A Terrorist Party

I want to be absolutely clear: I mean that the Republicans are a
terrorist party in the exact same way as Hamas is a terrorist party in
most democracies (including the United States).

This is a political party which supported, and still supports, political
violence to overthrow the democratically elected government of the
United States - and a good chunk of which wants to install a theocratic
government in its stead. Replace "Republican" with any other name, and
you would get a declaration that this party, this movement, this
organization is a political terrorist organization.

For some reason, Americans have their heads stuck up their collective
asses when it comes to these things. The left is trying to rationalize
some sort of imbecilic need for "decorum" and "tradition". I've heard
countless talking heads recount countless times how we just don't charge
our former Presidents with a crime because it is not our "tradition".

You know what else isn't in our tradition? Trying to overthrow the
government with a literal violent coup. That's never happened before
either.

Let me explain to people about tradition: We can create tradition.
Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Charging people for
Genocide was literally never done before in modern legal history (let
alone ancient history). This was a first. And there's a reason why it's
a legal framework now: because we invented it to deal with a new
situation. We didn't just throw our hands up and say that we didn't have
a "tradition" of charging people with crimes against humanity. We
created the conditions in which we could do that as a response to a
new situation.

When I was young, we all idolized Lincoln. Do you think that Lincoln had
a framework for fighting a civil war? Do you think that he had a
framework for freeing the slaves? No. But it seems that Americans, back
then, were absolutely willing to respond to situations by creating new
frameworks and not necessarily invoking tradition as an excuse to do
nothing.

I suggest that we take a page out of that book. Yes, it's true: We
don't have a "tradition" of charging ex-Presidents with crimes, but we
are faced with the situation for the first time in our country's history
wherein we need to charge him with crimes - egregious crimes. And we
need to create a framework in which we don't just shrug it off because
it's "not traditional", buck up, and do it. And if his followers decide
to react with violence, then we deal with them as well.