The New Lounge

[Th0r]

DC has just gotten way too big. We have to get big pharma, the corporations, big oil... out of DC. It's become a cesspool. All of this has ruined politicians. Too many are on the take, deceptive, dishonest... For those that are legit? They don't last.

A bill should not be hundreds of pages. This is where the waters get real muddy. There winds up being so much pork that the pages squeal when you turn them. We need term limits. That will never happen as long as those in office are the ones voting on them.

I trust Trump 1000x more than I trust Congress. I know I didn't answer your questions. The answers have only been in the movies.

I hear you on the frustration—no argument there. D.C. has become a revolving door for lobbyists, consultants, and corporate influence. But if we’re serious about draining that swamp, we have to look at one of the biggest accelerants: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited outside money in politics. It allowed corporations, unions, and super PACs to spend freely to influence elections—without real transparency. That means the same “big pharma, big oil, big tech” you’re talking about can now legally dump millions into races, shape narratives, and drown out everyday voters.

And you’re absolutely right—when even the legit politicians get chewed up by that system, something’s broken. But that’s exactly why checks and balances matter. Concentrated power—whether in Congress or the Oval Office—without accountability just speeds up the damage.

So maybe the question isn’t “Which person do we trust more?” but “How do we reduce the system’s dependence on trust at all?”

That starts with fixing the money pipeline. Citizens United v. FEC made it worse. Rolling it back—or at least demanding transparency and reform—has to be part of the answer.

One last thing—most people on both sides are mad about the same stuff. Corruption,
lobbyist dominance, politicians chasing reelection instead of results. But it gets filtered through biased media, partisan habits, and algorithm-fed outrage. If more people actually talked instead of yelling past each other, they’d realize there’s broad consensus on a lot of this. The division is real—but it’s also being fed for profit. And that’s something worth pushing back on too.

 

[Mac9192]

I hear you on the frustration—no argument there. D.C. has become a revolving door for lobbyists, consultants, and corporate influence. But if we’re serious about draining that swamp, we have to look at one of the biggest accelerants: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited outside money in politics. It allowed corporations, unions, and super PACs to spend freely to influence elections—without real transparency. That means the same “big pharma, big oil, big tech” you’re talking about can now legally dump millions into races, shape narratives, and drown out everyday voters.

And you’re absolutely right—when even the legit politicians get chewed up by that system, something’s broken. But that’s exactly why checks and balances matter. Concentrated power—whether in Congress or the Oval Office—without accountability just speeds up the damage.

So maybe the question isn’t “Which person do we trust more?” but “How do we reduce the system’s dependence on trust at all?”

That starts with fixing the money pipeline. Citizens United v. FEC made it worse. Rolling it back—or at least demanding transparency and reform—has to be part of the answer.

One last thing—most people on both sides are mad about the same stuff. Corruption,
lobbyist dominance, politicians chasing reelection instead of results. But it gets filtered through biased media, partisan habits, and algorithm-fed outrage. If more people actually talked instead of yelling past each other, they’d realize there’s broad consensus on a lot of this. The division is real—but it’s also being fed for profit. And that’s something worth pushing back on too.

Agree with you. How do you combat something that is extremely big and wealthy? These are powerful people, with many hiding in plain sight. Checks and Balances sounds good in theory, but no offense, we are fooling ourselves with this thinking. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

If you thought what I said above makes you feel hopeless, then I've got one better than that. This one is REALLY far fetched. A good old fashioned Citizen Revolt. Here's how it might go: Hey Bob, we are forming a group to take on this corruption. Would you like to join us? Bob says "I'd really like to, but I've got a mortgage, wife, and 2 kids at home, and I need my job. Good luck though."

For every one Fred that's out there that is willing to tackle the Establishment, there's a million Bob's that are too scared.

The best option we have right now is the half crazy man in office. He's got stones that have to be hauled around in a wheel barrow, and wealthy enough to not need their money.

 

[Th0r]

Agree with you. How do you combat something that is extremely big and wealthy? These are powerful people, with many hiding in plain sight. Checks and Balances sounds good in theory, but no offense, we are fooling ourselves with this thinking. You're asking the foxes to guard the hen house.

If you thought what I said above makes you feel hopeless, then I've got one better than that. This one is REALLY far fetched. A good old fashioned Citizen Revolt. Here's how it might go: Hey Bob, we are forming a group to take on this corruption. Would you like to join us? Bob says "I'd really like to, but I've got a mortgage, wife, and 2 kids at home, and I need my job. Good luck though."

For every one Fred that's out there that is willing to tackle the Establishment, there's a million Bob's that are too scared.

The best option we have right now is the half crazy man in office. He's got stones that have to be hauled around in a wheel barrow, and wealthy enough to not need their money.

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

 

[Mac9192]

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

 

[GhostOf301]

Checks and balances aren’t a feel-good theory—they’re the only thing standing between power and abuse of it. When we give that up and throw it all behind one guy just because he seems tough enough to take on the system, we’re not fixing anything—we’re just hoping he doesn’t turn the system on us.

You mentioned foxes guarding the henhouse. Fair. But the answer isn’t handing the biggest, loudest fox the master key and hoping he eats fewer chickens. Just because someone doesn’t need the money doesn’t mean they don’t want the power. And history’s pretty clear on how that story usually ends.

Real change isn’t about trusting one person—it’s about building pressure from the ground up. That means pushing back on decisions like Citizens United that flooded our politics with unchecked money. It means enforcing term limits, banning stock trading by elected officials, and demanding transparency in lobbying and campaign finance. It means rebuilding civic education so people understand how this system works—and showing up locally, where change actually moves faster.

That’s not idealism. That’s how you box power back in and force it to answer to the public.

Because at the end of the day, the system reflects what the public tolerates. We can blame politicians, lobbyists, corporations—but if voters keep rewarding dysfunction with loyalty, outrage, or apathy, the system keeps breaking. Corruption doesn’t survive without permission. The rot starts at the top, but it’s the bottom that lets it grow.

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

 

[Th0r]

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying @Th0r. I just think you're more optimistic in the system than I am. I see it corrupt to the core, with their lust for power through money being the root of the problem. The tentacles up there reach so far. Too many outsiders have more influence than our own leaders have had. The media, with their help, have controlled us by what they tell us on tv. In return, what they've been able to do is divide us by 3 categories: race, sex, and wealth. A very cunning move. It keeps us distracted. Social media has helped combat that a lot. Which is a huge reason Trump got back into office.

Sadly, I do have more faith in one man than I do the system. Because it's the crooked system that's been in place for a long time that helped put a man who'd never held any political office, there. @Dattier laughs at this, but I fully believe it.

I see where you’re coming from, and I can tell you’re being genuine. We just see the roots of the problem a little differently.

You’re right that the system has been warped by power and money—but I don’t think social media is the antidote. If anything, it’s poured gas on the fire. These platforms don’t unite us—they profit off outrage, division, and confusion. The algorithms aren’t designed to inform—they’re designed to provoke. And that happens on all sides, every day.

Same goes for legacy media. The for-profit model has completely rotted the core. Whether it’s cable news or clickbait headlines, the business isn’t truth—it’s attention. And if fear, anger, or identity politics get more clicks, that’s what gets amplified.

So yeah, people feel divided by race, sex, and wealth. But that division didn’t start with media—it got monetized by it. And now we’re all stuck reacting to narratives crafted by companies whose only goal is to keep us watching or scrolling.

I know it can feel easier to believe one person can cut through all the dysfunction, but real change doesn’t come from one figure at the top. No matter how bold or well-meaning they seem, concentrated power without checks does not lead to lasting solutions. It’s the people—when we stay informed, engaged, and grounded—who still have the ability to steer this thing. But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

 

[Mac9192]

But only if we stop letting media, traditional or social, tell us who to fear, who to blame, and what to believe. That’s where the fight actually starts.

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

 

[Th0r]

I don't take issue with a single thing you have said. The problem, though, is that you have a better chance at trusting one person to create change than a group of politicians who view their roles in Congress as a career more than a public service. Their interests, as in the vast majority of them, are to remain office. The problem with trusting one person over the group is if you are wrong about that person, you're pretty fvcked.

Veering ahead.


Personally, I don’t have a problem with Trump stirring things up. Though I wish the wishy washy nature of it wasn’t prevalent. It's a gamble, but a gamble worth taking. If in two years, markets are stable, trade is more fair (equal is not a reasonable expectation) and we are less reliant on China while excelling in manufacturing, industrial, agriculture and tech jobs here at home, he will have a pretty big victory. I think if there aren't signs of that by the one year mark. The midterms will be a blow for him. If those things don't happen, then he will have single handedly ruined the economy, IMO.

I hear that—and I actually agree with a lot of what you said. You’re absolutely right that Congress has become more about job security than public service, and that’s a huge part of why trust in the system is so low. The frustration there is valid.

But you also nailed the risk with placing faith in one person: if you’re wrong, you’re screwed. And that kind of gamble doesn’t just affect the person rolling the dice—it affects all of us.

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Setting the bar at “the economy didn’t collapse” just isn’t good enough. Trade reform, domestic growth, less reliance on China—those are all worth pursuing. But the method matters as much as the outcome. If we get short-term wins at the cost of long-term damage to democratic institutions, it’s not really a win at all.

This shouldn’t be about hoping the gamble pays off. It should be about demanding better from everyone who holds power—whether they sit in Congress or behind the Resolute Desk.

 

[Th0r]

Who can we trust? Folks on the left think the right's news is one sided, and the folks on the right think the left's news is one sided.

There's a saying that if we don't watch the news, we are uninformed. If we watch the news, we're misinformed. And fact checkers? Who checks the fact checkers?

Fair questions—and I think a lot of people feel exactly the same way. But if the answer is “we can’t trust anyone,” then the people manipulating the narrative have already won.

Every news source has a slant, but that doesn’t mean all information is equally worthless. The goal shouldn’t be to find a perfectly neutral outlet—it’s to learn how to spot the spin, cross-reference facts, and think critically. That takes effort, but in a media hellscape designed to confuse us, being passive is what really leaves us vulnerable.

As for fact-checkers—sure, they should be held to standards too. But “who checks the fact-checkers” shouldn’t be a rhetorical dead end. It should be a challenge to us to stay engaged, verify things ourselves, and resist the urge to tune out entirely. Accountability starts with paying attention, not giving up.

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life. Personal experience with real people, especially those who don’t think like we do, is where perspective actually grows. Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had were in places that felt completely foreign, with people who challenged my views in ways no headline ever could.

Honestly, even this thread is a great example. You’ve disagreed and pushed back, I’ve disagreed and pushed back—but we’re still talking. That’s the point. At the end of the day, we’re all just people sharing the same planet. We’d get a lot further if we acted like it more often.

 

[Mac9192]

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

How do we do all this? I’m seriously asking. Isn’t it Congress that would be the ones voting on term limits? Again, we’re basically asking the foxes to guard the hen house.
How do we stop this revolving door between Congress and lobbyists? We can’t depend on the media. And how can a truly good person win a seat when it requires millions of dollars just to have a chance? And years ago they redrew a lot of congressional districts, which is how some of these people dumber than a bag of hammers got elected.

You want to change the system too, which is great. But these people don’t fight fair. They told you knives only, but they brought assault rifles and grenades.

 

[Mac9192]

And in my opinion, the best counterbalance to all of this isn’t a news outlet or a fact-checking site—it’s real life.

Yes.

 

[Th0r]

How do we do all this? I’m seriously asking. Isn’t it Congress that would be the ones voting on term limits? Again, we’re basically asking the foxes to guard the hen house.
How do we stop this revolving door between Congress and lobbyists? We can’t depend on the media. And how can a truly good person win a seat when it requires millions of dollars just to have a chance? And years ago they redrew a lot of congressional districts, which is how some of these people dumber than a bag of hammers got elected.

You want to change the system too, which is great. But these people don’t fight fair. They told you knives only, but they brought assault rifles and grenades.

That frustration’s earned—the system protects itself by design. But that doesn’t mean one person can’t make an impact.

You won’t fix Congress alone, but you can stop treating party labels as stand-ins for character. Look at where candidates come from, who funds them, and what they’ve actually done—not just what they say. That matters more than the letter next to their name.

I’ve worked with politicians from both parties. I’m rarely impressed. Though, I’ve met good ones on both sides. In my experience, many do care more about staying in office than doing anything that goes against the grain. Personally, I just look for good people who care—and don’t fold when it’s inconvenient.

The problem isn’t just bad politicians—it’s that we keep accepting the ones who play the game best. If more folks showed up curious instead of tribal, things would shift—maybe slowly, but they would.

And yeah, they don’t fight fair. But that’s not a reason to check out—it’s the reason to push harder. Real change starts locally: primaries, off-years, city councils. Support people without PAC money but with a backbone.

 

[Th0r]

It’s no secret that a lot of us in this thread don’t see eye to eye on every issue—and that’s okay. I just want to thank everyone for the conversation. Fair warning: I’m going to go hard on the things I believe in, now and in the future—but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect you as a person. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect.

We covered a lot—executive overreach, Congress falling short, media distortion, money in politics—but through all of it, there were some common threads. Frustration with the system. A desire for more honesty. A belief that things should work better than they do. That overlap matters more than most people think.

We’re not going to fix any of this by lobbing takes from opposite corners and calling it dialogue. It’s going to take people willing to look past party lines, question what they’re being sold, and expect more from everyone in power—and from each other.

Appreciate the back and forth.

 

[GhostOf301]

I hear that—and I actually agree with a lot of what you said. You’re absolutely right that Congress has become more about job security than public service, and that’s a huge part of why trust in the system is so low. The frustration there is valid.

But you also nailed the risk with placing faith in one person: if you’re wrong, you’re screwed. And that kind of gamble doesn’t just affect the person rolling the dice—it affects all of us.

If we want real change, it can’t just come from outside the system. We have to fix what’s broken inside it, too. That means things like term limits, banning stock trading by sitting members, campaign finance reform, and closing the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. None of that’s flashy, but it strips out a lot of the incentives that keep public office from actually serving the public.

Setting the bar at “the economy didn’t collapse” just isn’t good enough. Trade reform, domestic growth, less reliance on China—those are all worth pursuing. But the method matters as much as the outcome. If we get short-term wins at the cost of long-term damage to democratic institutions, it’s not really a win at all.

This shouldn’t be about hoping the gamble pays off. It should be about demanding better from everyone who holds power—whether they sit in Congress or behind the Resolute Desk.

Term limits, no stocks, including spouses and immediate households, and no private campaign donations. Campaign funding should be through parties and capped. Who you vote for shouldn't be influenced by how much money they raise. One of Trump's biggest failures for me was in his first term, he never made good on his campaign promises to end lobbying and push for term limits. And it has become a forgotten topic, unfortunately.