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

  • ashok36@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    People are too comfortable to have a civil war. People will rebel when they’re hungry, jobless, and have zero prospect for the future.

    It’s gonna have to get a lot worse before then if a war were to happen.

    • piccolo@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      things were going pretty well in 1860, until states decided the constitution didn’t apply to them, which is likely the same scenario this time if anything were to happen.

      • UmeU@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Things were not going well in 1860 for black people.

        Also, the north couldn’t compete economically with the south because the south had all the free labor and longer growing season.

        • piccolo@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          It was the other way, the south couldn’t compete economically with the north. the north had the advantage of manufacturing superiority. The south depended on cotton exports, and their biggest buyers were…the north… They betted on being able to keep exporting to the UK, but the Union had strong navy blackades preventing easy way to export, and the UK had their new india territories to source cotton, so it wasn’t worth it for the UK to support the rebellious americans.

          • UmeU@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Those blockades came in 1861, but for decades prior, the white people in the south prospered off of their free labor. The south was wealthy and its economy was rapidly growing. That all went to shit for them when as you said the UK stopped buying their cotton.

            • piccolo@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              so… It was a good time, until they fucked themselves by being traitorous bastards?

        • Bojimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It was my understanding that the North was economically surpassing the South leading up to the Civil War as they embraced technological advancements in transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture.

          • UmeU@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            They were still struggling to compete with the free labor of the south if I am not mistaken.