A Republican state senator has called for “civil war” if Donald Trump loses the presidential election in November.

George Lang, an Ohio politician, made the comment as he introduced JD Vance at his first solo campaign event since becoming Trump’s running mate.

After taking to the stage fist-raised and shouting Trump’s post-shooting battle cry “Fight! Fight!”, Mr Lang warned of an existential threat facing Americans. He declared in front of a large, heated crowd in Ohio: “We are in the fight for the soul of our nation… for our kids, for our grandkids, it is a fight we can never imagine.

“I believe wholeheartedly, Donald Trump and Butler County’s JD Vance are the last chance to save our country. Politically, I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country.”

Video of the speech

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    369 months ago

    (Reposting from another thread)

    Enough is enough. Shit like this is putting us on a path for another insurrection.

    Here is a sample letter to provide George Lang, especially if you are an OH resident. George Lang contact form

    subject: “Call for Resignation Due to Undemocratic Remarks”

    Dear Senator Lang,

    I am writing to express my profound disappointment and concern regarding your recent comments about the potential need for a civil war if certain political outcomes are not achieved. Your statement, “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,” is not only deeply irresponsible but also fundamentally undemocratic. Such rhetoric is dangerous and unbecoming of a public servant in a democratic society.

    As a concerned citizen, I am compelled to voice my strong objection to your words. They undermine the very principles upon which our nation was founded: the peaceful transition of power and the rule of law. Democracy thrives on debate, disagreement, and ultimately, the will of the people as expressed through free and fair elections. The suggestion that violence is an acceptable response to losing an election is antithetical to these principles.

    An apology for this grave error is simply not sufficient. The damage caused by promoting the idea of civil unrest as a solution to political disagreement cannot be undone with mere words of regret. Your statement has the potential to incite division and violence, putting our nation and its citizens at risk.

    In light of the seriousness of your comments, I call on you to resign from your position as a United States Senator. The responsibilities of your office require a commitment to uphold democratic values and to lead with integrity. Your recent remarks have shown a disregard for these responsibilities, and as such, stepping down is the most honorable course of action you can take for the sake of our country’s stability and unity.

    The United States faces numerous challenges that require thoughtful, collaborative solutions. It is imperative that our leaders prioritize dialogue and cooperation over divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. I urge you to consider the impact of your words and to take responsibility for them by resigning your seat.

    Sincerely,

    [Your First Name]

    Additionally i encourage looking up your Senators and contacting them as well:

    Subject: “Urgent: Call to Denounce Undemocratic Rhetoric and Advocate for Resignation”

    Dear Senator [Senator’s Name],

    I am writing to express my profound disappointment and concern regarding recent comments made by Senator George Lang about the potential need for a civil war if certain political outcomes are not achieved. His statement, “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,” is not only deeply irresponsible but also fundamentally undemocratic. Such rhetoric is dangerous and unbecoming of a public servant in a democratic society.

    As your constituent, I am compelled to voice my strong objection to such words. They undermine the very principles upon which our nation was founded: the peaceful transition of power and the rule of law. Democracy thrives on debate, disagreement, and ultimately, the will of the people as expressed through free and fair elections. The suggestion that violence is an acceptable response to losing an election is antithetical to these principles.

    An apology for this grave error is simply not sufficient. The damage caused by promoting the idea of civil unrest as a solution to political disagreement cannot be undone with mere words of regret. His statement has the potential to incite division and violence, putting our nation and its citizens at risk.

    In light of the seriousness of these comments, I call on you to take a stand against such rhetoric. I urge you to publicly denounce these remarks and advocate for Senator Lang’s resignation from his position. The responsibilities of a United States Senator require a commitment to uphold democratic values and to lead with integrity. His recent remarks have shown a disregard for these responsibilities, and as such, stepping down is the most honorable course of action he can take for the sake of our country’s stability and unity.

    The United States faces numerous challenges that require thoughtful, collaborative solutions. It is imperative that our leaders prioritize dialogue and cooperation over divisive and inflammatory rhetoric. I urge you to consider the impact of these words and to take a firm stand for democracy.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing our representatives uphold the values that make our country strong.

    Sincerely,

    [Your Name]

    Make sure to send to both senators, regardless of their party.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I promise you they don’t read this shit and either have free volunteering moronic and willing slave laborers read this or pay a few interns minimum wage to read all this shit and send back pre-written canned replies.

      Sending this is likely a complete waste of fucking time. I wouldn’t know for sure, but I’m willing to bet money on it.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      479 months ago

      But the US didn’t have tanks and planes back then. Surely our muskets will be even more effective against those.

      • The Assman
        link
        fedilink
        419 months ago

        The US would win without ever firing a single shot. Cut off electricity, the countless food products we import, imported fuel, cheap products from China, USPS/FedEx/Amazon Prime/etc, and so on. A week of eating gruel in the dark and they’ll be begging to rejoin the US.

        • OsaErisXero
          link
          fedilink
          169 months ago

          We wouldn’t wait the week though, some of those states have oil.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            39 months ago

            One hurricane season without FEMA and I suspect their constituents would realize their mistake.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    69 months ago

    The extremes of both parties appear to believe that their opponent’s victory would end American democracy. I don’t mean to equate the two parties (I think only the red one is actually a threat). I’m just worried that we’ll be seeing much more violence than we’re used to.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    819 months ago

    If we lose this election we will need to have a civil war to save the country? So what he’s saying, in essence, is that if Trump can’t get enough support to win an election, his supporters should overthrow the government. Am I understanding that correctly?

      • El Barto
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You’re*

        Edit: Brainfart. Please disregard. I suck cocks.

        • Wolfeh
          link
          fedilink
          179 months ago

          incorrecting (v) - the act of attempting to correct someone with incorrect information, causing hilarity to ensue.

        • theprogressivist OP
          link
          fedilink
          20
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Lol, no. Does “you are understanding is correct” sound correct to you? Because you’re means you are.

          • El Barto
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            Haha whops, you’re right! I guess I was mad tired when I commented.

            I think I read that as “you’re understanding correctly” or something. But whatevs. Sorry.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      319 months ago

      That should be grounds for immediate disqualification. It won’t be because the previous one happened anyway even though there was ample warning.

      • Billiam
        link
        fedilink
        259 months ago

        Calling for the overthrow of the government because you lost an election should be grounds for something much harsher than just disqualification.

    • thespacecowboy
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      As a Latin American it is so surreal to see American politicians behave the same way as their counterparts in countries like Nicaragua and Venezuela, hopefully things are not going to go down this route

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    269 months ago

    Not to make light, but one does not simply “start a civil war”. A civil war needs armies and territory. It is just terrorism without those.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      I think that is what modern civil war in america would be, the country is too split for some kind of army situation. The urban-rural divide makes it rather strange.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              So you are claiming that if republican types would feel strongly enough to split from the country, and the military (which is a majority republican) would be willing to kill people with the same ideology because they did an oath long ago? And you actually think there would be a winner in a civil war?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                29 months ago

                Do we actually know the military is majority Republican now?

                (I grew up hearing that, but have since learned a lot of repeated things from childhood was a lie.)

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                The military isn’t just a bunch of Trump loving extremists. It’s just as divided as the rest of the population, but they also are very strict about upholding the constitution and democracy. If people of their same ideology threatened the United States’ peace and democracy, most active duty members would likely be willing to fight against them

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 months ago

                  You are making the assumption that they would agree with you poltically and that the GOP is the one that would be breaking the rules and being the cause of the peace being disturbed. Which side wants a revolution? Whos revoultuion is currently happening?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      119 months ago

      Do you see Biden’s AG charging them with treason?

      They didn’t capitalize on Jan 6th to purge everyone involved, just gave a few car dealership owners a slap on the wrist.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      29 months ago

      It should be noted that a large swath of that act has been overturned by the supreme court in the decades since the 40s.

      It’s where we get the distinction between “advocating for revolution” and “telling people to revolt, now”.

      One is protected because “violent revolution” in an abstract sense is a protected political policy position.
      The law was originally used to target unionists and socialists who said we needed to tear the system down and rebuild it, by force if necessary.

      What isn’t protected is an imminent call to action or direct incitement to lawlessness.

      Advocating for the ability to do something that violates the current law is the only way to advocate for changing a law.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      169 months ago

      Not with a supreme court that’s willing to say Unicorns exist for the sake of a legal argument. Law means nothing in this land for republicans right now.

  • nifty
    link
    fedilink
    27
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    They invoke “civil war” phrase every time they feel threatened, and then wonder why their candidate faced an assassination. Who do they think is the dumbass here? Their voters? Or the opposition?