[burke]

Yeah, well the problem is that while Trump campaigned on change, the actual changes he plans to implement will just centralize wealth at the top even more.

America had a chance with Bernie, but due to some combination of media attention, Clinton's ambition, DNC's corruption, Russian interference, increasingly-polarized news, and the generally anti-socialist slant of American political discourse, they threw it away.

Bernie was the "fuck this, change everything" candidate that actually had the disenfranchised's needs at heart. Trump claims the same but doesn't substantiate it.

EDIT: And honestly, I don't think Bernie would have been able to accomplish much, or that Obama has done much objectionable. I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn simply because any policy that helps the middle class appears anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist) when capitalism is increasingly synonymous with centralization of wealth as efficiency grows.

EDIT Again: This whole "campaign for the poor but systematically serve only large businesses, then tell everyone that the democrats -- who actually systematically care about humans a little bit -- are the devil" thing is kind of the GOP's M.O., and, as an outsider, I think it's disgusting. Trump is only an exceptionally bad example because he amplifies some of the standard GOP stances while mixing in his own crazy brand of narcissism.

[jnbiche]

> I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn

For the record, Democrats had total control of Congress when Obama first came into office.

[burke]

Indeed, and it's curious that a lot of the more would-be-impactful things have come later in his term when he faces stronger opposition. I don't have any explanation for this.