Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

The police learned from the riots at the Chicago democratic convention back in the 60's. Free speech does not give anyone the right to disrupt peaceful assembly and free speech by others.

Protesters need to register and assemble in dedicated areas separate from the groups they want to disrupt. Breaking this law is just like breaking any other law and should not be tolerated.

JR

I think the notion that you need to register to protest is a bit dangerous. There's just something that should put up a red flag when you say it out loud; "If you want to protest you have to effectively register your dissent with state authorities in advance". It smells like big-state big-government totalitarianism, be it Communist nonsense or Fascism or whatever.

Further more I think we're seeing protests that are violating laws or ordinances more frequently as those protesting are increasingly feeling that their avenues of expression and influence are limited or cut off. If you can't affect politics in your nation what do you do? What point is it to play by rules that effectively makes your vote "meaningless"?

 

[DaveP]

Alan,
A very wise reasoned response.

Matt,
I do get the "we should have protested against Hitler when we had the chance" argument, but is Donald Trump really in the same class as him, Really?  The left get a little paranoid nowadays about "fascists", they see them everywhere.

Personally, I don't think he has a chance, unless the violent protests become so out of hand that voters will vote for a strong hand to  stop the anarchy.

I don't think he has a chance of building a wall, even less of deporting 11m  illegals, so what is the worst that could happen?  War with Russia?  From what I've heard, that is more likely to occur with a disapproving Clinton whose principles won't let her accept Putin as a partner.  Trump and Putin appear to respect each other which I see as the one spark of hope in the whole sorry mess.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

The police learned from the riots at the Chicago democratic convention back in the 60's. Free speech does not give anyone the right to disrupt peaceful assembly and free speech by others.

Protesters need to register and assemble in dedicated areas separate from the groups they want to disrupt. Breaking this law is just like breaking any other law and should not be tolerated.

JR

I think the notion that you need to register to protest is a bit dangerous. There's just something that should put up a red flag when you say it out loud; "If you want to protest you have to effectively register your dissent with state authorities in advance". It smells like big-state big-government totalitarianism, be it Communist nonsense or Fascism or whatever.

Speech is protected by the constitution so local governments can not deny any group the right to assemble peacefully, but the government and police have to provide police protection to protesters too, so require a modicum of prior knowledge and control to prevent denying other's rights, violence, injury, or more.

Back years ago when I put on a 5K race I had to get a parade permit, to be legal. This was to provide the police with knowledge about what to expect (no riots that day).

Even groups as ugly and unpopular as the KKK , or worse, get parade permits. That nasty religious group in KS that tries to offend relatives of dead soldiers by protesting at their funerals are allowed, but required to keep a stipulated distance. Counter protests by motocycle groups insert themselves between the funeral and the religious protestors so the families won't hear them.

Further more I think we're seeing protests that are violating laws or ordinances more frequently as those protesting are increasingly feeling that their avenues of expression and influence are limited or cut off. If you can't affect politics in your nation what do you do? What point is it to play by rules that effectively makes your vote "meaningless"?

I'm not smart enough to know what these people think, but Trump joked that he is already creating jobs  ;D as some protesters are reportedly being paid to protest against him. 

JR

PS: I like to follow Venezuela as one of the poster boys for failed forms of government. Venezuela has only been intermittently providing power and water to it's citizens, but now they are even running out of beer.. : The local beer company can not get enough dollars from the government (in exchange for Venezuela currency) to import malt from belgium to make beer with. The government is threatening them with  nationalization of the beer business too, if they stop making beer, but they already owe international suppliers hundreds of millions of dollars that they can't pay, so don't have much recourse.

The Venezuela government is using all the US dollars they can get, to stay current on international bond payments so they don't default on that sovereign debt and the government could then lose formerly nationalized assets in other countries (like Citgo gas/oil in the US).

 

[thermionic]

China

 

[mattiasNYC]

Matt,
I do get the "we should have protested against Hitler when we had the chance" argument, but is Donald Trump really in the same class as him, Really?  The left get a little paranoid nowadays about "fascists", they see them everywhere.

No, I don't think he's in the same class, but that wasn't the point. The point wasn't that they're the same, or equally bad but different. The point was merely that at some point we throughout certain "rules" we normally adhere to - as we well should - because we risk certain things. The fact that something hasn't yet happened doesn't negate the right to protest, even violently in my opinion, although it certainly 'depends'. But, it doesn't depend on whether or not things had yet occurred, and that was the point I was making.

Personally, I don't think he has a chance, unless the violent protests become so out of hand that voters will vote for a strong hand to  stop the anarchy.

I don't think he has a chance of building a wall, even less of deporting 11m  illegals, so what is the worst that could happen?  War with Russia?  From what I've heard, that is more likely to occur with a disapproving Clinton whose principles won't let her accept Putin as a partner.  Trump and Putin appear to respect each other which I see as the one spark of hope in the whole sorry mess.

DaveP

For what it's worth, even as a person generally on "the left", I don't really have a conceptual problem with deportation or building walls, IF we're going to have nation-states to begin with. So his stance on that doesn't bother me particularly much. The question is just how it's done in addition to the other stuff I mentioned in passing. I'm far more worried about legislation he just might enact to crack down on terrorism (supposedly). I'd be worried if I was a Muslim because of his rhetoric, and I'd be worried as a brown Hispanic again because of rhetoric.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Speech is protected by the constitution so local governments can not deny any group the right to assemble peacefully, but the government and police have to provide police protection to protesters too, so require a modicum of prior knowledge and control to prevent denying other's rights, violence, injury, or more.

Back years ago when I put on a 5K race I had to get a parade permit, to be legal. This was to provide the police with knowledge about what to expect (no riots that day).

Even groups as ugly and unpopular as the KKK , or worse, get parade permits. That nasty religious group in KS that tries to offend relatives of dead soldiers by protesting at their funerals are allowed, but required to keep a stipulated distance. Counter protests by motocycle groups insert themselves between the funeral and the religious protestors so the families won't hear them.

I see the point in all of that. The only thing I was pointing out is that a political view is then registered along with the protest. It may seem harmless, but we know that law enforcement agencies actually care about your political opinions, if they differ from what is deemed acceptable. So I think it's a valid reason to be concerned.

That you have to get a parade permit to organize a 5k race or celebrate a Canadian independence day parade or whatever is really a different beast because political opinion isn't registered along with it. I'm not saying there's a clear solution to this btw, because I understand that there are other issues that need to be addressed.

Further more I think we're seeing protests that are violating laws or ordinances more frequently as those protesting are increasingly feeling that their avenues of expression and influence are limited or cut off. If you can't affect politics in your nation what do you do? What point is it to play by rules that effectively makes your vote "meaningless"?

I'm not smart enough to know what these people think, but Trump joked that he is already creating jobs  ;D as some protesters are reportedly being paid to protest against him.  [/quote]

You're most definitely smart enough. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a lot of people are frustrated with politicians having to spend hundreds of millions to get elected, get tight with lobbyists who again represents firms who've paid millions, having only two parties to choose between, and where both candidates are pro-Capitalists either right of center or very right of center. I think people have had enough and that's why Bernie has done so well.

Now, further more I think a lot of people are annoyed because they can see Hillary becoming the candidate for the Dems, and then she'll face one of two crappy Republican candidates. Since she isn't representing a lot of "Democrats" the displeasure should be easily understood. Just what does it take to change things?

PS: I like to follow Venezuela as one of the poster boys for failed forms of government. Venezuela has only been intermittently providing power and water to it's citizens, but now they are even running out of beer.. : The local beer company can not get enough dollars from the government (in exchange for Venezuela currency) to import malt from belgium to make beer with. The government is threatening them with  nationalization of the beer business too, if they stop making beer, but they already owe international suppliers hundreds of millions of dollars that they can't pay, so don't have much recourse.

The Venezuela government is using all the US dollars they can get, to stay current on international bond payments so they don't default on that sovereign debt and the government could then lose formerly nationalized assets in other countries (like Citgo gas/oil in the US).

You can mismanage a great deal of different forms of government. The first question has by default be just what the parameters are for "successful" or "good" forms. A lot of people in Capitalist America have huge problems with how society has turned out here. To them this "form" of government isn't working either.

 

[DaveP]

You made some good points Matt.

I think they can be summed up by "Government isn't working".

This notion applies equally to the Trump protesters and the Trump supporters, they all feel frustrated and powerless.

The main flaw in western democracy is that real choice is denied to the electorate by the party machines and the vested interests that support them.  We have the same problem in the UK but to a lesser degree, but there are at least other parties to vote for.

It's strange to see democracies in every country divided into the "Haves" and "Have nots", even in Rwanda that is what Tutsis and Hutus means.

Trump was a former Democrat turned Republican, but he could have made a third party protest vote candidate, which is in effect, what he has become.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I agree Dave.

I'd add media to the problem, as they are intertwined with certain interests. I followed the anti-semitism row somewhat this past week, and it's just ludicrous.

As for Trump I think it brings us back to what I think we pondered earlier, what he would do if he didn't get the nomination. Does anyone think he'd run as a third party candidate? Seems to me it'd be a possibly viable option. Heck, the most interesting thing that could happen is if both Bernie and Trump ran as independents, facing Hillary and some other dude (Cruz?). That'd be interesting to see.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Speech is protected by the constitution so local governments can not deny any group the right to assemble peacefully, but the government and police have to provide police protection to protesters too, so require a modicum of prior knowledge and control to prevent denying other's rights, violence, injury, or more.

Back years ago when I put on a 5K race I had to get a parade permit, to be legal. This was to provide the police with knowledge about what to expect (no riots that day).

Even groups as ugly and unpopular as the KKK , or worse, get parade permits. That nasty religious group in KS that tries to offend relatives of dead soldiers by protesting at their funerals are allowed, but required to keep a stipulated distance. Counter protests by motocycle groups insert themselves between the funeral and the religious protestors so the families won't hear them.

I see the point in all of that. The only thing I was pointing out is that a political view is then registered along with the protest. It may seem harmless, but we know that law enforcement agencies actually care about your political opinions, if they differ from what is deemed acceptable. So I think it's a valid reason to be concerned.

What you mean "we" know? I am less concerned about low level law enforcement having political bias, than higher up the food chain. Government is supposed to administer the law equally. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Unfortunately congressional investigation often show a partisan edge. More disturbing the last few years of IRS targeting the tea party and now climate scientists with opinions contrary to the official administration line are being targeted for legal action to shut them up. Not only is this contrary to our constitutional speech protections but it is bad science.  Scientists should constantly question and investigate theory, not join hands and sing "we are the world". 

That you have to get a parade permit to organize a 5k race or celebrate a Canadian independence day parade or whatever is really a different beast because political opinion isn't registered along with it. I'm not saying there's a clear solution to this btw, because I understand that there are other issues that need to be addressed.

Further more I think we're seeing protests that are violating laws or ordinances more frequently as those protesting are increasingly feeling that their avenues of expression and influence are limited or cut off. If you can't affect politics in your nation what do you do? What point is it to play by rules that effectively makes your vote "meaningless"?

I'm not smart enough to know what these people think, but Trump joked that he is already creating jobs  ;D as some protesters are reportedly being paid to protest against him. 

You're most definitely smart enough. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that a lot of people are frustrated with politicians having to spend hundreds of millions to get elected, get tight with lobbyists who again represents firms who've paid millions, having only two parties to choose between, and where both candidates are pro-Capitalists either right of center or very right of center. I think people have had enough and that's why Bernie has done so well.

These are just different flavors of populism... verbalize what people want to hear. Very old politics 101... telling voters the truth is a sure recipe for failure, which is why truth tellers never succeed in politics .

Now, further more I think a lot of people are annoyed because they can see Hillary becoming the candidate for the Dems, and then she'll face one of two crappy Republican candidates. Since she isn't representing a lot of "Democrats" the displeasure should be easily understood. Just what does it take to change things?

I was encouraged to see the grass roots tea party. A real return to our constitutional roots. There is nothing wrong with our government, if we can remove the perversions caused by spending too much money, and controlling too much of the private economy. This huge money flow is too attractive for big money private interests too ignore, thus all the crony capitalism, and big money in politics.  If we put government on a diet, it would be less attractive to the sleaze balls.

PS: I like to follow Venezuela as one of the poster boys for failed forms of government. Venezuela has only been intermittently providing power and water to it's citizens, but now they are even running out of beer.. : The local beer company can not get enough dollars from the government (in exchange for Venezuela currency) to import malt from belgium to make beer with. The government is threatening them with  nationalization of the beer business too, if they stop making beer, but they already owe international suppliers hundreds of millions of dollars that they can't pay, so don't have much recourse.

The Venezuela government is using all the US dollars they can get, to stay current on international bond payments so they don't default on that sovereign debt and the government could then lose formerly nationalized assets in other countries (like Citgo gas/oil in the US).

You can mismanage a great deal of different forms of government. The first question has by default be just what the parameters are for "successful" or "good" forms. A lot of people in Capitalist America have huge problems with how society has turned out here. To them this "form" of government isn't working either.

In very broad strokes, government is supposed to protect the citizens from external threats, provide rule of law, so people get to prosper from the fruits of their labor, and freedom to be different (life liberty, and pursuit of happiness). The popular lie we will hear over and over this campaign year, government can not create jobs, or wealth. At best government can preserve wealth by maintaining a stable currency, but we are in a the late stages of a multi-year world wide economic experiment involving massive liquidity injections and even negative interest rates, that may not end well (I hope it does, but you won't find negative interest rates in classic economic texts).

JR

PS It is interesting to hear arguments that Trump is not a republican, does anybody think Bernie is a democrat?

 

[DaveP]

How would you define a Democrat?

These were Democrats in 1924:-



Seems like they've come a long way since then

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

What you mean "we" know?

I mean that law enforcement intelligence gathering without a reasonable tangible suspicion of crimes being planned or committed is in the public record. Political and religious organizations have been targeted and infiltrated. If we want religious freedom then that's bad thing, ditto freedom of political opinion (and discourse on both).

I am less concerned about low level law enforcement having political bias, than higher up the food chain. Government is supposed to administer the law equally. That's why Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Unfortunately congressional investigation often show a partisan edge. More disturbing the last few years of IRS targeting the tea party and now climate scientists with opinions contrary to the official administration line are being targeted for legal action to shut them up. Not only is this contrary to our constitutional speech protections but it is bad science.  Scientists should constantly question and investigate theory, not join hands and sing "we are the world". 

One doesn't exclude the other.

I was encouraged to see the grass roots tea party. A real return to our constitutional roots. There is nothing wrong with our government, if we can remove the perversions caused by spending too much money, and controlling too much of the private economy. This huge money flow is too attractive for big money private interests too ignore, thus all the crony capitalism, and big money in politics.  If we put government on a diet, it would be less attractive to the sleaze balls.

Your system allows for it. The Tea Party supports a constitution that allows for it. It's probably not going to change. It's not the size of government that's the problem, it's the system allowing for intertwining money and politics.

In very broad strokes, government is supposed to protect the citizens from external threats, provide rule of law, so people get to prosper from the fruits of their labor, and freedom to be different (life liberty, and pursuit of happiness). The popular lie we will hear over and over this campaign year, government can not create jobs, or wealth.

Those are your opinions. I've shown you before that a government can create jobs and wealth but you just keep ignoring it. So I guess I'll just keep pointing that out.

At best government can preserve wealth by maintaining a stable currency, but we are in a the late stages of a multi-year world wide economic experiment involving massive liquidity injections and even negative interest rates, that may not end well (I hope it does, but you won't find negative interest rates in classic economic texts).

But how do you place the role of the fed in this context? I mean, with a non-government owned federal reserve, and a political class deeply entangled with private business, how can we blame government for this massive injections? The decisions are made by a particular class of people. Sure as hell aren't decisions made by Joe the plumber.

 

[mattiasNYC]

How would you define a Democrat?

These were Democrats in 1924:-



Seems like they've come a long way since then

DaveP

Current western terminology regarding politics is stupid. It's been stupid for a long time. It promotes simplicity and that makes the voting public simpletons in a sense, which is exactly what those who rule want. They don't want you or anyone else to consider any more than two views: Right of center Democrats, and right of Democrat Republicans. If you can stick to those views, AND reduce them to "left"/"right" or "liberal"/"conservative", despite the former being right of center, then there's a win.

Noam Chomsky put it quite well many years ago: The outer edges are eliminated from discourse and labeled "extreme" or whatever, and then you can have a "free" and "open" discussion within that narrower range. Doing that will give the illusion of open free debate whereas in fact you've censored it before hand through exclusion of debatable topics.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't enjoy repeating myself either... It doesn't make you believe me, or me you.

enjoy

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I don't enjoy repeating myself either... It doesn't make you believe me, or me you.

enjoy

JR

I know. I mention Scandinavia and you change the conversation. Not particularly "honest" from a standpoint of having a discussion.

 

[salomonander]

i think Trump would be a dangerous choice considering how relations to russia developed in the past year. but maybe putin and him would even like each other for being real macho men - smoke some cigars, drink expensive whisky and go hunting. but maybe it would end up in desaster.
still, i think Trump is a smart guy after all. he is not half as stupid as he appears to be. he just realized that lots of people are fed up with false image and pretended political correctness. the guy in charge now fooled the entire world by acting liberal and  looking different. but in the end he was just as much of a d*ck as the guys before him

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't enjoy repeating myself either... It doesn't make you believe me, or me you.

enjoy

JR

I know. I mention Scandinavia and you change the conversation. Not particularly "honest" from a standpoint of having a discussion.

Dishonest? (while I do have better things to do with my time than this right now).

I'm too lazy to search for the last time I answered that theme, but IIRC there was significant energy (oil/ gas) revenue supporting the Scandinavian government largess... I haven't revisited this since the bottom fell out of the oil market.  A very homogeneous population (at least it was before all the recent immigration) tolerated high tax rates in return for high government services.

I do recall one high tech Scandinavian company complaining that their "superior" education system doesn't teach students computer programming, so they can't find enough skilled workers, but that may be a single company anecdote. 

JR

PS: Warren Buffet was on TV this morning calling for Keynesian stimulus spending...  ?? (That'll probably end up in an ad like his taxation comments).  I just hate election time, it seems to be perpetual these days.. Why can't we be like other countries that can call an election and sort it out in a few months?

 

[DaveP]

still, i think Trump is a smart guy after all. he is not half as stupid as he appears to be. he just realized that lots of people are fed up with false image and pretended political correctness. the guy in charge now fooled the entire world by acting liberal and  looking different. but in the end he was just as much of a d*ck as the guys before him

As an objective outside observer I can't fail to notice that Trump has obtained billions of dollars worth of free media coverage and received the endorsement of millions of Republican voters, those are not the actions of a stupid man.  All this anger that is in evidence, both in his rhetoric and that of the protesters, has built up in the last eight years of the most politically correct and genial President for some time, so maybe being Mr nice guy (or Mrs) is not enough to bring the US  together.

Trump has identified the loss of jobs to China and the influx of illegal immigrants as major issues for very many Americans.  You would have thought that Clinton would have tried to voice these fears of blue collar workers but I have not heard her speak much on that subject.  Regarding the America First statements, you can see he has a point.  The USA has been the worlds biggest aid donor for some time yet it always seems to be the country that gets its flag burnt first.  Personally, I can't see the sense of increasing US national debt by giving aid to countries that have space programs and nuclear weapons, or have endemic corruption.

The biggest issue by far though, is the remoteness of the Federal government machine and the Washington circus.  Clinton is a professional politician who can play the system, but only Sanders, Trump and Cruz have realised it was the elephant in the room for many Americans.  What I don't yet understand is why Clinton has not got the young women's vote whereas Sanders has, maybe they resent her sense of entitlement?  No doubt someone will enlighten me.

DaveP

 

[lassoharp]

Trump puts out a lot of anger, and angry people - who arguably are less concerned with the rights of others in which they claim to be  protesting for - are attracted to that.   

I don't think that's fair.

I should have clarified that a little better.  The '"angry people"  I was referring to were of the former group you mentioned - those who have anger issues and latch on to that vibe and go to the Trump rallies seeking an outlet.  Though sometimes it's hard to say for sure that a given person falls fully in that category.  A casual friend of mine recently tried to rally a bunch of people into attending a local Trump event.  On the surface this person is known for being very "politically concerned and active".  His opinions are lucid and he's very aware of what's going on in the world - but is just as equally often unaware of what's going on in his own life.  Get's fired from jobs left and right and doesn't see his own role in it and has had a very hard time moving forward with things.  So there is a good bit of projection going on - anger at himself that gets mixed in with his genuine concern over national politics.  Luckily all of his other friends talked him out of going.  They could all see trouble coming. 

And so I suppose I'm saying that I agree that we have laws and rights and they should be obeyed and respected until they shouldn't, and there needs to be a discussion about how we determine when they shouldn't.

The very critical, IMO, details of what led to the things that most upset us re violence at protests are unfortunately never thoroughly examined by the media (left or right).  I think it is very important to know exactly what happened when say, the police end up physically attacking someone, or when the police are attacked.  If there are clear boundaries that protesters aren't allowed to cross (and we'll assume it's in accordance with the laws) and someone crosses them that's one case.  If the police drag someone to the ground just because that person said something that made the police officer lose their temper then it's another case.  But instead of objectivity we often get stories with a bias to one side or the other.  I would personally prefer to see combating media bias by aiming for stark objectivity.  My own experience with trying to promote that type of reality is that it often ends up being the lost duck in the middle of the road.  People like to believe what they want to believe 

I for one see a problem with waiting when it comes to certain issues because if those issues involve enacting legislation then it can have severe ripple effects that make protesting a far worse crime, from the perspective of the state, and thus far more difficult to do.

Sometimes you can see something coming yet you can't.  Many people feared the worst when the republicans took majority control in NC and McCrory was elected governor.  But most of the bills have been passed in a behind closed doors manner with little media coverage.  HB2 was a hasty reaction and done quickly.  Now if McCrory were to make it publicly known beforehand what he intends to do on future bills I think you have  case for protesting early just based on his words, because he's already in a position of power and has a track record for doing what he says.  Hindsight would say people should have protested long before.  Definitely no easy answers.   

 

[mattiasNYC]

Dishonest? (while I do have better things to do with my time than this right now).

I'm too lazy to search for the last time I answered that theme, but IIRC there was significant energy (oil/ gas) revenue supporting the Scandinavian government largess...

Scandinavia isn't just one country, and just one country in Scandinavia has large amounts of oil. For the rest of it, or the Nordic countries if you prefer, that did not apply.

A very homogeneous population (at least it was before all the recent immigration) tolerated high tax rates in return for high government services.

What does homogeneity have to do with anything? It's an argument I see thrown out by "the right" all the time when discussing Scandinavia, as if it was inherently an argument, in and by itself. Rarely is it accompanied by a thoughtful explanation of just why it's relevant.

I do recall one high tech Scandinavian company complaining that their "superior" education system doesn't teach students computer programming, so they can't find enough skilled workers, but that may be a single company anecdote. 

It's probably true. But education provides an exellent example of the problem with Capitalism, because when I grew up our program had us study typing and programming on a very basic level because it was thought to be relevant to our industry (finance at the time I was studying). However, state-funded and operated education was subjected to private competition and ever since a lot fo metrics have shown a decline in results. Not only that, but for the first time in... ever... we've seen students show up for their first day of school only to find a sign on the door saying the school went bankrupt. No message sent to parents or anything. Of course the parent company made a big profit and did itself not go bankrupt.

My point is merely that wealth, the way I see it, is goods and services of intrinsic value to the population. As societies we organize to manage resources so we can create wealth. A corporation in a capitalist market is one such organization, and so is a government. The corporation itself doesn't create wealth, and neither does the government, but the people employed by either do. It's an absolute falsehood to say that a government can't create wealth, because it can, just like a corporation can: By employing humans to do the work necessary.

Whether or not it is "successful" in various situations, and actually what "successful" entails in the first place,  are different issues.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Trump has identified the loss of jobs to China and the influx of illegal immigrants as major issues for very many Americans.  You would have thought that Clinton would have tried to voice these fears of blue collar workers but I have not heard her speak much on that subject.  Regarding the America First statements, you can see he has a point.  The USA has been the worlds biggest aid donor for some time yet it always seems to be the country that gets its flag burnt first.  Personally, I can't see the sense of increasing US national debt by giving aid to countries that have space programs and nuclear weapons, or have endemic corruption.

In my opinion the above just shows that Democrat and Republican "viable" politicians are all right of center. Trade "liberalization" has continued regardless of who's been in power, and it's not for the benefit of the American worker it seems.

The biggest issue by far though, is the remoteness of the Federal government machine and the Washington circus.  Clinton is a professional politician who can play the system, but only Sanders, Trump and Cruz have realised it was the elephant in the room for many Americans.

I think it's been realized by many before, and to an extent Ron Paul addressed similar concerns. And I think there have been others. But every time big money and advertising wins out and they never get the nominations or vote in the actual election.

  What I don't yet understand is why Clinton has not got the young women's vote whereas Sanders has, maybe they resent her sense of entitlement?  No doubt someone will enlighten me.

DaveP

I think you're exactly right. They probably sense that she's more of the same. And Sanders probably connects with young women more because his views are just more reasonable to that demographic. Clinton comes off as yet another career politician in the pocket of lobbyism, neither caring one bit for young women.