How long before the US splits up into 2 countries... gun-carrying, anti-abortion states and anti-gun, pro-abortion states?

[TickleMe4ForFun]

[nightdrot]

It will be quite a while. First, because that whole "leaving the Union" thing was tried in the 1860s and was settled - albeit not without a bloody fight. However, that pretty well ended the discussion.

Secondly, and more importantly, because while the gun and abortion issues tend to produce headlined and heightened rhetoric, the polling data suggests that it is mostly "sound and fury signifying nothing." Grant it not quite nothing, both issues produce tense emotions, but they are not quite - again, the headlines and shrill tones notwithstanding - the main preoccupation of the country.

For example, it has been well said that most "Americans are opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest and me." Which is to say that it is not an issue that preoccupies Americans unless it impacts them directly. Thus, three recent polls found in the wake of the recent Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade, only about 7% of Americans said that abortion was a top priority concern. One poll - Monmouth I think it was - ranking abortion 8th on a list of issues Americans care about.

It is not that Americans do not have an opinion on the issue. In fact, most Americans support abortion rights, but not late term abortions nor abortions for reasons like sexual preference, etc. However, it is not an issue that gets them to the polls. Again, for that, only about 7% of Americans make it an issue ahead of inflation, crime, etc.

As for guns, that is pretty much settled by the 2nd Amendment. Which unlike the right to an abortion, which was derivative of a right to privacy, that right itself to be found in the "prenumbra" of the Constitution, is explicit and therefore the argument is about, in effect, the details.

To be sure, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, by having an explicit Bill of Rights, the pretext then exists for government to regulate those rights. However, there are mechanisms for resolving such questions and again, the polling data shows that for all the noise, it is not a top priority issue.

Put simply, on either question, or on both combined, there does not seem to be much incentive for large swathes of the public to "go to the barricades." These issues do engage a small and intense number of Americans, but not so much that they will conduce to civil war.

Don't miss the forest for the trees. To be sure, the United States is going through a period of relative social turmoil. However, it has been through such periods before - see also, for a recent example, the 1960s and 1970s. A period of race riots, campus radicalism, assassinations, "hippies," stagflation, high crime rates and "do your own thing."

Yet then, the country grew culturally weary and longed for more tradition and stability. Thus was born the relative - and it is always relative - peace, prosperity and social quiet of the 1980s and 1990s.

Of course, all things made by imperfect beings are imperfect and ultimately, in the fullness of time, do fail. However, determining when that happens is largely impossible. That said, there is little to suggest that America is in its' terminal decline - especially over two issues that while they are intensely supported by a small segment of the population, don't really send voters to the polls, let alone, as noted, "to the barricades."

[RolandCuthbert]

If we split. . . we will probably split on abortion.

No one is doing anything about guns going across state lines.

But if you guys engage in logic for a quick second. . .

1. There is no way we can have abortion be murder in one state, then a medically valid procedure in another state.

2. We are already seeing the issue with the court releasing this to the states. Already anti-abortion states are outlawing women leaving the state to go to another state for an abortion. They are already outlawing even telling a woman it is legal to go to another state. They are outlawing paying for women to leave the state to seek an abortion. That is Taliban level shit right there.

3. So it doesn't take much to see this is similar to what happened in the Civil war. The South was trying to punish Northern States for not returning slaves. And there was this tremendous fight over admitting new states into the union. Because they had to either commit to being a slave holding state or not. Having half the states support abortion and the other half outlaw it as murder will tear this nation apart. The weird thing is. .. the majority of folks in anti-abortion states, support abortion. That's the one big difference this time around.

https://www.axios.com/local/austin/2022/05/04/texans-roe-abortion-poll-supreme-court

A near total abortion ban in Texas is likely around the corner, but a new poll shows a majority of voters — 54% — oppose it.

Driving the news: The U. S. Supreme Court privately voted to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion decision, per a draft document obtained by Politico on Monday.

[God_of_Thunder]

It would be very difficult for the US to split into separate countries, simply because of our infrastructure, and division of goods.

A large percentage of Republican states are relatively poor, by comparison. They have large agricultural bases, but very little manufacturing.

As such, many "red" states receive more funding from the federal government than they pay in taxes. That money comes from Democratic "blue" states.

Conversely, those blue states are wealthier, due to higher levels of industry, but don't produce enough food for their populations.

So, if the country were to split up; the Blue states would be buying food from the Red states, to feed their people, but also selling them goods and technology that they need, and couldn't produce on their own.

So the Red states would end up extremely poor, whereas the Blue states would end up being more or less alright.

Both sides, Red & Blue, need each other to function effectively, so I'm not sure why so many people want a civil war, or to split the country up.

[Stoner710]

You answered my question so I will answer yours I think is fair to say within the next eight years as far as national divorce or Civil War. My reasoning is no use this as an example is what common Allie does Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom share? A lot of coastal environments I agree with the left a lot of more rule southern or traditional Americans agree with the right. And sadly neither right or left how much in common at this point. None of us actually want to enter a hot tub of war or kill each other but like America born of us can agree on anything so it ends in divorce. Or in her cases it means confederation. I know I don’t have anything in common with Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or most other political figures in the government right now. I understand that and blue states they have nothing in common with the federal government when he comes to Donald Trump being an office same holds true blue state give it one more election cycle and we’re not talking bad terms we’re talking 2024. If Republicans win am majority or a super majority in the Senate were talking to Costco so amendment that will allow abortion the Democrats hold that the opposite of true if there’s a split then abortion is locked up to The states this is how much power the federal government has now so yes we’re close to a hot Civil War on a few issues one of them being abortion

[Tiptoetamm]

That's my fear honestly we are closer than ever honestly it could happen anytime I'm gathering my nuts and storing as much food as I can because shit could hit the fan anytime

[Stoner710]

@Tiptoetamm yea we’re pretty close it will primarily be in major cities like I doubt seattle will survive or Portland they barely survived the BLM and Antifa riots

[Tiptoetamm]

Yeah it's rough

[Stoner710]

@Tiptoetamm The solution to all those is of course go back to an article of confederation. (Not talking 1860 confederation I’m talking 1777 articles of confederation pre constitutional government basically the federal government doesn’t have the ability to even tax the states or have a federal tax at all they would have to make there money like the states and private businesses would)

[BeMuse]

All states are their own sovereign states already. They are already separate. They always have been. The constitution is the compact (contract) that glues us together. It is an agreement on the basic rights we think people should have. The rest are left to the people to figure out in their own states. More specifically, we are sovereign countries with an elected sheriff that protects our constitutional rights. All the independent federal agencies are illegal. The federal government is in breach of contract. The agencies are what will end. The constitution will live on.

[BeMuse]

*counties

[NaultD]

The closest state to do so will be Texas and they will get rolled over the day after. Simple drone strike on power plants winter or summer will crumble Texas independence.

Similar can be said with the entire United States. Our entire interstate highway is made for combat inside our homeland. Those highways can turn into airplane runways dropping off supplies and troops. The greater United States of America so long as it has Washington D. C will win within the North American continent.

[abc3643]

That's not going to happen.
The union is "indivisible".

[BungusHighFivePizza]

can't do it any time soon
the structure in spite of the chaos is very stable

[TickleMe4ForFun]

The "structure" is "stable"?
Please do elaborate, as I dont think ANYONE would say the foundation of our country is stable at this time.

[BungusHighFivePizza]

it can't be so easily broken in nother way
federal powre is very stable
took civil war 2 establish

[OddBeMe]

Never happen. Too spread out. Too interconnected.

But personally, I’d like to be rid of the bible belt. Welfare states that hate science but take our tax money. 10x more than blue states.

[MCheetah]

By 2030, this'll be a reality.

[DWornock]

Hopefully within the next several years.

[Anonymous]

They can't lol. China owns the USA.