I don't get it either. If you're a member of congress push your way in there! Let them cause a confrontation so that it can be fought in courts.
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.
Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.
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.
A constitution should have peace and prosperity for the country as one of its goals. This means that force against the people should be the monopoly of an institution that is governed by laws in order to uphold at least a minimum amount of order in pursuit of the other goals. That legitimizes police.
Now we get to the matter of how a certain constitutional order is allowed to defend itself against domestic threats within its own legal framework. The US constitution relies a lot on balance of power and does not regulate much else in case that this fails. I do not know of any constitutional right for a congressman to lead violent actions against other parts of the government. And that leads to the situation where the most effective actions to restore order are more detrimental to that order in the short term.
And the Democratic party is refusing to go there. Think of that what you will, but that's why their actions amd responses are so tame.
Republicans are the majority party. The opposition party constituents need to persuade only a handful of Republicans in each house, get them to caucus with Democrats, and you have an entirely lawful, civil, non-violent way of opposing a president.
This has a greater chance of enduring success than expecting an increasing body count of people getting shot in the face to persuade more people to participate.
I am aware most Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to enable Trump. But accepting that as the intractable part of the problem? No, the intractable part is extracting more votes out of the party in the minority.
Almost all Republicans in Congress who challenged Trump have quit or lost their elections. The survivors do his bidding.
Hopefully they still have some limits we’re as yet unaware.
That is the appeal I’m making, is for these elected officials who ostensibly represent everyone in their district or state, not only the people who voted for them. They really do still old school tally up letters and phone calls.
I’m saying before the next election, that’s what we have. And peaceful assembly.
Ok then. What's your plan to defeat them with force? Literally: Where's your army? Where are your guns?
The only institution that matters once a regime rejects law and order, is we the people. If the people roll over, then they are submitting to their dominators, and no one is free.
Same thing has been happening at least since the Mayans... they refused to give up their lifestyles even in the face of their own surrounding natural resources being eaten up from their fast expansion, and they eventually died off.