If you really believed this nonsense

Tiggity®

Oculus Spirit [97841]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 64956

Joined: 7/13/02

Libs are the people who think Biden, or any democrat, offers a solution.

Apr 17, 2024, 9:31 AM [ in reply to Re: This is unheard of. I've never heard of such worship of a politician. ]

Pubs are those who think Trump, or any republican, offers a solution.

IMHO, Biden is just as dangerous as Trump. Because our dysfunctional government is dangerous, no matter which party controls it. You can have a nice guy, democrat, liberal, whoever, win the White House, and the danger is still there. You can have a "stabpub" win the White House, play nice as well, and the problem still exists.

You can have a revolutionary/populist like an AOC or a Trump take control, and they will end up causing a more rapid progression of the problem to a crisis, but we get there no matter who runs the joint. Their approach is scorched earth, and that ends up in the revolution, and ultimately some flavor of tyranny.

Nope, my solution isn't political. It's structural. What are the "politics" of Congressional term limits? No one knows, hardly, because it never gets oxygen. But it's safe to say 3/4 of Americans would favor it, across the political spectrum. A balanced budget. What are the politics of a balanced budget Amendment? Again, no oxygen. Safe to say at least 3/4 of Americans would support that from both parties. Both of these things would reshape our federal government in ways that would force accountability and solutions to the common problems we all see. Spending no more than you make isn't political. Limiting politicians to two terms, and removing it as a "career" option, that's not political either.

Neither of these things help those currently running our nation (from either party). They are all dead-set against it, and will not allow it to ever happen. As such, it must be coerced by an outside force, the 50 states. That's the only way, as I see it. The alternative, again, is all too predictable.

Interesting tidbit from our founders. Hamilton was convinced that any use of Article 5 of the Constitution to enact amendments would be used to enact amendments impacting the structure, or function of the federal government, and not its power. And that's exactly what the two amendments I suggest would address. Congress has passed many amendments impacting the power and control of the federal government, but SHOULD A SITUATION ARISE where a structural or procedural change needs to be made for the benefit of the states and the people that would otherwise not be made by Congress, for whatever reason, that would be the purview of an Article V convention. These men knew they could never predict any and all problems that may arise. But they also knew the inherent limitations of a democratic, federal body, to address any and all issues that may impact the states and people.

From the last Federalist Paper (from Hamilton):
In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments, it has been urged that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little weight in it on another account. The intrinsic difficulty of governing thirteen States at any rate, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion constantly impose on the national rulers the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congres will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States Ã•which at present amount to nineÃ¥, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.'' The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention.'' Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Way I see it, our problems are time-tested "democracy" problems. The solution to those problems doesn't necessarily have to lay outside of democratic leadership, but they do require a very republican solution (NOT the party). The United States was founded as a democratic-republic. France had their revolution and became a democracy (no hyphen). One government placed limits to prevent tyranny of the majority along with checks and balances, the other, saw the fruits of NOT placing limits on the majority.

As it stands, Americans will continue to do what they've always done, to our very own detriment. We will vote for whoever SAYS what the most people like to hear. France did that and got the Reign of Terror. As long as we have two parties, and perpetual reelection chances in Congress, people will hear ONLY what they want to hear, and you will get leadership and votes ONLY on what people want to hear. And our votes will continue to be purchased with our children's tax dollars, until the wheels fall off.

If I had a penny for every time I've heard "I'm voting for (politician) AGAIN because he brought us tons of money to build that (###/road/bridge/business/park/school/university/plant/whatever)". And this just continues. Over time, we learned to legislate to perpetuate this broken system as well. And it's BIPARTISAN. Our Congress knows that illegal immigrants deflate domestic labor costs, while adding labor supply to our country. They make buildings, houses, schools, lettuce, hot dogs, etc. cheaper. We also know that "free trade", allowing countries to export goods to the US made with cheaper foreign labor, also deflates the price of products we all use. And THIS ALLOWS DEBT TO BE CHEAP as it creates deflationary pressure on the DOMESTIC dollar. THAT allows politicians to spend more, buying votes, and getting reelected, for decades on decades now.

And this system was upended by the pandemic. It was predictable. Not the pandemic, but the result. Congress now is adding $1 trillion in debt every couple of months. They're spending $900 billion MORE just to service the debt they accrued buying votes for 40+ years. All while NEVER cutting spending, as that is a vote-loser and a sure ticket to lose reelection. So Congress is frozen, and dysfunctional.

Meanwhile, the federal government, who is in charge of compiling inflation data that the federal reserve uses to decide how much the federal government pays to service that debt (and how much our politicians can spend), is releasing data that is BS. It's a massive conflict of interest, and it's one not lost on Jerome Powell and the federal reserve, I promise. Furthermore, to really tackle inflation, the lending rates would necessarily have to be increased so high as to make the federal government insolvent, even to JUST pay its debt. FURTHERMORE, in 1983 the federal government changed the way inflation is calculated, lowering the spikes by normalizing (SLOWING) data. This prevents any nimble response from the federal reserve. They have to wait months, to see trends, to make decisions. Before 1983 that inflation data was instant (people dealing in debt complained "volatile"). And that was GOOD as it allowed inflation to be tackled much quicker. Using pre-1983 inflation calculations, our 2022 bout of inflation actually peaked as high, and slightly HIGHER, than it ever peaked in the 1980's. In 1983 fed chair Volcker jacked interest rates up to almost 20% to tackle 16-17% peak inflation. And he could, because he had the data within a month or two, not in a half a year or longer. So in response to what WOULD have been 20% inflation (if measured before 1983) Jerome Powell and the fed have raised rates to 5.25%, which would be at least in the ballpark of tackling inflation if it had actually peaked at 9% as current CPI data would dictate.

But again, Powell literally can not jack rates up to 10%, 12%, or higher as that would bankrupt the provider of the inflation data he uses to determine the rate.

Yes, it is that screwed up. And our federal government is knee-deep in this as well. I see predictions of $100+ trillion federal debt levels by 2030. Fact is, HAD Powell had the same inflation data Volcker had in 2022, and raised rates just as high, we'd be at $100T this year or next. Actually, we couldn't make the minimum payment alone. Powell only has a couple of basis points left to work with anyway, and can't sustain rates this hgh for another year or more anyway.

Do some of them think he's their messiah?

The prosecutions of Trump are political

De-banking is becoming more and more of a trend as well.

So you think it's impossible he broke any laws

I'm assuming he's going the tigermanac route on this,

The cases are

Re: The cases are

Biden never had a right to have them. That alone deserves prosecution.***

Sooo, based on that answer...

We did it but that doesn't count... Suuuuure, you're a "conservative". BS.***

It's like you so want to be in the conversation, but just don't have anything

Link to any "I'm such a badass" comments... You seem so fragile. Poor baby.

Oh please.

Arrow doesn't answer questions***

LOL***

One can be forgiven

I appreciate the serious reply (seriously)

How does Trump prove

That's not on him

Re: How does Trump prove

"but thats not rape!"

Without proving

Re: Without proving

This is unheard of. I've never heard of such worship of a politician.

Re: This is unheard of. I've never heard of such worship of a politician.

Thanks for the glimpse

I think he's listening to his party too much and not thinking outside

Hold up Tig

I'm off the rhetoric train.

That's fine but...

I've never known you to be a conservative. But whatever. Doesn't

Depends on what it is

Says the man...

Libs are the people who think Biden, or any democrat, offers a solution.

Re: Libs are the people who think Biden, or any democrat, offers a solution.

Again, neither solve our problems.

Re: This is unheard of. I've never heard of such worship of a politician.

Who's "talking about it" ? Could you give a more perfect example of PROJECTION?

Re: This is unheard of. I've never heard of such worship of a politician.

MAGA has been around for decades.

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Sorry, what are you arguing here?

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Convict for what...?***

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

But it's not yougov.com, a site you actually sign up to join... No bias there.***

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Who's "numbers"...? Who did you 'fact check it' with? You sound convinced.***

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

IMO is because a majority of population

No question. Social media has been a cultural malignancy.***

This is probably the best description of him I've read.***

Doc, maybe someone can prescribe you something for your TDS...***

Harry Truman was a big fan of FDR. Rightly or wrongly, he credited

he has said repeatedly that he has never asked God for

Are they as nuts as men that think they are women?***

I think MANY Dems had/have a pretty Messianic view of Obama

This is a pretty serious stretch***

Really?

Doc's in surgery...his own.***

There was an inkling of Obama worship compared to Trump

"We need him in prison fast." LOL. What a lil commie b!tch.***

And I can't wait to see you cry on here when it happens.

The day of the FBI raid on Mar a Lago was crazy town on P&R***

The day of the FBI raid on Mar a Lago was crazy town in Mar a Lago and DC.***

orrrrr

Yes they do indeed worship him. You dont see them

Re: Do some of them think he's their messiah?

Good post, I agree with your main point that

Re: If you really believed this nonsense

TigerBoard POTD