DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book says

So you still offer no solutions or plan to achieve anything. Got it.


It was logical to you. Picking and choosing which parts of the constitution suit your beliefs is like picking and choosing which laws you decide to follow.


Of course rhetoric is a bad thing.......

That's no excuse for why people selected the worse possible alternatives. The question becomes do we end up with the worst possible candidates because the system is designed that way? Or do we have them because the voters choose to nominate the worst possible choices presented to them by their party? I blame the voters. But we do agree on most of your other points.


I agree that you used extreme hyperbole. I don't think the problem or concern should be "getting snuffed out". I agree with you about Americans having poor diets is the cause of many if not most of our nations health issues. I agree we need better candidates and more choices of parties in our elections. We actually don't disagree on nearly as much as it would appear at first glance. Where we seem to disagree the most is that you think the biggest problem is the way our political process was set up from a constitutional perspective rather the actual people voting for these candidates. If the voters demanded better candidates they would get better candidates. As it stands we saw the most vile, divisive candidate of them all nominated with Trump. It wasn't the process that caused that selection, it was the voters.



I grew up with my dad teaching me organic gardening. My uncle had a farm where we raised our own beef. And those things all work on a personal level. Now of we could just find a solution that works on a macro level that has more content than, "I see the problem".

I'm coming in very late and I am not commentating on the back and forth in general regards this discussion/thread ... However, having read this comment, I did just want to point out that, in my opinion, there is a segment of society that does believe the USA is the greatest nation on earth - that it has more freedom and more 'everything' than any other country on earth - that believe that no matter what subject (healthcare, education, quality of life) and no matter what metric ... those people believe the USA is #1. They believe that "everyone" wants to relocate to the USA (legally or illegally) because it is so great ... and these people believe you are Un-American if you don't agree.

I've met many. I've read many on the internet. I've heard many on the radio. It's too many to consider this a tiny minority. . . . I *might* go on to suggest that most of these are the Trump base, but that is a very subjective comment based entirely on my opinion.

It may be unrelated to the larger thread/discussion ... but I thought it was worth commenting on.

I don't think the political process as written in the constitution is the issue. I think the way the political process has been engineered to work in reality is the issue. I don't really want to start on campaign finance, empty promises, the constant narrative that not voting for one of the big 2 party's candidates is a wasted vote, and all the other corruption and propaganda/"marketing" that have become part and parcel of that process. It's late/early, and I need to get to sleep so I don't scare off Santa. Happy holidays

I think it's more they think it was and that it should be the best, which is why they want to MAGA.

I think they definitely were/are going about it wrong, but it not hard to get caught up in an idea/symbol and to lose sight of reality.

J/C

Just reading this thread points out the divide on a small scale.

You spelled slavery wrong. The Civil War, for the 1000th time, was fought for the Southern States' rights......to keep slaves.

They know that bro, but they have to 'whitewash' it, so it fits their narrative.

People want to teach history...when it fits. The real reason was economic sanctions the north was imposing on imported goods at the urging of the northern industrialists, which in turn led to tariffs on our own exports. At the time the only real exports this country had were cotton and tobacco, which were grown in the south if you didn't know.

It was about money. It wasn't about slaves.

Yes. Money. The southern farmers didn’t want to replace their human ‘machines’ as the cost of production of their exported goods would go up.
Dude, knock it off. The south wanted human chattel. They fought for it. Enough of the whitewashing. It’s gross.

You are wrong. It was about money, but because they wanted to keep the right to free labor in slave workers. The vice President of the Confederacy explicitly explained their reason for seceding was due to their right to keep the inferior colored race as slaves.

I am so tired of the "states rights" argument because it is utter fallacy and stated that way to overlook the slave issue make the south seem less racist. I am NOT saying that everyone in the South today is racist, just that 150 years ago, the biggest reason for Civil War was the Southern states right to slaves.

You didn't want to discuss the price America pays for prescription drugs either. The fact we pay sometime as much as three or four times more than other nations on earth for the very same prescription drugs. That's why you changed the topic to how America should eat healthier. Sure that would cut down on chronic medical conditions but it would not change the fact that we pay such a huge price for prescription drugs.

I understand why you would do that. Because the global model as to how other nations have accomplished such lower costs is by having their governments negotiate those prices. And that's a discussion you don't want to have.

j/c

As usual in this country, the wealthy want(ed) to stay rich. People willingly giving up their livelihoods doesn't happen very often.

The wealthy still benefit from undervalued labor. Now the wealthy just have their wage-slaves overseas and give the locals some relative freedom. Some slaves were content, some still are. It's more humane now, and the worst excesses have disappeared; I'm not sure it's been out of the goodness of their hearts, so much as they discovered other ways could be as profitable, and they didn't have to feel as many uncomfortable pricks of conscious or worry quite so much about uprisings.

Did the "North" want to get rid of slavery? Or was the South just getting frisky and the central government wanted to regain control by crippling their economy?

Slavery is heinous, don't get me wrong. But people wanting to exercise power over others existed on both sides, and still do. I'm not so sure the North's actions weren't more akin to putting a silk glove over an iron fist; Pretty symbolism that the masses would buy while control was consolidated.

I'd get rid of insurance companies and make health-related industries operate as non-profits. Unfortunately, getting from where we are now to there is unlikely to happen because too much money/power rests with those benefiting from the current setup. If so much money weren't wasted on insurance and prices weren't jacked up because of the presence of insurance, communities would likely be able to take care of the misfortune of others from the excess saved with plenty left over.

Giving the government the power to negotiate on our behalf seems counterproductive to me. We don't need to give the government more power. We need to figure out a way to take the power back from government and the corporations/"interest groups" that pull politicians' strings.

Unfortunately, any of that happening seems unlikely because for the most part the masses are placated. Even if they weren't, the government has a ridiculously oversized military that could easily smush dissent.

So, I complain and keep my head down, and try to do what I can in the local community. But, it's frustrating being bombarded with lies, stupidity, willful ignorance, etc. from all directions; so every once in awhile I can't resist sticking my head up and screaming into the abyss, if only on a message board.

Once again you speak of solutions with no path to get there. The only "power" you would be giving the government would be the power to negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs. They already do it in the military and it works. So maybe we should get the government out of negotiating prices on prescription drugs for the military so that helps raise the cost of covering them with our tax dollars? Governments all across the globe negotiate these prices and it works. Meanwhile I guess we can all sit back and pay billions and billions more in taxes each year to supply our elderly and disabled people with medications until your grand plan keeps never coming to fruition. And permit the drug companies to keep raping American consumers because, "We can't let the government actually save Americans money for once".

You see, you have some grandiose ideology that sounds great in theory with no road to travel with which to reach your destination. I am proposing something that has been proven to work around the globe and even with our own military that "one side of the political aisle" has worked very hard to stop. With so many examples of it working there's really no legitimate excuse not to do this. Maybe at some point in the future the goal you speak of may be achieved. But with the political landscape that seems highly unlikely. The approach the rest of the globe has employed is working now and is a step in helping all Americans.

The insurance companies paying higher prescription costs isn't an advantage to them or us. I'm looking at one great step in the right direction. You're looking at some grand plan and thinking that such a divided country can work together to achieve a common goal. Hell, in this country we can't even watch people assaulting capital police officers and agree on what happened.

“Slavery was wrong, but”

Good god I hate this board.

The Holocaust was wrong, but…

Women being treated as property is wrong, but…

Sexual assault is wrong, but…

The Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor was wrong, but…

Oh wait, for some reason y’all will never excuse that one. Wonder why.

Sorry man. If you think the whites of the north cared about the blacks of the south, you are mistaken.

It doesn't surprise me that you see everything as an attempted excuse.

Yes, getting rid of slavery was a good thing. Yet, good things can be done for bad (or at least mixed) reasons. People talk about whitewashing history all the time on the boards. The whole "the North fought to end slavery" narrative is just another example. Yes, slavery was abolished, and, yes, that's a good thing. But, painting the civil war as if that was the focus being the norm is only because history is written by the victors and politicians are good at using symbolism and manipulating people.

Everyone wants to believe that they are/their group is the "good guys." It's rarely that clear cut.

So your plan is to put lipstick on the pig? A bandaid on the bullet hole? Throw some pepto bismol after the festering poison?

You appear to be to used to our lousy systems. "Why fix things when you can treat symptoms?" is our nation's default. Unfortunately, that only works for so long, and ultimately ends in death. Fractures are already spreading.

It's not that I couldn't propose a plan. It's that I don't have the ruthlessness to carry it out, and I don't want to put ideas into anyone's head. ...This is a thread about civil war.... It's not that there's no road. It's that the stakes would be everything, and I don't like the odds.

My plan is to allow the government from doing the very thing you, I and others complain about all the time. To cut government spending. Saving billions of dollars in tax payer money and helping all Americans get cheaper prescription drugs. So the power you wish to deny the government is to do the very thing you complain the government never does. Cut spending and help the American people. Your idea is to do nothing until we can fix it all at once.

You call that putting lipstick on a pig.

So your plan is too ruthless to carry out? That doesn't actually sound like a plan at all does it?

Except your plan wouldn't cut government spending. It'd add another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated healthcare system. A layer that would have to be paid for. A layer that would probably be corrupted by pharmaceutical companies like doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and politicians already are.

In theory, your plan sounds like a good idea. In practice, it's more likely to be more of business as usual. Symbolic "victory" leading nowhere. So, yes, lipstick on a pig.

Lots of plans have required ruthlessness. Look at the Revolutionary War. Did they demurely ask the King to lower his taxes? No, they set ambushes and practiced guerrilla warfare. A lot of people died on both sides.

Thus, I don't have a plan because I wouldn't want the inevitable deaths on my conscious. Considering such things does give me a greater appreciation of what the Founders did.

I'm still trying to figure out a plan that wouldn't lead to bloodshed. Unfortunately, the chances of that seem small.

Meh, I'll leave you to your lipstick.

I've had my fill of it.

Once the new prices have been negotiated it's over. Why then does it work for every other nation but wouldn't work for us?

I'll leave it to you to claim what works for the rest of the world wouldn't work for us by labeling it lipstick.

How much time have you actually spent in the "rest of the world?"

New drugs are approved all the time. The FDA listed 53 in 2020 and those are just the novel ones. link They'd probably also push for negotiating price increases for existing drugs over time. Politicians would probably accede for kickbacks/political contributions. What fairy tale do you live in? Set prices once and be done? Ha.

You sound like you're trying to create a new branch of government for negotiating drug prices. More excuses why doing something better is a bad idea. We pay more for prescription drugs than any other nation in the world. "Yeah but we shouldn't try to fix it." I live in the same fairy tale that has watched one party try to reduce prescription drug prices while the other one has tried to fight it. What fairly tale do you live in?

Not a new branch, but probably a new office in some governmental department somewhere. (and I don't want to make it, but someone would have to negotiate. Making new offices is how the government typically does new legislation-always more government) Who did you think would be doing the negotiating?

Not excuses, but pointing out that to do better you have to do something different than the same thing that's always done.

We pay more than any other nation because we are willing to pay more. Yay, capitalism! We pay more because we think the government will fix the problem. Why would the government fix a problem when they can benefit from it? It's easier for them to just put lipstick on the pig. The "best" thing for them is when they convince people that the lipstick is their idea.

I stopped believing in the Fairy Tale. You seem to still buy it.

I could keep going, but you get the point. It's never 100% the perpetrator's fault, if it reflects poorly on white me. I'm a white man and see it everywhere. Some just refuse to see it.

Mississippi AG Lynn Fitch’s Family Loves Cruel Confederate General and Klan Wizard Nathan Bedford Forrest

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mississippi-ag-lynn-fitch-family-051228974.html

“But…”

People clearly don’t understand - or WANT to understand - the real history of the civil war.

It’s about to be 2022 and people still running on outdated talking points. Sad.

One of my best sales reps in my water business was a direct descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was his great-great-grandson I believe but can't recall for sure. He hated that fact and despised the Klan and bigotry. Can you imagine learning that as a kid?

I can’t at all. Says a lot about his character that he hates that legacy. That’s good.

Cause there’s others who would hear that nonsense and glorify it.

Go back and take a look. It was you who changed the argument. And you're "We must just accept it because we can't try to do anything better" argument crops up on everything. It's odd how one party has been fighting to negotiate drug prices for decades and the other party has continually blocked it.

It's also odd that they have done it and it works well for the military yet you keep saying "Our government can't". News flash. They already have on a smaller scale.