Trump Talk™

The Problem is that when we killed god and removed the religious based morality that "maintained the order of the 50's" that slore misses and ramy laments, we didn't replace it with anything. We have laws....sure.. that the rich can afford to break and the poor cannot. And, nobody cares about the laws, or who breaks them unless they effect us directly...and then we cry like babies. but it's too late.

We opened pandora's box and there is no going back and putting all these things away.

Sooner or later the rioters will show up your doorstep and you will understand what slore was getting at. Yes it was oppressive but that's the gum that was holding the whole thing together and now we have to cut it out of your hair...

Nostalgia for the days of yore sock hops and sharing a milkshake at the soda fountain. Considering the progress made socially, like the famed Natalie Wood, that's not going to float!

I don't know about ya'll but I think everyone needs to grow up and stop using race and gender as a battle cry for either side of the political spectrum.

See? At least Nik is honest.

"It was still pretty shitty, but people suck and that's the best we can do, okay?"

I don't agree, but at least that's a valid stance that isn't sugar coating 20 layers of ***.

When the battle for them isn't over you cannot just ignore them.

Looks like Trump isn't having that problem.

Which is why you and others hate him.

Aw, cmon

Overwhelming nihilism is a thing! It's our state's chief export!

lol if that was on purpose, well done!

i really do think people some how want to go back to the 50's when they say make america great again, cause the people saying it definitely don't want the 60's/70's. 80's parties are fun, but who would really want to go back to that for more than a day. the 90's only seemed cool cause i was watching ducktales and darkwing duck. so, sock hops it is. thank god i've already got a leather jacket.

Here's the thing.

I agree with you, but the context is important.

I'm not saying "let's never discuss it again."

I'm saying let's get some real equality hammered out here. Things like, "if you expect women to carry your genetic legacy, you'd better be accommodating of the time they need to take off to give birth to the little guys and not ding them for it by trying to *** with their pay and benefits."

Things like that aren't "debatable" and they're not "political battle cries."

They're how it has to be if you're going to have people treated like equals.

lol overwhelming nihilism is second! crippling depression is our main export

Pretty sure that's already somewhat fixed. At least in Michigan. Oh wait! you mean the sates have power too!?!

The President shouldn't have to deal with what the States are Meant to be dealing with!

Otherwise I agree with you.. lol

It occurs to me that a big part of the reason I'm so against states deciding everything is because Pennsylvania's state legislature makes monkeys flinging ***look civilized and reasonable.

perhaps people only behaved out of fear of eternal damnation...ostracization from their community...the brutality of the police response, the harshness and oppression of prison. whatever.

and not everyone obviously but

ok so you take away the fear and the shame because they are bad and what do you have left?

what is holding everyone back from all hell breaking lose?

State governments in general tend to be packed full of party hacks and imbeciles, because anyone who's any good at all makes the jump to the big leagues as soon as possible.

Like, states' rights as a concept is tremendous, but I think its execution relies on a more involved voting populace than we've actually got.

Precisely.

For instance, Pennsylvania let Ed Rendell have a second term.

Drawing from that information alone, we can't even be trusted with kindergarten-level safety scissors.

I'm on board with the "religion as a societal control" thing. I really am. But it just doesn't work anymore without some serious martial enforcement...

Welcome to a Constitutional Republic. Perhaps it's people should stand up and take the reigns instead of sitting at home on their ***.

Could be why Trump is going to be the nominee huh?
What's the Democrats excuse?

You keep saying that as if Trump is a legitimate change or somehow better.

HE'S STILL PART OF THE SAME SYSTEM, ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

He's just always operated on the "paying for favors" side as opposed to the "taking money for favors" side.

As for Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania's problem is it's probably going to go to Trump and that's indicative of the problems we have at a state level of government.

Any time a Democratic governor gets elected and tries to enact any policies that benefit anyone, the Republican legislature digs its heels in and sits on boneheaded conservative values and refuses to budge for literally years, and thanks to gerrymandering they're so rarely getting ousted that it's near hopeless.

My neighborhood is split into two sections and those sections actually bifurcate me and my neighbors yard. We vote in the same building.

But this way the votes get split up more favorably for someone!

It doesn't make him any less corrupt necessarily, but you have to see the difference between a president who was bought and paid for (and therefore has to repay the favor in office) vs. one that has no such obligations.

I don't know if he would be something better. I know the opposing side is not, so I may as well hope for the best?

You want legitimate change? To what extent? The past 16-50yrs is what Clinton wants. Bernie just wants to expand the ACA into every facet of our economy. Which is truly worrisome!

Our Government was designed to make it hard to pass any kind of laws. Get used to it?

No.

But I'm not going into it because what Bernie wants is irrelevant, as he's not getting anywhere close to the nomination.

No?

You're advocating for change in the same old while saying "get used to the way it is?"

Cognitive dissonance, go.

I see where you're going with this, but thinking about how the federal government is full of party hacks and imbeciles and then trying to imagine a group of people that's even worse is giving me brain damage.

Which was sort of my point in the first place.

The federal government is a step up from these fruitcakes.

It's true he's not going to win(to be fair he did much better than anyone even expected). However what he's done is incredibly important and it's something that could last past these primaries.
Too often people(and especially young ones)don't get involved in politics out of a sense of resignment; in this era what people need(and not just americans mind you)is politicians who can inspire, and by that I mean inspire good sentiments, not anger and fear like Trump(which is nothing new, nationalist parties have been doing this for centuries).
You need to hope that Sanders' message will last and that people will take it upon themselves to keep asking for the changes they want, rather than just call it a day and go home and let the same game play out.
Activism is important. The moment you become passive you have no one to blame but yourself.

Um.. As long as the house and senate remain red and Trump wins.. Guess what happens?

Talk about Cognitive dissonance.

So, what it mostly comes down to is the NFL QB problem. You have a very difficult job (NFL QB or Congresscritter), that can only be done well by so many people on the planet. You also have some restrictions (physical talents/etc vs. have to be American, can't be too young/too old, etc) that further narrow down the pool. You also have other opportunities that draw away from that talent pool (QBs tend to be great athletes who can play a less punishing sport, talented leaders can make more money in the private sector).

So what you end up with is about 400 people for 500 jobs. Well, you gotta fill in those gaps somehow... and that's how you end up trotting out Case Keenum and Chuck Schumer.