The states lacked the adequate means for state terrorism? You're the ONLY person I believe I've ever heard say that, and clearly not a historian. I admire your ability to debate in English, but this is just off the mark.
The French Revolutionary state didn't lack the means, you have no basis for that claim whatsoever, whereas learned historians are in agreement on this.
Here are some names that you are going against...
RR Palmer in The Twelve Who Ruled
Marisa Linton in Choosing Terror
Timothy Tackett in "Interpreting the Terror"
Dan Edelstein in "Do We Want a Revolution without a Revolution" and "The Terror of Natural Right"
Just to name a few...
Please refrain from further ignorant statements, thank you.
P.S. The analogy to draft dodging today versus then is completely irrelevant to the topic, and makes no sense.
That last statement shows your ignorance: if French revolutionary state institutions were equipped with the 20th century bureaucracies there would have been virtually no draft dodging to speak of. In fact it was a serious problem even under Napoleon's Empire. Naming some authors and book titles is not referencing; no historian will ever do this, except in a bibliography.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that the Terror was ended after it served its purpose. This does not comply with the usual definition of state terrorism, on the contrary.
You've clearly not understood what I wrote. I obviously mean the institution of the presidency.
Obviously. Except in the sentence you didn't mention the presidency, but impeachment.
Oh, because something doesn't happen means there isn't consensus?
Your post doesn't seem to display an understanding of what "politics" are.
Another bold assertion that doesn't comply with facts. If there is no consensus whether the president should be impeached, then yes, it doesn't happen. I would think that is rather clear.
In conclusion, so far you've made some assertions, none of which you show any foundation for, and you fail to address criticism on this, instead reversing to personal attacks. I hardly would call that an argument.
Suicide bombers remain effective weapon of relative mass distraction.
Truer words have rarely been spoken.