In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2556
Online now 2061 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This is getting absurd. Reagan's cabinet sounds archaic with the state of politics now. Righties hate lefties and lefties hate righties. What happens next? Why can't we just have a civil argument in this country?
Because compromise is viewed as weakness and it's all about "my team" winning.
Ding ding ding
OR I hear there is a movement to populate Mars, sending the Pinko Leftists there to live would be exquisite.
Because you just have to have 50.1% of the vote to win. When we changed the constitution in 1913 to pass prohibition by having senators elected by popular vote instead of by the General assemblies in each state has brought us to this. Senators once were the brake on they system and represented the states while the house represented the people. I am sorry to say this, but the people have too much say with the electoral college not meaning what it was intended to be and now the senate being what it is. There is no check on the people and the states have given up a lot of their rights.
My son's message to Obama, Clemson, and Georgia
the train will not be turned around, it's gonna crash
I'm not sure if the South can't take another defeat.
Lotta doom 'n' gloom up in here.
My kind of thread right here.
The way I see it is this, there are three possible outcomes on our current course:
1. We continue to polarize and slowly fall back as a nation until we are no longer able to sustain our vast military and social systems. Most likely option IMO.
2. We continue to polarize and the country reaches a point where it cannot be sustained in its current state, we either have a total economic meltdown, civil unrest and people start mass rioting and the once proud government falls apart, total civil war, or a combination of any if the above. The one thing these have in common is that it would be a drastic sudden end obviously.
3. People learn to compromise, and the country manages to overhaul itself in some much needed areas with concessions on both sides of the Isle.
Options 2 and 3 are both pretty unlikely, but still possible.
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
We should really go back to not electing Senators. Seems like nothing substantial can get past a filibuster these days.
Politicians are too uptight and anal about everything.
This country would be better run if our representatives got drunk together on a regular basis. This is how was it used to be done.
James Madison drank a pint of whiskey every day, and he wrote the Constitution
We could also change the rules for filibustering. You should have to sack up and stand there if you want to filibuster something.
They are uptight because thousands to potentially millions of people whine about every little thing they do. The media will take any little inconsistency or minor error and act like its another Watergate, and that's not even considering the fringe media sites that cater to the extremists.
No, that's not it. It's the endless gerrymandering of districts. Over several decades, we've created extreme districts on both sides such that it's impossible to win unless you are on the far end of the spectrum one way or the other. And I don't see any way that changes. Today, the only way anything gets done is if one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. And when that happens, crazy things get rammed through that only appeal to half the country. We have no way to compromise anymore unless it's an extreme situation (e.g. 9/11). And it's impossible to run a country effectively by constantly passing laws only half the country agrees with.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 11 months ago
The filibuster rule has become a fail-safe mechanism for the party out of power. It was never used this frequently before, but it's the only mechanism the out of power party has left to try to force compromise in a broken system.
This. You have to be polarized to win in many districts. Add in the cable networks reinforcing the polarity and it won't get better soon.
Trains don't turn around.
I signed up for the Mars trip.
Wouldn't mind living there.
Good question Major.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm gonna try my best to think individually on political issues and not toe any party lines.
I'm democratic by nature, but I'm pretty pissed about Benghazi and these IRS & DOJ findings.
Often when republicans state their side on issues I disagree with, I see their point. IMO we all want the same end, just different means of getting there.
It wouldn't hurt either if people stopped getting all of their news and information from only their biased network/show/reporter of choice. Either get out there and find an unbiased source on a subject (you may even have to go international to do so, given the way journalism works in America these days) or you may have to suck it up and watch your favorite show and your most hated show talking about an issue, get all the info from both sides, and then make an informed decision on your own.
Repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way to making it better.
Scored 4 touchdowns...in a single game. Polk High!
Not to mention when the state legislatures selected senators state elections were more important, now nobody pays attention to them.
You are right though, there is such a thing as too much democracy. Now the Senate, just like the House makes all of its decisions based solely on politics whereas before they were able to focus less on politics and more on their job. It was an excellent check against the House. whereas tge House was the populist check against the more established Senate. Now they are the same. Pretty redundant to be honest.
People have come to believe that all positions should be elected, and clearly all that gets you is the hyper politization of everything.
yep, we need to repeal the 17th amendment.
Term limits aren't a bad idea either. The founders never intended for politics to become a career. Too many of our "leaders" are motivated by self interests and not what is best for the country.
You have a good point.
A lot of the hate and vitriol comes from people watching the idiot news commentators and listening to radio show hosts spew their ignorance. The viewers/listeners don't bother to form their own opinion or do their own research into the truth, they just take what they see and hear as fact when it is often opinion.
I disagree on term limits. Term limits take choices away from voters. If a President is doing a good job why boot then out after eight years? Like yeah you are great, but you gotta go...lol.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports