scary...


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ays/ar-AARYU5v?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

The US is “closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe”, a member of a key CIA advisory panel has said.


The analysis by Barbara F Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego who sits on the Political Instability Task Force, is contained in a book due out next year and first reported by the Washington Post.

At the same time, three retired generals wrote in the Post that they were “increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military”.

Such concerns are growing around jagged political divisions deepened by former president Donald Trump’s refusal to accept defeat in the 2020 election.

Trump’s lie that his defeat by Joe Biden was caused by electoral fraud stoked the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, over which Trump was impeached and acquitted a second time, leaving him free to run for office.

The “big lie” is also fueling moves among Republicans to restrict voting by groups that lean Democratic and to make it easier to overturn elections.

Such moves remain without counter from Democrats stymied by the filibuster, the Senate rule that demands supermajorities for most legislation.

In addition, though Republican presidential nominees have won the popular vote only once since 1988, the GOP has by playing political hardball stocked the supreme court with conservatives, who outnumber liberals 6-3.

All such factors and more, including a pandemic which has stoked resistance to government, have contributed to Walter’s analysis.

Last month, she tweeted: “The CIA actually has a taskforce designed to try to predict where and when political instability and conflict is likely to break out around the world. It’s just not legally allowed to look at the US. That means we are blind to the risk factors that are rapidly emerging here.”

The book in which Walter looks at those risk factors in the US, How Civil Wars Start, will be published in January. According to the Post, she writes: “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war.

But “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America – the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or Ivory Coast or Venezuela – you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely”.

“And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”


Walter, the Post said, concludes that the US has passed through stages of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” and may now be in “open conflict”, beginning with the Capitol riot.

Citing analytics used by the Center for Systemic Peace, Walter also says the US has become an “anocracy” – “somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state”.

Related: Capitol attack panel will determine if Trump committed crime – Republican

The US has fought a civil war, from 1861 to 1865 and against states which seceded in an attempt to maintain slavery.

Estimates of the death toll vary. The American Battlefield Trust puts it at 620,000 and says: “Taken as a percentage of today’s population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.”

Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton adviser turned biographer of Abraham Lincoln and Guardian contributor, said: “The secessionists in 1861 accepted Lincoln’s election as fair and legitimate.”

The current situation, he said, “is the opposite. Trump’s questioning of the election … has led to a genuine crisis of legitimacy.”

With Republicans’ hold on the levers of power while in the electoral minority a contributing factor, Blumenthal said, “This crisis metastasises, throughout the system over time, so that it’s possible any close election will be claimed to be false and fraudulent.”

Blumenthal said he did not expect the US to pitch into outright civil war, “section against section” and involving the fielding of armies.

If rightwing militia groups were to seek to mimic the secessionists of the 1860s and attempt to “seize federal forts and offices by force”, he said, “I think you’d have quite a confidence it would be over very, very quickly [given] a very strong and firm sense at the top of the US military of its constitutional, non-political role.

“… But given the proliferation of guns, there could be any number of seemingly random acts of violence that come from these organised militias, which are really vigilantes and with partisan agendas, and we haven’t entered that phase.

“The real nightmare would be that kind of low-intensity conflict.”

Members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right group, on the East Front of the US Capitol on 6 January. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
© Provided by The Guardian
Members of the Oath Keepers, a far-right group, on the East Front of the US Capitol on 6 January. Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
The retired generals who warned of conflict around the next election – Paul Eaton, Antonio Taguba and Steven Anderson – were less sanguine about the army.

Related: Republicans are shamelessly working to subvert democracy. Are Democrats paying attention?

“As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol,” they wrote, “we … are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.

“In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.”

Citing the presence at the Capitol riot of “a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military”, they pointed out that “more than one in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record”.

Polling has revealed similar worries – and warnings. In November, the Public Religion Research Institute asked voters if they agreed with a statement: “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

The poll found that 18% of respondents agreed. Among Republicans, however, the figure was 30%.

On Twitter, Walter thanked the Post for covering her book. She also said: “I wish I had better news for the world but I couldn’t stay silent knowing what I know.”

I could write a doomsday dramatic divisive book too. Especially if it pays well.

And people might read it and newspapers might cover it... IF you had a bio that gave you some level of legitimacy... like this author has....

One in ten were vets? That surprises me because the number is not higher. Vets tend to be more conservative.

And I don't doubt a lot of people out there think this way. Hell, I think this way. If the right overturns a fair election at the state level to steal another presidency, the riots of 2020 will seem like child's play.

While you are laughing at me, remember that I saw the 6th coming and y'all laughed then too.

Like I said before, imagine wanting to start a civil war because trump convinced you everything is rigged.

Or that teaching real history is bad.

What a bunch of snowflakes.

I am always amazed at how the left uses fear to distract from the real problems going on.
Their people eat it up.

Truth is, all these small groups of troublemakers are just that, small groups. They can cause some problems but nothing the rest of America can't overcome.

The actual Civil War involved the entirety of the Southern States fighting for their independence from a Federal Government!
That was no small group. That was a Civil War.

*Thinking to myself* When was war ever civil?

It sounds better than ‘domestic’ war. That would sound like we’re fighting over farm animals.

Though I’m sure some dumb ass group of humans somewhere in history fought over that, too.

I'm always amazed that no matter what the extreme right wing does their persistent answer is "There's nothing to see here", in hopes people will turn a blind eye to what's going on.

ikr. It's like, no insurrectionist fascists criminals here, LOOK Joe Biden stuttered!

Hey leave my family out of this. That was our favorite sheep.

Except this Chapter in American History was written by Trump.. He is the root of the evil that is building in this country.. No, he's not the father of it, he's not even the founder of it. This hate was already here. Trump exploited it and he used it to get elected. Trump made it OK to be a Bigot.. He made it ok to sound stupid to the rest of the world..

So for me, he's the flag that these nut jobs are following and that makes him a criminal in my eyes.. And a traitor as well. I'm gonna say this and it's going to tick some folks off,, FACT IS, if you follow trump, you are a traitor as well. Traitor to your country., You aren't doing what's best for the MAJORITY of Americans.. Just the ones that think like Trump.

FYI, if you are interested, I have a sale going on for the latest in Rectal lighting that helps kill COVID.. Let me know...

47 will have you behind bars for saying these things!

No she won't.

Your argument is lousy. I agree that following "Trump" is not a good thing, but your first paragraph is full of contradictions. I also think you've got the cart in front of the horse in the Trump making things okay portion. I think a culture that largely ignored bigotry and at times goes so far as to applaud sounding stupid led to Trump. He's a paper tiger that's distracting from and somehow also giving focus to problems that were already there.

If you want to call Trump followers traitors, I'd argue the other party has just as many. The whole doing what's best for the majority doesn't have one size fits all answers For everything. Different things work in different locations amidst different communities. Trying to force people to do one 'best for everybody/"the majority" way' completely spits in the face of individual liberty, and many of the "best for everyone" ideas lead to unintended consequences that actually end up making things worse for everyone. The whole foundation of this country was based on not wanting the government to dictate things to all the people.

The nihilistic rush for conformity kills me. Especially, the people that are such jerks about insisting everyone else should agree with them. People who think they know what is best for everyone else are the worst. People have different priorities and see things in different ways.

We could use some empathy, patience, and understanding of possible differences instead of arrogance, "zero-sum tribalism/partyism", and rushing to judgment. (But leave my sarcasm and snark alone, though I'm not really using any here.)

So you're saying that the president of our country making excuses for and in some ways acting like white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers are "good people" doesn't bolster and embolden their cause? That it doesn't add to people who may have stayed silent and not been vocal and active about it before now seem to feel like it's more acceptable?

We agree that the problem existed long before now. But it sounds as if you're indicating that hooking up an amplifier to a guitar doesn't make the guitar louder.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's what you wished I had said so you could feel better about someone on your side of the "debate" having made a poor case in his post.

And I've got no hard feelings towards Daman. I agree with the emotions of his post for the most part, I believe, just not the logic of the way he expressed it. Unfortunately, emotional responses lead to lots of knee jerk reactions that aren't fully thought out.

Then sometimes people start making things up to defend the results of those emotional responses because of misguided feelings related to group identity/solidarity.

can somebody explain to me what this cawthorn guy is doing? why is he one of the main ones talking about going to war?

is somebody gonna put off road tires on his wheelchair so he can roll to the middle of the battlefield?

Is he the one that got caught claiming fake valor or something? There are so many nut jobs on that side of the aisle, it's hard to keep them straight.

EDIT: Never mind, he lies a lot, and he lied about the Naval Academy, not fake valor. He lied about other crap too, for NO reason at all. Check it out:

The Ignominious Deceits of Congressman Cawthorn

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/madison-cawthorn-paralympics/

tank treads.
definitely tank treads.
mas macho.

'cause that's how he roll.

Q1. I'm guessing the simple answer is that he's trying to set himself up to get re-elected.

Q2. I'm guessing because he's young and he's never actually been to war.

Q3. It's probably easier to actually shoot accurately while rolling than it is while running. (and I thought poking fun at the disabled was more of a "Trump" thing?)

On the serious side, I'm not sure what he's doing with regards to "civil war" because Google seems to think his divorce is more important, and I don't see any mention of "war" on his Twitter (though he does seem to Tweet a lot, so I might have missed something while quickly scrolling through. -I'm definitely not going to give him a follow.)

j/c:

So.....someone is trying to promote a book again?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5662711001

When you lie about naval academy, and then turn around and start threatening crap like this, every aspect of your life becomes free game.

And so I can’t help but wonder if people are honestly willing to follow a guy who WONT be on the front lines with them in a hypothetical civil war. Senator duckworth is in a wheelchair because she lost her legs in ACTUAL combat, not because of some drunken night in a car accident. She’s more of a bad ass and likely to still shoot when crap hits the fan.

So again, when clowns like cawthorn start running their mouths and threatening violence, their physical stature becomes free game. Actual combat veterans like myself are gonna wanna see if he’s really about that life or not.

Is that a guy you would follow into civil war? Do you actually think he’d be on the frontlines with others in an actual civil war?

If the answer is no, then why do you care what I say about him?

No, he amplified a problem that was already there.


Only one side try to overthrow the election.


Yes, a clean environment, helping working families with childcare costs, negotiating prescription costs and expanding health care coverage aren't good for America.


That's true because you didn't mention false equivalencies and hyperbole.

.

1. You say, "no," but amplifying and giving focus to are synonymous. So don't you mean, yes, he amplified a problem? That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

2. But the other side wants to give more power to the government which is "traitorous" to the ideals the country was founded upon. It was more a commentary on the low bar he had for considering someone a traitor than actually saying they were traitors. But, then, you were focused on being right/wanting everyone to agree with you rather than trying to understand what I was saying. That's a big part of why our country is such a cluster....I believe.

3. The ideas sound good. The execution is excrement. Another example of people putting too much credence in symbols over substance. If Hitler were to run as a Democrat in the next election, a bunch of Democrats would probably vote for him. ...If he ran as a Republican, Republicans probably would. People are lousy at looking for the reality beneath labels that sound good to them (and bad to them, so people suck at looking beyond labels/ "the surface" in general really.)

We've become a tweeting, TikTok-ing, headline skimming, soundbyte believing society, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise that stability is disappearing and "civil war" seems impending. That or someone thought they could get more hits using words from a recent movie title.

4. False equivalencies, hyperbole, and just generally completely misrepresenting what other people say are your department.

I'm not especially trusting of the government to implement a lot of these programs either. The problem becomes when healthcare and the drug makers decide to charge Americans two and sometimes three times as much for prescriptions and services as other nations, there comes a point when there becomes no choice.

The country was founded on free and fair elections and the people who win those elections are to be placed in office. No amount of excuses or "feelings" excuse that.

Focusing on something is to bring attention to an issue or to draw interest in it. Amplifying an issue expands it. Amplifying something causes it to be louder and more intense.


Pot meet kettle.

Yep, the Naval Academy thing tells me all I need to know about him. Lying trash.

1. You say you're not trusting of the government but your actions say otherwise. There's always a choice. Unfortunately, most people can't see past the depth of a mud puddle in a freshly paved parking lot when the issue is really more equivalent of the depths of the Marianas trench. People seem to be happy arguing over what shade of lipstick to put on the fat, nasty, cancer-riddled pig instead of trying to figure out how to take bad pork out of their diet or at least how to make the pig healthy. Picking from only lousy choices doesn't lead to good results. It's not that there's no choice, it's that people accept bad choices because they're too lazy/comfortable to figure out better ones.

2. ...free and fair elections where African Americans weren't considered people. I'm not sure that bringing up the founders with regards to elections was your best choice. But then, you do seem drawn towards bad choices. I also don't think the founders foresaw what lousy choices the people would be presented with in the future. Though, perhaps the possibility of such lousy choices being presented by the government is why they insisted on the right to bear arms being so early in the list of rights.

3. When you focus light with a magnifying glass it sets things on fire. It seemed an appropriate analogy. But I should know better than to expect you to consider what I'm saying when that might require thinking outside your limited focus. Maybe you should try amplifying your mind- in the expanding sense, you don't need any more "noise" or intensity. I don't typically deal in mud puddles, so you might have to look a bit deeper if you're trying to understand my posts. Sadly, I get that trying to understand someone else is an activity that doesn't seem to get much practice.

4. Well, at least you're admitting your department, and it's just like you to rely upon a false equivalency to express that.

...Well, he is a politician. Just saying.

1. So since you seem to think there's a better choice, what is that choice? Unless you think being charged two and three times as much for healthcare services and prescription drugs than countries like Canada by leaving it in the hands of private business is also a bad idea, that would take the government to at the very least regulate them. If not, what is this better choice you speak of?

2. So since some people were eliminated from voting it means that the voting system and methods changed? That we aren't supposed to honor the votes of those who voted? That somehow that gives people the right to overturn the electoral college in a presidential election or the popular vote in other elections?

3.The only mud puddle created here is your own.


No hyperbole there!


I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't envision guns that would fire thirty to fifty rounds in less than a minute and people committing mass murder in our schools either. But then when you speak on one topic you mention what they didn't forsee and in a topic you feel differently about you pretend that principal no longer applies.

1. The options I'd look into would be putting more focus on keeping people healthy before they become sick, so they don't have to rely on corrupt and profit-seeking systems. Pumping more money into corrupt and profit-seeking systems would seem to exacerbate existing issues instead of fixing them. More lipstick on pigs.

2. Nope, it just means you used a bad example. When the people that voted don't even like their choice, there is an issue. I don't like the violence, but it does somewhat seem an expected outcome of the second amendment. Our government is pretty messed up. The symbolism/ideal is good. The reality blows. I don't know how it gets fixed. Picking between the craptastic options we're presented is unlikely to ever do it.

3. Your only seeing mud puddles is exactly what I've been talking about. You seem unwilling or unable to look deeper. I do hyperbole, analogy, and other linguistic devices, but the false equivalency I leave to you.

4. Again, you're looking at the surface layer. Yes, there are specific things that they didn't foresee. But, they did foresee that there would be things that they couldn't foresee. They set in place certain rights that they believed would allow future peoples to address the unforeseeable. Again, your specific focus is obscuring an underlying general principle.

That sounds great in theory and I don't disagree with that in principal. But "looking into it" has already been a focus of many. The information to a healthy diet is readily available. Yet as a society we can see that this will not be the outcome. The fact that you can get a burger on the value menu costs $1.50 and a salad costs $5.00 doesn't help matters. Food deserts in our cities only exasperates this. Teaching children the food groups and a healthy diet has been taught in schools for decades now. So maybe we need to do more than "look into it".


No, honoring election results is not a bad example. Do you really think that during the history of our nation that voters were "happy with their options"? People for generations have complained about the politicians, the government and the candidates. Pretending this is some new phenomenon is nothing more than an excuse for favoring fascism over democracy. I wasn't happy with my choices either but hundreds of millions of Americans such as you and myself understood that's no excuse for trying to overthrow our election results.


Only there is no false equivalency. That's something you have made up in your own mind.


On one hand you make excuses for overthrowing our democracy and then claim the forefathers could not forsee our poor choices. On the other hand you ignore the "A regulated militia" part of the second amendment and act as though they could envision the weapons of today when they wrote the constitution. It's only a false equivalency in your mind when it doesn't suit your purpose.

Yet January 6th had nothing to do with "lousy choices". I mean if we want to talk about a false equivalency. Those people weren't wearing red hats that said, "We Want Better choices". You see, using a bait and switch con game to try to divert the discussion in another direction isn't going to address the actual discussion we were having.

What we saw in an attempt to inflict fascism as our form of government was one side being convinced an election was stolen through every conspiracy theory imaginable to see what would stick. By being lied to and convinced their side is right and the other side is wrong. By people being convinced that if somehow the other party won America would be forever changed as they know it. What happened on Jan. 6th was the result of a propaganda campaign permeated on the part of the extremists in the Republican party. It had nothing to do with "lousy choices". But nice deflection on your part.

1. And yet you're complaining about bad bills not getting passed instead of being upset that we aren't being given options like the actually doing stuff in the direction I'd look into.

2. Honoring election results wasn't the bad example. Invoking the founders on elections, with respect to their being free and fair, was. I never mentioned excuses for overthrowing the elections, that's your intended angle.

3. Stating that we are pot and kettle is a false equivalency.

4. I wasn't making excuses. You're the one conflating everything with January 6, I'm more looking at theoretical impending "civil war." I don't ignore the well regulated militia part, I just think you're interpreting it wrong, as you do many things (most noticeably, me.)

If we weren't given such lousy choices, Trump would never have even been on the ballot. If he hadn't been on the ballot, there would have been no attempt to overturn the election, and therefore there would have been no January 6th. So, it had everything to do with "lousy choices."

If you want to argue that being able to choose your "fascist"/awful leader is actually democracy, then we've got a great democracy going.

Really we've got a faux/foe democracy filled with bad options and infantilized citizens.

The problem here is that out of the several choices available, the man chosen was the most vile human being of the lot. Primitive name calling, persistent lies and divisive rhetoric were his calling cards. It's as if they intended to elect a man in order to throw a tantrum for them. And that is who the people chose to lead their party. Sadly what you describe as a " faux/foe democracy" was achieved by the very guidelines our forefathers established to elect a president. Where you may have nailed the problem is that we have a population of infantilized citizens. But that will only work to exacerbate the problem moving forward, not make it better,

Those options you speak of have been spoke of for years and in some cases decades as I pointed out already. The problems we're seeing are the consequences of what transpires when it's left in the hands of private business and the people. To accomplish the things you speak of, first people would have to be able to afford a healthy diet. As I pointed out there would also have to be made available healthy shopping options in out inner cities. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. What you tend to do here is talk about some "direction to take" with no road map to reach that destination. Lofty goals and endless idealism without a way to reach the solution are nothing more than empty words. So how do you suggest we reach your solution?


You chose to be selective in what part of the constitution you support to try and make your points. "Second amendment good. Election process bad." It's odd that throughout our entire nations history there has been a peaceful transfer of power and now that there isn't you consider it a bad example. It's obvious you're reaching too far here.


Not at all. Throwing out lofty ideas with no plan of how to achieve them is considered rhetoric at its finest.


Yet in your fairy tale it's those that are sick of having poor choices. In real life it's being stoked by those who don't actually seem unhappy about their choices. They're unhappy they didn't get their way with the choice they made. Those are two very different things.

1. The first step is getting people to admit that there's a problem, rather than trying everything they can to ignore the problem. The "you don't have an answer," so let's not change anything approach is how we keep ending up with such garbage.

2. I referenced the founders in a context that made sense logically. You referenced it in a way that didn't. Superficiality is your focus. So maybe I'm a kettle and you're a symbol of a pot. The same thing, but one's actually useful for something other than looking at. (Yeah, that's a bit harsh, I'm more looking at your argument in this case than you in general) I've been fed up with our lousy political system since before I was old enough to vote. It's just now coming to a point where people are dying over it, but it's been a joke for a long time. Ideally it'd be great, as it actually works it's awful. You seem to be the idealist in this case.

3. You've got to start somewhere. As they say, admitting the problem is often the first step. You write as if rhetoric is a bad thing. All rhetoric is is the art of communicating effectively. You should try it

4. Being resigned to a system doesn't mean it's working effectively. We've been conditioned to believe our country is the greatest and everything about it is the best. It's not, and obviously people don't consciously believe that, but they accept the messed up way things are because it's hard to argue with the BS idealistic stories about the country and it's systems that we've been weaned on. Democracy, Liberty, Capitalism: They're good symbols, but all too often they are used to hide monsters. When your choices are Trump and Biden, or insert your currently in office politician, neither are the best possible choices, let alone good choices. They're the types of choices we've come to expect, but if anyone is happy with them- that's a problem to me.



The problem I have is not in thinking up better options, it's figuring out how to implement them without getting snuffed out by those benefiting from current systems. (and yeah, that seems kinda extreme, and it probably is, but tell me that again after you've served overseas.) Heck, I can't even get people to admit problems. 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink' seems all too applicable.

I've been getting into gardening/regenerative agriculture, ecological systems, intentional communities, that sort of stuff because that seems to be a "better", or at least positive, direction without trying to rock the boat too much.

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.

Yeah, it's the same thing.

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.