Hacker News Reader

Comment by chaostheory | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, the blame lies with our 2 party establishment system and the machines behind them. If you take closer looks at recent presidents: Clinton's admin was an overall continuation of GH Bush's administration policies. Obama's admin was a continuation of the Cheney's administration policies. I'm not sure it would really matter which establishment candidate was in office, since the end result is pretty much the same and only the rhetoric would be different. i.e. "impeachment is off the table" or "we're continuing to socialize Wall St's losses and privatize their gains even though over 90% of constituents of both parties are against it"

We haven't had a someone from outside since Carter or even Reagan. Regardless of how you feel about Trump (personally I don't like him) he was the first real alternative choice in decades.

View on HN

He's a complete random element. I literally have no idea what he's going to do. ...maybe that's a good thing? Everything that was "reliable" in the past let us down.

I was ok with Trump winning and the random element is why. I wasn't really behind Trump, but I wasn't behind Hillary either.

I just think atleast Trump has a chance to do something different, Hillary wouldn't have.

I was entirely behind trump because of the random element.

I don't see him as old-school republican, and he's obviously not a democrat either. He's clearly his own man and I think the next 8 years are gonna be amazing.

Its really cool to see people say this hear without the immense backlash im used to bassically everywhere else on the internet. Its not what i expected at all.

I feel that poor people in the countryside figured out that no establishment candidate will really change anything like corruption or most policies for that matter. Only the faces and promises change. I wonder if and when the poor and middle class in urban areas will realize the same thing. Of course the danger is always that 'change' isn't always a good thing.

Exactly this. I have no doubt that Trump and the Republican controlled legislature (and soon judiciary) will bring significant changes to how our country operates. I have very strong doubts that these changes will be net beneficial to the lower and middle classes in this country.

Why do you doubt this?

He/She doubts it because they're on the Trump Hate train, or is it the "dumb rural americans" train, I always forget.

With the people he's chosen so far to take on positions within the cabinet and various agencies, I have a really bad feeling about what's coming.

Wonder how all those people who believed him when he said he was going to "drain the swamp" feel now...

Perhaps Trump is unpredictable... but the people he's choosing for his administration are not.

> I'm not sure it would really matter which establishment candidate was in office

Obama was the change candidate that didn't have a long history in congress. He gets labeled "establishment" by Bern victims out of propaganda. It's kind of funny how there's an anti-establishment candidate every 4 years that has a long history of being part of the establishment. At some point people have to start realizing that "anti-establishment candidate" means underdog who wants his small donations to add up.

Obama was supposed to be the change candidate, it's what he ran on, but he didn't really do anything.

That's part of why Trump won. People have been wanting significant change for that long, yet we never got it.

Obama may have sounded like he was an outsider in his first presidential race, but he's proven otherwise repeatedly over the years even during his first term. To be fair, Sanders would have probably been the same had he been elected.

Trump was the only major party choice in the last election though other choices of change were Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. To be clear, I am not advocating anyone; I'm just differentiating candidates who will uphold the status quo and others who won't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com