What can I say: your analysis is just wrong based on recent history, and I fundamentally don’t agree with it.

It is not a winning electoral strategy to deny that there are inherent and accelerating economic issues, being experienced by the majority of working people in this country. It’s obvious that failing to made a compelling appeal to the working class and delivering policies that continue to exacerbate wealth inequality have led to string electoral losses for Democrats. “Now is not the time” has been the same message from the Clinton wing for decades at this point.

Continuing down this path is precisely what has allowed the Right to claim a Bonapartist coalition of disgruntled, alienated working people and is marching us right down the road to Fascism.

Working people can feel the pain of economic exploitation increasing over time while they receive a lower share of wages for increased productivity. A Democratic pitch, which is based in returning to normalcy that is not livable is not a winning pitch.

It’s wild that you think strong democratic majorities will pass laws that help the working class when there are several states where this is the case and they don’t pass significant redistributive social policies.

Why can’t democratic trifecta states right now pass $25/hr minimum wage tethered to inflation? Or state run universal healthcare? Because their donor base is also composed of billionaires and cadres of business owners. What’s more after a few cycles in office, they routinely leverage information asymmetries available as part of their supposed oversight roles to make money in stocks, become exceedingly wealthy and more detached from the needs of working people.

The Democrats have exclusively run pro-business national candidates for the past 35 years. It’s naive to think without serious pressure from the Left (whether that’s internal DSA pressure or something else) they’ll put forward policies that actually help the working class. If someone doesn’t want to be in your big tent with AIPAC, pro-business sycophants you portray them as ideological purists. Unreal.

Is this a question? It’s a fact you can look up.

Indirectly they do. Every dollar spent there is a dollar that doesn’t go to the homeless or those who can’t afford healthcare.

Unpopular opinion perhaps, but same thing applies to that US lunar launch.

“You must be my lucky star!” “Star light, star bright!”

911 is a joke and there’s a non-zero chance they’ll kill you if you get the wrong officer and you don’t satisfy their favored supremacist purity criteria. I’d rather be armed and not outsource my safety to someone I cannot trust. I also trust myself to resolve situations in my home with better judgement than a person who more than likely joined the police to live out their violent power fantasies.

I’m having a hard time taking you seriously when you’re discouraging organizing. 2A oriented groups are legitimate forms of organization and have a role to play. This isn’t about becoming an army that will fight the military, it’s about providing security when the state can no longer be trusted to do so and serving as a disincentive to right-wing paramilitary groups.

You’ve got this mixed messaging saying “the real resistance is talking” but alluding to “things beyond that” presumably organized direct action or civil disobedience. Why can’t a 2A group do both of those things?

“Individuals cannot do anything”

The way you’ve framed this encourages apathy and the role we all have to play in any organized movement. Rather, we’re all individuals and we all have a duty to do something. When ‘individuals’ work together with common interest that is the very definition of ‘community’.

How long have you been hanging out with the military folk and officers you mentioned in this thread? I wonder if your harsh judgement of the means others which to assemble and express their rights is being influenced by overexposure to pig-headed thought.

I’m not advocating for that, but as the prior poster said, “Sooner or later someone is going to defend their home against these goons, using lethal force” and they’ll use that as pretext to increase the boldness and spread of their violence. At that point with a totalitarian state, what recourse to the law remains?

You could look at Renee Good and see that they need no pretext at all to shoot and kill without repercussions. “Don’t feed the troll” isn’t a great strategy when it’s already gnawing on your leg.

This might be relevant for following ICE around or direct action, but at this point there’s almost zero personal risk from attending something like a rally or a march.

My relatives and even friends my age are afraid to go to protests. They read stuff like this, and it acts as demobilization messaging. In my experience, once you get them to go once they’re no longer afraid to engage, but there’s an initial fear and anticipatory obedience that has to be overcome.

inb4 protests do nothing: getting people to stick their toe in the water helps build commitment that will one day be necessary to gain critical mass for more organized disobedience.

I believe that “When they kick at your front door how you going to come? With your hands on your head or using proper trigger discipline with your gun?” doesn’t fit the syllable count.