Could the USA experience a second civil war, or perhaps a smaller scale breakup?

[Huntergreed]

You call it a terror attack, I call it a Monday.

Sadly, there is a mass shooting (three or more people shot in a single event) every three days on average.

I agree, but that doesn’t make it excusable and it certainly isn’t something that ought to be normalised whatsoever.

Extremist politics and a lack of gun control are leading to an inexcusable loss of life across the US, and I’m very glad I’m not a citizen there. Political extremes are far more apparent than they are both in the UK and across Europe and having such extremes, combined with extremely easy access to guns and little laws on gun control and ownership, inevitably lead to these inexcusable events.

 

[b0b]

Unfortunately there has been what you would probably call a right wing terror attack in the US today, in the form of a mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in Illinois

I doubt this will be a right wing terror attack, Highland Park is a leafy, affluent liberal suburb of Chicago. Highland Park, along with Illinois has one of the more strict gun control.

 

[Gloster]

I doubt this will be a right wing terror attack, Highland Park is a leafy, affluent liberal suburb of Chicago. Highland Park, along with Illinois has one of the more strict gun control.

Which is why a nutter might just go there and target locals. Or a local right-wing nutter might target those around him who he feels are all wrong. Or... They appear now to have a definite suspect, but I am not going to automatically assume what his opinions are

 

[plugwash]

Sadly, there is a mass shooting (three or more people shot in a single event) every three days on average.

That is a very broad definition of "mass shooting".

Reading the news articles it appears that the shooting at the independence parade was rather larger than that with 6 killed and dozens injured (though not all from gunshot).

 

[najaB]

I agree, but that doesn’t make it excusable and it certainly isn’t something that ought to be normalised whatsoever.

Oh, I'm not normalising it at all. I'm calling out how normal it has become in the USA and how crazy that is.

That is a very broad definition of "mass shooting".

That is the definition used by the authorities in the USA. If you set the bar to 10 or more people shot in a single event it drops down - though still to around two a month.

 

[The Ham]

That is a very broad definition of "mass shooting".

Reading the news articles it appears that the shooting at the independence parade was rather larger than that with 6 killed and dozens injured (though not all from gunshot).

There will be Americans who will be saying what about Norway and Denmark they've recently had shootings.

However between the last 2 cases if the rates in each of those countries per million people where the same as the USA there would have been between 90 and 125 mass shooting (the upper is for one the lower is the other).

If you change the definition then chases are the overall picture would look a little better when comparing between countries, however the gaps between are likely to get bigger as some examples fall below the threshold. That'll be true for not only the US but for all other countries.

I think it was by June this year Texas had had the same number of mass shootings this year as we'd had since some point in the 1980's.

 

[DC1989]

The question for me is what happens when/if the republicans go full into a dictatorship. Trump wasn't a million miles away from stealing the last election, he just didn't have the 'momentum' if that's the right word. If something similar happens again but this time the state legislatures, DoJ and Supreme court go along with it, what will happen?

If every western democracy knows that one side really won, but republicans suceed in rising to power, how would they react?

 

[Strathclyder]

I think no-one can really make sense of it. He's an awful person that goes against everything that their religion supposedly stands for, yet they love him.

The more cynical of us might suggest that evangelicals are generally not very nice people beneath the surface... I mean, Joel Osteen anyone?

The cynic in me certainly entertains the latter as a distinct reason they adore/worship him despite everything he's said and done more often that I care to admit. Would explain so much.

 

[nw1]

Not wishing to contradict the point, but it's of note that people who travel internationally tend to be the more open-minded.

One thing of note is that all the Americans I met in the USA were anti-Republican and very critical of Bush (this was in the George W. Bush and Obama eras, well before Trump was a thing).

I did visit relatively rural areas at times but have only ever visited 'blue states' (not for political reasons, but because that was where I wanted to visit); I don't think I've ever visited a state which voted GOP at the most recent election, other than to change planes.

 

[brad465]

The question for me is what happens when/if the republicans go full into a dictatorship. Trump wasn't a million miles away from stealing the last election, he just didn't have the 'momentum' if that's the right word. If something similar happens again but this time the state legislatures, DoJ and Supreme court go along with it, what will happen?

If every western democracy knows that one side really won, but republicans suceed in rising to power, how would they react?

It maybe difficult for a dictator in the US to sustain power in such a way, as the large size of different groups/cultures will be hard to govern with a lot of force. How other democracies react is debatable, I suspect Canada will have to strongly react because they're next door, and could well be the main recipients of a major refugee crisis (if 10-20+ million tried to flee the US, that would still be <10% of the US population), but other democracies may not want to stoke too much tension for fear of losing certain ally support, unless they lose it anyway (such as US leaving NATO).

If the US was suddenly a dictatorship with political chaos, then China might seize the moment to try and take Taiwan, although at the same time a US dictator could still get involved and take on China in order to fashion an enemy to distract from everything at home.

 

[brad465]

I've reached the conclusion that the US political and economic systems, plus a critical mass of its population, are so far gone down the extreme route that no peaceful resolution to it can now be found. I wouldn't be surprised if a coup and/or a very bloody second civil war are in the offing in future.

The best comment I saw describing what's happened was something like this: "Trump is the result of capitalism screwing over a critical mass of the population, but those same people being unable to realise capitalism is the cause of their woes." (mainly becuase the media and political systems act in a way to make sure they don't realise, especially by claiming anti-capitalists are all communists, as if system choice is binary)

 

[dgl]

It's a case of the people causing all the problems convincing the electorate that they will cure all their problems and that it is the "elite" that is the issue, this then allows them to get into power, naturally all they do is help line their pockets and blame the previous administration for any problems.
Of course they'll then use any issues any new administration has that are result of their administration as a failing of the new administration to help the get votes again.

Of course the UK we have a situation where the government not only blames the last labour government but blames the many recent previous leaders of their own party!

 

[najaB]

I've reached the conclusion that the US political and economic systems, plus a critical mass of its population, are so far gone down the extreme route that no peaceful resolution to it can now be found.

It does seem that way sometimes, but it's important to remember that a small number of very loud people can often make a noise that's difficult to distinguish from a large number of people mumbling.

 

[The Ham]

It does seem that way sometimes, but it's important to remember that a small number of very loud people can often make a noise that's difficult to distinguish from a large number of people mumbling.

The reality is that 70% of the population want things like healthcare, abortion rights and generally to be more like European countries. The political parties don't.

There was a video I was watching where they were saying that the reason the political parties don't is that those companies that provide them with funding don't want those things and so they don't happen.

They also shut down debate by others about things like healthcare by implying that their communists (rather than compassionate).

Now how reliable that person is, I don't know, but it does say least make you wonder (especially given the known amount of lobbying which did go on - i.e. NRA) if there's at least some kernel of truth in it.

If that's the case, then it could even be as 3 way fight.

It's also why it's good to have more than two parties, as it gives people an alternative option if the main two don't do what you want. It wasn't that long ago that (as an example) that the two main part leaders were very much in agreement with what the Lib Dems' leader was saying - yet if you look at the direction of travel since you'd be forgiven in thinking that they were almost unloved and UKIP/Reform were the party of choice by the majority.

I know which party is likely to have more compassion and so is the direction which many would actually prefer to be treated (even if they don't vote that way).