Are you concerned by the possibility of a Second US Civil War?

[Cassandra]

Obviously talking about a complex insurgency a la Syria, not the same sectional conflict all over again.

I know so many people who have bought or are considering buying firearms for self-defense from political violence that this no longer seems like a far-fetched question.

[Agonized-Statism]

No, because there's no real fundamental divide in America, and living standards have improved enough to stave off desperation. We continue to be debt slaves while the government argues about the degree of influence child drag queens should have on society or whether or not we should decrease bombing in Syria by 2%. Atlas, put aside the Trump is Hitler/Warren is Stalin fantasies for a minute and see things as they are. Are you going to quit your day job, pick up a gun, and attack some atrophied rural hicks/diabetic urban welfare queens? No, and all Americans aside from some lone wolves with misdirected anger issues will answer the same. We have actual lives. No one's coming after you for being a Democrat or a Republican. People can talk a big game online but it doesn't pan out in the real world.

Kill the lights, shut down the Internet, poison the water? Of course you'll get civil unrest, but it won't be partisan. It'll be gangs struggling to survive. But the corporations won't let that happen because they like the system the way it is, and you'll help them maintain it.

[Orser67]

Yes, I'm quite concerned that we will spiral into a civil war. Especially if either side decides to pack the Supreme Court, and/or if the Supreme Court gives us a neo-Lochner Era.

[sg0508]

Yes. Eventually economic disparity will push the average American over the top.

[Burke Bro]

Oh please. Of course not. America might be divided, but it’s not that divided.

[morgieb]

Not Civil War. That probably doesn't happen unless the guns get taken away or an election is legitimately stolen. The chances of an Americanised Years of Lead however is a sadly very realistic possibility.

[Person Man]

I could see something happening where one side keeps grabbing up more and more power until people just tune out to the point that things don't get done anymore. After a while something bad happens or a series of unfortunate events occur and then it becomes apparent that we are not really a country any more. My guess is that we eventually just evolve into a bunch of large estates and communes. Some are already arguing that it is already happening.  I doubt there will be any foreign power penetrating the continent but maybe in a few hundred years it could happen.

[Gone to Carolina]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

[DabbingSanta]

The fact over half say yes (18-17) shows just how far our political climate has gone downhill.

Civil war? No. Widespread political violence? Possibly.

[Person Man]

The fact over half say yes (18-17) shows just how far our political climate has gone downhill.

Civil war? No. Widespread political violence? Possibly.

Worse probable case scenario is that liberal areas in conservative states and vice versa become "no go" areas for police and regulators. I can see places like St. Louis, South Florida and Atlanta basically being left to fend for themselves and heavily subsidized by liberal NGOs and companies as state authorities abandon and isolate these communities. The same pattern is also developing in the desert between the Cascades and Sawtooths. Perhaps even upstate NY and the eastern plains. 

[R.P. McM]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

Hopefully, the young are still spry enough to fight a war. It's one of the few cards they hold over geriatrics intent on destroying their future.

[SInNYC]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

Yes, but we have tons of people who like to play video games. Except this time the video games are with real people and real gizmos.

Hmm, somehow this reminds me of various scifi books and star trek episodes where war is outsourced to machines (victims arent).

[Technocracy Timmy]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

Hopefully, the young are still spry enough to fight a war. It's one of the few cards they hold over geriatrics intent on destroying their future.

The youth are fat and can’t even be bothered to vote once every two years because it conflicts with their League of Legends schedule.

[Person Man]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

Hopefully, the young are still spry enough to fight a war. It's one of the few cards they hold over geriatrics intent on destroying their future.

The youth are fat and can’t even be bothered to vote once every two years because it conflicts with their League of Legends schedule.

Obesity makes things hard. I wonder if all this fat will one day really be needed.

[R.P. McM]

No, even if we do reach the point that one half of America legitimately wanted to kill the other and vice versa, we're too fat and lazy to actually leave the couch and go fight a war.

Hopefully, the young are still spry enough to fight a war. It's one of the few cards they hold over geriatrics intent on destroying their future.

The youth are fat and can’t even be bothered to vote once every two years because it conflicts with their League of Legends schedule.

I don't think youth turnout is at an historical ebb, and frankly, LoL is probably a more realistic portrayal of modern combat than grandpa low-crawling through the sh!+.

[CookieDamage]

Yes, I think it's a possibility, although I don't know how likely it is. To everyone saying there isn't a major singular divide that would necessitate a civil war, I don't believe there has to be something like slavery or other polarizing issues that NEED to be present in order to divide the country. I mean, the country now is extremely polarized and the economy is strong, unemployment is low, food security is high (relatively), but there seems to be two totally different Americas. And a chunk of this country believes in white genocide and other crap, and they don't seem to be afraid to murder due to their bigoted beliefs. If we have enough of those people arming themselves and committing violence, I could see some sort of low to medium intensity continuous guerrilla type warfare or terrorism in the future. I would include lefties and tankies in that group of extremists bringing about civil violence but to be entirely honest they seem mostly content with cyberbullying and protesting than they are killing people.

With that said, I feel like if there's a series of events that happen in the coming decades, there very well could be a civil war:

- Increased division of society alongside political, social, and economic ideas. I don't believe there has to be one defining ideal ala slavery, but if you have multiple sections of society which are committed to belief systems which are pretty much mutually exclusive, that's no good.
- An economic crash or recession which threatens employment and food security (among other things)
- Perception of unfair or compromised elections
- Increase in domestic, political terrorism
- And more, chime in if you wish

What I'm worried about more is the US slipping into an authoritarian government.

[Sumner 1868]

the economy is strong, unemployment is low

How do people still not realize these statistics don't calculate the full situation?

[Person Man]

the economy is strong, unemployment is low

How do people still not realize these statistics don't calculate the full situation?

The economy was great before the Civil War. There was a panic a few years earlier but the First Industrial revolution was hitting at least the north like never before.

[hoosierballin12]

I think that it would take a repeal of the 2nd amendment, high taxation of churches, and slavery reparations to get conservatives to start a civil war. But liberals would never start a civil war because their too physically weak, emotionally soft, and anti gun go take any real action.

[Person Man]

I think that it would take a repeal of the 2nd amendment, high taxation of churches, and slavery reparations to get conservatives to start a civil war. But liberals would never start a civil war because their too physically weak, emotionally soft, and anti gun go take any real action.

Most of them are normie virgin cucks and not Chad edgelords.

[Basil]

Yes, I'm quite concerned that we will spiral into a civil war. Especially if either side decides to pack the Supreme Court, and/or if the Supreme Court gives us a neo-Lochner Era.

Can your average American tell you what the Lochner Era was? Or even what the Court decided in Lochner? RBG is the most prominent SCOTUS Justice with 25% name recognition. Americans do not care about the Supreme Court.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think that it would take a repeal of the 2nd amendment, high taxation of churches, and slavery reparations to get conservatives to start a civil war. But liberals would never start a civil war because their too physically weak, emotionally soft, and anti gun go take any real action.

Leaving aside the second sentence (which isn't worth engaging with), the idea that President Beto is going to be able to tax churches and send the army and police door to door to confiscate guns is just as fanciful as the idea that President Trump is going to be able to send the army and police door to door to look for illegal immigrants and open up the libel laws to sue papers that criticize him into bankruptcy. None of these things is possible and you don't want to live in the type of police state where they are.

[un]

No.

[Orser67]

Yes, I'm quite concerned that we will spiral into a civil war. Especially if either side decides to pack the Supreme Court, and/or if the Supreme Court gives us a neo-Lochner Era.

Can your average American tell you what the Lochner Era was? Or even what the Court decided in Lochner? RBG is the most prominent SCOTUS Justice with 25% name recognition. Americans do not care about the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is important as the final arbiter of issues that aren't/can't be settled by elections. It's also important in a symbolic way as the top court in the land in that it represents the legitimacy of our entire legal system. Popular knowledge of the Lochner Era and the names of individual justices is irrelevant. What matters is that people have some confidence that the court will at least attempt to rule in a fair manner. Perhaps suprisingly to some on this forum, polling shows that people do have confidence in the Court.

If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy with large portions of the public, we're going to be in real trouble. For example, imagine a scenario where the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare in 2012, and then decided the election for Romney in a Bush v. Gore-style decision. Or imagine a scenario where Democrats pack the Supreme Court, and the court rules adversely against a future Republican president in impeachment proceedings.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yes, I'm quite concerned that we will spiral into a civil war. Especially if either side decides to pack the Supreme Court, and/or if the Supreme Court gives us a neo-Lochner Era.

Can your average American tell you what the Lochner Era was? Or even what the Court decided in Lochner? RBG is the most prominent SCOTUS Justice with 25% name recognition. Americans do not care about the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is important as the final arbiter of issues that aren't/can't be settled by elections. It's also important in a symbolic way as the top court in the land in that it represents the legitimacy of our entire legal system. Popular knowledge of the Lochner Era and the names of individual justices is irrelevant. What matters is that people have some confidence that the court will at least attempt to rule in a fair manner. Perhaps suprisingly to some on this forum, polling shows that people do have confidence in the Court.

If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy with large portions of the public, we're going to be in real trouble. For example, imagine a scenario where the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare in 2012, and then decided the election for Romney in a Bush v. Gore-style decision. Or imagine a scenario where Democrats pack the Supreme Court, and the court rules adversely against a future Republican president in impeachment proceedings.

I suspect this is why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare, and why I don't think he (or potentially Gorsuch or Alito) would vote to allow blatant Republican election rigging, such as if Wisconsin votes for Warren or Sanders but the legislature refuses to certify their electors.