First off, thank you for providing your sources. I wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech before you posted. Now, on to your points.

> But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection.

It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements that I see as insurrectionist. In many cities across the country, government buildings were vandalised/looted, the Portland Federal courthouse set on fire being an example [1]. In another example, Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the BLM organization, has referred to herself and another co-founder as "trained marxists", and cites Mao Tse-tung as political inspiration [2][3]. In another case, the BLM Chicago organizer Latrell Allen publicly supported looting, likening it to a form of reparations [4]. And, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing entirety of the BLM movement, simply the factions that have made extreme statements or engaged in violence. Would you classify these as insurrectionist as well?

> the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city

Even taking into the consideration the budget shortfall, the NYPD was defunded significantly out-of-proportion in regards to other agencies. In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall. So even though there was a budget shortfall, I would still consider the NYPD to have been intentionally defunded. FYI, here are statistics on the NYC crime rate after the budget cuts [5].

> But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.

Yes, thank you, Snoop Dogg indeed doesn't hold the nuclear codes, but celebrities and Hollywood in general holds influence amongst the population, and they certainly hold the ears of politicians as well.

> Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.

I don't think I'm taking the statements charitably, I'm trying to separate analogy from intent; however, I agree that such rhetoric certainly doesn't help discourse. I would even go on to say that in the ears of extremists, such rhetoric is dangerous and provocative. But, in the Bannon quotes you mentioned, I personally don't interpret him as speaking in a literal sense. As someone who occasionally tuned into Bannon's show, Bannon's ultimate objective seems to be to take down the CCP. Since we are already engaged in a political/cyber/information war with China (which hopefully doesn't escalate into a kinetic war), Bannon tends to frame everything leading up to a confrontation with China with war analogies. But again, such rhetoric will not help his cause, and I agree that it can be dangerous.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-...

[2] (go to 7:03 for the quote) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=emb_titl...

[3] https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/39587/1/black-...

[4] https://www.wbez.org/stories/winning-has-come-through-revolt...

[5] https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-shooting-nypd-defund-the-police...