exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I'm still convinced he will blow up - though possibly not before being selected as Republican candidate.
"I’m about to fly to Paris and shoot ‘em in the head myself!" - Anti-Muslim rhetoric ramps up..
- Thread starter Bells
- Start date
I'm still convinced he will blow up - though possibly not before being selected as Republican candidate.
He's already exploded; it's not Trump himself we're now waiting on, but the GOP. The Party is caught in a difficult spot, and while it's really, really hard to feel sorry for them, since this problem is of their own creation, the outcome is vital. If Trump runs independent, Republicans lose. And the downticket races will take a hit, as well. Not enough to turn the Congress, but the 2016 contest for the U.S. Senate is Class III, with thirty-four seats up for grab, and over two-thirds of those are Republicans. Then again, it's still a tough pathway for Democrats: Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are generally tossups. Democrats could take all those and still need Pennsylvania to split the Senate; they also have to hold Nevada (Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennet). They're not taking out Murkowski (Alaska) or McCain (Arizona); it seems strange to think that Louisiana (David Vitter) and North Carolina (Richard Burr) are the main pathways, but after what just happened in Kentucky I would guess Rand Paul is safe.
The thing is that for Democrats, it's not easy. If they can actually split or take the Senate―actually, if they achieve anything more than about Illinois and maybe Florida―Trump's downticket effect becomes evident.
The remaining questions are how long the RNC is willing to dance with Donald before deciding he's asking too much, and the subsequent measure of just how much damage Republicans have done to themselves trying to keep up. Jeb? If his lack of campaign skills didn't sink him, his sellout line about Syrian refugees will.
If they don't cut their losses, the RNC will bury the Party.
The thing is that for Democrats, it's not easy. If they can actually split or take the Senate―actually, if they achieve anything more than about Illinois and maybe Florida―Trump's downticket effect becomes evident.
The remaining questions are how long the RNC is willing to dance with Donald before deciding he's asking too much, and the subsequent measure of just how much damage Republicans have done to themselves trying to keep up. Jeb? If his lack of campaign skills didn't sink him, his sellout line about Syrian refugees will.
If they don't cut their losses, the RNC will bury the Party.
Bells
Staff member
I somehow doubt the GOP will turn him away, not with his popularity, and the popularity of what he is saying among the voting base.
65% among likely Republican voters alone favour his comments. I doubt the GOP are going to want to alienate such a large portion of their voters if they get rid of him from the party. It is why they have sort of gone quiet and those who have spoken out, have danced around it and it is why the party leadership has openly said that they would still support him if he became the Candidate.
The GOP voting base is now more radicalised than people may have thought. And while everyone is up in arms about what Trump said, they are still ignoring the fact that his isn't about Trump so much as it is about the voters on the Right. Because they will not accept if his proposal does not make it to Congress, if he wins the election. Trump, by tapping into the hate and fear that breeds within the party, has literally taken a dump on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a large portion of the voting block support it every step of the way. The Republicans may only care about winning the White House. And whether they do or not is really beside the point. There is a reason why the other GOP candidates have suggested equally alarming measures when it comes to Muslims. They are trying to tap and retain those votes, without alienating the thinking Republicans who do not agree with the extreme measures that Trump has tabled in his campaign.
The country has already lost. One of your elected official's is openly talking about how much they want to commit a slaughter of people because of who they are and where they are from and because of their religious belief. A Presidential candidate has openly said that he wants to commit mass murder and order the military to kill innocent men, women and children, because of who they are related to, without any due process. He has also tabled the possibility of taking a dump on the constitution and banning people from the country, because of their religious beliefs, not to mention curtail free speech by 'shutting down' parts of the internet. And I am not even talking about his policies for monitoring people, keeping a database of anyone who belongs to the religion so they can be easily identified and tracked at all times, to even hinting at internment if people happen to belong to this religion. And his numbers continue to rise because this is what people want. This is what the voters on the Right in the Republican party actually want.
So whether he has exploded or not, whether he wins or not, is really beside the point.
65% of likely Republican voters favour his comments. That is the point. Trump crashing and burning, Trump running independent, if he wins or loses, none of that actually matters. If he loses or crashes out, it will still not get rid of that 65% of their voting base who find such policies favourable. They will still be there and they will select or vote for people who do what they want and as they want.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I somehow doubt the GOP will turn him away, not with his popularity, and the popularity of what he is saying among the voting base.
65% among likely Republican voters alone favour his comments. I doubt the GOP are going to want to alienate such a large portion of their voters if they get rid of him from the party. It is why they have sort of gone quiet and those who have spoken out, have danced around it and it is why the party leadership has openly said that they would still support him if he became the Candidate.
The GOP voting base is now more radicalised than people may have thought. And while everyone is up in arms about what Trump said, they are still ignoring the fact that his isn't about Trump so much as it is about the voters on the Right. Because they will not accept if his proposal does not make it to Congress, if he wins the election. Trump, by tapping into the hate and fear that breeds within the party, has literally taken a dump on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a large portion of the voting block support it every step of the way. The Republicans may only care about winning the White House. And whether they do or not is really beside the point. There is a reason why the other GOP candidates have suggested equally alarming measures when it comes to Muslims. They are trying to tap and retain those votes, without alienating the thinking Republicans who do not agree with the extreme measures that Trump has tabled in his campaign.
The country has already lost. One of your elected official's is openly talking about how much they want to commit a slaughter of people because of who they are and where they are from and because of their religious belief. A Presidential candidate has openly said that he wants to commit mass murder and order the military to kill innocent men, women and children, because of who they are related to, without any due process. He has also tabled the possibility of taking a dump on the constitution and banning people from the country, because of their religious beliefs, not to mention curtail free speech by 'shutting down' parts of the internet. And I am not even talking about his policies for monitoring people, keeping a database of anyone who belongs to the religion so they can be easily identified and tracked at all times, to even hinting at internment if people happen to belong to this religion. And his numbers continue to rise because this is what people want. This is what the voters on the Right in the Republican party actually want.
So whether he has exploded or not, whether he wins or not, is really beside the point.
65% of likely Republican voters favour his comments. That is the point. Trump crashing and burning, Trump running independent, if he wins or loses, none of that actually matters. If he loses or crashes out, it will still not get rid of that 65% of their voting base who find such policies favourable. They will still be there and they will select or vote for people who do what they want and as they want.
Yes I see what you mean. It seems to me Trump is sort of channelling people's inner arsehole, if you like. He's giving them permission to be unpleasant, rather as shock jocks and Ann Coulter do. A lot of people have emotional feelings that he gives vent to on their behalf. However most of us adults know that what we may feel emotionally needs to be moderated by what our heads tell us is decent - and practical, given the complexities of the real world. His is a sort of infantilised politics. Whether people have really been infantilised to the point they actually believe his wild notions can be serious policy will be interesting to see. Even Netanyahu has come out against him, I gather, which is quite something.
In France, they have a 2 stage presidential election process, in which everyone votes for their preferred candidate in the first round and if (as usual) none of them wins >50% of the votes cast, all but the leading 2 are eliminated and everyone votes a second time, to choose between these two. What tends to happen is that people feel free to express their emotions in the first round, which sends various political signals, but in the second they become much more pragmatic. I have the impression that the US system has some of the same dynamic. I can just about see Trump being adopted as the Republican candidate - though at the cost of wrecking the party, but I cannot remotely see such a divisive and, yes, unhinged, figure winning the presidency.
News story out today - "Trump attacked by bald eagle during photo shoot." Apparently his hair was mussed when the eagle went after him.
Perfect metaphor.
Bells said:
Most assuredly. The only question is whether the Sleeping Giant simply rolls over.
Apparently this is a discussion we need to have. My society, I mean. My nation. My community. I'm not certain this phenomenon has been hauled kicking and screaming into the light so much as it is proudly marching down Main Street. Even I'm having a hard time keeping up with how fast this is all spilling out.
Where we are at now, as a society, is a fucking disaster.
Still, though, we are Americans. We can find our way out of this, and while the magnitude of what we have created astonishes even those of us who saw some iteration of this crisis as inevitable, it is not, technically, hopeless:
• Does this mean we Americans finally get to have this discussion?
And of course it seems predictable―according to hindsight, as such―that we can only come to this moment at the time chosen by the bigots. For years we've been expected to believe bigotry in American society isn't this fucking big. And it's been very difficult to convince many Americans the problem exists.
Yet, here we are. By forestalling this discussion, we have shaped circumstances whereby we can only have it when the bigots feel empowered enough to show themselves and make demands.
But the question remains: Do we finally get to have this discussion?
Because as long as this isn't all for nothing―they have chosen this hour and season to show themselves, and they must be held to answer―then at least we finally get to have this discussion.
We'll fight wars with ourselves over this sort of shit, and we never have the fundamentally necessary discussion about how this hatred equals justice. It's a basic ego-defense occurring as a mass phenomenon, and even those like me, who deplore this dangerous belief and behavior, have our part in not tacking it to the wall years ago.
It's easy enough to try to justify ourselves; after all, in any given moment, who would think throwing down at such a fundamental level would play in Peoria? But the reasons why something happens or does not cannot simply be declared any manner of excuse, nor tacitly held in such a context; it will be important to understand why we waited until now, why we can only have this discussion while Evil is marching down Main Street. It has been with us the whole time, and the context of this disaster is the price everyone around the world pays for our failure to properly address before now the question of bigotry as an American virtue.
And I should here digress, that I might beg my fellow Americans to please consider:
• For all the prices people around the world have paid, continue to pay, and will again in the future, part of the reason the world continues to respect Columbia's beacon is that we promise pretty much everything, and have shown the power to deliver bits and pieces along the way. The world is now on notice. Not that you or I would particularly issue that warning ourselves, but look at where we are. This is not supposed to be happening. Yes, there is an election coming, and when it comes to the White House, there is on question that the American people will do the right thing. And, really, if the right thing really is a rebuke of the GOP―and the RNC is out of time, because anything later that immediately was too late―because the Party simply can't recover itself between now and November, what, really, do you think the chances are that the states will deliver the Senate to the Democrats, or at least achieve a split? And, you know, we all know about the House, and how districting works, but what are the odds of Democrats closing the gap significantly, and what would your estimate be that Republicans will actually increase their margin? And the state legislatures? And the state houses? Are we about to see a last-minute flood of ballot initiatives to scare the living faith out of the rest of the world? What is going to happen? Because anything short of scorching this hatred by Columbia's light and grinding it under Her heel means the world is still on notice; it means these outcomes remain within our living potential. This disaster is happening. Would we stand by and watch the floodwaters ravage? Or the fires devour? What we do right now is defining. What we do tomorrow will be defining. What we do every day until we put this to rest, actively expel this supremacist spectre from the range of our living potentials is defining. She shall raise Her Lamp, and we are the United States of America. She shall shine Her Light, and it is our very duty, not just to our pride or assertion of America, but by the promises we have made unto the entire human species, and the tolls we have demanded along the way. None shall ever snuff Her Flame, and that we should find ourselves a need to so explicitly declare is naught but our own disgrace and a human disaster. If we really need the myth, then this really is the hour. Vancouver, Vancouver, this is it. They will bring the ash and flood and mourning, but none shall steal away Her Light. And this is our duty; faith alone will not suffice.
The country survived GWB and Nixon. It survived the Clinton sex scandals and Iran-Contra and Abramoff. It will survive this too. If anything, he's going to be able to do a lot less damage because so much of the country doesn't take him seriously.
Bells
Staff member
The country not taking him seriously is not really the point.
65% of voters who are more likely to vote Republican favour his comments. 37% among likely voters agree with his rhetoric, as do 18% of those who are likely to vote Democrat agree with the rhetoric. That means a large portion of the Republican base agree with his sentiment. It doesn't matter if he loses the Primaries. Those voters will still be there and their beliefs will not change.
I'll put it this way, the US has seen the aspect of killing Muslims, innocent Muslims, and of banning them from the country, as a form of policy. And a large portion of their voters agree with it and support it. Even if Trump does not win, those voters will still be there. And so will those who support them. The ramp up of anti-Muslim rhetoric won't end if Trump does not win.
This isn't about Trump or Fiore. This is about the absolute radicalisation of the Right and the inherent dangers they pose. When elected officials and candidates vying for President can find themselves in a position where they can speak such rhetoric and not be shut down immediately, removed from the party or face any sanction at all for rhetoric that borders on encouraging murder and denying people their basic and fundamental Constitutional and human rights, then it is clear that this goes well beyond the political realm. Those politicians and politician wannabes are simply echoing what their potential voters are saying. Trump's rhetoric is not to lose votes. He said it to gain more voters. And he has.
Trump doesn't have to do less damage. It doesn't matter if he will no longer be in a position to do any damage. The damage is already long done. Those voters will not immediately change their beliefs or their anti-Muslim rhetoric if Trump loses. It's not just Trump. The anti-Muslim rhetoric is on the rise and those candidates are falling over themselves to stay close enough to it to win those votes. Their policies are just as bad. And if you don't think he can do too much damage, think again:
It isn't Trump that is the issue. It's the voters who support this sort of rhetoric. And not just support it. They demand it.
65% of voters who are more likely to vote Republican favour his comments. 37% among likely voters agree with his rhetoric, as do 18% of those who are likely to vote Democrat agree with the rhetoric. That means a large portion of the Republican base agree with his sentiment. It doesn't matter if he loses the Primaries. Those voters will still be there and their beliefs will not change.
I'll put it this way, the US has seen the aspect of killing Muslims, innocent Muslims, and of banning them from the country, as a form of policy. And a large portion of their voters agree with it and support it. Even if Trump does not win, those voters will still be there. And so will those who support them. The ramp up of anti-Muslim rhetoric won't end if Trump does not win.
This isn't about Trump or Fiore. This is about the absolute radicalisation of the Right and the inherent dangers they pose. When elected officials and candidates vying for President can find themselves in a position where they can speak such rhetoric and not be shut down immediately, removed from the party or face any sanction at all for rhetoric that borders on encouraging murder and denying people their basic and fundamental Constitutional and human rights, then it is clear that this goes well beyond the political realm. Those politicians and politician wannabes are simply echoing what their potential voters are saying. Trump's rhetoric is not to lose votes. He said it to gain more voters. And he has.
Trump doesn't have to do less damage. It doesn't matter if he will no longer be in a position to do any damage. The damage is already long done. Those voters will not immediately change their beliefs or their anti-Muslim rhetoric if Trump loses. It's not just Trump. The anti-Muslim rhetoric is on the rise and those candidates are falling over themselves to stay close enough to it to win those votes. Their policies are just as bad. And if you don't think he can do too much damage, think again:
Never mind that people around the world are decrying Trump's Muslim ban as bringing the U.S. to the "brink of fascism," Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III thinks the proposal is worthy of consideration, reports Caitlin MacNeal.
"He’s treading on dangerous ground because Americans are so deeply committed to freedom of religion. That is a major part of who we are," Sessions told host Steve Bannon on Breitbart News' SiriusXM radio show, referring to Trump's plan. "But at the same time, we’re in an age that’s very dangerous and we’re seeing more and more persons enter and lots of them have done terrorist acts and a lot of them believe it’s commanded by their religion."
"So I think it’s appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has forced that discussion. We may even have a discussion about it in Judiciary Committee today," Sessions continued.
"So I think it’s appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has forced that discussion. We may even have a discussion about it in Judiciary Committee today," Sessions continued.
It isn't Trump that is the issue. It's the voters who support this sort of rhetoric. And not just support it. They demand it.
Bells said:
I really do wonder at the RNC. To the one, everybody sees the brokered convention coming, but yesterday's WaPo↱ report includes a paragraph that describes the problem:
Because of the sensitivity of the topic — and because they are wary of saying something that, if leaked, would provoke Trump to bolt the party and mount an independent bid — Priebus and McConnell were mostly quiet during the back-and-forth. They did not signal support for an overt anti-Trump effort.
The Chairman and the Majority Leader both know it's coming; Donald Trump knows it's coming, and thinks he can win the floor fight.
And there is, in fact, all manner of fascinating detail about the chess game preceding the convention brawl, but the problem for the RNC is the chess game.
Because, to the other, it's all well and fine to plan for what is going to happen, but there is also the fact that every day 'twixt then and now is another day this hideous shadow looms over the nation. For the RNC's part, the calculus is actually pretty straightforward:
• It is too late to get out in front of this thing.
• The GOP will lose the White House, and likely take a hit in the Senate; the longer the RNC waits, the better the Democrats' chances of splitting the Senate get.
• What does the RNC want dominating the headlines between July and Election Day? The fallout from the ugliest convention in history, with Donald Trump mounting a legal bid to be on the ballot in all fifty states as an Independent?
• The GOP will lose the White House, and likely take a hit in the Senate; the longer the RNC waits, the better the Democrats' chances of splitting the Senate get.
• What does the RNC want dominating the headlines between July and Election Day? The fallout from the ugliest convention in history, with Donald Trump mounting a legal bid to be on the ballot in all fifty states as an Independent?
The poltiical answer is actually the same as the ethical and moral answers: Expel Donald Trump from the Party right now, and spend the time winning headlines for fending off this spectre of hatred.
• Isolate the Trump Phenomenon outside either mainstream Party.
• Publicly explain to the candidates that those voters can come back and vote for Republicans if they want, but the Party will no longer pitch to them.
• Explain to the American people: "Look, yeah, this wasn't actually how it was supposed to go. A lot of our candidates in all races played to the market, and that really was a mistake. But if they still want to pitch to these sectors, they're on their own."
• And then publicly explain to the candidates that the RNC means explicitly that the Party will cut them lose.
• In the press conference, say, "It's true, we forgot about the part when sometimes we really are supposed to stand up and remind our constituents what is best for society."
• Spend every subsequent day helping the rest of civilized society make clear to this filthy bigotry that it is unacceptable and what it wants simply isn't ever going to happen.
• Publicly explain to the candidates that those voters can come back and vote for Republicans if they want, but the Party will no longer pitch to them.
• Explain to the American people: "Look, yeah, this wasn't actually how it was supposed to go. A lot of our candidates in all races played to the market, and that really was a mistake. But if they still want to pitch to these sectors, they're on their own."
• And then publicly explain to the candidates that the RNC means explicitly that the Party will cut them lose.
• In the press conference, say, "It's true, we forgot about the part when sometimes we really are supposed to stand up and remind our constituents what is best for society."
• Spend every subsequent day helping the rest of civilized society make clear to this filthy bigotry that it is unacceptable and what it wants simply isn't ever going to happen.
Because right now the rest of us can holler all we want, but the fertile soil of major-party legitimization will only see this thing grow and grow uglier until the RNC gets off its ass and does its duty to its country. About a month ago some murmur percolated suggesting the GOP establishment was already looking at Trump and Carson as an existential question, for the nation, not just the Party↗.
Now would be a very good time for the RNC to answer that question.
Because it is an American existential question.
And no, we're not going to slay the American Dream on Election Day, but the inevitable GOP loss of the White House simply isn't enough. At the moment, it is genuinely wounded and bleeding.
Now is the time to break the Party. And for the sake of political cynicism, if they start now and do everything perfectly, they can actually put together a pretty decent sociomoral posture come November.
And, yeah, if the moral obligation itself isn't enough for the RNC, that's a problem in and of itself. It may be too late for them to get out in front of this, but every second they wait to get off the bench isn't just harmful to the Party, but also the nation, and arguably the world.
This is the hour.
I agree that it's a pretty sad situation. But again, we've been through worse. We spent decades as a country where most people approved of slavery. We had a war less than a century ago where we rounded up all of one race and put them in prison camps. When we finally legalized interracial marriage, most of the country was dead-set against it. And even now, after decades of work, gay rights are still a struggle.
The good news is that every time we see a flare-up of racism, xenophobia or other bigotry, it is smaller in magnitude. No longer do we form possees to kill people of a certain race; now we demonstrate to not let any more in. No longer do we use facile justifications to argue for the continuation of slavery; now we simply don't take action against other countries who still practice forms of slavery. No longer do we keep students out of schools due to their race; now we just argue about who should have an easier time getting in and why.
So while we still have a ways to go (as Trump and his supporters amply demonstrate) at least we're headed in the right direction, when looked at over the history of our country.
Last edited:
Billvon said:
While I don't disagree, where I run into a boundary is at the question of how we might account for the aspects of this seemingly continuous-spectrum upwelling of bigotry and supremacism within certain communities that would describe a challenge to the historical narrative?
While the arc of history bends toward justice, as the saying goes, we are facing a different sort of challenge than our errors, omissions, and vices along the way usually present and demonstrate.
This is supposed to be a fringe culture; the rhetoric we are hearing from the GOP is not supposed to occur within the range of our mainline political discourse.
And we're scaring the hell out of the rest of the world simply by our failure to unite as a society and disown what now has mainline political discourse considering the f-word.
This is as dangerous as we've been at least since we started the war in Iraq. And if we don't put a stop to it right now it will be as dangerous as we've ever been.
This one is big. This is a really, really big deal.
The Republican Party, our American Republican Party, is about to become a Public Enemy around the world.
This time, it's that big.
I know all the liberals have converged on this thread like zombies to whine about the evil bigoted right-wingers, but does anyone have access to the original interview with Michele Fiore? Personally, I'd rather hear or read what someone said from the source itself, rather than a second-hand description.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Look at France. They have just told the FN to shove it, after a week ago suggesting they might win. I really do not think the USA is going to elect Trump and I think all this ballyhoo is people being self-indulgent, at a stage when they know they can afford to be. I see that in Iowa, Cruz, another nutcase admittedly but somewhat less boorish and idiotic, leads Trump by 10 points. I suspect this is the shape of things to come.
People support all kinds of things, when they feel they have freedom to do so without consequences. Once they feel there are real consequences, they will sing a different tune.
I think people are craving real change, which is what Trump seems to offer. The Republicans have a way of putting people with extreme ideas in office. It doesn't really matter who they are. Trump doesn't bother me with what he says; it's his ego that scares me.
If you're a home owner with a family and a steady job, and you are comfortable with the way things are, vote for Hillary.
If you are 20-something, still living with your parents, have no real prospects for the future, vote for Sanders.
If you're tired of government oversight in life, business and elsewhere, vote for Trump.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Seen That Movie, Too
No ... no. That's complete bullshit.
Two analogies, and then the tie back in:
Any questions, sir?
____________________
Notes:
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 27 March 2010. NYTimes.com. 13 December 2015. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
Bowser said:
No ... no. That's complete bullshit.
Two analogies, and then the tie back in:
• Coming out of the closet, my first personal-preservation principle was to not jump on the first available comfort; after all, being out of the closet means I don't have to act like I did when I was in.
• As a leftist, I've yet to jump on the Bernie Sanders revolution specifically because I'm not going to jump on the first available revolution for the sake of being a revolution. Besides, Sanders is smart enough to can the revolution for now. Still, though, that's how things go. I'm not winning any revolutions this year; I'm not jumping on the first available comfort.
↳ The thing is that if "people are craving real change", what, exactly, is the change they're after? This is kind of like the, "I want my country back!" lament. What did that ever mean? As near as anyone could ever discern, it really was about skin color, the decline of traditional supremacy under law, and all that other bigotry; as Frank Rich↱ observed in 2010:
• As a leftist, I've yet to jump on the Bernie Sanders revolution specifically because I'm not going to jump on the first available revolution for the sake of being a revolution. Besides, Sanders is smart enough to can the revolution for now. Still, though, that's how things go. I'm not winning any revolutions this year; I'm not jumping on the first available comfort.
↳ The thing is that if "people are craving real change", what, exactly, is the change they're after? This is kind of like the, "I want my country back!" lament. What did that ever mean? As near as anyone could ever discern, it really was about skin color, the decline of traditional supremacy under law, and all that other bigotry; as Frank Rich↱ observed in 2010:
It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver―none of them major Democratic players in the health care push―received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "Take our country back!" these are the people they want to take the country back from.
Are these people who crave real change merely jumping on the first available comfort? Or is there significance in the fact that Trump's xenophobic, anti-Constitutional rhetoric actually echoes the "real change" we keep hearing from the right wing? Real change? What about going backwards is real change? In truth, trying to pass off martial xenophobia as standard Republican business regulation discourse is very nearly infamous.
Any questions, sir?
____________________
Notes:
Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. 27 March 2010. NYTimes.com. 13 December 2015. http://nyti.ms/1HH6NRf
No, it's true. You can see in the young and the old. The only people who don't want change are those comfortable with the current system of politics. You know, nothing ever happening to create a real difference. Just keep spending the money and put off the bill until a later date.
Yet he has a lot of support from those who have very little, like the young. When I was in my 20's I could afford a car, a rental, and food on the table--all on meager earnings. The kids now have very little that they can call their own. I don't know your status on the food chain, but maybe you have grown beyond the new "Leftist" agenda, which seems to be acquiring the very basics of life.
Obviously that is part of his appeal. Yes, people are clapping their hands in approval.
He's offering what they want. Yes, and whatever else he might offer. Watch him as the election season goes further.
Follow the money...
Sanders
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528
Clinton
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
Trump
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864
All information provided by OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics
Sanders
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528
Clinton
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
Trump
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864
All information provided by OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics