There’s two issues at play that aren’t related, and neither is the existence of “red tape”, also known as “any degree of regulation”.

One is that they’re pulling money away from solar, and trying to kill it. That’s shit, and they shouldn’t. End of issue.

The other is that everyone seems to wince at the notion of actually investing in civic services, and then gets confused about why they take a long time to do stuff and make mistakes. Those other countries where it’s easier just spent the money on the government that makes it nice.
Refusing to fund the government because it doesn’t work well, then removing regulations because the government is slow to enforce them is a cyclic libertarian and Republican trope.

while it’s probably not the case that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be an agent provocateur, it would be unsurprising if it were that, someone there to push for escalation with no police affiliation, or just petty hooliganism.

You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They’re not, which was the point of my comment.

It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that someone causing trouble came to the protest solely to cause trouble, for whom or why not withstanding.

I believe this is the third or fourth time I’ve clearly stated my point, so I’m going to start copying from previous comments to save you the trouble of scrolling.

In the context, conspiracy theory seemed the more likely meaning, since being pedantic about the word would mean most of the people there engaging in violence would be conspirators regardless of why they were there.
Asking incredulously if someone really thinks the police are more likely to conspire to violence than people there under guise of peaceful protest is a level of naivete that I didn’t assume.
But you are correct, I didn’t interpret your words strictly literally, and assumed you didn’t know about agitators rather than reading your comment as the naive defense of police it otherwise appeared to be.

You called the existence of agitators a conspiracy theory. They’re not, which was the point of my comment.

People can reply to you without agreeing with the person you’re replying to.
Instead of assuming what I’m saying based on where it is in the thread you might try reading the actual words.

Wait, you’re arguing with me because of what someone else said?

I said agitators aren’t a conspiracy theory. You asked why I thought the violence from the protestors was “impossible”. I said I didn’t think that, and it’s obviously possible and now you’re upset that I used the word “possible”?

The point of a protest is to cause trouble

🙄oh, go fuck yourself. If you’re getting to that level of nitpicking you aren’t actually doing anything but looking for argument, unless you’re actually so brain damaged that you think that all nonviolent protest is just “parades”. Just in case: in this context, trouble is a word used and understood by native English speakers to mean “undirected violence and destruction perpetrated for it’s own sake”.

I didn’t say that in the slightest, and in fact said the opposite.

It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that someone causing trouble came to the protest solely to cause trouble, for whom or why not withstanding.
The first two examples I gave, police and right wing accelerationists, have a political motivation. The third, holligans, are doing what they’re doing for it’s own sake.

It’s obviously possible for someone aligned with the peaceful protestors to decide to throw rocks at cops. Neither I nor anyone else said otherwise.

There’s no need to put words in someone’s mouth or misrepresent what they’re saying.

It has been documented to happen, so it’s not incredibly outlandish. The regularity with which modern protest movements on the US left attempt to surpress violence to avoid giving an excuse to law enforcement makes it notable when it occurs. Again, far from unheard of, just not part of every instance.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendment

So while it’s probably not the case that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be an agent provocateur, it would be unsurprising if it were that, someone there to push for escalation with no police affiliation, or just petty hooliganism. Last of which is significant only that it distinguishes someone who decided to do violence for a principled reason from someone who just wanted to throw rocks at cops.