That is a useful suggestion and I wish it were the practice here. But a request of "what RFK thinks" is honestly too broad to be useful. I read his book(1) and

That is a useful suggestion and I wish it were the practice here. But a request of "what RFK thinks" is honestly too broad to be useful. I read his book(1) and just that alone covers far, farm more than could be encompassed in an HN discussion. Better to state what you argue or what you believe an opponent is arguing, so that a reasonable discussion can then ensue. IOW I agree with you that each of RFK's contentions could be discussed dispassionately here; however, in contrast mrtksn 55 minutes ago wrote: +I like the suggestion, but this is not a debate really, this is action." which, to me, sounds like some sort of (insurrectionist/Marxist/something I'm unfamiliar with) "call to action" rather than a consideration of further discussion. If so, then my imagined discussion would be likely impossible. Instead I see two possible alternatives depending on what your state laws are: I. You live in a state where firearms are heavily regulated and there is no "stand-your-ground" law or "castle doctrine". Result: possible burnings, lootings and days of general lawlessness, or II. You live in a state like Texas where one can possess firearms and use them to "stand your ground". Result: a few possible deaths, some wounded burners, looters and rioters after 15 minutes of clarification. (1) "The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health" https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/dp/B09LVYYTJJ https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Pharma-Democracy/d...