Setting out a program, a set of rules, and drawing a line is never irresponsible. It is smart and pro-active.

Put them on notice, protect society, and act to defend what has become critical to our way of life.

those who "belong to the 'cult of Hillary'" and something about U.S. false-flag ops so basically it is stupid to be proactive, and then some other stuff about wondering "what happened to our party".

The stuff you read on the internet, huh? I sometimes wonder how society even exists with so many whacky people out there.

It is too hard to establish who the perpetrator is, and too easy to create a false flag excuse for war. Imagine Russia doing this to justify an attack on Ukraine, for example, Imagine a future Bush-like regime resorting to this. It would be a good way to justify a war that a country desired for other reasons.

Political and economic responses are a better idea.

Looks to me like those were considered, and listed before military responses, which would indicate a probable priority of responses.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

almost word-for-word, like what the "post removed" wrote.

There is a difference between rhetoric and the actual engagement policy differences that exist between the 2 parties.

dropping bombs or an invasion. It can mean a cyber counter-attack, including destructive cyber attacks.