Civil War 2? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,836
    Reaction score
    15,625
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    Very sobering article
    ================
    If you know people still in denial about the crisis of American democracy, kindly remove their heads from the sand long enough to receive this message: A startling new finding by one of the nation’s top authorities on foreign civil wars says we are on the cusp of our own.

    Barbara F. Walter, a political science professorat the University of California at San Diego, serves on a CIA advisory panel called the Political Instability Task Force that monitors countries around the world and predicts which of them are most at risk of deteriorating into violence.

    By law, the task force can’t assess what’s happening within the United States, but Walter, a longtime friend who has spent her career studying conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Rwanda, Angola, Nicaragua and elsewhere, applied the predictive techniques herself to this country.

    Her bottom line: “We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” She lays out the argument in detail in her must-read book, “How Civil Wars Start,” out in January. “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” she writes.

    But, “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely.

    And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”

    Indeed, the United States has already gone through what the CIA identifies as the first two phases of insurgency — the “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” phases — and only time will tell whether the final phase, “open insurgency,” began with the sacking of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters on Jan. 6.

    Things deteriorated so dramatically under Trump, in fact, that the United States no longer technically qualifies as a democracy. Citing the Center for Systemic Peace’s “Polity” data set — the one the CIA task force has found to be most helpful in predicting instability and violence — Walter writes that the United States is now an “anocracy,” somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state.

    U.S. democracy had received the Polity index’s top score of 10, or close to it, for much of its history. But in the five years of the Trump era, it tumbled precipitously into the anocracy zone; by the end of his presidency, the U.S. score had fallen to a 5, making the country a partial democracy for the first time since 1800.

    “We are no longer the world’s oldest continuous democracy,” Walter writes. “That honor is now held by Switzerland, followed by New Zealand, and then Canada. We are no longer a peer to nations like Canada, Costa Rica, and Japan, which are all rated a +10 on the Polity index.”…….

    Others have reached similar findings. The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance put the United States on a list of “backsliding democracies” in a report last month.

    “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself," the report said.

    And a new survey by the academic consortium Bright Line Watch found that 17 percent of those who identify strongly as Republicans support the use of violence to restore Trump to power, and 39 percent favor doing everything possible to prevent Democrats from governing effectively……



     
    While it is fun to remind the south that we in the west pay for them, and they couldn’t survive without us, it’ll never happen.

    Unless you are talking 3, 4 or more countries, it isn’t possible geographically; and even then it’s dicey.

    That and the south would become third world.
     
    I dunno... I could easily see it happening. And I don't think it would be a huge deal. There will be no warfare because, outside of maybe 1-5% of the population being complete sickos, I doubt there is a will to fight other Americans. It's mostly a logistical issue like how do you go about splitting purple states (and the nukes). There would still be normalized trade and such.

    The U.S. is a very young country in comparison. It was a nice go but it's now unworkable thanks to what a bunch of rich white guys who thought slavery was okay and woman shouldn't vote to be a good idea centuries ago. I think a 'divorce' would be better for everyone in the long run.

    I would be willing to kill to save the country.
     
    I would be willing to kill to save the country.
    But let's think about that. From a foreign aggressor? Sure. But what is the point of 'saving' the country when about half of it doesn't want to be associated with the other half? I've never put a lot into nationalistic identity. People are people. But I think we have reached the point where the social/political differences are irreconcilable. Trump didn't cause these issues, he merely exacerbated them and brought them to light.
     
    But let's think about that. From a foreign aggressor? Sure. But what is the point of 'saving' the country when about half of it doesn't want to be associated with the other half? I've never put a lot into nationalistic identity. People are people. But I think we have reached the point where the social/political differences are irreconcilable. Trump didn't cause these issues, he merely exacerbated them and brought them to light.

    It's not like we would have a block of states where 100% or even 80% of the population wanted to break up the country.

    There isn't any way it happens without a civil war. This wouldn't be a confederacy v/s union situation.

    it wouldn't matter to me if the drivers were people wanting to create a Woke union or a MAGA union, whoever was driving the break up would be the enemy of the United States.
     
    I dunno... I could easily see it happening. And I don't think it would be a huge deal. There will be no warfare because, outside of maybe 1-5% of the population being complete sickos, I doubt there is a will to fight other Americans. It's mostly a logistical issue like how do you go about splitting purple states (and the nukes). There would still be normalized trade and such.

    The U.S. is a very young country in comparison. It was a nice go but it's now unworkable thanks to what a bunch of rich white guys who thought slavery was okay and woman shouldn't vote to be a good idea centuries ago. I think a 'divorce' would be better for everyone in the long run.
    See, you and I agree! Except about who is to blame, but as a mature adult in this situation, during a divorce, both parties are to blame equally. LOL.
     
    *this is in response to sam but Farb ninja-replied.

    But is that just keeping the country together for its own sake? Granted, it is not as obvious as a North/South divide and is predominantly urban/rural at this point but you could have some accord drawn up with a buffer of several years giving people the option to migrate one way or the other. The logistics would obviously be a nightmare but if some way is found to manage it I don't think it would be as bad people perceive. You would simply have two independent countries that, although having significant social differences, would not be openly antagonistic to each other.
     
    While it is fun to remind the south that we in the west pay for them, and they couldn’t survive without us, it’ll never happen.

    Unless you are talking 3, 4 or more countries, it isn’t possible geographically; and even then it’s dicey.

    That and the south would become third world.
    Now you are talking like a true states righter! Good on you. Believing your state/region is superior is exactly the stance to take.
     
    See, you and I agree! Except about who is to blame, but as a mature adult in this situation, during a divorce, both parties are to blame equally. LOL.
    I'm not saying the Founding Fathers are to blame, per se, just that it's wildly unpractical to base a government off of a document written hundreds of years ago from an elite demographic. The U.K. gets by just fine without a written constitution.
     
    But is that just keeping the country together for its own sake? Granted, it is not as obvious as a North/South divide and is predominantly urban/rural at this point but you could have some accord drawn up with a buffer of several years giving people the option to migrate one way or the other. The logistics would obviously be a nightmare but if some way is found to manage it I don't think it would be as bad people perceive. You would simply have two independent countries that, although having significant social differences, would not be openly antagonistic to each other.
    I can see it becoming something like our current relationship with the UK. Cousins but still 'family'.
     
    I can see it becoming something like our current relationship with the UK. Cousins but still 'family'.
    Right. I think once the separation is complete, the tensions would die down to parody and jokes. I don't think Red-nation would declare war on Blue-nation over abortion.

    The concept is obviously shocking to people: YOU CAN'T BREAK UP AMERICA! Well... why not? Things change.
     
    What is the 'country'? Territory/Land or values and ideals?

    For me it is values and ideals. I could care less about on what our map looks like.
    It's both.

    Anyone who wants to split up over something like gay rights or abortion or any of the other petty shirt we fight about is an enemy of the country.
     
    The western US isn’t superior to southern states. Why the need to feel superior?

    We just have leftist policies that have created giant budget surpluses.

    And pay for the south’s lack of state funded social programs.

    Not better or worse, just different.
     
    It's both.

    Anyone who wants to split up over something like gay rights or abortion or any of the other petty shirt we fight about is an enemy of the country.
    I don't think anyone cares about gay rights. However, I don't consider abortion trivial by any means and is exactly one of the reasons I would be ok with splitting up.
     
    Right. I think once the separation is complete, the tensions would die down to parody and jokes. I don't think Red-nation would declare war on Blue-nation over abortion.

    The concept is obviously shocking to people: YOU CAN'T BREAK UP AMERICA! Well... why not? Things change.
    The meme war would be hilarious.
     
    But let's think about that. From a foreign aggressor? Sure. But what is the point of 'saving' the country when about half of it doesn't want to be associated with the other half? I've never put a lot into nationalistic identity. People are people. But I think we have reached the point where the social/political differences are irreconcilable. Trump didn't cause these issues, he merely exacerbated them and brought them to light.
    You think it‘s 50-50? It’s not even close. The truly indoctrinated are maybe 30-35% of the Republican Party faithful. Closer to 15% of the actual population. It won’t happen. 80% of the people in this country are never going to go along with this crazy idea.

    Plus you guys are both ignoring the fact that most people have family members from both parties. People are not going to willingly divide their families like that.

    Most Rs are not hard-core MAGA, and most Ds are not Antifa. But I will tell you the % of Ds that are Antifa is tiny, tiny while the Rs are fighting to save their party from the wackos.

    Anyway it’s not a very good idea.
     
    I don't think anyone cares about gay rights. However, I don't consider abortion trivial by any means and is exactly one of the reasons I would be ok with splitting up.

    yea, abortion isn't worth giving up our status as a super power.

    it's really naive to want to split the country up over any of the stupid bullshirt our politicians have convinced us is important.
     
    Last edited:
    yea, abortion isn't worth giving up our status as a super power.

    it's really naive to want to split the country up over any of the stupid bullshirt our politicians have convinced us is important.

    Well, we do enjoy arguing about it on a message board, so we are all pretty stupid to listen to the politicians. I know I am.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom