American Politics

[EihTooms]

Antithetical and emblematic. Is that an oxymoron?

You posted:

The solution lies at the state and local level. Communities and states, not the Feds, can change drug laws, and push counseling, rehabilitation and jobs programs for addicts. And, at the state level, apparently the "do nothing Repubs" aren't doing too badly in stemming the fentanyl / opioid crisis in Nebraska, or Texas for that matter. In fact nine of the ten states with the lowest death rates from overdoses are red. Still, I don't believe there's necessarily a correlation between Democratic or Republican policies and the number of addicts and overdoses. If what you say were correct, then you'd think there would be, and a lot more people, per capita, would be dying in red states. But that's not the case.

Never pass up an opportunity to bring up Republican gaslighting on slavery or Black History when you're focused on America getting past its differences. I believe Reagan's War on Drugs was stupid. Furthermore, I don't believe sealing the border air tight is a practical solution. I far favor something like Checkmate's "Portuguese solution," back when Portugal was devoting sufficient resources to the problem to make it work. Admittedly we could do like some countries and just start executing drug addicts and traffickers. That would be the most effective solution. But not acceptable to me because I don't believe in capital punishment. And for that matter on telling people what they can and can't ingest, unless it's something really destructive like fentanyl.

That said, if anything, Reagan's War on Drugs decreased illegal drug consumption in the USA. But at what cost? Attacking the demand side, preferably through getting counseling and jobs for addicts instead of locking them up, is more productive than going after traffickers in Colombia and Mexico.

Yes, Reagan's War on Drugs, like Bush's War on Terror, should never have been waged. And perhaps without the Obama / Biden War on Coal and the Biden War on Natural Gas, West Virginia wouldn't be at the top of the chart of states with the most drug overdoses. I imagine poverty and joblessness are correlated with use of fentanyl and opioids, and Obama and Biden took away the West Virginian's jobs.

Well, please feel free to look at the data. I'm not falling for that one a second time. Re-state my case and you might read my post or look at the data points. I'm not Charlie Brown and you're not Lucy.

You and Tooms are happy to make spurious correlations between the party of the president and employment and GDP growth. And ignore the real, underlying reasons for changes in employment and GDP growth. However, if the spurious correlation works against the case for "Democrats are good, Republicans are bad," like with deaths of Americans in wars and party of the president, or states with the lowest rates of deaths from drug overdoses, then you're willing to dig deeper and look at the fundamentals. So I guess there is a silver lining here. You're doing your homework! And I do mostly agree with you about the War on Drugs and the border crisis as it relates to drug overdoses.

With at least a Million American Deaths from Repub Trump's Pandemic added to Repub Lincoln's Civil War, Repub Eisenhower's Vietnam War, Repub GW Bush's Iraq War, Afghanistan War, etc, I didn't think anyone would want to keep tally of the number of American Deaths due to Repub vs Dem (mostly elective and not forced upon us) policies and stewardship as some bizarre slam on Dem results and outcomes.

But there it is.

If only the number of American jobs created vs LOST due to Repub presidents' policies and stewardship remotely matched the impressive number of American Deaths due to those Repub presidents' policies and stewardship, you might have something on your side worth arguing.

All as the result of a remarkable, some would say impossible, series of wild coincidences, magical economic cycles, bad luck for Repub potuses vs good luck for Dem potuses, that rumored witch's curse and all that over the past 170+ years, of course.

Here is another non spurious Mainstream Media report that has been largely ignored since we and they knew about it more than four critical years and now 3 critical election seasons ago:

Under Fire For Coronavirus Response, Trump Officials Defend Disbanding Pandemic Team.
March 18, 2020

https://time.com/5806558/administrat...ght-criticism/

Anticipating the likely investigation into their handling of the coronavirus outbreak, current and former Trump Administration officials are starting to push back on widespread allegations that the Administrations cuts to critical global health staffing and funding may have hampered its response. Much of that attention has focused on the 2018 disbanding of a National Security Council unit focused on pandemic preparedness, which critics say left a leadership vacuum in global health security at the White House.
............
Another former administration official, speaking anonymously in order to describe discussions with the President, placed the blame on Trump himself, who initially praised Beijing for its handling of the outbreak. "The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency," Trump tweeted Jan. 24. "It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!" Trump has now shifted to blaming China for being too slow to notify the international community, but the intervening weeks muddled the message the commander in chief was sending to Americans about the origin and scope of the threat.

"Basically, the President hates to admit to anything that could affect the economic success negatively and equally important, never wants to say anything about Xi Jin Ping or China that might impact the trade deal, the official says. Some have said its kind of a blindness."

[Spidy]

So when I say I am not too political, I am not, but I offer my opinion. Especially because it seems like this is not the "American Politics Forum", but the "Support Democrats No Matter What Forum" LOL. There doesn't seem to be too many people engaging in a real discussion based in objectivity, but more like people who support their political party no matter what and the other side is evil, stupid, and corrupt. I analyze and form my opinion on each particular issue even if it doesn't align with the political party I am supporting at the moment.

Could have fooled me! Less than a few weeks ago (when Trump got shot at), I could have sworn, this forum turned into an ISG Mongerer's early version of the 2024 Republican National Convention. You had Repubs and QAnon\MAGA cultists, conspirators and Trumpsters, crawl out from hiding, to deluge this forum with post after post of celebrations of untold glee, exuberance and triumph of a win in ROEvember, as I couldn't get a word in edgewise to inform your boisterous Repub QAnon/MAGA fellow ISGers that elections are won at the ballot-box.

So where are they now, all those Trumpsters and RFK Jr. supporters (...kkkk!) from just a few weeks ago? But hey, good-news is, you're still hear holding down the fort, as it were!

If Kamala wins, even though I will not be voting for her and I truly don't trust her Political Party, I am still her number one fan on day one. I hope she is an amazing President if she pulls it off. I especially hope she figures out a way to get more money into my bank account and make the lives of me and my family and friends better. I could care less about her being a Democrat if she is truly the best person for the job. I have seen nothing to convince that will happen though, she has hidden the last 4 years and it took her a pathetic 40 days to even do an interview. It's sad and disheartening to see. Many people will vote for her though just because they are convinced Trump is a psycho racist due to the racial and socio-economic injustice which has plagued the history of the USA. I don't think many people out there genuinely believe in her abilities as a leader. If so, please show me an interview or speech where she deserves my respect as such. I remember that interview she did with Charlamayne Tha God and it was so cringe I couldn't watch it. If she can't stand up to that guy, how the fuck is she going to lead a country?

Sure politicians can be cringeworthy at times, but none more so that the "weirdo" cringe duo of Trump/Vance. If I called them the "Kings of Cringe", I couldn't of spoken of anything more truer. They IMHO, literally ooze "cringe", that kind of cringe, is on a whole other level, the got dubbed "weird".

Yes, I have seen Rhetoric from republicans to go after the FBI. I don't agree with it strongly, but I do feel they have weaponized the government against Trump. False Russia conspiracy, two bogus impeachments based on nothing, convicting this guy and fining him hundreds of millions because he slandered some chick. That's so stupid. That being said, I don't think anyone should defund the FBI. Also, the defund the FBI campaign was no where even close to as strong as the defund the police campaign. That was very mainstream for a long time. I also think its silly to defund the education system and go after universities. I think that's nonsense and a waste of time and energy.

Trump and his J6, cronies, insurrectionists and rioters are not above the law, if they're found criminally liable. And neither is BLM. The popularization of "Defund the Police", was stronger, because right-wing politicans, FOXY Muse and other MSM, seized this as an opportunity to paint Dems as demons and to fill their "fear mongering watching base", with dreed. If you're against the silly notion of abolishing the educational system, then you should be railing against Trump and Project 2025.

As for BLM, I agree with you 100%. The vast majority of BLM are good people who just want more equality and justice for blacks who have historically seen far more injustice and received much less privilege. BLM is very important and was a noble cause. The few bad apples did spoil the bunch. Here is my problem with BLM. They eventually took the stance that if you don't support our cause, that means your racist and your a bad person. They went so far to even state, if you stay silent and don't offer a public opinion supporting my cause, that means you racist and your evil. That's when BLM lost me and I felt it was more about creating division and chaos than it was actually about advancing the prosperity of African Americans. I don't think Martin Luther King or an older more mature Malcom X would have supported those sentiments.

Anyone reading this is probably already aware that, to call a proud white man or woman racist publicly is like calling an African American the n word. It just shuts us down completely and the level of shame and pain from being called that publicly is overwhelming. For many white males, they experience the emotion of shame very intensely. I believe its why white males are far more likely to commit suicide. It is unacceptable to be unproductive for many white males. I also don't mean to de-value the significance of shame to any other races when I state that. Of course all humans experience shame very intensely.

Some of your thoughts on BLM are fair, but should not reduce the long hard fought movement for justice, because Black folk and people of color are telling you their "truths" and use words like "racist" to describe some white folk. It is just simply their "truth", their lived world experiences and their painful history of slavery in America for the past 400+ years.

And sure it might just be their opinions of the some white folk (which I may not agree with), but hey it's their opinion, just like you have your opinion. DON'T mean it's RIGHT or even FACTUAL correct! But they have one!

So when the latest reiteration, for the call for justice from Black folk, show up as BLM and utter a few inflammatory words like "racist", given the history of injustice from events like, 1921 Tulsa, Oklahoma, racial burning, massacre and slaughter of +300 blacks and the beating of thousands more, to the modern day police sanctioned killing and murders of people of color, like George Floyd (at a
disproportionate rate) at the hands of police, I for one am thankful, it's just peaceful protests and "harsh language", their using.

Vehemently, disagree with conflating the two words, as having the same contextual historical significance. The "racist" word for whites and the "n" word for blacks, are IMHO nothing alike. Black, Brown and other people of color get painted as racists, just as often.

W/R to MLK and Malcolm X...perhaps not! But I am going to flip your question on its head and ask you, "Did the racists and white supremacists of the day, like George Wallace or Joseph McCarthy, want peace or to sow division, with their fellow Americans of color?"

Fast forward to today, do you think Trump's hateful speeches are all about peace and unity? Or his running mate calling him "America's Hitler"? Or his dinners with Neo-Nazis, like Nick Fuentes? Or ties to J6 insurrectionists, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Three (3%) percenters, White Nationalists, bikers and skin heads is a coincident? Or his ties with INCEL, misogynists and anti-semites like Charlie Kick and Gov. of North Carolina, Mark Keith Robinson? What about any of this would have you believe, it isn't "...more about creating division and chaos than it was actually about advancing the prosperity of [African] Americans"? To use your words.

My point is, so when BLM takes the strong stance that it did and falsely played the race card like that, I could no longer support them even though I thought the core of what BLM stood for was of righteous significance.

Yes, BLM's righteous struggle for equality and equal treatment of justice under the law, IS and has ALWAYS been universally TRUE. Unfounded opinions aside, w/r to "playing the race card", I think it is Trump and his QAnon/MAGA minions/disciples who are sowing division in America, with their white supremacist ideology, borrowed from the 1960's and other periods of American racial unrest.

Here is why I am not big on charts and data and links. ...

... Sorry went on a bit of a side quest rant there LOL.

Yeah, I'll stop you there, and say thanks for the opinion!

As I am fully aware, that Trump loves his gullible ideological Repubs/QAnon/MAGA supporters, whom have been, may I say politely "brainwashed" and "indoctrinated", into pushing the Rush Limbaugh narrative about "the four corners of deceit" and have been told to abolish, rebuff and deny all forms of:

• government, academia, science, and the media, isn't news to me.

So your "opinion" about NOT providing facts comes as no surprise! In fact, I expected as much! So I'll leave you with a parting quote from a renaissance man of science.

As Leo said:

• "The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions" -Leonardo da Vinci

[RamDavidson84]

Antithetical and emblematic. Is that an oxymoron?

You posted:

The solution, if there is one, lies at the state and local level. And apparently the "do nothing Repubs" aren't doing too badly in stemming the fentanyl / opioid crisis in Nebraska, or Texas for that matter. In fact nine of the ten states with the lowest death rates from overdoses are red. Still, I don't believe there's necessarily a correlation between Democratic or Republican policies and the number of addicts and overdoses. If what you say were correct, then you'd think there would be, and a lot more people, per capita, would be dying in red states. But that's not the case.

Never pass up an opportunity to bring up Republican gaslighting on slavery or Black History when you're focused on America getting past its differences. I believe Reagan's War on Drugs was stupid. Furthermore, I don't believe sealing the border air tight is a practical solution. I far favor something like Checkmate's "Portuguese solution," back when Portugal was devoting sufficient resources to the problem to make it work. Admittedly we could do like some countries and just start executing drug addicts and traffickers. That would be the most effective solution. But not acceptable to me because I don't believe in capital punishment. And for that matter on telling people what they can and can't ingest, unless it's something really destructive like fentanyl.

That said, if anything, Reagan's War on Drugs decreased illegal drug consumption in the USA. But at what cost? Attacking the demand side, preferably through getting counseling and jobs for addicts instead of locking them up, is more productive than going after traffickers in Colombia and Mexico.

Yes, Reagan's War on Drugs, like Bush's War on Terror, should never have been waged. And perhaps without the Obama / Biden War on Coal and the Biden War on Natural Gas, West Virginia wouldn't be at the top of the chart of states with the most drug overdoses. I imagine poverty and joblessness are correlated with use of fentanyl and opioids, and Obama and Biden took away the West Virginian's jobs.

Well, please feel free to look at the data. I'm not falling for that one a second time. Re-state my case and you might read my post or look at the data points. I'm not Charlie Brown and you're not Lucy.

You and Tooms are happy to make spurious correlations between the party of the president and employment and GDP growth. And ignore the real, underlying reasons for changes in employment and GDP growth. However, if the spurious correlation works against the case for "Democrats are good, Republicans are bad," like with deaths of Americans in wars and party of the president, or states with the lowest rates of deaths from drug overdoses, then you're willing to dig deeper and look at the fundamentals. So I guess there is a silver lining here. You're doing your homework! And I do mostly agree with you about the War on Drugs and the border crisis as it relates to drug overdoses.

Yeah I was joking about societal design, but I am serious when I say we should all be contributing to some degree and always trying to solve the problems our societies face. As for the border, sometimes I think if they legalized and sold cocaine in USA it would eliminate the earning potential for the cartels and create a legitimate industry for Colombia and Peru where the cocaine is grown. People are doing it anyway. I don't know if that would work, but who knows, maybe? Alcohol and weed is legalized. If border is secured and immigration is made much easier and is regulated, it also eliminates the earnings for the cartels from human trafficking. With no earning potential, the cartels would cease to exist or their power and influence would be drastically reduced. I am also sure if they are earning billions, the logical conclusion is they are paying off politicians and capitalists all over Latin America, USA, and Europe as well.

[Tiny 12]

Thanks, but IMHO, I don't think those data points, apply to my post. In fact I think your post is somewhat antithetical and emblematic of what I wrote about.

Antithetical and emblematic. Is that an oxymoron?

You posted:

But when one political party (Repubs), continues to see the drug problem, not as a problem to be solved as a unified front, but rather as, a bargaining chip, or a hammer with which to beat/pound your political opposition with, or a campaign prop to rally their base, it's clear that Americans will be doomed and subjected to yet another 40+ years of failure.

Essentially, Americans with be stuck in political quagmire quicksand. Which I fear, is just where "no nothing", "do nothing" Repubs, currently don't mind wallowing and politicking.

The solution lies at the state and local level. Communities and states, not the Feds, can change drug laws, and push counseling, rehabilitation and jobs programs for addicts. And, at the state level, apparently the "do nothing Repubs" aren't doing too badly in stemming the fentanyl / opioid crisis in Nebraska, or Texas for that matter. In fact nine of the ten states with the lowest death rates from overdoses are red. Still, I don't believe there's necessarily a correlation between Democratic or Republican policies and the number of addicts and overdoses. If what you say were correct, then you'd think there would be, and a lot more people, per capita, would be dying in red states. But that's not the case.

Yes, I do blame the Reagan administration, for starting the "War on Drugs" (speaking of slogans), but I also blame the CIA. Others have blamed our greedy little hearts and heavy consumption of "all things white and powdery", due to our wealth of capital and abundant demand, which I also agree with.

Nothing wrong with understanding America's history with its drug problem and how it relates to many of the socio-economic conditions of its time in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and all the way forward, to current day issues, policies and events. It's equally important that history isn't revised, like Repub revisionists love to do, for example; with the gaslighting of history on American slavery and Black History.

But now that the problem still exists and insidiously persists, to this day, some 40+ years later after that faithless day Reagan proclaimed to Americans, "The War on Drugs", my post focused on "America getting past its differences", if WE are ever going to solve the problem.

Never pass up an opportunity to bring up Republican gaslighting on slavery or Black History when you're focused on America getting past its differences. I believe Reagan's War on Drugs was stupid. Furthermore, I don't believe sealing the border air tight is a practical solution. I far favor something like Checkmate's "Portuguese solution," back when Portugal was devoting sufficient resources to the problem to make it work. Admittedly we could do like some countries and just start executing drug addicts and traffickers. That would be the most effective solution. But not acceptable to me because I don't believe in capital punishment. And for that matter on telling people what they can and can't ingest, unless it's something really destructive like fentanyl.

That said, if anything, Reagan's War on Drugs decreased illegal drug consumption in the USA. But at what cost? Attacking the demand side, preferably through getting counseling and jobs for addicts instead of locking them up, is more productive than going after traffickers in Colombia and Mexico.

Yes, Reagan's War on Drugs, like Bush's War on Terror, should never have been waged. And perhaps without the Obama / Biden War on Coal and the Biden War on Natural Gas, West Virginia wouldn't be at the top of the chart of states with the most drug overdoses. I imagine poverty and joblessness are correlated with use of fentanyl and opioids, and Obama and Biden took away the West Virginian's jobs.

So if the point or idea of your post/link was too highlight the division of blame and shame in blue and red states, w/r to the overdoses, deaths and whatever else your link highlights (as I did NOT look it, as I felt your post wasn't related to my post and), is YOUR argument and YOURS alone. My post did not make any such argument.

A reminder of the gist of my post:


In the spirit of the Harris/Walz campaign, I'm feeling and basking in the joyous rays of energy, happiness and the uplifting delight, their ticket is bringing back to American politics, with bipartisan support from 200+ Repubs and even more Never Trumpers. It is within that same spirit of joy, bipartisanship (that YOU constantly accuse ISG Dems of not having) and a sense of cooperation that my previous post addresses. So...

Thanks for the post et al., but your antithetical data points, I think is making a different argument and one that belongs in another conversation and perhaps worth saving for another day?

PS: Feel free to re-state the case, you're trying to make with your data points.

Well, please feel free to look at the data. I'm not falling for that one a second time. Re-state my case and you might read my post or look at the data points. I'm not Charlie Brown and you're not Lucy.

You and Tooms are happy to make spurious correlations between the party of the president and employment and GDP growth. And ignore the real, underlying reasons for changes in employment and GDP growth. However, if the spurious correlation works against the case for "Democrats are good, Republicans are bad," like with deaths of Americans in wars and party of the president, or states with the lowest rates of deaths from drug overdoses, then you're willing to dig deeper and look at the fundamentals. So I guess there is a silver lining here. You're doing your homework! And I do mostly agree with you about the War on Drugs and the border crisis as it relates to drug overdoses.

[Tiny 12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPgW1U0Eidw

Hilarious, especially the second one. Gavin Newsome doesn't appear to have a whole lot of respect for the First Amendment. Or a sense of humor.

[Tiny 12]

So when I say I am not too political, I am not, but I offer my opinion. Especially because it seems like this is not the "American Politics Forum", but the "Support Democrats No Matter What Forum" LOL. There doesn't seem to be too many people engaging in a real discussion based in objectivity, but more like people who support their political party no matter what and the other side is evil, stupid, and corrupt. I analyze and form my opinion on each particular issue even if it doesn't align with the political party I am supporting at the moment. If Kamala wins, even though I will not be voting for her and I truly don't trust her Political Party, I am still her number one fan on day one. I hope she is an amazing President if she pulls it off. I especially hope she figures out a way to get more money into my bank account and make the lives of me and my family and friends better. I could care less about her being a Democrat if she is truly the best person for the job. I have seen nothing to convince that will happen though, she has hidden the last 4 years and it took her a pathetic 40 days to even do an interview. It's sad and disheartening to see. Many people will vote for her though just because they are convinced Trump is a psycho racist due to the racial and socio-economic injustice which has plagued the history of the USA. I don't think many people out there genuinely believe in her abilities as a leader. If so, please show me an interview or speech where she deserves my respect as such. I remember that interview she did with Charlamayne Tha God and it was so cringe I couldn't watch it. If she can't stand up to that guy, how the fuck is she going to lead a country?

Yes, I have seen Rhetoric from republicans to go after the FBI. I don't agree with it strongly, but I do feel they have weaponized the government against Trump. False Russia conspiracy, two bogus impeachments based on nothing, convicting this guy and fining him hundreds of millions because he slandered some chick. That's so stupid. That being said, I don't think anyone should defund the FBI. Also, the defund the FBI campaign was no where even close to as strong as the defund the police campaign. That was very mainstream for a long time. I also think its silly to defund the education system and go after universities. I think that's nonsense and a waste of time and energy.

As for BLM, I agree with you 100%. The vast majority of BLM are good people who just want more equality and justice for blacks who have historically seen far more injustice and received much less privilege. BLM is very important and was a noble cause. The few bad apples did spoil the bunch. Here is my problem with BLM. They eventually took the stance that if you don't support our cause, that means your racist and your a bad person. They went so far to even state, if you stay silent and don't offer a public opinion supporting my cause, that means you racist and your evil. That's when BLM lost me and I felt it was more about creating division and chaos than it was actually about advancing the prosperity of African Americans. I don't think Martin Luther King or an older more mature Malcom X would have supported those sentiments.

Anyone reading this is probably already aware that, to call a proud white man or woman racist publicly is like calling an African American the n word. It just shuts us down completely and the level of shame and pain from being called that publicly is overwhelming. For many white males, they experience the emotion of shame very intensely. I believe its why white males are far more likely to commit suicide. It is unacceptable to be unproductive for many white males. I also don't mean to de-value the significance of shame to any other races when I state that. Of course all humans experience shame very intensely. My point is, so when BLM takes the strong stance that it did and falsely played the race card like that, I could no longer support them even though I thought the core of what BLM stood for was of righteous significance.

Here is why I am not big on charts and data and links. In this day and age, you can find a chart or statistic to prove any argument your going to try to make. I think we need to get beyond that because so many statistics are flawed or biased. If its just some barber shop chatter, like this forum, I trust the word of people I know and respect more than some mumbo jumbo analytical data from a biased internet website. The level of bias in the media can no longer be trusted as it was before the age of the internet. Again, this is just my opinion. So I am not going to put any charts up, but I am fairly positive that in the last several decades, tens of millions of illegal immigrants have crossed that border, and yes there was also many positive aspects about that for both the immigrants and American citizens. I think now is the time when we totally secure that border and make much easier to legally immigrate into the country and regulate it. I have seen with my eyes dozens of these caravans of thousands of immigrants breaking into the USA and I have seen many many people in my community affected by Fentanyl and I think its time to divert our resources to sealing up the border once and for all. And yes I m completely aware many Americans disagree with me and no I don't want to see anyone who is here and is working and contributing be deported.

As for me believing it is human nature to take advantage of the system and the laws put forth upon us. I think it is the same with pussy or food. If a man is hungry, he will eat and you can bank on that 100%. If a man is horny, he going to fuck 100%. If a man sees cash on the street, that shit is going right in his pocket! If the law says you can get a comfy bed and some hot meals without working, your going to get a shit load of mother fuckers lining up to take advantage. It is just human nature. So for social services, as I said before, it is a very delicate balancing act you must perform and you cannot offer so much social services that it will incentivize citizens not to work and contribute adequate amounts of taxes which pay for those same services. You also can not offer so little resources that people resort to destitution which then plagues society. The achievement goal for societal design is to get as many people as possible living a high quality of life while also always trying to advance that same society and solve all of its problems until we reach the generation of a true perfect utopia where everyone lives forever and never experiences any pain or trauma LOL. Sorry went on a bit of a side quest rant there LOL.

Excellent, well-written post. The only thing substantive I'd disagree with is Trump's 2nd impeachment. He deserved it, and should have been convicted by the Senate. But yes, the lawsuits and prosecutions in New York were shams. He lost because the cases were tried in Manhattan, and people in Manhattan hate him. The part about societal design and a true perfect utopia is satire, right?

Good you didn't fall for Spidy's request for data and info. He would have just figured out a way to ignore it.

[RamDavidson84]

Okay! So now you want me to believe that you're "not too political...", after providing a your rather long, but politically opinionated post? Yeah...I could hardly tell (...kkkk!)

Thanks, I appreciate you stating, most of what you say is just an opinion. Again, I just want to repeat what I said before, about you expressing that's just the way you feel about certain issues, as an opinion and that it's perfectly okay with me. As many of us have the same or similar world experiences, while many millions more have different and opposite reactions, thoughts and beliefs to our lived world experiences.

However, I would argue that much of what you feel to be "true", can also be very much antithetical to how the majority of the Americans feel about the same issues.

Do you have any data/info on these unchecked millions? And over what length of time or time period are we talking about, years? Decades? Or is this just another opinion?

Luckily the vast majority, were able to go home that peacefully and NOT locked up, in a paddy wagons. Also of the nearly +10K, insurrectionists and rioters, that stormed the Capital Building, the vast majority were NOT prosecuted (only about 10%), as Trump and his cronies made sure, inadequate police and LE were NOT present.

BTW, much what you believe about the the pipe-bomb welding J6 insurrectionists, could be said about BLM protestors, which IMHO is a truer statement. And that would be, "the vast majority" are there to peacefully protest, and that the bulk of the violence is perpetrated by a few numbskulls, outside agitators and/or agent provocateurs.

May I suggest you re-read the Wiki page to your link again. It seems your understanding of what is written, is clouded.

Yes, while the BLM (a typically leftist) movement may have popularized the slogan, Repubs and right-wing MSM, have always tried to associate the slogan with Dems (and rightly so), but no one from the Dem party has campaigned to "Defund the Police".

The Wiki article in your link bears out that "association", but no evidence Dems called for a defunding:

• "Many sociologists, criminologists, and journalists have criticized aspects of the police defunding movement. In the United States, despite support for defunding being largely associated with left-wing, Democratic Party policies, politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have spoken against defunding, although Republicans have sought to link Democrats to the movement in congressional races."
  
  "Among the general public in the United States, the concept of defunding the police is unpopular. According to a 2024 study, there is no evidence of police defunding in major US cities in the aftermath of the 2020 BLM protests while cities with large Republican vote shares tended to increase police budgets in the aftermath of the protests."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police.
  
  Note that several of us, provided you with several examples of Repubs "Defunding the Police/FBI".

Meanwhile, "Defund the FBI", is another slogan that was perhaps popularized by QAnon/MAGA enthusiasts (piggy-backing of the BLM slogan), and likewise, Dems have tried to associated the slogan with Repubs. However, the Dems, rightly so it would seem, are justified. As in this case (see article below), many Repub candidates have called for the federal LE and FBI agency to be defunded or abolished..

So when I say I am not too political, I am not, but I offer my opinion. Especially because it seems like this is not the "American Politics Forum", but the "Support Democrats No Matter What Forum" LOL. There doesn't seem to be too many people engaging in a real discussion based in objectivity, but more like people who support their political party no matter what and the other side is evil, stupid, and corrupt. I analyze and form my opinion on each particular issue even if it doesn't align with the political party I am supporting at the moment. If Kamala wins, even though I will not be voting for her and I truly don't trust her Political Party, I am still her number one fan on day one. I hope she is an amazing President if she pulls it off. I especially hope she figures out a way to get more money into my bank account and make the lives of me and my family and friends better. I could care less about her being a Democrat if she is truly the best person for the job. I have seen nothing to convince that will happen though, she has hidden the last 4 years and it took her a pathetic 40 days to even do an interview. It's sad and disheartening to see. Many people will vote for her though just because they are convinced Trump is a psycho racist due to the racial and socio-economic injustice which has plagued the history of the USA. I don't think many people out there genuinely believe in her abilities as a leader. If so, please show me an interview or speech where she deserves my respect as such. I remember that interview she did with Charlamayne Tha God and it was so cringe I couldn't watch it. If she can't stand up to that guy, how the fuck is she going to lead a country?

Yes, I have seen Rhetoric from republicans to go after the FBI. I don't agree with it strongly, but I do feel they have weaponized the government against Trump. False Russia conspiracy, two bogus impeachments based on nothing, convicting this guy and fining him hundreds of millions because he slandered some chick. That's so stupid. That being said, I don't think anyone should defund the FBI. Also, the defund the FBI campaign was no where even close to as strong as the defund the police campaign. That was very mainstream for a long time. I also think its silly to defund the education system and go after universities. I think that's nonsense and a waste of time and energy.

As for BLM, I agree with you 100%. The vast majority of BLM are good people who just want more equality and justice for blacks who have historically seen far more injustice and received much less privilege. BLM is very important and was a noble cause. The few bad apples did spoil the bunch. Here is my problem with BLM. They eventually took the stance that if you don't support our cause, that means your racist and your a bad person. They went so far to even state, if you stay silent and don't offer a public opinion supporting my cause, that means you racist and your evil. That's when BLM lost me and I felt it was more about creating division and chaos than it was actually about advancing the prosperity of African Americans. I don't think Martin Luther King or an older more mature Malcom X would have supported those sentiments.

Anyone reading this is probably already aware that, to call a proud white man or woman racist publicly is like calling an African American the n word. It just shuts us down completely and the level of shame and pain from being called that publicly is overwhelming. For many white males, they experience the emotion of shame very intensely. I believe its why white males are far more likely to commit suicide. It is unacceptable to be unproductive for many white males. I also don't mean to de-value the significance of shame to any other races when I state that. Of course all humans experience shame very intensely. My point is, so when BLM takes the strong stance that it did and falsely played the race card like that, I could no longer support them even though I thought the core of what BLM stood for was of righteous significance.

Here is why I am not big on charts and data and links. In this day and age, you can find a chart or statistic to prove any argument your going to try to make. I think we need to get beyond that because so many statistics are flawed or biased. If its just some barber shop chatter, like this forum, I trust the word of people I know and respect more than some mumbo jumbo analytical data from a biased internet website. The level of bias in the media can no longer be trusted as it was before the age of the internet. Again, this is just my opinion. So I am not going to put any charts up, but I am fairly positive that in the last several decades, tens of millions of illegal immigrants have crossed that border, and yes there was also many positive aspects about that for both the immigrants and American citizens. I think now is the time when we totally secure that border and make much easier to legally immigrate into the country and regulate it. I have seen with my eyes dozens of these caravans of thousands of immigrants breaking into the USA and I have seen many many people in my community affected by Fentanyl and I think its time to divert our resources to sealing up the border once and for all. And yes I m completely aware many Americans disagree with me and no I don't want to see anyone who is here and is working and contributing be deported.

As for me believing it is human nature to take advantage of the system and the laws put forth upon us. I think it is the same with pussy or food. If a man is hungry, he will eat and you can bank on that 100%. If a man is horny, he going to fuck 100%. If a man sees cash on the street, that shit is going right in his pocket! If the law says you can get a comfy bed and some hot meals without working, your going to get a shit load of mother fuckers lining up to take advantage. It is just human nature. So for social services, as I said before, it is a very delicate balancing act you must perform and you cannot offer so much social services that it will incentivize citizens not to work and contribute adequate amounts of taxes which pay for those same services. You also can not offer so little resources that people resort to destitution which then plagues society. The achievement goal for societal design is to get as many people as possible living a high quality of life while also always trying to advance that same society and solve all of its problems until we reach the generation of a true perfect utopia where everyone lives forever and never experiences any pain or trauma LOL. Sorry went on a bit of a side quest rant there LOL.

[Spidy]

Blame everything on the Republicans. There's no correlation I can see between whether a state is blue or red and the rate of deaths by overdose. Four blue states are in top ten for most deaths per capita, while the four states with the lowest death rates, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, are all red.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s..._poisoning.htm

Thanks, but IMHO, I don't think those data points, apply to my post. In fact I think your post is somewhat antithetical and emblematic of what I wrote about.

Yes, I do blame the Reagan administration, for starting the "War on Drugs" (speaking of slogans), but I also blame the CIA. Others have blamed our greedy little hearts and heavy consumption of "all things white and powdery", due to our wealth of capital and abundant demand, which I also agree with.

Nothing wrong with understanding America's history with its drug problem and how it relates to many of the socio-economic conditions of its time in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's and all the way forward, to current day issues, policies and events. It's equally important that history isn't revised, like Repub revisionists love to do, for example; with the gaslighting of history on American slavery and Black History.

But now that the problem still exists and insidiously persists, to this day, some 40+ years later after that faithless day Reagan proclaimed to Americans, "The War on Drugs", my post focused on "America getting past its differences", if WE are ever going to solve the problem.

So if the point or idea of your post/link was too highlight the division of blame and shame in blue and red states, w/r to the overdoses, deaths and whatever else your link highlights (as I did NOT look it, as I felt your post wasn't related to my post and), is YOUR argument and YOURS alone. My post did not make any such argument.

A reminder of the gist of my post:

Like most problems in society, they can be solved, if the political will power and true political bipartisan buy-in, occurs.
...

If/When America ever gets past, an "us" vs."them" mentality, and comes to terms with it's "our America's problem", and adopts more hybrid combination of the Portugal European model with better holistic approaches to punishment, drug rehabilitation and addiction healthcare. To succeed, naturally, these programs should be given the proper resources, support, funding and time to properly mature and become viable solutions to decreasing drug usage and crime problem. ...

In the spirit of the Harris/Walz campaign, I'm feeling and basking in the joyous rays of energy, happiness and the uplifting delight, their ticket is bringing back to American politics, with bipartisan support from 200+ Repubs and even more Never Trumpers. It is within that same spirit of joy, bipartisanship (that YOU constantly accuse ISG Dems of not having) and a sense of cooperation that my previous post addresses. So...

Thanks for the post et al., but your antithetical data points, I think is making a different argument and one that belongs in another conversation and perhaps worth saving for another day?

PS: Feel free to re-state the case, you're trying to make with your data points.

[MarquisdeSade1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPgW1U0Eidw

[Sirioja]

Our world which need peace wish for no Trump, to get rid of Netanyahou and Putin death and we will all live better after them. In US, I couldn t understand how a woman could vote for Trump, from his lack of respect for women, or they are really 0 neuron.

[Tiny 12]

Luckily the vast majority, were able to go home that peacefully and NOT locked up, in a paddy wagons. Also of the nearly +10K, insurrectionists and rioters, that stormed the Capital Building, the vast majority were NOT prosecuted (only about 10%), as Trump and his cronies made sure, inadequate police and LE were NOT present.

BTW, much what you believe about the the pipe-bomb welding J6 insurrectionists, could be said about BLM protestors, which IMHO is a truer statement. And that would be, "the vast majority" are there to peacefully protest, and that the bulk of the violence is perpetrated by a few numbskulls, outside agitators and/or agent provocateurs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the 10,000+ figure is the number of people estimated to have attended Trump's rally in Washington D.C. on January 6. Yeah, he probably said there were millions, but 10,000+ is the AP's estimate. It could have been as many as 80,000 according the Army Secretary.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...-6-anniversary

The FBI estimated between 2000 and 2500 entered the Capitol Building. According to a January, 2024 NYT article, 1240 people had been arrested in connection with the attack. And the NYT speculated that may represent only half of the total indictments which will ultimately be filed. So apparently they're going to charge everyone they can identify who entered the building, and some people who didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...stigation.html

This is another example of how the criminal justice system in the USA is screwed up. The Republicans want to put all the Democrats in jail, and the Democrats want to put all the Republicans in jail. If you're going to compare January 6 to BLM protests, you'd have to say the Democrats have been more successful prosecuting their opponents, probably because they mostly control Washington D.C. and other large cities where the protests occurred.

[Tiny 12]

One the the best things like like about your posts is that they are respectful. I can stipulate for you about the class thing. I don't think the "rich" are saying "let's dumb them down and drug them up". When I take a step back from it I see it as benign neglect.

In my opinion the real issue is not actually drug use. It is impairment when it time go do the job. I am certain that we can agree that those that operate heavy equipment should not be impaired when they show up for work. Yet, they can be even if they never touched drugs. They could have been up all night fucking prostitutes and didn't get any sleep. Do you want your pilot in that condition? I approve of tests for impairment. If someone one wants to use drugs on their off time that is their business and I feel like drug tests are overreach and designed for the purpose of control.

Not really familiar with fentanyl. But you can be a functioning heroin addict.

We are in complete agreement on this point.

I think citizens in the United States of America have to get back to personal responsibility. When Nancy Regan said to the US population, "just say no" to drugs. I laughed. Now that I am older I can say the former First Lady had a point.

Agreed. But they should not be able to keep their jobs either. They should be subject to direct financial penalties just like Police Officers are all over the United States of America. A CEO has a host of responsibilities. One of which is, as the brain of the corporate citizen, he must run it in such a way as to make it a good citizen of the society that make its existence possible. That means obeying the law.

Are we going to allow profit to prevail when corporate actions harm our fellow citizens?

Good post SubComdr. I agree. About your last item, I believe regulation, the threat of civil lawsuits, and competition among companies largely keeps harmful corporate actions in check. There are cases that slip through the cracks though. There's an article in the New York Times today about a mental hospital system that's listed on the stock exchange. People would come in to the emergency room, for example to adjust their bipolar medications. And then the hospital would forcibly keep them for a week to make more money off them. That's going to catch up with them though. I bet their share price takes a deep dive on Monday. There may be criminal and civil actions filed against the company, and executives heads may roll.

It can go the other way too -- if you go overboard on the regulation and lawsuits, it's harmful. The current regulatory ban on new permits for LNG (liquefied natural gas) facilities is an example. The rationale is that it will reduce carbon emissions. But it may do exactly the opposite. Many places, especially developing countries, will burn more coal to generate electricity, which emits more carbon, if LNG prices are high.

[Spidy]

Sorry, like I said I am not too political and your post is extensive. I only read it once briefly so if I make mistake in my response, I apologize ahead of time.

Okay! So now you want me to believe that you're "not too political...", after providing a your rather long, but politically opinionated post? Yeah...I could hardly tell (...kkkk!)

Like I said in my original post, I am no expect in the realm of politics, but I offer my opinion which I always base the majority off of what I experience in the real world. I am also someone who has experienced all walks of life in USA and I think this gives me a little more confidence in my opinions. I am not sheltered to being around just one class or area of people. That being said, my four step plan is just some suggestion I threw out off the top of my head and I agree with you to some extent about the war on drugs and perhaps it has been a waste of money. I always think, if I was a government and I seized several tons of cocaine, would I just destroy it or secretly sell it on the street for hundreds of millions, and use that money to pay off national debt? It always makes me wonder.

I do however feel very strongly that the border needs to absolutely be secured and fentanyl has no place in USA. Cocaine is one thing, but fentanyl kills normal everyday people who just want to party for the night and they end up dead.

Thanks, I appreciate you stating, most of what you say is just an opinion. Again, I just want to repeat what I said before, about you expressing that's just the way you feel about certain issues, as an opinion and that it's perfectly okay with me. As many of us have the same or similar world experiences, while many millions more have different and opposite reactions, thoughts and beliefs to our lived world experiences.

However, I would argue that much of what you feel to be "true", can also be very much antithetical to how the majority of the Americans feel about the same issues.

I also don't think it's fair to just let millions and millions of people into the country unchecked where they will work and not pay taxes. Border should be secured regulated and anyone who comes in to work is paying mother fucking taxes just like me, and no they don't get a vote. If they stay 7-10 years and keep their noses clean, offer a path to citizenship. That's how it used to be back in the day. Now it's just a dangerous mess.

Do you have any data/info on these unchecked millions? And over what length of time or time period are we talking about, years? Decades? Or is this just another opinion?

I have said this many times, Jan. 6th rioters were morons and I have no problem prosecuting them in the court of law to the fullest extent. The vast majority are not insurrectionists and it was nothing close to an insurrection. A real insurrection has the support of a military strong enough to subdue the population and the nation's military it is trying to conquer. Think bay of pigs, that was a real insurrection! A few thousand trained guerilla soldiers armed to the teeth. Jan. 6 was a bunch of fat drunk rednecks who acted like morons. To think they would ever have stood a chance at sparking an insurrection is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and CNN runs that "narrative" 24/7 non-stop to this day! This is a huge reason I have shifted my views strongly to the right. Democrats have run too many false narratives and they have lost my trust and the trust of many Americans. They never should have put the insurrectionist spin on Jan. 6 to the extent that they did.

Luckily the vast majority, were able to go home that peacefully and NOT locked up, in a paddy wagons. Also of the nearly +10K, insurrectionists and rioters, that stormed the Capital Building, the vast majority were NOT prosecuted (only about 10%), as Trump and his cronies made sure, inadequate police and LE were NOT present.

BTW, much what you believe about the the pipe-bomb welding J6 insurrectionists, could be said about BLM protestors, which IMHO is a truer statement. And that would be, "the vast majority" are there to peacefully protest, and that the bulk of the violence is perpetrated by a few numbskulls, outside agitators and/or agent provocateurs.

As for Defund the police, here is the wikipedia link. I suggest you read it. It is strongly linked to Democrat Party and was a disgraceful political movement, again although I was raised to hate cops and I am kind of glad more professionalism was brought to the law enforcement industry. I think defund the police took it way too far though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police.

May I suggest you re-read the Wiki page to your link again. It seems your understanding of what is written, is clouded.

Yes, while the BLM (a typically leftist) movement may have popularized the slogan, Repubs and right-wing MSM, have always tried to associate the slogan with Dems (and rightly so), but no one from the Dem party has campaigned to "Defund the Police".

The Wiki article in your link bears out that "association", but no evidence Dems called for a defunding:

• "Many sociologists, criminologists, and journalists have criticized aspects of the police defunding movement. In the United States, despite support for defunding being largely associated with left-wing, Democratic Party policies, politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have spoken against defunding, although Republicans have sought to link Democrats to the movement in congressional races."
  
  "Among the general public in the United States, the concept of defunding the police is unpopular. According to a 2024 study, there is no evidence of police defunding in major US cities in the aftermath of the 2020 BLM protests while cities with large Republican vote shares tended to increase police budgets in the aftermath of the protests."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police.
  
  Note that several of us, provided you with several examples of Repubs "Defunding the Police/FBI".

Meanwhile, "Defund the FBI", is another slogan that was perhaps popularized by QAnon/MAGA enthusiasts (piggy-backing of the BLM slogan), and likewise, Dems have tried to associated the slogan with Repubs. However, the Dems, rightly so it would seem, are justified. As in this case (see article below), many Repub candidates have called for the federal LE and FBI agency to be defunded or abolished.

"Defund the FBI" complicates GOP's midterm messaging, Aug 22, 2022
https://www.axios.com/2022/08/16/def...icans-midterms

Once again more clear examples provided to you and not just "a feeling", about Repubs, being perhaps slightly more guilty of ACTUALLY wanting to defund the police or FBI.

As for social services, It is a tricky line because if you provide too much social services, people do not have an incentive to work. Its just human nature to take advantage of the system, just like Trump said he used to do with the Tax code and paying his taxes. I think any city with a severe homeless problem does need to provide adequate shelters so people in tents are not living in front of peoples homes and businesses. If we can afford billion dollar air force fighters just, we can provide shelters for homeless, but it can't be so nice it will incentivize people to not work. That is my opinion.

You have to ask yourself who benefits more when it comes to "human nature to take advantage of the system". Trump would like you to think that because he does it, everyone else must be doing it. NOT TRUE! This is a very cynical way, of looking at life, that narcissists like Trump would have you believe.

I like to think that most assistive systems like social services, work like something you said earlier, that "...the vast majority are not insurrectionist", therefore that leaves a few bad apples, like Trump that spoil things for the rest of us law abiding citizens?

As for my friend's death, I know his situation personally and he struggled many years with addiction and ultimately it was not fentanyl that killed him, but his own demons. Fentanyl was just the straw that broke the camels back. I think some cultural changes need to take place in our country which decreases the amount of people turning to develop self destructive habits in the form of severe addiction. How we do that, I don't know? I do know that based off my real world experience when I speak to people from other countries I always get asked about why a rich nation like USA has so many drug addicts, so much violence, and so many homeless? When it comes to solving those problems, I believe at this point, Republicans would be more effective at handling hose issues.

Strong economy! Low inflation! Opportunity! Utilize nation's natural resources to fullest extent! Secure border! Tough on crime! Negotiate best trade deals!

For right now, fuck the environment for the next four years. Fuck the cartels! Fuck funding more foreign wars!

Look IMHO, discussions not just based on "one's feelings", ought to be more substantiated with evidence, proof, or examples provided, other than what we each "feels" or "thinks" is true. At the the end of day, we can still agree to disagree, even if you are just posting your feelings and opinions. But I would at very least, like to understand or examine your reasoning and informational sources, to draw my own conclusions, as to why I MAY or MAY NOT agree with you.

Yes, WE ALL have lived different "truths", and no one can deny us of our personal "truths". However, our personal "truths" should not be conflated with that of a boarder nationwide or worldwide view, on issues that face millions and billions of other people with their own "truths" and lived experiences.

[SubCmdr]

Respectfully SubCmdr, I don't believe it's a class thing.

One the the best things like like about your posts is that they are respectful. I can stipulate for you about the class thing. I don't think the "rich" are saying "let's dumb them down and drug them up". When I take a step back from it I see it as benign neglect.

In the USA, businesses are motivated to keep employees off drugs, and many require regular drug tests. There are probably some, like trucking, that may do better short term when their people use methamphetamines, but that's the exception.

In my opinion the real issue is not actually drug use. It is impairment when it time go do the job. I am certain that we can agree that those that operate heavy equipment should not be impaired when they show up for work. Yet, they can be even if they never touched drugs. They could have been up all night fucking prostitutes and didn't get any sleep. Do you want your pilot in that condition? I approve of tests for impairment. If someone one wants to use drugs on their off time that is their business and I feel like drug tests are overreach and designed for the purpose of control.

As to the big problem, fentanyl and opioids, they hurt job performance.

Not really familiar with fentanyl. But you can be a functioning heroin addict.

I agree 100% that special interests play a big part in over-incarceration in America. Judges, lawyers, police and the prison system all do better when when lots of people are locked up.

We are in complete agreement on this point.

I think citizens in the United States of America have to get back to personal responsibility. When Nancy Regan said to the US population, "just say no" to drugs. I laughed. Now that I am older I can say the former First Lady had a point.

Finally, I believe somebody here (not Subcmdr) wrote that part of the solution is to put the CEO's of American corporations in jail, starting with the drug companies. I emphatically disagree. The Venezuelization of the USA is not the solution.

Agreed. But they should not be able to keep their jobs either. They should be subject to direct financial penalties just like Police Officers are all over the United States of America. A CEO has a host of responsibilities. One of which is, as the brain of the corporate citizen, he must run it in such a way as to make it a good citizen of the society that make its existence possible. That means obeying the law.

Are we going to allow profit to prevail when corporate actions harm our fellow citizens?

[Tiny 12]

Excellent discussion gentlemen.

I hope everyone reads this article from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, same one that Trump always tout.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...snt-so-simple/

Portugal has a good start on how it can be done.

Excerpt:

Francisco Rodriguez, president of the Order of Portuguese Psychologists, demonstrated this by noting, "You cannot work with people when they're afraid of being caught and going to prison. It's not possible to have an effective health program if people are hiding the problem. ".

Thanks for the link Checkmate. That was a great read. It's not too long, and makes a lot of sense. Ramping up the $10 per year per person that Portugal was spending on its drug program when it was working, that would be $3. 3 billion a year in the USA. Multiply that by 5 because of inflation, and higher costs and inefficient government in the USA, and you're looking at $16.5 billion per year, which is not much compared to the roughly $9 or $10 trillion spent by all levels of government. I bet the program would pay for itself just through lower costs in the criminal justice system. Add to that lower medical costs and more people gainfully employed. We'd need to do this at the state and local level IMHO. They are are so much more effective and efficient than our federal government.

The comments section was interesting too, especially the part about Vancouver.

But when one political party (Repubs), continues to see the drug problem, not as a problem to be solved as a unified front, but rather as, a bargaining chip, or a hammer with which to beat/pound your political opposition with, or a campaign prop to rally their base, it's clear that Americans will be doomed and subjected to yet another 40+ years of failure.

Essentially, Americans with be stuck in political quagmire quicksand. Which I fear, is just where "no nothing", "do nothing" Repubs, currently don't mind wallowing and politicking.

Blame everything on the Republicans. There's no correlation I can see between whether a state is blue or red and the rate of deaths by overdose. Four blue states are in top ten for most deaths per capita, while the four states with the lowest death rates, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, are all red.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s..._poisoning.htm

The problem is driven by the huge inequalities of wealth and income because the United States of America is a Plutocracy. Keeping the majority of the population dumbed down and drugged up works for the money classes in the United States of America. Especially since AI and robotics will create huge displacements in the current workforce. They are not also not interested in actually solving the problem from the demand side because the war on drugs is good for business. Incarceration is good for business. Incarceration allow the moneyed classes to target those groups they want less of because they themselves are not having enough babies to replace their own population. As demographic change, the revolution with not be televised.

Respectfully SubCmdr, I don't believe it's a class thing. In the USA, businesses are motivated to keep employees off drugs, and many require regular drug tests. There are probably some, like trucking, that may do better short term when their people use methamphetamines, but that's the exception. As to the big problem, fentanyl and opioids, they hurt job performance. I agree 100% that special interests play a big part in over-incarceration in America. Judges, lawyers, police and the prison system all do better when when lots of people are locked up.

Finally, I believe somebody here (not Subcmdr) wrote that part of the solution is to put the CEO's of American corporations in jail, starting with the drug companies. I emphatically disagree. The Venezuelization of the USA is not the solution.