What if orders come down from various superiors to allow the violence to start? And then it gets out of hand, a right-leaning Trump voter is killed . . .
Those aren't really orders, those are just 'Deniable' green flags to the fringe actors. Of course if the shoe was on the other foot, they wouldn't be deniable at all, the press would be screaming for blood if one of ours said something like that and then some loon committed an act of violence against a Prog.
What I'm saying, and I don't think is really getting across, is that it is not a simple binary 'Forces in opposition' set-up. There are multiple players in a non-zero-sum game. One of those is a not-completely-politicized law enforcement mechanism from local to Federal that isn't at all interested in seeing the two extremes turn their turf into a killzone. Another is a heterogenous military that would back up the LE guys if anything actually got to the point of rebellion (Which, I hasten to add, I think we're a million miles from as things stand now). Then there is the vast majority of the population that just want the extremists of both sides to STFU but are likely to turn on whichever side seems more prone to violence as policy.
Will some wack-job take all the signalling as a green light? Sooner or later, yes, but this is all consistent with the 'Leaderless resistance' conceptthat was the keystone of the 90s militia movement, just with the shoe on the other foot. That isn't going to turn random acts of violence into war in the streets, THAT would require a large movement with defined goals and direct leadership becoming so strong and violent that it actually overcame or partially co-opted the institutional forces for stability.