Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I don't think it's irrational. It wouldn't have mattered this year if it were Hillary or some other candidate.
The people are looking for someone not embedded in the Washington establishment.
Hillary is deeply, deeply ingrained in it. It's her whole life.
Sanders is seen (rightly or wrongly) as NOT being a part of that system.
People are looking for someone not a part of that system of corruption. Both Trump and Sanders fit that bill. They are seen as outsiders to Washington D.C.
Any other time in the past and both Trump and Sanders would have never made it past the first week.
But NOW...the people have much more information than at any time in history at their fingertips.
Combine that with almost 20 trillion in debt, endless wars, the govt. spying on everyone to a heightened degree, bailouts that saved the banks...while those same banks foreclosed on people's homes, etc. , etc. and you end up with a "perfect storm".
|
I agree. Where we differ is the assumption that Trump would be any different. Bill Clinton did not do any of the above. Middle class income rose, we didn't really have any perma-wars, there was a surplus rather than a deficit. They stopped selling the long bond because we didn't need to borrow. I've only seen a centrist democrat do those things. Hillary Clinton is the only one running. However, if Trump wins it will be waaaaay better than any other republican running.
I mean, Reagan was an establishment republican, but he was not politically correct and was a bit of a maverick. He was also the first big deficit president. Donald Trump is utterly unprecedented. Who can be sure what he'll do in the molasses of bureaucracy?