News

I did respond with substance; you chose to reply to a different comment. You are the one without substance: all general urgings toward violence -- "We can either let them, or we can do something about [it]" -- but nothing specific. I referred to very specific points in history, and when and why they worked, while you blew right past that to be able to remain in your generalities.

But what I'd really like you to explain, which you cannot and never will, is how and why it is a winning measure to respond to provocation with violence when your violent response is exactly what they want, and will absolutely be used to cement their power further.

I just posted the court order that literally says the National Guard were posted to Portland, Oregon to quell existing violence. They got kicked out based on the fact there was no violence.

Your answer to this is to call others, not yourself, to unspecified violence.

So I'd say we're not on the same team, regardless of what you write or how old your account (or you) are, because what you propose will only set cities on fire and cement this administration's hold on power. As actual history shows.

I've come to the conclusion that you're just writing because you already know this crew is drowning under the weight of their own unpopularity, and you are terrified they will get thrown out before they really get cemented in. Or like some others, you really do want to see American cities burn. Or like even others, you're terrified because you left your regional and national security to the US for far too long and never took action to secure yourselves against the neighbor in your own backyard (Putin).

Whatever you're writing to prove, you've failed. And yeah, your 22-hour old account is kind of a dead giveaway that this isn't your battle to fight -- or rather, to get others to fight for you.