@Phosphenes @EndicottAuthor @anolandria Bolsonaro and Yoon were ousted by democratic means before they'd had a chance to subvert those institutions and aren't relevant to this conversation. As for Pinochet, there's an entire Wikipedia article called "Armed resistance in Chile (1973-1990)."

@Robo105 @anolandria I would argue that forcing them to declare martial law early would be more disruptive to their plans than singing kumbaya in the streets.

Not that there's been anywhere near enough "in the streets" to begin with. We're debating the finer points of peaceful protest in the context of a nation that simply doesn't care enough at the moment to put up *any* kind of protest.

@Robo105 @anolandria I don't think you understand - the administration is going to use martial law as a scalpel, not a club. They're going to shut down major cities in swing states in November on election day in order to maintain their hold in the Senate and claim governorships. There have been no pretexts whatsoever for the times they've deployed troops in cities, they manufacture that after the fact. They always do. Those were dry runs and they worked perfectly.

@EndicottAuthor @anolandria how many fascist regimes has nonviolent protest toppled?

Nonviolent protest only ever works when there is a credible threat of actual violence. When those "ceding power" can point to a nonviolent movement as the reason. MLK isn't effective without the specter of Malcom X.

You can't nonviolent your way out of violence.

@Robo105 @anolandria It's incredibly naïve to believe that protesting completely peacefully doesn't "give them an excuse." Did you or did you not just watch them gun down an innocent woman and then call her a domestic terrorist?

Let me be perfectly clear: they will declare martial law when and where they want. They are not waiting around for someone to shove a cop or block traffic.

They haven't yet because the majority is still passive and going about our lives. Check back in November.