backlash against them would have grown to include not only the people protesting but the people affected by the protests. So the government used all the tools in the toolbox to stop it including propaganda. It's kind of wild though to think that the rest of the country or world can essentially extend their political influence to an issue in a geographical area where they have no "skin in the game". Personally I think it was stupid of the truckers to block key trade routes. Did they not realise that politicians receive donations both officially and non officially (revolving door) from wealthy people who own businesses? Why not just announce an ongoing strike? My guess would be they didn't have the numbers or they weren't willing to make a financial sacrifice for their cause.