It was around nine o'clock on Sunday night when the President of the United States echoed language about a "Civil War" if he is impeached and removed from office. Now, he'll say he wasn't calling for a civil war—he was just announcing his belief that there would be a "Civil War like fracture" if he faced consequences for violating his oath of office and betraying the national interest for his personal gain. Never mind that impeachment is a provision of the Constitution designed for removing a lawless or otherwise dangerous chief magistrate from power in a manner that comports with the law. The intent here was clear: to tie one outcome to the other, and place the idea of violent response in millions of minds across this country. The vast majority of people would never act on that, but the tweets were incitement. The message has already been received, loud and clear, by at least one right-wing paramilitary group.... Of course, all of this is just further reason he should be removed, along with the manifest financial corruption at the heart of his domestic and foreign policymaking thanks to his refusal to divest from his private business holdings. He is capable of anything now, and defenders of the republic will need courage in response. P.S. Externally, the self-styled Messiah has turned the international trading system topsy-turvy. Internally, he is raising the spectre of "civil war" in a series of tweets. Chaos and conflicts seem to be inseparable from Donald Trump.
The article can't just say 'Trump re-tweeted someone', its gotta say he 'echoed language'... lol. This just more claims of 'dogwhistling.' Pure weapons grade balognium.
Just like the slavey "dog whistle" used in the war between the states in the 1860's when it was really about states rights.
I think that would be more a red herring... except there likely were some folks fighting for/against slavery in the civil war (not many though). A 'dog whistle' is when someone won't say what you want them to say, so you pretend that they must have meant what you wanted them to say
"....the tweets were incitement. The message has already been received, loud and clear, by at least one right-wing paramilitary group." The important point in the paragraph is "incitement". ".....And if you thought he embraced political violence before—and he has—just wait. Right-wing domestic terrorists, some of whom cited the president's rhetoric specifically, have already engaged in sporadic acts of violence over the last few months and years." The important point here is "political violence". In short, the author points out that Trump is inciting his right-wing supporters to political violence in his tweets.
Keep saying it doesn't make it true. Trump isn't 'inciting' anything. You'd have better luck trying to demonstrate that prog extremists have been enciting violence and civil war by undermining traditional American values, or that globalists have been enciting violence and civil war by weakening our sovereignty and our economy, even though neither of those are demonstrably 'inciting' either. If Trump is removed from office for anything but a very popular reason, there very likely will be a civil war over. And it won't be because anyone thinks Trump told them to.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._whistleblower_complaint_is_just_hearsay.html When dirty dems cant accept election results ...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._whistleblower_complaint_is_just_hearsay.html Or they change the rules to undermine a President.
