Revolution? Civil War? What's going to happen to the US?

Yes, the unspoken truth in US politics is that we LIKE gridlock, in fact we PREFER gridlock to more rapid change. We vote for it over and over again. Consciously or not, probably not, that is what we as an electorate vote for. I am not talking about one side or the other, both sides in the great hive mind of the US electorate prefer gridlock and seek it out. Almost as if both sides are working toward a common goal. And this has been going on for a long time.

So the Democrats will probably gain a few more seats in Congress in 2018, even in red states, to better balance the short term lopsided tug of war going on now. Not enough to gain real power, just enough to slow the Republicans down or to idle their engines.

Trump will continue to try and reverse many of the programs pushed by Obama with some success. And 4 to 8 years from now I guarantee the next president will be a Democrat, but only for the following 4 to 8 years. He/she will reverse some of what Trump pushed through. We seem to be in an 8 year cycle lately. And then we will get another Republican.

Relax. Clickbait and fake news is the new normal and it will stay that way for the foreseeable future. Those who see a current state of turmoil are listening to the same news outlets that said Hillary was a lock and Trump had no chance. Media outlets on both sides have destroyed their own credibility with the need to get the story out first and damn the actual facts. Nobody cares about the truth 3 days later, they only remember the initial falsehood. And this is being worked to the fullest potential by the smart young Johnnies on left and right. We are all being played. That is the new game in politics. Facts do not matter if you get your message out first.

I think we are all going to like our first woman president, Kris Kardashian. Glamor and fashion in the White House, it will be like Camelot only with real camels.

There won’t be a civil war, because opponents and enemies are much harder to identify. This wasn’t like the Civil War where the boundary between North and South was clearly delineated and both sides were fighting on clear battlegrounds.

Trump and Hillary supporters are scattered through every and each of the 50 states. Where would such a war even begin and end?

Don’t forget the 70’s: the Kent State shooting, the pardoning of Nixon, leftist terrorist groups (e.g. the Weathermen) firing of bombs, etc.

The 60s ended in 1973. :wink:

Yeah, what would we do? Shoot our neighbors? I live in Oregon, a state that votes consistently blue. But if you look at a vote by county map the state is a big red blob with the urban and university areas, where most of the people live, are colored in blue.

Several states are like this, urban blue, rural red. So what if we starved out the cities? Then I end up with all these non-campers camped out in my back yard, crapping everywhere and wanting a latte.

There are no lines to be drawn in the sand or otherwise. The country simply isn’t that divided, the issues are not black and white, there is no more frontier to move into.

We are being played for the next 24 hour news cycle. There is not the level of conflict to support this OP.

What I heard was that there were about 1000 inside, and another 1500 or so who couldn’t get in.

But seriously, do you think that very many of them came from out of state, which was what Chaffetz claimed? Like I said, it’s a loooong hike from SLC to any major population centers out of state.

And you’re right, it doesn’t matter really if the protesters were from other Utah districts: they redrew the map after 2010 to split SLC among the four Utah CDs, so that the comparatively moderate population of SLC wouldn’t have a Representative of its own, because they might,you know, elect a Democrat!

Bull. Shit.

A few thousand actual people showing up isn’t ‘AstroTurf.’ AstroTurf is when you have a lot of money pretending to be a lot of people. So unless you’re arguing that everyone hallucinated these people, this wasn’t AstroTurf.

It’s not true?? Chaffetz didn’t duck out 40 minutes early? He did too duck and run. And they are ducking and running around the country. Including other R’s in remote places like Sen. Risch in Idaho, who can’t even complain about another nearby CD. Please quit bullshitting here.

Literally the only true thing you’ve said is that Chaffetz isn’t in any danger of losing re-election. That’s true, but he’s in an R+25 district. The point being that if he’s got to duck and run, R’s in R+4 or R+7 districts are going to be pretty damn nervous about voting to repeal Obamacare and stuff like that.

I’ve heard good arguments for dates ranging from the summer of 1971 (end of the era of large-scale antiwar protests) to Nixon’s resignation in August 1974, but point well taken. :slight_smile:

It’s like the concept of the “fiscal year”. The “political” sixties began with the assassination of JFK and ended with, take your pick, my vote would be the fall of Saigon.

You totally win the thread. Bravo! I laughed when I read this. I read it to my wife and she laughed. A double LOL. Well done!

States are fully as divided and partisan. The difference is that most states aren’t as close to 50/50 as the US as a whole. Most are more like 60/40 or 40/60, or even more lopsided. So either R or D rule for decades over the ineffectual objections of the other party.

As Dallas Jones wisely said a couple posts ago, the main divide is urban / rural. Which isn’t going to change much over any useful timeframe.

I think in many ways, we’re worse today. In the 1960s, we may have disagreed but there was no bubble of alternative facts that conservatives lived in. There were no Facebook memes, no Fox, no Hate Radio. We disagreed, sometimes violently, but we all lived in reality. Now, the truth simply doesn’t matter.

What I’d like to see are the Urban States of America and the Rural States of America. Draw all kinds of enclaves on the map to be under Democratic rule, and the vast wasteland to be in Republican hands. Let the rubes and hicks have their Jesusland and ban abortions. Let their citified brethren have a strong safety net and ban guns. We’re so far apart now and one side has developed a total contempt of the truth. Let’s not get counseling, let’s get divorced.

Whether it was 1,000 or 2,500, it doesn’t matter in a district with 100 times that many voters. They are a drop in the bucket. A pissed off and rude drop, but still just a drop.

I already answered this: I don’t know. I suspect many of them do not live in Chaffetz’s district, but that’s just a guess.

Salt Lake City is not split “among the four Utah CDs”. It is almost entirely contained within UT-2 (the exception being the tiny sliver of SLC south of I-80). Get your facts straight.

Well said. There is more danger right now, from those who are PRETENDING that “riots occur in response to speeches,” than from what is actually going on. Many of the people promoting the fear that social disorder is getting out of hand, want to “solve” that, by putting extreme limits on speech and other forms of protest.

The city boundary of SLC is indeed mostly in CD-2. But SLC, like most cities, has long ago sprawled past the technical boundary. No one who lives in SLC considers the portion south of I-80 to be a “tiny sliver.” These days, Sugar House is basically the mid-point, not the southern end. Most people in Sandy tell people they’re from Salt Lake when they leave Utah, because in 2017 it’s one big metro area.

The state is gerrymandered to prevent the very liberal SLC population from electing a Democrat.

What’s your source (preferably the actual Chaffetz quote) for this line?

The specific point I was refuting was “they redrew the map after 2010 to split SLC among the four Utah CDs”. That’s just plain, factually, wrong.

When I said “tiny sliver” I was referring to the portion of Salt Lake City that resides south of I-80. Here, maybe looking at a map will help you understand. See that little tail portion of the city that’s on the south side of I-80? That’s the only portion that isn’t in CD-2, and it accounts for a tiny fraction of Salt Lake City’s population.

Of course I’m aware that there’s a much larger metro area outside the boundaries of SLC that ranges all the way from Ogden to Provo and encompasses most of the residents of the state. There’s no way to draw valid Congressional districts (divided evenly by population) that doesn’t split this larger metro area up. There are just too many people living along the Wasatch Front. So what, exactly, is your complaint?

That you conflated a pedantic point about technical city boundaries with the actual issue: dividing up a liberal population to prevent it from getting representation in Congress.

I hope you are right. Both sides have media outlets designed to constantly stoke a sense of rage, indignation and fear in their base over what the other side will do. I do hope Trump doesn’t do anything too stupid that can’t be fixed or rectified.

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that the United States has faced arguably stiffer challenges – the Revolution, post-Revolution, Civil War, Reconstruction, and Depression eras being more significant than the era in which we live now, at least based on the evidence we now have.

What’s different about our current state of affairs, however, is that we can’t seem to recall a presidential administration that, without any apparent crisis – impending economic or national security peril – has gone out of his way to produce the possibility of one simply through its own manner of governance. FDR and Abraham Lincoln, to name two, were arguably more authoritarian in fact than Trump has been – at least for right now. But the first counter to that is that, they were dealing with existential crises that, some could argue, required extraordinary executive power. Further, there is no evidence that they had hostility toward democracy and civil liberties per se; rather, like George W Bush, they asserted that extraordinary times justified paring or modifying our interpretation of liberty’s boundaries in the short term to protect American values in the longer term. That seems to be a stark contrast to what we’re seeing in terms of the impulses coming out of this administration.

Thus, while the existential crises of the past were vastly more significant than our relative period of stability and prosperity, the future is rather ominous in some respects.

Good point. No conspiracy theories about who shot JFK or if the moon landing was faked* or not. No flying saucer tales of hidden aliens in Roswell, NM. No J.Edgar Hoover seeing a communist in pretty much every agitator in existence.

There were actual revolutionaries fomenting (or trying to foment) actual revolution in the 60s, but things are worse today. Got it.

*A few years after “the 60s”, but still long before the internet.

The moon truthers and JFK conspiracy buffs have always been a fringe group. Now you have about a third of the country who live in an alternate reality.