U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:28 PM
 
15,105 posts, read 3,993,514 times
Reputation: 10944

Advertisements

Red State Health Care - right here as we speak! Free Market.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b172b08656d5

"Dozens of medical professionals in five states were charged Wednesday with participating in the illegal prescribing of more than 32 million pain pills, including doctors who prosecutors said traded sex for prescriptions and a dentist who unnecessarily pulled teeth from patients to justify giving them opioids.

The 60 people indicted include 31 doctors, seven pharmacists, eight nurse practitioners and seven other licensed medical professionals. The charges involve more than 350,000 illegal prescriptions written in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama and West Virginia, according to indictments unsealed in federal court in Cincinnati."

MAGA. These people will be so hopped up that they will continue to vote against their own interests...they also won't feel enough pain to know they need medical attention.

I can feel that "invisible hand" at work:

"In Alabama, a doctor allegedly recruited prostitutes and other young women to become patients at his clinic and allowed them to use drugs at his home, prosecutors said. Another Alabama doctor allegedly prescribed opioids in high doses and charged a “concierge fee” of $600 per year to be one of his patients."

Last edited by craigiri; 04-17-2019 at 02:43 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:34 PM
 
7,043 posts, read 2,508,676 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
'Uhhh...geeze'--congrats on using two of the most inarticulate words in the English language. You forgot 'ummmm.'


I'll post again for you s-l-o-w-l-y: of 200 Democrats who were Dixicrats or voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, exactly ONE--Strom Thurmond--switched to the GOP. That is not 'individual politicians.' And it would seem to qualify as an 'overall trend' that evidently you don't want to talk about.



Well you forgot 'ummm,' but you at least did throw in a 'like.' Actually the move of the South started in the 1950s, and continued to about 1994. Southern congressional districts were not fully majority GOP until 1994. See the book The End of Southern Exceptionalism by Schafer and Johnston, a pair of poli-sci academics. You'll be doing yourself a favor: your misconceptions about the 'big switch' will be forever corrected.



Well at least you're consistent: you never let simple facts override your mythical misconceptions. Again:



These were all southern dem segregationists; none were conservative. There were a handful in their ranks that could be called conservative such as James Eastland (D, MS), but the overwhelming majority were big gov't advocates--'liberals' in today's parlance.

Have you heard of the New Deal and Great Society? Pick up a history book sometime.
Former Republican and Texas native Chris Ladd did a good job of explaining the movement of the South to the Republican Party.

Quote:
The Southern Strategy was not a successful Republican initiative. It was a delayed reaction by Republican operatives to events they neither precipitated nor fully understood. Republicans did not trigger the flight of the Dixiecrats, they were buried by it. That is the unacknowledged reality of the Great Dixiecrat Migration which continues to haunt our politics in the present.

Racist Southern Democrats began their ugly break from the Democratic Party twenty years prior to the Southern Strategy. Their move was sparked by Truman’s desegregation of the military and it was led by Senator Strom Thurmond. The history of the South’s switch from one-party rule under Democrats to one-party rule under Republicans starts in 1948 with Thurmond’s third-party campaign for the White House and ends in 2014 when the Southern states returned to full one-party control.
And this;

Quote:
There’s hubris in characterizing Republicans as having “courted” Southern voters into a new alliance. In reality, late 20th century Republicans hoping to shape an appeal in the South were foolishly trying to ride an avalanche. What’s left of the Republican Party as it once existed is buried somewhere beneath tons of noxious debris as the active racism of Jim Crow’s defenders has become the quiet racism of the culture wars.

Our myths of the Southern Strategy are dangerous for the way they obscure the Republican Party’s central problem – its new, unintended role as the vehicle of white supremacy in the 21st century. History denied is history repeated. Republicans will not shake this burden without first confronting it.
https://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015...hern-strategy/

One point that I would add though is that conservative Southern Democrats joined with Northern Republicans to block many New Deal measures starting as early as FDR’s second term.

Also although the Southern conservative Dems and Northern Liberal Dems held many diametrically opposed positions, they also had a symbiotic relationship. Dems held the majority in Congress. The Southern delegations helped the D’s retain control. That helped the Southerners build up seniority which gave them chairmanships, which helped block serious Civil Rights legislation until the 1960’s, and to water down other liberal legislation that they didn’t like.

One bit of trivia. Guess who was speaking at the 1948 Democratic Convention when Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats staged their walkout? The young Mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey, was introducing a strong Civil Rights platform which was adopted by the Convention.

Last edited by Bureaucat; 04-17-2019 at 03:02 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:39 PM
 
15,105 posts, read 3,993,514 times
Reputation: 10944
Let's dispense with the "conservatives and republicans are not for big government" fairy tale. If we base our discussions on a complete falsehood, they will never get anywhere. GW Bush and Trump and all those who support them are all for very big government. If there is ANY difference in this sense, it's the Republicans feel that fleecing the government and future generations for their own gain is the reason to grow spending, whereas true liberals may be more about "for the people" (New Deal, ACA, etc.).

OK, now we can move on as to why people keep voting and working against their own interests.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Clarence, NY
531 posts, read 190,452 times
Reputation: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post

OK, now we can move on as to why people keep voting and working against their own interests.

And you know everyones best interests how?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:43 PM
 
15,105 posts, read 3,993,514 times
Reputation: 10944
Quote:
Originally Posted by annoyingmagpie View Post
And you know everyones best interests how?
Health and Happiness of the people. Life, liberty and prosperity for us and our future generations. The General Welfare and Advancements of Society.

The more enlightened founders would agree with me - of that I am certain. Some of the Deep South slave holders may have had a slightly different outlook.....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:46 PM
 
51,876 posts, read 41,765,307 times
Reputation: 32366
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Infant mortality often depends on the factors around a person. Now, I don't endorse abortion at all, so I will just leave it at that. But I do agree that drug use, smoking, drinking, and poor medical care will increase the infant mortality rate. Utah has some of the strictest abortion laws in the land. Utah has a low infant mortality rate. Mormon Church plays a big role in that. Since drinking and smoking are basically forbidden, that rules out alot of unhealthy habits. In Utah, babies are far more likely to be born IN WEDLOCK. It's basically a sin to get pregnant before marriage. Married couples, on average,, are less poor than single mothers. Better access to medical care. Generally, being cared for alot more and having healthy habits makes for a low infant mortality rate.

Contrast with Louisiana, where violent crime is a big problem. Cancer Alley in Louisiana has alot of pollution from the petrochemical industry. And I have to take the "L" on this one. Black Americans are more likely to get abortion than any other group. And yet, the infant mortality rate among Black Americans is higher than for anyone else. Factors to consider include poor access to good health care, bad diet, exposure to pollution (predominantly Black neighborhoods have a higher likelihood of being in heavily polluted parts of cities), high levels of stress.

Interesting that you brought up homicide. Oklahoma has a low life expectancy for Blacks, one of the lowest in the nation. Oklahoma has one of the highest Black homicide rates in the nation. Oklahoma is as red as they come in terms of politics. Nebraska is a high Black homicide rate. Nebraska's Black population not only has a relatively low life expectancy (not as low as Oklahoma though), it has one of the widest gaps in Black/White life expectancy. Whites in Nebraska, on average, live 6.1 years longer than Blacks. Only Rhode Island has a wider gap, with Whites living 8.1 years longer than Blacks.

Another factor can be if a city's EMT's are functioning properly. Michigan has a high Black homicide rate. Much of it can be blamed on Detroit. Detroit has poorly functioning city services, included emergency vehicles. It's often not just a matter of getting shot. It's not just car accidents. It's response times.
Yep. I completely agree.

Tons and tons of variables at work but the main driver of a low life expectancy in the US is the obvious, deaths of infants and younger people.

It is also not uniformly the same across the state (as you point out) thus rendering the entire thread built on at least a couple layers of poor analysis.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 02:54 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 576,334 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Former Republican and Texas native Chris Ladd did a good job of explaining the movement of the South to the Republican Party.



https://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2015...hern-strategy/

One point that I would add though is that conservative Southern Democrats joined with Northern Republicans to block many New Deal measures starting as early as FDR’s second term.
Good link; I read the whole thing. It made some points that I had not seen before. I didn't agree with everything in it.

The 'Southern Strategy,' usually linked to Richard M. Nixon, can be demolished with a single stat. When Nixon took office in 1968, 70% of black students in the South still attended completely segregated schools. Brown v. Board in 1954 had ruled such segregation unconstitutional, but 3 US presidents (Ike, JFK, LBJ) did little to enforce it.

When Nixon left in 1974 the number had declined from 70% to 8%, largely due to his efforts of enforcing Brown v Board. The 'Southern Strategy' myth peddlers have to explain why Nixon, supposedly covertly trying to appeal to southern white segregationists, would go after their nearest and dearest hobby horse of school segregation. After all, the 'Southern Manifesto,' their declaration of segregation, was primarily about their opposition to school desegregation.

OP should read your link; maybe it will dispel some of his mythology...but then again, I doubt it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 03:01 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 576,334 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Let's dispense with the "conservatives and republicans are not for big government" fairy tale. If we base our discussions on a complete falsehood, they will never get anywhere. GW Bush and Trump and all those who support them are all for very big government. If there is ANY difference in this sense, it's the Republicans feel that fleecing the government and future generations for their own gain is the reason to grow spending, whereas true liberals may be more about "for the people" (New Deal, ACA, etc.).

OK, now we can move on as to why people keep voting and working against their own interests.
I don't think most actual conservatives would disagree with your assessment of W Bush and Trump. There was a famous interview of W Bush by Tim Russert around 2004, where Russert quotes to Bush a bunch of gripes from Limbaugh, Cato, etc. re his spending binge. And I'm sure everyone still remembers the 'never Trumpers' and an entire issue of the National Review devoted to them in summer 2016.

I think most conservatives would argue that, while the GOP in practice is pro-big-gov't, the Democratic party is pro-even bigger-gov't.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Washington State
18,453 posts, read 9,554,421 times
Reputation: 15742
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Please show me proof that genetics is the reason Blacks don't live as long as Whites or other groups. I'm not seeing much proof of that, just alot of environmental factors.
I would tend to agree it's environmental and diet mostly. i'm not aware of blacks in any country being long lived and I think it has to do mostly with BMI....also why Asians live longer than whites in my opinion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2019, 04:41 PM
 
7,043 posts, read 2,508,676 times
Reputation: 3563
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Good link; I read the whole thing. It made some points that I had not seen before. I didn't agree with everything in it.

The 'Southern Strategy,' usually linked to Richard M. Nixon, can be demolished with a single stat. When Nixon took office in 1968, 70% of black students in the South still attended completely segregated schools. Brown v. Board in 1954 had ruled such segregation unconstitutional, but 3 US presidents (Ike, JFK, LBJ) did little to enforce it.

When Nixon left in 1974 the number had declined from 70% to 8%, largely due to his efforts of enforcing Brown v Board. The 'Southern Strategy' myth peddlers have to explain why Nixon, supposedly covertly trying to appeal to southern white segregationists, would go after their nearest and dearest hobby horse of school segregation. After all, the 'Southern Manifesto,' their declaration of segregation, was primarily about their opposition to school desegregation.

OP should read your link; maybe it will dispel some of his mythology...but then again, I doubt it.
I’m not sure what the premise of the “Southern Strategy” conversation was since it wasn’t related to the thread topic and I don’t feel like reading the entire thread again.

If the argument was made that all Southern Democrats turned into Republicans as a result of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the truth was more complicated. In the period from 1964 through 1972, the South morphed from Goldwater taking the 5 most segregated states in the Deep South in 1964 with LBJ taking everything else, to Wallace taking the most segregated states in 1968 with Nixon carrying about everything else except Texas which held for Humphrey to Nixon sweeping the South in 1972. For the rest of the 20th Century, the only Democrat to carry a Southern state in a Presidential Election were native sons.

The same voters that began regularly voting for Republican presidential candidates also tended to re-elect their Democratic congressmen at a lower level. The reason that they did so was the same thing that kept them re-electing Democrats for decades. The Dems held the majority in Congress and the seniority of those conservative Southern Bulls (conservative within the context of their times) gave them chairmanships where they could affect policy. They were truly DINO’s in terms of the National Democratic Party. When the old D congressmen retired they were more often replaced by Republicans, sometimes from their own staff ( see Trent Lott).When the Republicans under Newt finally took the House in 1994, there was no longer a reason for the charade. As Chris Ladd noted on the article I previously linked, the Southern Evangelicals played a key role in the final destruction of the old Democratic Party in the rural south. As Ladd says, it helps show how the parties have changed when you consider that back in the ‘80’s, Rick Perry was a Democrat and Elizabeth Warren was a Republican.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top