- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: What has happened to this country? Everyone now craves the control of big government?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:21 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:21 pm to northshorebamaman
We are approaching the definition of "expansion" from two different directions.
Tariffs, in the actual use and existence" in itself is not an expansion. No more than claiming that voting by touchscreen machine would be an expansion of the voting laws. Or semiautomatic weapons is an expansion of the second amendment. All covered under the original intent.
The "expansion" I'm talking about is stuff the founders would have obviously said "oh hell no!" to and you cannot pry out of the claws of government in any way, shape, or form. Again. Great society, patriot act, organization of the HHS department, etc. things that expand beyond the intent of the Constitution without having some judge wink and nod and say it fits.
Also, the people can vote out the imposition of certain tariffs in one election. Not so much the other examples. The imposition of policy changes through will of the people through a fair election is a staple of conservative beliefs. There is no voting out the Great Society. Apparently there is no voting out the Patriot act. But the 2020 election proved that you can alter tariffs in one election. It's still will of the people.
Tariffs, in the actual use and existence" in itself is not an expansion. No more than claiming that voting by touchscreen machine would be an expansion of the voting laws. Or semiautomatic weapons is an expansion of the second amendment. All covered under the original intent.
The "expansion" I'm talking about is stuff the founders would have obviously said "oh hell no!" to and you cannot pry out of the claws of government in any way, shape, or form. Again. Great society, patriot act, organization of the HHS department, etc. things that expand beyond the intent of the Constitution without having some judge wink and nod and say it fits.
Also, the people can vote out the imposition of certain tariffs in one election. Not so much the other examples. The imposition of policy changes through will of the people through a fair election is a staple of conservative beliefs. There is no voting out the Great Society. Apparently there is no voting out the Patriot act. But the 2020 election proved that you can alter tariffs in one election. It's still will of the people.
1
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
With populists, expect populism.
I always felt you were a self-entitled dumb arse. This just proves it.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:49 pm to Tiger1242
OP, do you pay taxes? If you do, irrespective of political affiliation, you should be pissed off.
It's one thing for a life long citizen to cheat SSDI out a couple hundred bucks per month but these are fricking "3rd world immigrants" feasting at the trough and politicians have enabled it by their thirst for power and wealth.
Burn it all fricking down and let the return of civility and morals rise from the ashes.
It's one thing for a life long citizen to cheat SSDI out a couple hundred bucks per month but these are fricking "3rd world immigrants" feasting at the trough and politicians have enabled it by their thirst for power and wealth.
Burn it all fricking down and let the return of civility and morals rise from the ashes.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 4:50 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
In political theory, populism has a specific structure: politics framed as a moral conflict between “the real people” and a corrupt or illegitimate elite, combined with the claim that only one movement or leader authentically represents the people. Institutions that mediate power, courts, media, elections, civil service, are treated as suspect when they constrain that claim.
I fail to see how this is a smear. It makes the people who call everyone that seem desperate.
$1.5 trillion is being stolen from us annually. Even more with intentional inflation. How is this not a moral conflict? Innocent, hard-working people are having their wealth stolen and children pushed into a worse society.
And I'm supposed to pretend this isn't happening because someone calls me a populist?
Everyone loves to quote George Carlin, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." But I'm not supposed to vote like that is true because then I would be a populist?
Am I supposed to act like our instutions aren't corrupt when I'm choosing a candidate? Am I supposed to ignore the candidate that has solutions for the problems I can clearly see and vote for the establishment candidate just so I can say, "At least I'm not a populist?"
It's really stupid to keep voting for people who only focus on themselves and their donors at your expense just because it would be "populist" to support the candidate working to improve the life of the average American.
Trump has lowered the deficit, inflation, food costs, energy costs, and is working on even more. But I'm supposed to be angry at all these things that benefit me because of "populism." At least they have moral superiority to make up for the lack of intelligence.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 5:00 pm to dalefla
quote:
Burn it all fricking down and let the return of civility and morals rise from the ashes.
In other words, you’re saying “Tread on Me”
Posted on 1/16/26 at 5:48 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
We are approaching the definition of "expansion" from two different directions.
Tariffs, in the actual use and existence" in itself is not an expansion. No more than claiming that voting by touchscreen machine would be an expansion of the voting laws. Or semiautomatic weapons is an expansion of the second amendment. All covered under the original intent.
The "expansion" I'm talking about is stuff the founders would have obviously said "oh hell no!" to and you cannot pry out of the claws of government in any way, shape, or form. Again. Great society, patriot act, organization of the HHS department, etc. things that expand beyond the intent of the Constitution without having some judge wink and nod and say it fits.
Also, the people can vote out the imposition of certain tariffs in one election. Not so much the other examples. The imposition of policy changes through will of the people through a fair election is a staple of conservative beliefs. There is no voting out the Great Society. Apparently there is no voting out the Patriot act. But the 2020 election proved that you can alter tariffs in one election. It's still will of the people.
You’re trying to narrow “expansion” to “things the founders would have hated,” even though the question you actually asked was much simpler and unambiguous. Redefining it after it’s been answered doesn’t change that.
The request was for an example of conservatives supporting more government power than existed before, not whether the tool itself existed in 1789. Increasing the scope, rate, or reach of tariffs requires more federal authority, more enforcement, and more centralized discretion than before. By plain definition, that is an increase in government control, regardless of whether tariffs existed in principle at the founding.
The touchscreen voting and Second Amendment analogies don’t work. Those are about new means of exercising the same right. Tariffs aren’t a neutral mechanism; raising or expanding them is the government asserting more control over prices, trade flows, and private behavior than it previously did. That’s a change in degree, not form or technology.
Whether tariffs can be voted out is another non sequitur. Democratic legitimacy determines authorization, not whether power expanded. Plenty of expansions are electorally reversible and still expansions. Trump himself proves the point: he was elected and then rolled back regulations, reduced parts of the federal workforce, and cut programs that had grown under prior administrations. Are you prepared to argue those programs were never expansions just because they were later reduced?
I’m not arguing tariffs are unconstitutional or illegitimate. I’m saying they answer your original question cleanly: modern conservatives support higher and broader tariffs, and higher and broader tariffs mean more government control in that area. That’s the example you asked for. Everything else is noise.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 5:49 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:I didn’t say it was. I defined what populism is without attaching any moral judgment to it. If the definition feels like a “smear,” that reaction isn’t coming from anything I added, it’s coming from seeing your beliefs described neutrally rather than favorably.
I fail to see how this is a smear.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 5:53 pm to back9Tiger
Just remember this when you’re responding to some PB posters…
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 1/16/26 at 6:50 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Is it really a belief amongst you that the left can do as they please and punish their opponents while the right needs to toe the line "because they are supposed to be principled"?
No. We aren't far apart. I didn't choose the image before DHS for immigration issues, it was for mass surveillance and warrantless searches.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 7:15 pm to Tiger1242
Yep, it's my way or nothing in todays society.
No compromise, no empathy or acceptance unless it fits you're narrative.
Selfishness, Greed, and Hate for others is the new 3 commandments.
No compromise, no empathy or acceptance unless it fits you're narrative.
Selfishness, Greed, and Hate for others is the new 3 commandments.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News