[nuerow]

> Because there is no principled way to draw the line.

In this case the line is pretty clear, and very crisp.

You're talking about a political group that advocates overthrowing the results of free and fair elections aimed at subverting a democratic regime by installing a dictatorship whose supporters are very adamant in their embracing of racist world views.

[throwawaysea]

Challenging election results is not the same as “overthrowing elections”. The Democrats literally challenged the election formally in 2000, 2004, and 2016. For anyone keeping track, that is all the recent presidential elections in which they lost. They even had legislators voting against certification. Polls showed that after the 2016 election, most Democrat voters believed (and probably still do) that Russia literally altered the votes of the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton claimed for months that this election was illegitimate. Yet to you, challenging an election result is only a problem now? That seems oddly one-sided.

As for your claims about dictatorships, racist world views, and so on - all of these are vague attacks that generalize an entire half of the country. There’s little evidence to support such claims.

[oblio]

Hillary didn't encourage a coup and all the Democratic candidates were graceful in accepting defeat.

It's one thing to clench your teeth and complain a bit and an entirely different thing to try to overthrow the democratic system in place.

And keep in mind that except for 2004, the popular vote went the other way so for sure there were enough people to send marching on the Capitol.