'No Kings' is fine and easy. But...doesn't capture it for me. He's not a benevolent, smart autocrat. He couldn't

[wiggs]

care less about America, except that it has proved vulnerable enough to capture for his own purposes.

He's disordered, narcissistic, limited, sociopathic, greedy, small. A con man. A grifter. Mad. Diminished. Ignorant except when it comes to sensing vulnerability in and leverage over opponents. He probably likes being considered a king. He probably tells kings and autocrats around the world that 'some people' like him being king.

Fine to generally protest a king in this country. We shouldn't even have to. But this is a different kettle of fish entirely.

Headed out to a large, local protest

[leftstreet]

1. It should be No Fascists n/t

[Silent Type]

2. Like that better than No Kings.

[meadowlander]

5. The majority of Americans think "fascists" is hyperbolic.

For better or worse, 35+ years of the Internet slinging around "You sound like Hitler" has dulled people's ability to understand fascism when it is staring them in the face. They just think Democrats are exaggerating again when they use terms like that.

The majority of people still think fascism couldn't happen here, because they never learned about the history of fascist and fascist-adjacent movements in the US.

Everyone who made it through 3rd grade (with some embarrassing exceptions in our current government) knows that we used to have a king, that it was bad, and that the point of America is to not have a king.

And we have to be attracting the widest possible swath of people to these rallies.

[leftstreet]

6. What happened to the No Oligarchs thing?

Seems like people were just starting to understand that

oh wait...

[Wounded Bear]

9. Too cerebral for most of us...

And it doesn't roll off the tongue like No Kings.

[Dave Bowman]

3. Kings were rarely, if ever, benevolent. The vast majority were just like him or worse.

Many were smarter while others were crazier but they were/are all narcissistic to some degree and couldn't care less about the population.

[Wounded Bear]

7. Yeah, that's pretty much a myth...

Last edited Sat Oct 18, 2025, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

unfortunately propagated recently in the Lord of the Rings movies. I love the movies, but I know enough to treat the "Return of the King" mythologically, not literally.

Sadly, many cultures around the world still cling to that old myth of the "good king." Real life is much more likely to follow Macciavelli's The Prince.

[Keepthesoulalive]

4. Don't care what you call it

We need to get people’s attention and focus. No kings is good messaging , very easy to understand.

[carpetbagger]

8. It's catchy, though.

And honestly, it's exactly what we need in a protest structure right now. They stay out of the way in terms of keeping leadership nearly anonymous and the "official line" vague, providing a structure for large and broad organization.

[wiggs]

11. Yes, understand the meme. Lots of signs today included No Kings...good. I just wish conversations in MSM

more often started with a description of how limited and disordered the man who wants to be king is.

[intheflow]

10. He doesn't care about America, true.

But he cares about people bowing down to him. Mass protests show strength in real time, physical numbers of people opposed to him. That infuriates him, and also strikes fear in his heart. He surrounds himself with sycophants and yes men who are likely lying to him about everything, including his poll numbers. But it’s gonna be hard for him to ignore the footage and images of masses of peaceful protestors that even Fox will show (tho they’ll be saying we’re rioting).

[GenThePerservering]

12. Way to split hair nt

[Swede]

13. It's not about him.

It's about America's democracy.

[Ms. Toad]

14. No kings is exactly the kind of slogan we need, but have largely been unable to generate.

Short, to the point, captures the essential of the problem: He is acting like a king who has no checks and balances on his power.

Democrats struggle to unite behind a short, catchy phrase which encapsulates a larger concept. No kings does. (Defund the police didn't - it required explanation. No kings doesn't require an explanation. It harkens back to all we were rejecting when the country was formed, so it invokes a healthy patriotism. No kings suggests that a single person should not control the fate of the country.

It isn't perfect - but it is easy to sign onto (unlike defund the police), It may mean different things to different people - but there is a common theme all of us can support that does not require a thesis to explain.