[_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.

[dragontamer]

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

This point. The point I've been quoting specifically.

I've stated why this is an incredibly shallow perspective on repeated occasions. I'm not going to repeat myself.

> As a country we have spent the better part of a century moving a large portion of powers to the federal level.

Tough shit. Democrats lost the Executive, both branches of the Legislative, and the Supreme Court. Democrats have literally nothing in the Federal level anymore. Or have you forgotten how this election has gone?

Its all Republicans here on out at the Federal level. The ONLY plan is to fight at the state level to protect those close to us.

The Federal level has been completely and totally lost. The ONLY plan that makes sense is to build bulwarks at the state level, and if that isn't enough then maybe even at the municipal / city level.