- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Congress Has Become Totally Irrelevant
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:05 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:05 am to NC_Tigah
The Uniparty is grifting us and making themselves rich. Republicans are Dems in disguise. This nation is on the backend of its glory. I feel for my kids and grand kids. They will never know how great it was.
1
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:07 am to NC_Tigah
It’s time to revisit U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). With a conservative majority on the court it might pass muster.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is not possible. The "divorce" simply won't work.
All sorts of impossible things, according to the small-minded, have come to pass.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Society becoming less polar and the poles becoming more purple would help a great deal, too.
I don’t think society is that polar; I think gerrymandering has made congress that way.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:First off, my comment regarding a normal budgetary process does not even address cuts. It simply addresses passing a normal budget, using normal processes, the way Congress had done it for 200 years, until the last 30.
I can go make a thread to prove this by talking about how SS/Medicare need reform
That impotence is simply not an electorate issue. It is a legislative institutional issue.
Having seen several of your Social Security posts, it is not evident that your framing of the question would be accurate.
Medicare? Perhaps.
Both Social Security and Medicare desperately need reform. After witnessing billions going out the door for Somali daycare/Hospice it is evident that there is definitely some low hanging fruit.
The problem entering Social Security into the mix is that Social Security is a federal benefit not a benefit to retirees. So Congress has every motivation to misrepresent Social Security to the public, especially as regards cost cutting.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is not possible. The "divorce" simply won't work.
Sure man. And if you would have told anyone in the US in 1988 that in less than 5 years there would be no more USSR, they would have looked at you like you just said there really are 24 genders. Then said you need to be committed to a mental hospital.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:24 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
All sorts of impossible things, according to the small-minded, have come to pass.
Here are the states that voted for Kamala the most in 2024:
The states that voted for Kamala the highest in 2024:
Vermont: ~64.3%
Maryland: ~61.5%
Massachusetts: ~61.2%
Hawaii: ~60.6%
California: ~59-60%
In Vermont, you still have a whopping 35% to deal with. California is our largest state and state with, by far, the largest GDP. Over 40% of its population didn't vote for Kamala.
We can't even break up states, let alone figure out a way to have those states join together.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:27 am to Cuz413
quote:
And if you would have told anyone in the US in 1988 that in less than 5 years there would be no more USSR, they would have looked at you like you just said there really are 24 genders.
That's a bad example for your argument. When the USSR broke up, it largely returned to the old borders of the individual countries and Russia remained as one country.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it largely returned to the old borders of the individual countries
Good thing we have those too
Posted on 4/27/26 at 7:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
hard-liners want provisions suppressing the vote in the name of nonexistent voter fraud, anti-government bigots want undefined “fraud prevention” actions to deny welfare spending to Black and brown people in blue cities
This paragraph here makes the whole piece garbage. What Marxist bitch
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:24 am to tide06
Yep it’s polar and Congress is a problem as well since they are all whores.
The least violent fix would be splitting the us into two countries that share some type of defense alliance.
The problem in that is how the right and left are spread so we would need to figure out the logistics of moving both out of each others areas.
The least violent fix would be splitting the us into two countries that share some type of defense alliance.
The problem in that is how the right and left are spread so we would need to figure out the logistics of moving both out of each others areas.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:33 am to Cuz413
Seen my post above. How do you break up a state where the most polar example still has over a third opposition population? That's not going to work and most states are much closer to 50/50
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:35 am to Cuz413
quote:
It is ridiculous to think 538 elected officials can govern over 340M people in vastly different geographies and vastly different cultures judiciously.
The federal government was never really meant to be our primary governing body. We were supposed to be governed by our individual states while the federal government provided a basic set of rules/laws and solved disputes between states. The problem is the federal government has morphed and evolved into something the founders never planned or envisioned it to be.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:37 am to SlowFlowPro
That’s where it gets hard you have red states deep red ones that all have very deep blue cities.
The problem we have is neither side is going to become less polar. So either this keeps going and it breaks into violence or you find a way to diffuse it.
I do think there could be a way to diffuse most of the issues but no way Congress is going to do it because it will cut off their funding. I think both the polar left and right hate the housing and job issues. Neither side or the uniparty is interested in fixing that though. So a national divorce with some period of free movement makes it a less violent issue.
The problem we have is neither side is going to become less polar. So either this keeps going and it breaks into violence or you find a way to diffuse it.
I do think there could be a way to diffuse most of the issues but no way Congress is going to do it because it will cut off their funding. I think both the polar left and right hate the housing and job issues. Neither side or the uniparty is interested in fixing that though. So a national divorce with some period of free movement makes it a less violent issue.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:39 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
That’s where it gets hard you have red states deep red ones that all have very deep blue cities.
And blue California is well over 1/3 non-DEM.
The rich/productive blue urban areas would be fought over because that's where the jobs are, but red states around them couldn't make them red. It would be chaos and a total quagmire, and it's why this just can't work.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 8:44 am to SlowFlowPro
Agreed you have the very blue states that have large swaths of deep red.
You are right we have to find a way to make all of this less polarizing but I don’t see how a compromised and bought Congress is going to do it.
Yes people need to vote better but we have two problems at minimum there, the parties control funding and that makes it very hard to compete for an outsider, you also have the committee aspect where more senior have more of those so voting them out they lose that spot. I guess a third would be elections can be rigged.
So maybe the first step would be to lock down our elections with clear clean rules. Second we would need campaign reform but no way incumbents allow that
You are right we have to find a way to make all of this less polarizing but I don’t see how a compromised and bought Congress is going to do it.
Yes people need to vote better but we have two problems at minimum there, the parties control funding and that makes it very hard to compete for an outsider, you also have the committee aspect where more senior have more of those so voting them out they lose that spot. I guess a third would be elections can be rigged.
So maybe the first step would be to lock down our elections with clear clean rules. Second we would need campaign reform but no way incumbents allow that
Posted on 4/27/26 at 9:06 am to prouddawg
quote:
Term limits and only people with skin in the game can vote. Both pipe dreams, of course
I used to be a fan of term limits. They sound good when you say it out loud.
But I can't help but think that term limits would simply shift even more power to unelected beaurocrats who would simply wait for certain terms to expire.
I'm definitely open to suggestions or theories as to how this would not be the case.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 9:08 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
Republicans are Dems in disguise.
I get the gist of what you're saying, but I don't agree.
I think republicans are just feckless.
Republicans refuse to be the solution to any problems, while democrats ARE the problem.
Posted on 4/27/26 at 9:08 am to NC_Tigah
Term
Limits
Limits
Posted on 4/27/26 at 9:12 am to Penrod
quote:
I don’t think society is that polar; I think gerrymandering has made congress that way.
I agree to a point. I do think more and more people are becoming polarized.
I think it started with Obama. Or at least he kicked it into high gear. He was portrayed as a uniter but he was a great divider. He didn't have to be as bold or brash as Trump because he had the media do his bidding and trolling for him.
And I believe that without President Obama, there could never be a President Trump. Trump is blowback for the "fundamental transformation" that Obama started.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News