>

The Republican and Democratic Parties would need to become more centralized.
The only thing that unites people is a common enemy. If America was attacked or invaded by a foreign power, that would unite us. That’s exactly why Bush was so incredibly popular after 9/11. >

It makes me wonder if the same effect would have happened if we had a Democratic president. Would Fox News have immediately blamed Democrats for the attacks, leading to a 50/50 split instead of the 90% Bush got? >

Just look at Benghazi. An attack that left 4 Americans dead in Libya was immediately branded as Obama/Hillary's fault for failing to protect them.
Clinton oversaw the OKC bombing, but that was done by a bunch of right-wing cranks so it was hard to put a political spin on it against him. He was also only president for a couple of weeks when the first WTC attack happened in 1993. >

You can’t unify with people for whom exclusion is their core belief.  It’s the paradox of tolerance.
If you throw a party, you can welcome everyone, but as soon as say, someone who advocates killing people with red hair shows up, the redheads with feel endangered.  
You can only unify with people willing to commit to unity.  So the only course to Unity is to cull the bigots, which can lead them cullers to becoming bigots themselves. >

You're definitely not someone we could unify with. >

Hence the paradox of tolerance.  If nazis will accept Jews, and that makes me not accept nazis, am I just as bad?  How much hatred is one supposed to tolerate in the name of tolerating everyone?  Is that even possible? >

As Ronald Reagan once referenced to help cool negotiations with Gorbachev - alien invasion (and yes, that conversation happened) >

Since I will see a ban from being brutally honest, I will say nothing can truly unify Americans. Americans are created to be different from one another, and they are fanatic when defending their morals and beleifs. There is no peaceful way to unify Americans when on one side we have the Conservative, Neo-Confederate Southerners and the Liberal, Woke populations. >

Well reddit has a site-wide policy against promoting violence, so I will go with the safe answer and say nothing will unify all of America. >

Reddit will also ban you for just mentioning specific historical events where violence occurred due to similar issues that we are facing today. >

Yea I just deleted a comment in another thread because I realized Reddit would probably ban me over it.
It would be nice if there censorship were a bit less strict >

And they refuse to explain why discussing the parallels between now and the lead up to the F!!!ch Rev!!!!!!n needs to be banned. >

I could imagine it's more an international market thing.
Making guillotine chan jokes gets ya some odd looks in the francosphere and anglosphere because there the guillotine is assosciated with some zealous but ultimately well meaning revolutionaries.
Making them for literally anyone else in the European world gets you put on a watch list because nobody else assosciates those with anyone but the Nazis, who made PROLIFIC use of them executing political dissidents. >

We would need to roll back all of the disastrous supreme court decisions around citizens united, the 2nd amendment, rowe v. wade and others. Reinstate the fairness doctrine for media coverage and apply it to new media formats and overhaul public education nationwide to teach kids accurate history and government civics. Then after about 20 years we should be back to somewhat closer agreement. >

Exactly how does making gun owners bow before you unify the country? >

Worked for the Japanese, they even got a cool statue of the Buddha out of it >

Well, a land invasion by another country, say China would do it.
Or alien invasion. 
Basically we need some non American other for conservatives to hate. >

We were all pretty united about that balloon >

I don’t know. Maybe mandatory public service. Like a domestic foreign exchange program.
I feel like the biggest issue is that most people don’t see other perspectives as much as they hear about them from media. 
That, plus the fact that many of our divisions are religious in nature. You can’t just substitute a person’s opinions about life out. >

I agree with the idea of a civil service corps you join at present millitary age that offers a route to enlisting at a higher rank at 25.  Really I think potential combat roles should be restricted to 25 and up given the recent study about that being the age of full mental maturity, and also when you're in your physical prime.  If ya can't make the soldiers sing kumbayah you can sure make sure their officers will give them a goot bonk on the head if they're out of line enough on it. >

Can't think of anything at the moment, not even a war with China. It is better that way. No point in trying to unify with the right that is hell bent on destroying our democracy. >

Nothing at this point, we really are two entirely different countries with different core values.
Some type of national divorce would be best - could still be close trade partners but people need to feel like their government represents them and 50% will always not feel that depending on who's in the White House. >


we really are two entirely different countries with different core values.

Thomas Sowell called this "A conflict of visions".  

Some type of national divorce would be best 

The problem is how?  I live across the street from people with completely opposite polar viewpoints from me.  India faced a similar problem and the partition of them from Pakistan was a bloody mess and it didn't even solve the problem.
Is there any kind of example of such a thing happening without violence? >

Yes, Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Divorce into Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Although this was possible because of the fairly clear geographic boundary between the two states, which doesn’t exist in the US. 
The first thing you, specifically, can do is to stop referencing Thomas Sowell. He isn’t a particularly insightful thinker and has been promoted by the conservative establishment because for the party with a reputation for anti-black racism, it is better PR to have a black guy spout regressive talking points than a white guy. >

i was going to say Thomas Sowell called it a conflict of visions and people on the left called him an Uncle Tom.  I should have finished my thought. >

When it comes to public policy on a wide variety of issues, Americans agree on a 70-30 basis.
Professional liars with enormous amounts of money to waste, spend tens of millions and even hundreds of millions of dollars on brazen wire fraud racketeering schemes.
These individuals need to be arrested, removed from society for 25 years, and their ill gotten gains confiscated.
The organizations they have created need to be dismantled and their willing accomplices in crime also need to be jailed for 25 years, removing them from society.
These enemies of the republic are constantly and relentlessly inciting murderous violence with their lies and false accusations. The individuals and groups organizing to wreak mass murder and sabotage need to be removed from society as well
It could require jailing 100k of them and that is not a free labor source that we should overlook. They should be worked very strenously for their entire sentences.
Hopefully this will deter others from being recklessly irresponsible liars and rabble rousers. Hopefully it will encourage people to learn how to engage in civil debate with acceptance of common facts, instead of being vicious violent lunatics who want to burn the country down.
So that is my proposal for unity. Jail the liars, frauds and criminals and cut off the financial incentives being doled out by rich crackpots. 
The rest of us can get along just fine. >

I propose it'll never happen. People love hating each other too much. Fear is their favorite tool. Anger pumps people up. Horrible way to live.
..