Oh, ok, so then it is in fact an incitement to violence. Isn’t that swell, we aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.

Then what’s the way forward? Jan 6 V2 but this time it’s left wing people instead? Ok, then what? You can storm in and overthrow all the evil geriatrics and install the utopian government of your dreams, but then what do you do about the 50% of constituents who oppose that move?

The bedrock of democracy is compromise. If you seize power and install a government that works to further your interests and not strike balance between your interests and their interests, you’re an authoritarian in disguise.

What “grand action” do you suppose is appropriate in this scenario? I seem to recall some people taking a grand action on January 6, 2021 also. What separates them from you, besides their radically different ideology?

That’s not the right way.

I read “I’m all for imprisoning people who don’t call me by the names I want them to.”

That’s a dangerous line of thinking, friend.

I have three words for you: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To refresh your memory, Obama asked her to retire so that he could appoint a young liberal justice who could sit the court for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, that geriatric bag of bones clung to power until her death. Guess who’s term she died under, and who got to appoint her replacement? Oh yeah, the big Don. So now because of that we have a conservative court for the foreseeable future.

This is a smoke and mirrors political move.

Moral righteousness has never been a consideration, militarily speaking.

So the solution is to rear a generation of children who believe violence, riots, revolutions, and coup-d’etat is the solution for social change? Because the big problem you are glossing over is that these changes throughout history essentially all involved violence to some degree.