The vast majority of the population is not starving.

SNAP/EBT not receiving funding is certainly terrible, but this only directly impacts 12% of Americans. That is not an insignificant number. However, out of that 12%, 40% are children and 20% are elderly. So only 5% of Americans receiving benefits are not old or children. Doesn't seem like enough people to start a revolution.

I think these numbers do outline how horrific it is, considering food is mostly being taken from the elderly and children. But I think you can quickly see why these people are not rushing off to start a war.

Additionally it's been 10 days and food banks have been able to give out substantial aid. Only a subsection of those people would have ended up missing meals, and some states even funded the program through their own emergency reserves further reducing the number of impacted individuals.

My point is let's not act like it's the lead up to the French revolution and children and dying in the streets of starvation.

I don't want to lessen the impacts this has had to many Americans. It has unduly caused suffering. But is it enough suffering for people to risk their lives and take up arms against the government? Is 12% of the population not receiving food aid a reason to start what would be a bloody civil war? That's up for each person to decide when they are willing to die to uphold their moral convictions.

Would you be rushing to start a war? Would you go to die for this? It's easy to tell others to do so, but when the time comes its not so easy

When fascists capture the state it isn't a democracy anymore so the first sentence still stands.

Now where have I seen this before..? Hmmm...

You're forgetting that the only reason those were successful was because of the threat of violent resistance behind it.