BrianKrebsFeb 1, 2025

It's hard to believe we are now ending just the second week of this new administration, which feels like several months already. But that's all part of the ideological blitzkrieg, right? Flood the zone.

The lack of any coherent response from Democrats to some of the blatantly illegal and gonzo stuff the White House and Herr Musk are now pulling is staggering. But it's a useful signal that it might make more sense for strategists to focus their efforts on identifying the vanishingly few senior GOP lawmakers who still have a spine.

You know, so-called "Party of Lincoln" members who have some vague recollection of the fact that we live in a republic that is to be governed for, by and of the people. And that pretty much the whole point of the Constitution is to make it so that no one branch of government -- but particularly the executive -- can seize too much power. Perhaps appealing to their sense of self preservation is the best strategy going forward.

Show threadMike HartwellFeb 1, 2025
@briankrebs The illegal stuff is in courts as we speak. And if found unconstitutional it is rejected. That is how the system works. However, you are right to point out the Democrat partisans are not standing up and showing We the People how they will do it better.
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonFeb 1, 2025
@Oldmikie @briankrebs Yes, that is what I believed. I was wrong. It is aspirational thinking, not realistic thinking. The system no longer works (if it ever did). Manifestly unconstitutional acts are not ultimately rejected, they are papered over. The Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality is a relatively recent invention. We know now that #SCOTUS is as political and corruptible as the other “equal” branches of government. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not guaranteed to result in received wisdom nor result in corrective action.
Show threadMike HartwellFeb 5, 2025
@meltedcheese @briankrebs I understand I am not happy about the system But The "opposition" MAGA and Trump want to push the limits of "constitutionality" rather than give up we need to keep pushing them with the law even if the SCOTUS is on their side. Notice many of the minions follow Trump because he fights fights fights. (rightly or wrongly). They do not follow us liberal progressives because we give up. Yes most of OUR elected representatives are corrupted. But we must keep trying.
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonFeb 5, 2025
@Oldmikie @briankrebs I understand your position. I do not advocate giving up, not at all. We should keep pushing in all the ways you say. In the last three days, since I wrote the toot to which you responded, events have moved very fast and the situation is even more dire. There must be quick and direct action to stop the injury they are causing before it gets much worse. #SCOTUS can sort it out later, as they do, in the fullness of time. That might take years. Right now, #democracy in the US does not have the luxury of time.
Show threadMike HartwellMay 22, 2025
@meltedcheese @briankrebs I do not support violence, I think all that will do is upset people. Direct action is fine but the constitutional Republic does not need factional strife.
Show threadBrianKrebsMay 22, 2025
@Oldmikie @meltedcheese Probably what we are talking about here is by a factor of thousands of cuts. So feel free to be a cutter.
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonMay 24, 2025
@briankrebs @Oldmikie “Direct Action” doesn’t equate to violence against people. I agree with you on non-violence, but not unconditionally.
Direct Action in my mind is primarily directed at property and processes. Blocking roads for example, or defacing billboards. The general idea is disruption; to make business as usual impossible.
Show threadMike HartwellMay 28, 2025
@meltedcheese @briankrebs look back through the history of violent direct action. Name one instance where violence gained the objective. Of a better world, better environment, better lifestyle, wtf.I think direct action is the dull and difficult process of getting like minded individuals elected. From county commissioner to POTUS.
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonMay 28, 2025

@Oldmikie @briankrebs The choice of examples varies by what you mean by violence and who you think attained their objective and for how long. It is also a matter of scale, and how you much attribution you assign to direct violence in attainment of some objective. Violence is highly disruptive and that is also sometimes a goal. Violence is highly provocative and maybe getting attention is the goal. Here are a few examples off the top of my head. They are all arguable.

— Multiple events that sparked the American Revolutionary War (resistance to the Stamp Act ‘Boston Tea Party”, beatings of British troops garrisoned in private homes, guerrilla attacks on British retreating from Concorde and Lexington, the “Battle of Bunker Hill” …)

— French Revolution (overthrow of the monarchy)

— Russian Revolution (overthrow of the monarchy)

— US civil unrest leading to end of American war in Vietnam.

— Afghanistan Taliban resistance to Soviet then American (Coalition) occupation.

— Greenpeace and others’ disruption of Japanese whale hunting.

— Sabotage of heavy equipment at controversial fossil fuel-related construction sites.

Show threadMike Hartwell
@meltedcheese @briankrebs I disagree violence is easy to identify no matter the example, destruction or damage to someone else's person or property is violent. To use one of your examples blocking a highway. I consider that non violent but it does piss people off. Whether that aids getting publicity for a cause is the debate.
May 31, 2025 at 10:49pmWeb
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonMay 31, 2025
@briankrebs @Oldmikie I disagree with your definition of violence. i’m sure people have divergent opinions, as we do. I think we could have a discussion about direct action and set the issue of violence aside for the moment.
Show threadMike HartwellJun 2, 2025
@meltedcheese @briankrebs Note the news stories, in Colorado a demonstration supporting Israeli hostages get attacked by a fanatic with homeade flamethrowers shouting "Free Palestine". Both are direct actions The hostages must be returned and Palestine must be freed. But....
Show threadDavid J. AtkinsonJun 2, 2025

@Oldmikie @briankrebs You’ve convinced me that “Direct Action” is not well-defined, at least not well enough to categorize incidents like Colorado for our purposes here. In the case of the Colorado fanatic’s attack, I consider that an individual act of retribution. It was not political direct action. Israel’s attack on Gaza is national-state violence. I would not include warfare within the scope of direct action. The taking of the Israeli hostages probably should be considered direct action, but not the accompanying massacre of people at the music festival and kibbutz. That was gratuitous violent terrorism. Unless provoking Israel’s highly predictable response was their political objective, the overall attack was a poor choice. Lastly, it is important to evaluate these examples not just on the dimension of violence, but also on the basis of tactical value, effectiveness, norms and ethical rationale.

Bottom line, direct action or not, it is not easy to say whether an action is justifiable or not without being clear about these multiple dimensions. For nation states, the international laws of war provide the structure that lets us see what is and is not a war crime. There is no international equivalent I know of (other than domestic law) for non-state resistance including direct action. All in all, it is easy to see how reasonable people may disagree.

I suggest we close this thread now.

Show threadMike HartwellJun 5, 2025
@meltedcheese @briankrebs Agreed. BUT I also think it illustrates the problem of emotional/ideological fanaticism controlling "direct actions" The Colorado assholes attack just pissed people off and the nitwits like MAGA pretend this is some anti semite action.