Secession or civil war in America?

If Clinton wins, and we're faced with 4-8 more years of essentially what Obama has done to the US, its foreign relations, and to the Middle East, what do you think the realistic odds are of some kind of secession, or even civil war? Whether you're for Trump, Clinton, or neither, it's easy to see the country has become extremely divided and people who support Trump in particular have just about reached their breaking point and are completely fed up with the federal government. These people view a Trump presidency as America's last hope. And someone like Trump coming along and doing what he has done will probably never happen again, the only escape from leftist tyranny at that point will be to become a separate entity or go to war with it.

It would be an ideological war fought all across state lines

yeah dude trump is gonna leave america and create his own Outer Heaven it's gonna be EPIC FOR THE WIN :DDDD

>what do you think the realistic odds are of some kind of secession, or even civil war

Low. To get secession you need to get a significant number of people thinking of themselves as something other than American. You don't have that. A Texan and a Bostonian might not have too much in common, but the majority of both still consider themselves to be part of the same country.

Yes, even in Texas.

The Civil War happened in America because the Southern states that seceded thought of themselves as being citizens of that state first, and citizens of America second. That is, Robert E. Lee identified as Virginian, Alexander Stephens thought of himself as Georgian, Jefferson Davis was Mississippian. To them the United States was more of a confederation of fully sovereign, distinct nations rather than a federation of semi-sovereign states - i.e., something more like the modern European Union than what the United States actually was and is.

>the only escape from leftist tyranny at that point will be to become a separate entity or go to war with it.

Ha! This is basically the exact same rhetoric that the Rebs had during the Civil War. Same tone, too. The South by that point did not have the voting population to control the House or Senate anymore - and bear in mind that said voting population was already kept artificially high due to the 3/5ths rule. Lincoln's election signaled that they'd lost even the White House. Rather than accept the changing face of the nation, they threw a hissy fit and stormed out.

And then, like the morons they were, fired the first shot of the war and gave Lincoln all the justification he could have ever asked for to bring them back in line. Not that he really needed it anyway - gotta love Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that all the seceding states had themselves signed and agreed to.

Side note and addendum to the above.

>leftist tyranny

The phrase you're actually looking for is "majority rule", and is the founding principle of Democracy. Or is every idea you don't agree with tyrannical?

when a political Ideology directly infringes upon our rights that is tyrannical

>The phrase you're actually looking for is "majority rule"
No, I used the phrase I meant. Whether or not the majority supports tyranny is not relevant, it is still tyranny.

Yyyyup. Exact same rhetoric as in 1860, with no lessons having been learned. It's like the South hasn't actually advanced politically, culturally, or ideologically in all that time...

Every ideology by its very nature will infringe upon someone's rights somewhere. Indeed in order to have a functional society we accept that while there are natural rights, those natural rights must be limited in order for a nation to function.

The most stringent interpretation of the right to free speech still does not allow a person to get away with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. No matter how much we believe in the freedom of religion, we will not condone things like human sacrifice or pedophilia. And so on.

>Maryland was never liberated from the northern scum
Feels bad man.

>It's like the South hasn't actually advanced politically, culturally, or ideologically in all that time...
I'm not from the south, so if your intent here is to goad me or something, it's not going to work.

But anyway, what you said here is why I feel a secession in the next decade or two is a realistic possibility. What the south wants is completely different than what the north wants, generally speaking. The people aren't going to respond well to another term or two of turning America more and more into a liberal hellhole. That will indeed make them more loyal to their state/region than America. That's already happening to an extent, and it's only going to get worse if Clinton is elected, and and then another super liberal after her, etc.

Complete polarisation hasn't happened yet. It's only happened in the South where 80 of whites vote Republican and 90 of blacks vote Democrat.

You need 80%+ for polarisation. You look at the 1860 election that led toward war you see essentially two different elections happening in the US at the same time. Not one election but two. The same thing happened in the 2010 Ukraine elections with ethnic Russians voting 90% of ethnic Russians backed Tymoshenko and a similarly high percentage of ethnic Ukrainians backed Yanukovych. Polarisation precedes war and that hasn't fully manifested yet. Although, it is happening with whites being close to voting 70% Republican.

Secession can be entirely political and practical. In any civil war territory controlled by an opposition faction is de facto seceded and the loyalist faction isn't going to continue governmental functions in that territory. They're not going to deliver the mail or maintain the infrastructure. There's a total political secession.

The US is a republic you fuck.

The republic is dead and died a long time ago. The US is just another state of mass democracy. You don't have a republic when anybody in the world can just show up and vote.

>The people aren't going to respond well to another term or two of turning America more and more into a liberal hellhole

I think you vastly overestimate the amount of fucks that the average American gives. If voter turnout was much, much higher than you might be on to something. But voter turnout a been on a continuous downward trend for decades now, because the average American is basically satisfied with the status quo, or at least is not so dissatisfied as to want to do anything about it.

Besides, it's not like America hasn't endured long periods of one party dominating over the other before without breaking into civil war. In fact it's only ever happened once, and it was the end result of nearly seventy years of dissension and political conflict between the North and the South. That kind of conflict just doesn't exist today.

>Although, it is happening with whites being close to voting 70% Republican

Not really. In the 2012 Presidential election the White vote was approximately 39% Obama and 59% Romney. While lower than what Obama got in 2008, it's roughly the same (~40%) as what Democrats have been getting out of the White vote since at least as far back as Clinton VS Bush Sr. In fact Clinton in 1992 also got 39% of the White vote, and back in 1984 Mondale only got 34% of the White vote against Reagan. Carter got 36% against the same in 1980.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE NOT THIS AGAIN. If there is one thing I hate it's people who don't use words correctly and then spout off their incorrect definitions like they know what's going on when in reality they're just MAKING PEOPLE STUPIDER and SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION.

NOTHING IS WORSE THAN FALSE INFORMATION.

A Republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

A Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

The United States is BOTH. It is BOTH A REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCRACY, you DENSE RETARDS. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

The United States is both a Republic and a Democracy.

The United Kingdom is a Democracy, but it is not a Republic.

China is a Republic, but it is not a Democracy.

Saudi Arabia is neither a Republic nor a Democracy.

YOU WILL USE THE CORRECT DEFINITIONS AND BE PROUD THAT YOU'RE USING WORDS CORRECTLY.

>If voter turnout was much, much higher than you might be on to something.

not voting is a vote of no confidence.

While still low in the grand scheme of things, republican voter turnout for the primaries hit record numbers and definitely saw a rise. And again, I'm talking about a conflict happening several years down the road after who knows how many more election cycles. Not tomorrow.

And it's not so much that one party might take hold for a long time as much as what that party is doing, and that there's a HUGE split among the population in terms of who agrees with what the party is doing and who doesn't.

>Not really. In the 2012 Presidential election the White vote was approximately 39% Obama and 59% Romney
An entirely different political environment. If you look at some polls of this upcoming election you see the white vote getting close to 70%. Polarisation is happening both ideologically and demographically

Not voting is a vote of "I COULD vote, but I really don't want to get up that early in the morning/waste my lunch break/I'm too tired after work and don't feel like it."

Besides, no confidence in what? Democrat voter turnout isn't any better than Republican voter turnout. In 2012 the Democrat voter turnout was 28.8%, and the Republican turnout was 27.2%.

The simple fact is that Americans don't give a fuck. It's sad, but it's true.

When the polls open, then I'll believe this. But I'll also keep this, , in mind.

>realistic odds
Absolutely zero chance of a sesession being carried thru by a particular region (say, the south), maybe a 25% chance of a bill being brought before a state house and being voted down, and probably a 50% chance of various citizen's groups trying to bring to cobble a bill together by petitioning, etc.

It won't happen.

Even in the results of the previous elections you see a steady decline of whites voting Democrat. Do you believe that Democrats are going to suddenly start getting more of the white vote and reverse this trend? Especially now in this political environment where the anti white rhetoric of Democrats is intensifying.

Its time you admit your ancestors were wrong. The north would be nigger free and the south would have gone its own way. 400,000 died for nothing and its time yankee/pol/ accepts they were wrong.

All the Sherman pics in the world can change the fact YOU WERE WRONG! And now we suffer accordingly.

>Nevada cucked by Utah...
Aw hell no

Texan here, I can guarantee that most Texans I know that are natural born Texans think of themselves as Texan first American second. I love the US dearly but my heart belongs to Texas.


Texas

>Even in the results of the previous elections you see a steady decline of whites voting Democrat

I was just looking that up and did not notice much of a trend to that effect. Let's go back to 1952, which is as far back as I can easily find, and see what the white vote is, shall we? I'll be using the Roper Center for all dates from 1976 on; prior to that I'll use Gallup instead since Roper Center doesn't go back that far.

DEMOCRAT WHITE VOTE:
2012, Obama: 39%
2008, Obama: 43%
2004, Kerry: 41%
2000, Gore: 42%
1996, Clinton: 44%
1992, Clinton: 39%
1988, Dukakis: 40%
1984, Mondale: 34%
1980, Carter: 36%
1976, Carter: 48%
1972, McGovern: 32%
1968, Humphrey: 38%
1964, Johnson: 59%
1960, Kennedy: 49%
1956, Stevenson: 41%
1952, Stevenson: 43%

As you can see, in fact even if we go back more than 60 years, we find that Democrats generally hover around the 40% mark very consistently.

All these dumb fuckers posting their opinions in a FBI thread. Hi Quantico, hows the weather outside?

I 100% guarantee you're a reddit shill. Gtfo faggot yankee

If the civil war comes to USA it will not be black vs white it will be black vs black.

Cause it's the niggers that are making problems. And if the black people don't start making some choices then they will be pulled in the shitter with them.

No, I'm not. I just hate it when people use the wrong word and PARTICULARLY when they use the completely wrong definition of a word.

It's one thing to say something like "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes"; the former is wrong but it's a homophone and easily mistaken. Or something that's become colloquially accepted as the common definition of an otherwise harmless word, like "ironic" being used to mean something to the effect of "an intriguing/amusing coincidence" rather than it's real meaning, which is the use of words to convey a meaning other than those words' literal intention.

But when it's something important, like defining the American governing system, it bothers me immensely, particularly because people who go "we're not even a real a democracy! We're a republic!" tend to be maddeningly self-righteous about it.