Whatever these people do sets precedent due to the public exposure they get. If they start more (physical) confrontations, the more extreme among their supporters may see that as an invitation to become less peaceful. The administration would see that as a justification for cracking down harder. Protesters that are breaking the law would be the icing on top.

Tim Waltz's decision to increasing the readiness of Minnesotas National guard shows that the situation is extremely tense and the opposition to the administration is forced to walk on eggshells.

It's a near perfect catch: do too little and they won't care and continue implementing their playbook. Do too much and they can and will move faster.

▲

rdiddly 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"Doing too much" such that they move faster is called opposing them and losing, and really still consists of not doing enough. Doing enough to stop them (i.e. opposing them and winning) is doing enough.

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the more extreme among their supporters may see that as an invitation to become less peaceful

Sure. We’re kind of there. Dark as it seems, what we need is violence. Because this administration has not bothered to calibrate its responsiveness. We may wind up with a Congressman in jail. We may wind up with one murdered by ICE. It will be horrific. But I’m not other paths to shocking the nation into action. (Specifically, paralyzing action. The Democrats who voted to put the government back into gear so they could make their holiday plans are beyond words.)

▲

expedition32 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Peace at any price?

Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.

▲

gmueckl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is nearly impossible to argue for use of force and defend the current constitution at the same time. Those politicians would act against the one construct that gives them the legitimate power to act in the first place.

On that path, the current order would have to be broken down completely before a new one can be fully established. That would mean at least a new constitutional order and the US isn't ready for that. The reverence for the current constitution is has very strong roots in US society.

	▲	rdiddly 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're saying anyone using force to enforce the Constitution (yes, the current one, thanks for specifying) is automatically acting illegitimately. The Constitution isn't a nonviolence treatise; nowhere in it does it forbid the use of force to enforce itself. Also, I notice you appear to apply no such restriction upon the treasonous and the lawless, who are already working to undermine and oppose the Constitution and are apparently free to use violence to do that. This is literally the opposite of the truth and not how laws work. Unless you're saying all police enforcing laws are illegitimate? But then that means ICE is also illegitimate. It's a perfect catch.