Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 445 posts

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#311

Post by [deleted] »

buscoquadnary wrote: post #119
tjstankus wrote: post #67

A full-blown civil war, circa 1800s? Probably not, although a growing number of fascist types are fantasizing about it and planning for it. More frequent and extreme episodes of violent civil unrest? Yes. I think it's going to get worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-...

See that's an important thing people don't realize about a new civil war. In the civil war you had various clearly defined government apparatuses that chose to withdraw themselves from the union to form a new nation state. This time however it isn't a certain group of geographic area it is divided along urban vs rural lines. If a "civil war" were to come again it is much more likely that we'll see something more alon…

[deleted]

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#312

Post by corrral »

petilon wrote: post #102

If a civil war happens, the blame will be on (1) social media and (2) politicians using topics such as abortion and guns to divide people in order to get votes. But politicians leveraging divisive topics to get votes is not new. What is new is social media. In the old days news was filtered, vetted and verified by reputable news services before being distributed. Now because of social media everyone is a publisher, a…

Our kinda-bad system of government relying heavily on social norms & personal restraint that are no longer present and without which it's extremely vulnerable to malicious game-thinking methods and crass populist manipulation to bring it down from within, is where I'd point the finger.

I expect future historians will point to Nixon's pardon as the beginning of the end.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#313

Post by krapp »

belorn wrote: post #306
pmyteh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These panel surveys are reasonably good. The better pollsters (like Ipsos MORI) spend a decent amount of effort recruiting a broad sample of people for their panels, and results are statistically adjusted for non-response bias etc. That said, the usual problem with political polling (that you can only poll people willing to answer pollsters' questions) applies extra here, as all respondents have agreed to be part of…

In order to estimate how close a country is to a civil war, the people they should poll is those involved in the military. An attempt to take power through violence without military backing will look something like the 6 January 2021, which is to say a bunch of crazy people dressed up as Indians and cowboys who thought that storming a building means controlling a country.

> which is to say a bunch of crazy people dressed up as Indians and cowboys who thought that storming a building means controlling a country.

I don't know why people are still pushing this narrative when the hearings have made it perfectly clear at this point that there was orchestration and support among the government, Capitol police and likely even the Secret Service. The "crazy people dressed up as Indians and cowboys" were useful idiots meant to make the whole thing seem like a clumsy farce.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#314

Post by giardini »

mywittyname wrote: post #255
School-Cotton wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the houses requires a 60% supermajority to pass anything. This is such an incredibly fundamental part of the US political system that it amazes me that it isn't more widely talked about. It means the US is effectively not able to pass any laws that are even mildly…

The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.

How would Vermont have any say in political affairs if their political power was limited purely by their population?! Its clear why there is a Senate and a House: it was a good idea then and it remains a good idea for the USA.

And here's a big "Howdy!" from Texas to all of you in the great state of Vermont!

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#315

Post by chasd00 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #174
sorry_outta_gas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the summer of 2020 I wouldn't be shocked things sprial out of control fast

I'm pretty sure that if a mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors", and that swings the Electoral College vote, there will be a very short period of time in which this could be shut down short of a civil war. For some lesser cause? Another murder of an unarmed black person, even by police, seems unlikely to cause it. Economic inequality? Doesn't look like it. Illegal aliens? Again, prob…

> mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors"

That would have to be one hell of a mob. How would they exert pressure? Unless their "pressure" is lawful then they'd just be arrested like the Jan 6 people.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#316

Post by Ekaros »

mywittyname wrote: post #255
School-Cotton wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the houses requires a 60% supermajority to pass anything. This is such an incredibly fundamental part of the US political system that it amazes me that it isn't more widely talked about. It means the US is effectively not able to pass any laws that are even mildly…

The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.

If that isn't wanted, why even bother with having separate states in first place? Just place everything directly under federal government. You could even get rid of all other levels.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#317

Post by danaris »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #147
tjstankus wrote: post #67

A full-blown civil war, circa 1800s? Probably not, although a growing number of fascist types are fantasizing about it and planning for it. More frequent and extreme episodes of violent civil unrest? Yes. I think it's going to get worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-...

I hate to "be that guy" but this ends up being a both sides issue. There was a notice sent around to some churches after the RvW appeal to be vigilant since they had received some info on people possibly acting violently towards churches since they blamed them for it. (Edit to add: Please see https://janesrevenge.noblogs.org/2022/06/26/janes-revenge-ni... -- these are pointedly anti-fascists, the opposite of the righ…

Ah, yes, both sides have tried resorting to violence.

One side has tried resorting to violence in order to prevent the other side from voting, enshrine one religion as the law of the land, guarantee one "race" its supremacy, and literally overthrow the legitimately elected government.

The other side has tried resorting to violence when the first side asserted control over half of their bodies, murdered them in the streets while under the supposed motto of "serve and protect", and tried to take away their right to vote and literally overthrow the elected government.

Yes, I can see that "both sides" are clearly equally bad. After all, if someone stabs you in the gut, and you punch him in the face, you're just as bad as he is, right?

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#318

Post by czstar »

the_optimist wrote: post #205
pmyteh wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These panel surveys are reasonably good. The better pollsters (like Ipsos MORI) spend a decent amount of effort recruiting a broad sample of people for their panels, and results are statistically adjusted for non-response bias etc. That said, the usual problem with political polling (that you can only poll people willing to answer pollsters' questions) applies extra here, as all respondents have agreed to be part of…

Quoted post unavailable.

One can find instances of corruption in any party that has sufficient power. Key members of the Republican Party tried to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021 so from my perspective the Republican Party is the one more deserving of ire.

It is clear the Supreme Court is taking an activist stance. One member of the court has pretty much stated he is in favor of overturning previous rulings that granted sexual rights. The Court is now erring on the side of taking rights away rather than on increasing them or keeping the status quo in place.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#319

Post by corrral »

commandlinefan wrote: post #307
thechao wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voting system in the US (FPTP) is fundamentally unfair. Combine with post-red-map gerrymandering, it is becoming obvious even to the people "on the wings" that our election system fundamentally disenfranchises large swathes of the population. As a short hand, think "Democrats and Independents in red states" and "Republicans and Independants in blue states". Being disenfranchised sucks . The system is designed to…

> prevent you from having any ability to even change the system But the best solution to that is to just invert the system so that the federal government has the least impact, the states the second least, and the local municipalities the most. Which was what the last civil war was fought over.

That's a very expensive solution, most likely, in terms of harm to the economy & international competitiveness. And we already have a huge problem with race-to-the-bottom dynamics when states or cities race to see who can bend over fastest in hopes of to receiving a few scraps from megacorporations. Start putting things the federal government controls in the hands of states and cities, and corporations will definitely gain more power to dictate things like environmental laws, corporate taxation, consumer protection, et c.

I don't think this idea is compatible with a decent-to-live-in, modern economy and state, as nice as it may seem in the abstract.

Re: Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

#320

Post by colinmhayes »

Ekaros wrote: post #316
mywittyname wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.

If that isn't wanted, why even bother with having separate states in first place? Just place everything directly under federal government. You could even get rid of all other levels.

The 10th amendment gives states power to regulate tons of things. Different states can have different laws without the senate.
Post reply on HN