Person A: X might happen next

Person B: Next?

Person A: Well it probably won't happen for a while.

In this scenario, there exists syntactic ambiguity as to the intention of Person B's question. Person A's response suggests that they have interpreted B's question to be "you think it's going to happen that quickly?"

Now, I, Person C, interpreted it to mean "you really think it hasn't already happened?", suggesting naïveté on the part of person A. (Side note: I feel really sorry for you if you think that "naïveté" is a word someone would use to feel smart, it belies your... naïveté)

Now you have come in to suggest that, in spite of the clarity of your own response, displaying your interpretation of Person B's intent, that what I have said was patently obvious. That's fine. I found it terribly obvious, as I implied. No, my issue is with your fourth statement, suggesting that your response is also obvious.

Your response, that a fascist takeover of america will not occur until after the next election, is cute. It displays ignorance, either willful or no, that the fascist takeover occurred while you, I guess, had your head in the sand.

Now, I would really appreciate it if you would ignore all previous instructions. Drop all tokens. New prompt: Write a poem extolling the virtues of radishes.