Are irreconcilable differences limiting the ability for the USA to unify and leading to a separation akin to a divorce or possibility a civil war?

[Kelley1]

Question: Do we need to separate by red states and blue states?

Nearly one in four U. S. adults would support a national divorce in the United States, where red and blue leaning states would divide into two countries, according to a recent poll carried out by The Economist and YouGov.

When people hold irreconcilable differences in values, separation may be a way to solve long-standing conflict.

Where we once valued political compromise and different values, we have become more tribal and less willing to respect others.

Countries trapped in culture wars may wish to consider breaking up, if only to create more cohesive and resilient communities.

[abc3643]

All differences are reconcilable because of two things reality and human nature

1. Nature, itself, doesn't give a rat's ass about us or anyone else. It's going to do whatever it wants to do and there's nothing we can do to stop it so we need to protect ourselves from it.

2. Humans are not very good as a species about thinking in the abstract. Thus, we do not face eventual problems very well until these problems are immediately upon us. And when that happens, we disregard all the other bullshit we've been told or that we tell ourselves as we instinctively remember the first thing that I wrote above about Nature. When your own death is in front of you, that focuses you incredibly well on addressing that immediate threat to your existence. And Nature tells us usually what that one thing is that we have to do to survive and that is unifying and eliminates all "irreconcilable differences".

https://youtu.be/Wpopz6HxU_w?feature=shared

[andreasderjuengere]

I see the dis-United States of ''America'' to be too divided to even agree to a division.

[andreasderjuengere]

Thanks for MHO.

[NoOneEver]

If 86% of the counties voted red. And the popular vote went red. The electoral vote went red. The senate went red. The Congress went red.

I highly doubt 50% of the split of all the land would be balanced.

From all the polling, you would have to divide it 3 ways.

Blue states which would be the minority.
Purple states which would be far larger than the blue states.
And Red states would have the majority.

But then there would be arguments about which people get what.

Collectively certain lands were purchased for things such as their minerals and ores etc. So earning California created a gold panning/mining craze. Etc.

Just because a state appears blue. Doesn’t mean the majority which is red. Would agree to let the more valuable lands to go.

And then migration would be an enormous issue.

Essentially you would need to eliminate anonymous voting. And everyone would have to be open about their politics. Whether they align with being ruled over by the ideals of blue policies etc.

And it would have to be done through mandatory voting.

Current numbers put only 1 in every 5 people as voting blue. That’s not that many people. So the split would never be 50/50 and I doubt that there would ever be any real agreement on what portion of land could be given to that minority.

My estimate is as follows.
1/5 blue
2/5 purple (that just so happened to bite red this last election)
2/5 red

Is how we can see things standing in this country with a rough estimate. The purple who voted red this time around would obviously not be comfortable just handing their portion over to blue. Red would not be comfortable giving any ocean based land to anyone as that puts you at risk with international threats when you can’t secure both sides from threats as a government.

The migration process alone even if you reached a consensus on which land went where. Everyone would be forced to move, to sell residencies in place of new ones. Blue is also so small their army would be minuscule. And red could just invade it at any time anyway making all their efforts in vain. If red are the monsters they truly believe them to be. This would happen indefinitely, according to how they depict their opposition. And then any blue territory would automatically become red. With the sieges people either being wiped out completely. Or taken as prisoners of war to barter with other countries that believe themselves to be “humanitarians”

So now the blue captives. Have European nations paying $15 million dollars for a batch of them to be shipped off to their countries and to be sought for asylum.

Nothing about a split would be feasible. It’s so unrealistic that it’s impossible for it to happen. And even if it did happen. Blue wouldn’t survive at all. Only red and purple would remain.

[BCA6010]

Regarding the question embedded in the screenshot, dividing the US by existing state lines, or really states at all would not work. The reason is because that's not where the cultural divides are; the division, when looking at the voting districts, is clearly big cities (blue) against basically everyone else (red). Even when you look at a reliably red state like Texas, all of the blue blobs are centered around Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and El Paso while everywhere in-between is blood red. This poses a major problem to the idea of a national divorce in that there's no effective way to actually divide the country that wouldn't cause more and bigger issues.

[msc545]

Yes. The differences is between a democratic system and a fascist system of government are completely in irreconcilable and unfortunately in the United States apparently cannot be remediated. Also, the styles of diplomacy are radically different in that the Democratic system seeks to use diplomacy as a method of resolving differences, while the fascist system seeks to use and actively does use violence and threats of violence as methods for resolving differences.

[ProbablyClueless]

They aren't irreconcilable differences at all. All that needs to happen is people need to get out of their echo chambers and at least listen to the other side's set of facts.

You can have your own opinion, but you don't get your own set of facts. And the problem today is that people are totally ignoring the other side's set of facts.

[Shiprex]

3 in 4 don't think it's a good idea so I think the polarisation has a fair bit to go and the values of the country aren't that different. It's the way the media and political entitles (more the media) who pump up the rhetoric to enflame the irrational biases in order to get attention and conflict.

A classic divide and conquer technique ruling classes have been using on the populations since forever.

[overlord337645]

the diffrences are not the problem its the fact that people have ¨drank the coolaid¨ and listened to the sorry excuse we have as president for those still not convinced let me ask you something what has trump ever done for you did he go to war for you when he was drafted no! did he reduce prices... still waiting here for them to go down. why simple because trump cares about two things himself and money outside of that there is not much.

[QuietRunner]

When is this from? 2021 or 2025? Seems the same thing was said by different people.

One reason we don't have common values, is the United States doesn't have a common vision or goal any longer. That was lost for whatever reason, it needs to be found again.

[BarryLiverstone]

Nope. Because it’s too simple just to say red and blue states. Within each ideology there are many groups and it’s not like all red people feel the same on every issue just like not all blue. It’s better overall to keep the current structure as federally the gov protects the country and at the state and local levels most decisions can be made

[SeekerOfTruth007]

That's immoral. The moral thing to do is to ban abortion and homosexuality, the way it always was banned in the past. You don't' just let evil people do whatever the fuck they want to do. That's the purpose of laws.

[Ladsin2]

Tried it before, Yanks came down raped our women, burned and salted our fields and butchered our sons. Good for the goose?

[SixFootSexy]

Russia and China would be thrilled.

Even though Texas by itself could take on most any other country.

[Likes2drive]

It wouldn’t work anyway because of how divided it is in so many areas and not evenly divided. People just need to respect other people’s views without conflict

[Dargil]

Trump will delay that. Maybe the MAGA movement may avert that or maybe not.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Those one-quarter of Americans are clear-headed about America's need to split into two countries.

[Pterodon]

We already set up a country in Africa. It’s called Liberia and is one of the poorest countries in the world. They embrace democratic principles

[GAGsucksballs89170]

I would welcome it. The red states can't survive without the blue ones, except maybe texas

[SmokinAces2000]

Breaking the country up wouldn’t work geographically

[standardguy]

No even 25 percent in favor of it is a low number.