This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
That blubbering little weasel. “Y-y-you have to find another way.” I think was the line he used. We tried other ways. Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Luigi showed how to fight back with some effect.
Thiel, Yarvin etc., are all so convinced of their own superiority that any actual challenge to their world view/tactics is completely unexpected. They can only comprehend doing violence to people who won’t do anything about it. They get their rocks off over child murderers, and state sanctioned violence, but cry when the people they want to step on show and ounce of spine. It’s pathetic.