Trump is close to inciting Horrific Violence: "Civil War" Tweets

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

"Civil War 2" trends on Twitter after Trump quotes speculation that impeachment would spark "civil war" [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-civil-war-tweet-civil-war-2-is-trending-on-twitter-after-trump-suggested-what-might-occur-if-removed-from-office/]

Donald Trump said in a tweet that if he is removed from office, a "civil war" might erupt in the United States. The president was quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress, a Fox News contributor and host, who suggested that impeaching the president would lead to "civil war."

"If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal," Mr. Trump tweeted [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178477539653771264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1178489464504619013&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump-civil-war-tweet-civil-war-2-is-trending-on-twitter-after-trump-suggested-what-might-occur-if-removed-from-office%2F], attributing the quote to Jeffress.

As usual, his cult lapped up his words. Armed Militias Are Taking Trump's Civil War Tweets Seriously [https://www.lawfareblog.com/armed-militias-are-taking-trumps-civil-war-tweets-seriously].

Over the weekend, the president sent a tweet that seemed to warn of civil war if he were to be impeached and removed from office:

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

Although the president was quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress's comments on Fox News, he was adopting them as his own.

It might seem tempting to dismiss this language as of a piece with President Trump's typical Twitter rhetoric. But it is worth paying particular attention to this tweet - because among the people who read it were militia groups enthusiastic about exactly what Trump portended. And while no violence has yet resulted from the president's tweet, it would be foolish to underestimate the power of Trump's comments to call rogue militias to action, particularly if there is an impeachment and he continues to use this rhetoric to fan the flames. In the days after his civil war tweet, he went on to use similarly incendiary language, referring to impeachment proceedings as a "COUP."

Consider the Oath Keepers group, a far-right armed militia. Calling on its 24,000 Twitter followers to read the president's whole tweet thread, the Oath Keepers account posted:

Oath Keepers [https://twitter.com/Oathkeepers/status/1178549790847590400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1178549790847590400&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawfareblog.com%2Farmed-militias-are-taking-trumps-civil-war-tweets-seriously]
Here's the money quote from that thread. This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That's where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate too. @StewartRhodesOK

They are not the only militia that has members speaking about issues like this. Members of the 3 Percenters [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-warns-of-civil-war-if-hes-removed-some-followers-are-listening], another right wing armed militia, have had various members calling for Civil War and plainly stating that Trump has an army if he so calls for one.

When you allow a harmful situation to occur because you benefit from it, you are liable for that situation. What amount of tax breaks, gun control, and general societal disarray makes these things ok? I freely admit I hate Trump. I would love the guy kicked out of office. But I didn't take up guns and look for a group to threaten war if he steps in office.

These are zealots who can not be reasoned with. Many of them state that the Left can't accept that Trump was legally voted in and are looking for any legal loophole to get him out. Guilty. Great. We got that covered.

However, many of these groups have members saying they will NOT accept any legal removal of the president. How is that any different from what you say the Left is doing in terms of not accepting legal proceedings, Militias? What's that? Oh right, if we don't like something that happens legally, we just have to accept it. If YOU don't like something that's done legally, you are ready for the next civil war "you're pushed to [https://twitter.com/Oathkeepers/status/1178789276399521792]" instead of accepting the legally mandated results from the Impeachment Inquiry.

I've cited many things I hate about Trump. His Trade War [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/us/politics/trump-farmers-china-trade.html] and how it's affecting our Farmers (also Cattle Farmers [https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/cattle-ranchers-angry-trump/index.html] now), His steadfast need to damage our environment [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html], His 'Civil Rights' Record [https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/#2019], His various abuses of Power (Ukraine is just the latest [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-ukraine-call-former-national-security-officials-ukraine-call-unconscionable-abuse-of-power/]), His Decorum (just go to his twitter)... All of it is vile to me.

But this. This makes me loathe him. He spends time trying to cultivate his fanatics and then he riles them up. The gun-toting rabblerousers who proudly proclaim they will ignore the proceedings of a country they claim to love because they feel more empowered under this 'man'. Trump is dangerous. Whatever benefits one believes they can get from him being in office does not supersede the welfare of our country and our fellow citizens.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Whatever benefits one believes they can get from him being in office does not supersede the welfare of our country and our fellow citizens.

Pretty sure that the attacks on fellow citizens are the benefits.

But, yeah, I'd not be too surprised if it kicks off. Not so much in a civil war sorta way, but in an armed mobs attacking places and getting away with it every so often sorta way.

 

[tstorm823]

Question: who said a civil war might erupt? Answer: the news did. Look at this quote a second:

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

That tweet doesn't say there's going to be a civil war. That tweet doesn't even mention a civil war. It mentions The Civil War, a distinct historical event. And if you're trying to pick a historical reference to illustrate a major split in the United States, that's the one. Moreover, the tweet says removing the President would cause a split like the Civil War. Consider the last clause, "from which our country will never heal", which is to say the country has never healed from the Civil War. The original author here almost certainly never meant to imply the Civil War is still being fought, but rather that the impact of the Civil War has not and will not ever cease to be felt so long as the US continues to exist. Like, if he compared impeaching Trump to the institution of slavery, that would be saying it justified a civil war. But comparing it to the civil war is saying that this political conflict is the war; it's not the violent horror of war, of course, but it is the nation split in two. And if they could remove Trump the way they want to (basically just cause they don't like him), it's within the realm of reasonable discourse to compare the change in power dynamics to the reconstruction era.

Jeffress has been asked about the comment since, and said

"I was very precise in the language I used. I was not advocating or predicting an actual civil war if Trump is removed. What I said was such removal would cause a fracture in our country like our country experienced after the Civil War. The Civil War ended 160 years ago, and yet the wounds did not completely heal, and I think if you remove a president for the first time in history ? a president who received 63 million votes ? it will have the same kind of long-lasting impact."

So like, I don't necessarily agree with that. I wouldn't say with such assurance that removing Trump would have that impact. But I don't think there's malice or violent intent in making that prediction. And also, Trump didn't say it, he just quoted someone else saying it. So what we have here is Donald Trump quoting someone using the words "Civil War".

Now, the groups saying that a civil war is coming and they're ready to fight are horrible and ridiculous and should be rebuked by everyone, but that tweet from the Oathkeepers didn't come until mid-morning on the 30th, and the people condemning Trump for trying to incite civil war started hours before that. It is unclear to me that the Oathkeepers would have made that tweet about fighting a civil war had #civilwar2 not already been trending. So who really inspired them to tweet that?

It's like when people say Trump's rhetoric empowers white supremacists. I've listened to Trump's rhetoric. It may be gross and combative, but he condemns white supremacy consistently and repeatedly. Donald Trump didn't tell anyone he was a white supremacist. The media did. People on social media did. Donald Trump didn't. So maybe, just maybe, the people who keep saying the President of the United States is a white supremacist are the people empowering the white supremacists. Is Donald Trump inciting a civil war with this tweet? Absolutely not. The people claiming that Trump is going to incite a civil war are the ones inspiring groups like the Oathkeepers to pick a side in it. It's not a surprise that when the left is publicly going insane, the insane people on the right are taking the opportunity to publicize. Opposing insane extremes make each other look more viable. The counter to extremes is to be reasonable. If everyone just said "no, this tweet wasn't about starting a civil war", groups like the Oathkeepers wouldn't have the chance to treat it that way without exposing how fringe they really are. Legitimized figures initiating extreme rhetoric, even in the opposite direction, create a space for extremists to enter the conversation.

 

[CaitSeith]

Trump: If they remove me from office, well, you have a nice country here; it would be a shame if something would happen to it.

Trump defenders: That wasn't a threat. You're the extremists for suggesting so.

 

[Saelune]

Question: who said a civil war might erupt? Answer: the news did. Look at this quote a second:

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

That tweet doesn't say there's going to be a civil war. That tweet doesn't even mention a civil war. It mentions The Civil War, a distinct historical event. And if you're trying to pick a historical reference to illustrate a major split in the United States, that's the one. Moreover, the tweet says removing the President would cause a split like the Civil War. Consider the last clause, "from which our country will never heal", which is to say the country has never healed from the Civil War. The original author here almost certainly never meant to imply the Civil War is still being fought, but rather that the impact of the Civil War has not and will not ever cease to be felt so long as the US continues to exist. Like, if he compared impeaching Trump to the institution of slavery, that would be saying it justified a civil war. But comparing it to the civil war is saying that this political conflict is the war; it's not the violent horror of war, of course, but it is the nation split in two. And if they could remove Trump the way they want to (basically just cause they don't like him), it's within the realm of reasonable discourse to compare the change in power dynamics to the reconstruction era.

Jeffress has been asked about the comment since, and said

"I was very precise in the language I used. I was not advocating or predicting an actual civil war if Trump is removed. What I said was such removal would cause a fracture in our country like our country experienced after the Civil War. The Civil War ended 160 years ago, and yet the wounds did not completely heal, and I think if you remove a president for the first time in history ? a president who received 63 million votes ? it will have the same kind of long-lasting impact."

So like, I don't necessarily agree with that. I wouldn't say with such assurance that removing Trump would have that impact. But I don't think there's malice or violent intent in making that prediction. And also, Trump didn't say it, he just quoted someone else saying it. So what we have here is Donald Trump quoting someone using the words "Civil War".

Now, the groups saying that a civil war is coming and they're ready to fight are horrible and ridiculous and should be rebuked by everyone, but that tweet from the Oathkeepers didn't come until mid-morning on the 30th, and the people condemning Trump for trying to incite civil war started hours before that. It is unclear to me that the Oathkeepers would have made that tweet about fighting a civil war had #civilwar2 not already been trending. So who really inspired them to tweet that?

It's like when people say Trump's rhetoric empowers white supremacists. I've listened to Trump's rhetoric. It may be gross and combative, but he condemns white supremacy consistently and repeatedly. Donald Trump didn't tell anyone he was a white supremacist. The media did. People on social media did. Donald Trump didn't. So maybe, just maybe, the people who keep saying the President of the United States is a white supremacist are the people empowering the white supremacists. Is Donald Trump inciting a civil war with this tweet? Absolutely not. The people claiming that Trump is going to incite a civil war are the ones inspiring groups like the Oathkeepers to pick a side in it. It's not a surprise that when the left is publicly going insane, the insane people on the right are taking the opportunity to publicize. Opposing insane extremes make each other look more viable. The counter to extremes is to be reasonable. If everyone just said "no, this tweet wasn't about starting a civil war", groups like the Oathkeepers wouldn't have the chance to treat it that way without exposing how fringe they really are. Legitimized figures initiating extreme rhetoric, even in the opposite direction, create a space for extremists to enter the conversation.

Stop defending a White Supremacist and liar.

 

[CaitSeith]

if you remove a president for the first time in history

Did someone told him about Nixon? Or does he think he resigned just because he got tired of being President?

 

[tstorm823]

Did someone told him about Nixon? Or does he think he resigned just because he got tired of being President?

To be fair to Jeffress's analyisis, there's no world where Trump resigns voluntarily. He's definitely a "make them fire you" kind of person.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Stop defending a White Supremacist and liar.

It's worse than just defending Trump. It's willfully ignoring the actions of a group of people who feel empowered by Trump. Who were looking for a reason before during the 2016 election ("If Hillary Wins, Civil War [https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/oath-keepers-website-warns-clinton-victory-could-lead-to-outright-civil-war/]"), and how the lesser put together members of these fringe groups have already acted just on his rhetoric alone.

-Before the election we had the Leader brothers beating up a homeless man because they thought he was an undocumented immigrant [https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/politics/donald-trump-immigration-boston-beating/]

-Three men who plotted to bomb a Somali community asked for Pro Trump Jurors [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/three-men-accused-kansas-mosque-bomb-plot-request-pro-trump-jurors] because they felt "that plans to only summon citizens in the more urban counties closest to the federal courthouse in Wichita is a discriminatory practice that excludes rural and conservative jurors"... As somehow Rural and Conservative Jurors would be more sympathetic to their cause.

-Another three men who were apart of a fringe group of the 3 percenters were found charged with the Minnesota bombing. One of the men offered to help with plans to Build Trump's Wall [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-border-wall-minnesota-mosque-bombing-accused-michael-hari-minneapolis-dar-al-farooq-a8256761.html].

-The El Paso shooter [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/05/trump-inspired-terrorism-el-paso].

Hell, ABC shows 36 incidents [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/tory?id=58912889] that we know of that had the alleged attackers spouting Trump favoritism or talking points while they committed their violence. These aren't lone wolves. These are people with hate in their heart and a commonality that is being pointed to by their chosen leader.

And we have people willfully being blind to it because that chosen leader just happens to be in their same political party.

 

[CaitSeith]

Did someone told him about Nixon? Or does he think he resigned just because he got tired of being President?

To be fair to Jeffress's analyisis, there's no world where Trump resigns voluntarily. He's definitely a "make them fire you" kind of person.

More like "make them fire you and respond with 'you can't fire me. I quit!'" kind of person.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Right-wing gun fetishists with their romanticism of violence and authoritarianism, patriotic group validation aided by decades of pro-american action movies are just begging to be given an excuse to use their toys against their perceived enemies. To be the action heroes they see themselves to be. These fuckers with unearned authority know exactly what they're saying and exactly how it riles their fetishist cult up, they can claim it technically doesn't order anyone to do anything, but it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines, especially after literally everything that has been said and done up to this point. This is fetishists' fantasy being encouraged as a cynical political threat. They don't have anything real to promise to people of America. Only threats, hate and division. That's their platform from now on. And you can see it manifesting elsewhere like in the (more) unhinged elements of the UK Tory party, perhaps with mildly less success, but we shall have to see.

 

[Saelune]

Stop defending a White Supremacist and liar.

It's worse than just defending Trump. It's willfully ignoring the actions of a group of people who feel empowered by Trump. Who were looking for a reason before during the 2016 election ("If Hillary Wins, Civil War [https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/oath-keepers-website-warns-clinton-victory-could-lead-to-outright-civil-war/]"), and how the lesser put together members of these fringe groups have already acted just on his rhetoric alone.

-Before the election we had the Leader brothers beating up a homeless man because they thought he was an undocumented immigrant [https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/politics/donald-trump-immigration-boston-beating/]

-Three men who plotted to bomb a Somali community asked for Pro Trump Jurors [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/three-men-accused-kansas-mosque-bomb-plot-request-pro-trump-jurors] because they felt "that plans to only summon citizens in the more urban counties closest to the federal courthouse in Wichita is a discriminatory practice that excludes rural and conservative jurors"... As somehow Rural and Conservative Jurors would be more sympathetic to their cause.

-Another three men who were apart of a fringe group of the 3 percenters were found charged with the Minnesota bombing. One of the men offered to help with plans to Build Trump's Wall [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-border-wall-minnesota-mosque-bombing-accused-michael-hari-minneapolis-dar-al-farooq-a8256761.html].

-The El Paso shooter [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/05/trump-inspired-terrorism-el-paso].

Hell, ABC shows 36 incidents [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/tory?id=58912889] that we know of that had the alleged attackers spouting Trump favoritism or talking points while they committed their violence. These aren't lone wolves. These are people with hate in their heart and a commonality that is being pointed to by their chosen leader.

And we have people willfully being blind to it because that chosen leader just happens to be in their same political party.

There is a difference between ignoring the Elephant in the room, and outright lying about it as you stare right at it.

Anyone who acts like Trump has done nothing wrong is lying. They are not ignorant of it, they know he is doing tons of wrong things, they are just outright lying about it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

There is a difference between ignoring the Elephant in the room, and outright lying about it as you stare right at it.

Anyone who acts like Trump has done nothing wrong is lying. They are not ignorant of it, they know he is doing tons of wrong things, they are just outright lying about it.

Maybe there's a difference for regular ignorance. But willful ignorance is the same as lying in my book.

Say someone found out that their lover cheated on them. They saw all the evidence but said "nope, didn't happen."

That's a lie. They know it's a lie. But worst of all, they are lying to themselves. Because they can not cope.

Being ignorant of something is just not being informed. That can be cured with knowledge. But if truthful, factual knowledge is implemented and one chooses to to not validate it? That person is lying to everyone, especially themselves.

 

[Saelune]

There is a difference between ignoring the Elephant in the room, and outright lying about it as you stare right at it.

Anyone who acts like Trump has done nothing wrong is lying. They are not ignorant of it, they know he is doing tons of wrong things, they are just outright lying about it.

Maybe there's a difference for regular ignorance. But willful ignorance is the same as lying in my book.

Say someone found out that their lover cheated on them. They saw all the evidence but said "nope, didn't happen."

That's a lie. They know it's a lie. But worst of all, they are lying to themselves. Because they can not cope.

Being ignorant of something is just not being informed. That can be cured with knowledge. But if truthful, factual knowledge is implemented and one chooses to to not validate it? That person is lying to everyone, especially themselves.

Lets not be flowery here. Pointing out someone is lying is pointing out their intent to mislead. 'Willful ignorance' is to choose not to learn the truth. Lying is to know the truth and say otherwise.

 

[tstorm823]

These are people with hate in their heart and a commonality that is being pointed to by their chosen leader. And we have people willfully being blind to it because that chosen leader just happens to be in their same political party.

You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not blind to those people. I'm not endorsing or excusing any of their behavior. But Donald Trump isn't putting groups like the 3 Percenters on the front page, the news is. Violent groups should not be advertised.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Lets not be flowery here. Pointing out someone is lying is pointing out their intent to mislead. 'Willful ignorance' is to choose not to learn the truth. Lying is to know the truth and say otherwise.

BUT I AM FLOWERY!!!

Jokes aside, I'm honestly talking about different people. There are the liars you're talking about, and to hell with them.

But then there are people whose entire world hinges on them being in the right side of this. Who actually, somehow, feel the Orange One is a force of good.

How that's possible, I can't tell you. But some of these people are foolishly trying to save us through this man... willfully ignoring how much he's actually hurting us.

I don't claim that they are right. They are scarily wrong. But there are those who look at all this man has done and still believes they are doing good in this world.

 

[Saelune]

Lets not be flowery here. Pointing out someone is lying is pointing out their intent to mislead. 'Willful ignorance' is to choose not to learn the truth. Lying is to know the truth and say otherwise.

BUT I AM FLOWERY!!!

Jokes aside, I'm honestly talking about different people. There are the liars you're talking about, and to hell with them.

But then there are people whose entire world hinges on them being in the right side of this. Who actually, somehow, feel the Orange One is a force of good.

How that's possible, I can't tell you. But some of these people are foolishly trying to save us through this man... willfully ignoring how much he's actually hurting us.

I don't claim that they are right. They are scarily wrong. But there are those who look at all this man has done and still believes they are doing good in this world.

Because they believe letting black people exist is 'evil'.

Slavery was once considered ok by most people. The Nazis were not a fringe group.

People's capacity for evil is far greater than most want to admit. I no longer believe most people are good. The evidence is just not supportive of that.

 

[CaitSeith]

'Willful ignorance' is to choose not to learn the truth.

Is it? In most contexts I have seen, "willful ignorance" meant lying to oneself. It was already knowing the truth, and choosing to ignore it and convince oneself that such truth doesn't exist or it's a lie. And when they talk about it, they start to lie to others.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

So why is it that Tstorm pointing out that what was actually said wasn't that impeachment would cause a civil war but a Civil War like rift isn't being talked about here?

 

[tstorm823]

So why is it that Tstorm pointing out that what was actually said wasn't that impeachment would cause a civil war but a Civil War like rift isn't being talked about here?

They're having a very important conversation about whether I'm willfully blind or maliciously dishonest.

 

[Marik2]

At best, it would just be mass shootings and skirmishes.