[_heimdall]

If I honestly believed democracy would be ended by the next leader I would be marching in the streets, or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion.

Ending democracy is a very serious thing. It shouldn't have been used hollowly by either party, and if it wasn't hollow then people should be standing up to stop it.

[ModernMech]

We did stand up, that was the entire 2024 campaign. We really truly believe the guy who incited the insurrection in 2021 that ended the history of peaceful democratic transitions of power in the USA is going to do more of the same damage to democratic institutions in 2025. Given what happened on 1/6 I don’t know why you see that worry as hollow.

[_heimdall]

I see it as hollow mainly because the democratic party and many of its supporters seemed to go silent after the election. I can only speak for myself, but if I truly believed he would end democracy in a few short years I'd be doing whatever I could to stop it. I say it seems hollow because I just can't imagine it being a serious, real threat and also rolling over.

[ModernMech]

> I can only speak for myself, but if I truly believed he would end democracy in a few short years I'd be doing whatever I could to stop it

We did do whatever we could to stop it. We tried every avenue available.

We tried impeachment twice, but he was protected by his party. The first time they protected him for extorting a bribe from a foreign government. The second time they protected him for inciting an insurrection. We tried the DOJ but he was protected by a federal judge he appointed, and supreme court justices two of which he appointed granted him sweeping immunity from prosecution. We tried to constitutionally disqualify him from running on the basis he incited an insurrection, but again he was protected by judges he appointed. Our last recourse was to run on a pro-democracy candidate during the election but the people rejected her.

So we tried everything. But the election was fair. He won. That's that. We tried everything else, and anyway at this point it's too late without resorting to a violent coup, which supporters of democracy won't do. There are no other pro-democratic avenues left to protect democracy from Trump. Sucks it turned out this way, but at least you can't say you weren't warned.

[EnergyAmy]

The missing piece of the puzzle is that the DNC does not represent the people, it represents corporations who are just fine with Trump. Your average person is very concerned and is likely to think that Trump does represent a very real danger to democracy. The corporate apparatus that is the DNC made some noise about it to see if they could rile people up into voting for them and that failed.

[ModernMech]

People expect liberals to align with the left because that's where they've been in recent times. But liberals align with globalists, police, and corporations. Leftists always predicted that when the time came, liberals would run to the fascists. And what do you know there they were: Biden, Obama, Bill, Hillary, Kamala sitting right next to Trump at the inauguration in unity. Message received.

[dragontamer]

> or better yet finding a group forming a rebellion.

You mean like the two assassination attempts vs Trump? Which only made Trump's power greater and consolidated more support?

Aggressive actions literally make Trump stronger. That's literally failing to work and we're living in the fallout of that. I'm not sure how to stop Trump but inciting violence seems like the wrong answer to me.

Besides, its the US Military. We all know that its impossible to actually rebel vs the Army. What do you want a rebellion to do? Grab a couple of AR15s while the Army literally brings in tanks?

-----------

Aggression is a failing move. But so was a political campaign that tried to convince people of Trump's dangers. So that's that. Or are you seriously trying to bait people into arguing that more violence was the answer here? Did you literally forget the election already?

[_heimdall]

Aggression is often a failing move, yes. And I'm not saying we should go there. What I am saying is that I don't understand what happened to everyone claiming democracy would be over, and that if the threat is real I don't see marches solving it.

[dragontamer]

Because Aggression is a failing move.

What more "marching" do you want? The only escalating point now is violence because all the marching from 2024, 2020 and all other years accomplished nothing. Indeed: even just "marching" in 2020 was apparently "too violent" as Black Lives Matter (a march to protect African American lives) somehow got twisted by Donald Trump and his politics into a "violent" march.

I think it makes sense that people are cautious about the next steps. But what the hell are you wanting people to march for? To deny the election and cause a liberal Jan 6th event? What are you even talking about? Even if people did that, it'd only play to Donald Trump's persecution complex and he'd get more power anyway. And its not like anyone would be marching to force Biden or Kamala back into office, neither candidate is popular enough.

------

The actual move is to retreat from Federal level politics and hold firm at the State-level side. If the Federal Government is lost, the focus should be on more local bastions and defenses.

The fact remains: the resistance wants to be peaceful and non-violent. You've taken away the voice of the peaceful ones by labeling them as violent at every turn. So we know marching doesn't work anymore. Its not like the movement is dead, its just resting for now as people figure out what the new plans are. But its clear that a direct assault vs this ideology isn't working.

[_heimdall]

I think we may be talking past each other here.

My point at the start of this thread was that, in my opinion, the level of certainty with which people claimed Trump's election was directly voting for an end to democracy does not align with actions since the election results were in. Either people didn't believe those claims even while saying it, they have since been convinced otherwise, or they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is over within a matter of years.

[dragontamer]

> they rolled over knowing full well that democracy is over within a matter of years.

My point is why is the latter so hard to understand?

There isn't a way to resist directly anymore (especially as both Biden and Kamala are insufficient to serve as the focus of a hypothetical coup). There are other plans in place to have resistance at the State levels, where it will be more obviously beneficial.

Any most of the escalations we can do are once again, counteracted by the simple history that is the assassination attempts. It's clear that the path to violence to stop this madness is closed.

--------

It's not the time for direct confrontation at the federal level on this subject. It's the time to pull back and defend at the State level.

Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in any way in the past few months? Your questions are so shallow it's making me think you only have talking points to share. After an election loss like that (not a landslide, but still an obvious loss), there is no coup potential or other kind of way for the Democrats to even try to hold onto power.

[_heimdall]

> Have you seriously thought about how to stop this in any way in the past few months? Your questions are so shallow it's making me think you only have talking points to share. After an election loss like that (not a landslide, but still an obvious loss), there is no coup potential or other kind of way for the Democrats to even try to hold onto power.

Not quite sure what talking points you think I have to share here, I thought I was laying out a logical flow that doesn't make sense to me.

Circling the wagons at the state level is a good short term approach, though if successful I don't see how it doesn't first run into the unfortunate need for violence.

As a country we have spent the better part of a century moving a large portion of powers to the federal level. States can't just ignore that and do what they want without repercussions. Maybe more importantly, I don't see how a stage could continue to run democratically as part of the union if democracy is destroyed at the federal level, there would just be too much conflict there.