Aggressive Progressives: September 29, 2016

In Aggressive Progressives - On Demand, Membership by Gigi Manukyan83 Comments

The sixth installment of Aggressive Progressives with Jimmy Dore and Steve Oh. This week, Jimmy and Steve skyped with Socialist Councilwoman, Kshama Sawant, and TYT Politic’s Jordan Chariton on their thoughts on the upcoming elections and presidential nominees.

Comments

  1. Jordan: I think states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan will decide the election. -9/29

    DANG

  3. Jesus Christ, Kshama! SAVAGE! You need to have her on the main show – the backbone and principles on that woman! Utterly inspiring. I was listening to the show in the background while working and she made me click over and commanded my full attention – didn’t wanna to miss anything she was saying. That is exactly the kind of leadership and fierceness that the progressive movement needs. I am not at all surprised that her group elected her to run – Kshama speaks, people listen! God dammed!

  4. I finally got the chance to watch this one. OMG Kshama Sawant is fucking fantastic!!! She got me pumped up like I was watching a Bernie rally. She made so many good points. I feel so much better about things. And of course Jordan just rocks! Thank you guys so much. I love this show!

  6. I really appreciate AP, it is a good addition to the programm! However, I would prefer somebody else to be the presenter because I think Jimmy Dore is ill-suited for the role. I like you, Jimmy, but I think you are too unstructured and scatter-brained to get the facts across effectively. I’d rather have Steve Oh present and you comment instead.
    Also, I want to add to the discussion regarding whether Trump or Clinton would be “more dangerous” or “easier to controll”. On the on hand, I agree that Trump can probably be manipulated more easily as thus a smart, sly advisor could push him in whichever direction thes choose. But then again, he will be surrounded by REPUBLICAN advisors. I think there is a fair chance that he will be utilized to push through the most bogus conservative policies. I guess Obama Care would go first without any replacement. And he could be instrumental in damaging abortion / women’s health laws since he can get 1 or 2 conservative supreme court judges in. I think the fact that he is so plyable can be really dangerous! And the other hand, he is unpredictable. So his advisors might be able to sway him, but they cannot MAKE him do anything he gets in his head. Who knows what he would do with the nuclear launch codes at his disposal… Or not even that horrible szenario. Just think about how he could damage international relations if he misbehaves at some conference with foreign leaders….

    For Hillary Clinton: I think she IS a dangerous candidate. I think there is a good chance that she will only do a fracture of the things she is promising on the trail and that she will try to benefit her donors. But I think at the very least she wouldn’t be careless or act in a temper.

    We ARE voting for the lesser evil and no matter who we elect, we will have to fight them like hell, but I think a Clinton presidency does not endager free press und our ability to protest her. I am not so sure about a Trump presidency….

  7. So who’s the tweeeeter :D I’m guessing it was Ben. Steve took access from everyone, which is nuclear and means he might have been trying to not be too dissing towards a pretty high-up guy. It goes well with Ben being shit-scared of Trump and having hissyfits at progressives.

    It’s ok, Ben :) We won’t let Trump grab you by the … ;D

  8. If not more than once a week, atleast 2 hours! Come ooooon this show is way too good for only an hour.
    Keep up the good work guys!

  9. Really excellent program. MORE!!! More times a week! Longer program. Kshama Sawant was fabulous! And it’s not just young folks that can smell bullshit! I’m a 50-something and I have student loan debt. I KNOW that HRC won’t fight for me. Not in any way because she’s bought and paid for.

  11. Yes, please make this a two hour show, and include more interviews! It’s crucial for us progressives to learn about more people like Kshama Sawant so we can support them and continue organizing ourselves in the effort to achieve our goals!

  12. My favorite show on the TYT Network. Great interviews all around. And yes, totally agree, we must have another party: The Progressive Liberal Party!!!
    Vote your conscience y’all! :D

    1. Honestly, Why is TYTAP not two hours every two weeks?
      and you guys should do a tour through midwest.
      Bring a green Michigan!

  14. Listen to me people- unless you elect a Third Party to a majority in Congress, there’s no chance of implementing the policies you want now. As a political statement in the broader sense, it doesn’t mean anything. I know it sucks and you want your voice heard. But THATS what has to happen. We need to support things like Socialist Alternative, but we need to CHANGE the voting system AND get money out of politics. Otherwise we are going to have this same conversation about being forced to vote for a neoliberal to prevent the Right from getting into power again in 2020. Grassroots organizing people, if we are the Aggressive Progressives we need to wake up and start moving, not just vote Jill Stein and think that will make all our problems go away. It won’t, the problem is systemic, and frankly the country isn’t ready for that change this election. We need to fight another day like Cenk says. If you wanna vote Green in a deep Red state, I’d support you, but I’m not prepared for a Trump presidency. If it was Huckabee, Kasich, virtually anyone else, I would vote Green, it wouldn’t really matter long term, but this guy matters. Trump will surround himself people so corrupt you’ll think Hillary is an angel sent from above

    1. > Trump will surround himself people so corrupt

      What makes Trump so very special, and where does all your certainty come from? The man has never even held a public office before, so there is no record to serve as a precedent.

      Even Hitler had committed a coup d’état (in 1923) ten years prior to gaining power (in 1933) so if you were a German who was just a tiny bit smart then you knew exactly where the man was coming from.

      The system is utterly corrupt, so isn’t it completely normal and natural for people in a Trump administration to be corrupt? Of course it’s awful and tragic, but it has the advantage of confirming the true state of the system.

      1. My certainty comes from his entire business record! You don’t get how Republicans operate do you? It’ll be Bush administration on steroids. He can stop all regulation- that’s a Repub’s wet dream. Why? Trump University scam, his lying about tax returns, his shady business, him fucking over people in every deal he’s ever made, Pam Bondy, and on and on. I’m disappointed you didn’t respond about changing the voting system. Probably because you don’t have a counterargument

        1. > My certainty comes from his entire business record!

          That is far from convincing. Contrary to rightwing rhetoric, running a business and running the country are two completely different things. We can make vague predictions about how incompetent a president Trump would be (i.e. pretty incompetent), certainly, but my point was that all these highly detailed predictions (especially from Hillary supporters) about exactly how a Trump presidency would unfold, and exactly what the other people in that administration would do, are just so much crystal ball gazing. The basic fact remains that Trump is a political wild card, coming from outside the political system, with no political record.

          The only parts that can be more or less predicted is he will be incompetent, that he will make mistakes, and that he will piss off large parts of the population. And those are parts which – to the limited extent that they can be predicted – I’m looking forward to.

          > I’m disappointed you didn’t respond about changing the voting system. Probably because you don’t have a counterargument

          I have a master’s in political science and could have given you twenty pages on the particulars of the electoral system, but I prefer not to waste our time on something that – in the context of this conversation – is a false hope.

          You’re making the mistake of using the term “systemic” and then assuming that it’s centered on the voting system. The latter is just a small part of the system; there are many democracies in the world with a very different voting system than the US (e.g. proportional voting) which nevertheless suffer from similar systemic problems.

          In other words, changing the electoral system would not have the impact that you think it would have. Sure, a more proportional system would be better in some ways than the current system, but that’s tinkering in the margins.

          Less importantly, but not irrelevant to your point, is that there is currently no place where electoral reform could come from, in the first place. It cannot come from those who currently hold the reins of power, because they are understandably against it. It cannot come from the judiciary or the constitution. And it cannot come from below, from a mass social movement, because the electoral system is simply too abstract and technical an issue to ever rally a real movement around.

  15. Even if I had to pay double membership price I’d do it for 2hr everyday aggressive progressives. Such a great episode.

    1. I’m with you! (Bernie’s original campaign slogan)
      I would also pay double for more Aggressive Progressive shows a week.

  16. I am also from Seattle like Kshama and there is a very strong establishment presence in the democratic party. Yes, we are a liberal city and that makes many social issues easier to approach but just like what we saw with the party’s resistance of Bernie, we get resistance from the old standard of Gov. Inside, Sen. Patty Murray , and others. The city has an extremely liberal mayor that has been instrumental in a lot of lefty projects, much to a large amount of the elites dismay because we have a large amount of elite wealth inside and surrounding Seattle. It’s great to hear from Jimmy and Steve, where the real left has a voice!

  18. Absolutely the best political show available today — THANK YOU Jimmy & Steve!

    Kshama Sawant is awesome, my new hero. I took so many notes while watching this show… the discussion is so stimulating… feeds the brain and the soul.

    Wall Street has two parties, shouldn’t the People have at least one – check
    The Democratic Party is a graveyard for progressivism – check
    We have Trump because the DEMOCRATIC party abandoned the people – check

    Voting third party makes SO much sense right now. To anyone who challenges the virtues or lack thereof of either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson… so what? Neither one can be elected under our current system. But if more Americans vote for either one, that will seriously ROCK THE BOAT.

    We’re in a Catch 22 — a great candidate like Bernie declines to run third party because “Third Party candidates cannot win”… which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. How to break that prophesy? One way is to prove that we have finally reached a point where third party candidates can tip the scales, and who better to make that point than a dim-witted doobie-head like Gary Johnson? If GARY JOHNSON can get a substantial percentage of the vote, imagine what a truly great candidate can accomplish, in 2020.

    That’s why I’m voting third party (though I’m voting for Stein). To increase the percentage of non-Uniparty votes, so as to create the foundation for better candidates in the future to run and win.

    If not now, when?

  21. Wow! Great interview with Kshama!So informative and inspiring too! I love for you guys to do an interview with the Founders of BLM. The show really needs to be 2 hours!
    Jordan & Emma you guys r awesome!
    (and so is Kyle n Mike too!)

  22. This show SHOULD be everyday! Don’t get me wrong I love the main show too, but I think this show does a great job in driving home the message that anyone trying to be a liberal version of Fox News, only highlighting the negatives of the other team while ignoring the negatives of “our team,” isn’t better. Steve And Jimmy are right. We are supposed to be better. Maybe I shouldn’t say “we,” because some people disagree. I’ll say I know I am trying to be better than that. And this show, not exclusively but more aggressively, channels my dissatisfaction with once thought (by me) unimpeachable voices of liberalism (the Rachel Maddow example) and lets me know there is someone else yelling at their TV. And that means a lot to me. Another great show!

  23. Hang on, folkes, and strap things down…we’re in for a hell of a bumpy ride.
    At least we’ll be laughing.
    ps, in the matter of the Seder Affair; Jimmy Dore prevails.
    great show

  24. Jimmy this show should be 5 days a week. Right after the main show. That would be a power of block of programming. Push Cenk as only the aggressive progressives can!

    1. yessssssss. more of this show. they all had great points to make about this election and i do feel somewhat better about being pro jill even tho im in cali anyway.

  25. This is the first Aggressive Progressive video that I have seen. It annoys me so much that they aren’t talking about the voting system. If you want to elect third parties, you cannot have a penalty for supporting third parties.

    I’m glad that Jimmy Dore at least sometimes mentions rank choice voting ( more accurately called “instant runoff voting” as there are many different voting methods that use rankings), but he doesn’t do it enough. I also never heard him talking about the Maine ballot measure this November that will IMPLEMENT RANK CHOICE VOTING STATEWIDE.

    Rank choice voting isn’t a great voting system, but it is much better than the one we got. It would be much better if approval voting were implemented.

  28. Aggressive Regressives supports those willing to lose the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and possibly the Nation in order to continue their whining that Bernie didn’t get on the ballot. Believe me their whining will end once Trump takes office… because they’ll all be in jail.

    1. TokyoViking, it looks like you want the presidency for Hillary more than she does. It’s up to her campaign and her management skills to devise a winning strategy and execute it. In 1972, George McGovern had to reboot his campaign personnel. As we’ve learned from TYT’s first hour yesterday, Donald Trump found it in his interest to reboot his campaign staff in exchange for legal bribes. There have been many other candidates who rebooted their campaigns. My guess is she has plenty of time and money to change her approach and/or fine-tune her message or even change her message. If she doesn’t change her approach/message, then that must mean she and her campaign must be convinced they have a winning strategy. After all, they are experts. In the general election, about 50% of registered voters vote. (See the “Voter Turnout” article in Wikipedia.) There are plenty of registered voters just waiting to be motivated to vote for Hillary, replacing “Bernie votes” that will be cast for Jill Stein. So, let’s be clear if Trump wins, it’s Hillary’s fault.

      Perhaps, you could share your concerns with Hillary’s campaign. If you do, please, report back to tell us how it went. Just in case you are right, I will be rereading George Orwell’s 1984 before Inauguration Day, regardless of who wins.

    2. You do know what kind of judge Hillary would appoint to the Supreme Court, right? A conservative who likes abortion rights and/or gay rights. Then she would eagerly and loudly blame the Republicans for her choice being a conservative on 90% of the issues – but in reality, it will be exactly the kind of judge that she always wanted.

        1. 1) That’s only 2 percent of what a progressive should want of her.
          2) We don’t believe her for one second. Not even a Goldman Sachs speech, two hundred dollars-valued second.

          1. I don’t believe her on TPP. But I don’t have any reason to believe she won’t appoint a judge who’s against Citizen’s United. Will she push for the amendment? Hell no. But she won’t fight against it. She’s not a fighter, that’s the problem

            1. She doesn’t fight for progressive policy because she doesn’t want it, period, and neither do her wealthy and corporate backers.

              “Not fighting for it” is a euphemism for a false centrist, Obama-type “cautious” position. I hate to sound superficially like Dubya, but on an issue as important as Citizens United, the truth is that there is no middle ground, no abstentions; it’s “you’re for or against it”. If you waffle and triangulate on taking money out of politics then it just means that you favor putting more money into politics.

              I do accept that there is a middle position on certain things and that in some ways she genuinely wants to be in those kind of middle positions (while still not caring at all that these middles has been shifting to the Right nor about her actions causing it to shift further to the right, however). But there is no middle position on money in politics, and we already know which side of the divide she is on here.

    3. > Regressives

      That’s very cute, to throw in a nonsensical term that’s only ever used by Dave Rubin (“wait, who?” Yeah, “who?” is right) and by a couple of conservatives…

    4. Right on, you used the word ‘whining’. MSNBC would be so proud, but don’t forget ‘spoiled’ and ‘entitled’.

      The ignorance in your comment reminds of a conservative Fox news commenter. Just repeating MSM talking points w/out putting any critical thinking or selective reasoning effort it.

      It’s people like you who constantly remind me that I have very little in common with the establishment Dem party and ensures my vote for Jill Stein. If Hillary loses, it’s all on her, DWS and Dem constituents who supported her in the primaries.

      With that being said, it’s very hard to know what’s worse for the progressive movement, four years of Trump or eight years of Hillary.

  29. I want Kshama Sawant on rhe Senate floor promoting the people’s agenda. She is great, passion, commitment, informed, well spoken and smart. Would love to see more of her on TYT. I thought the Demcratic party could be reformed by electing progressive candidates like Zephyr Teachout, now I am not so sure. Lucky to have Tulsi Gabbard representing me and I now have more appreciation for what she is up against. Bernie and Elizabeth and a few others are fighting same battle. The party leadership holds them in check as much as they can. Love this show. At this moment Christie is sitting in his bed hacking.

  30. “Wall Street has two parties. We need one of our own.” Extraordinary interview with Councilwoman Sawant. Just when I thought Aggressive Progressives can’t get any better…it does. We need Aggressive Progressives EVERY DAY PLEASE! It’s the reason I’m a TYT member.

  32. I aniicipate this show every week, i love that you guys refuse to bend knee to fear and are willing to stand up wagging your finger in the face of the establishment that has been telling us progressives to shut up and get out of thier way, and you guys are yelling back “NO! YOU MOVE!” You guys are amazing KEEP IT UP! Captain America would approve.

  33. Sawant made a very important point, that NO ONE is talking about. Many very progressive policies were put into place under NIXON’S administration. Think about it. These policies were passed as a direct result of having a Republican in office – a backlash. If a Democrat had been elected – as evidenced by policies that are past under Democratic administrations – progressive policies are put on hold….

    1. Bex, I’m not sure what you mean by “a backlash” because the domestic bills that disgraced President Nixon signed into law were, for the most part, a logical progression of what was developing at the time. Environmental protection laws go back to 1948, but a coherent policy kept the different laws from being effective. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969 addressed this shortcoming and was proposed by Senator Henry M Jackson. After NEPA passed, Nixon signed it into law and in 1970 he proposed consolidating into one agency many of the federal environmental responsibilities that were handled by different agencies. The new agency was called the Environmental Protection Agency. (See the “United States Environmental Protection Agency” article in Wikipedia.)

      Even though Nixon supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, he vetoed the Clean Water Act of 1972, because he thought the amount of money to be spent was excessive. Congress overrode his veto anyway. Afterwards, Nixon impounded the funds he identified as unjustifiable. There appears to be a monetary limit to Nixon’s progressiveness.

      These were different times: memories were fresh for World War II and the Korean War, the Vietnam War was raging, Roger Ailes’ propaganda career was just starting, and Milton Friedman had a Neo-Liberal economic theory but no country to use as a guinea pig. Nixon was not part of the Harvard/Yale alumni that has sent so many men to the presidency, the Federal Reserve Board and Goldman Sachs. Although Nixon was offered a tuition grant to attend Harvard, family matters interfered. He attended Wittier College and Duke University School of Law, instead. As a Quaker, he could have dodged service, like Mitt Romney, during World War II but instead he enlisted in the Navy. After the war, Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator and Vice President, unlike Mr Trump. (See the “Richard Nixon” article in Wikipedia.)

      One thing that is consistent across time, so far, is the desire to be re-elected. One could argue that Nixon’s progressive tendencies were a way to broaden his appeal to ensure his re-election. Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shares Nixon’s “unbridled ambition.” (See Colin Powell’s leaked e-mails for Hillary’s “unbridled ambition”.) What will she do to get re-elected? Will Trump even care to be re-elected? With 21 years of patchwork legislative history setting the stage for the EPA, what Frankenstein will the last 21 years of legislation foster during the next administration?

      As an historical exemplar, Nixon can illuminate a Hillary administration more than he can a Trump administration.

      P.S. Nixon’s 1972 presidential challenger was George McGovern. Interestingly, McGovern chaired the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, a. k. a., the “McGovern commission”. “[T]he commission significantly reduced the role of party officials and insiders in the nomination process, increased the role of caucuses and primaries, and mandated quotas for proportional black, women, and youth delegate representation.” (See the “George McGovern Presidential Campaign, 1972” article in Wikipedia.) As a response, the Democrats introduced “superdelegates” for the 1984 election. (See the “Superdelegate” article in Wikipedia.)

      So, if McGovern had been elected, we would not have had a disgraced presidency, the Vietnam war would have ended sooner, Chilean President Salvador Allende would not have been deposed in 1973,*and my guess is there would have been more progressive laws passed, not less. McGovern supported the Equal Rights Amendment and guaranteed minimum income for the poor. Perhaps, he was a “Bernie-Bro” in his heart before there were “Bernie-Bros”.

      *Neo-liberal economists helped rebuild the Chilean economy after the coup and used it as propaganda to extol the efficacy of the economic theory, while ignoring the detrimental effects to the poor and middle class, including income inequality. Neo-liberalism, also, infected President Ronald Reagan’s administration, which leads us to the income inequality we have today. (See The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007) by Naomi Klein.) c

  34. I think that we’re being somewhat naive as to why Bernie acquiesced so easily at the end of the primaries, and my inclination is that his response was to something more dangerous and aggressive than Trump can ever be. Frankly, Hillary Clinton only forces this situation to continue, until the momentum of any progressive movement passes. We saw this in the 70’s as well. Trump will not be able to get much of his ‘regressive’ policies passed in Congress – let’s be realistic. And a Trump presidency coalesces the progressive movement, whereas Clinton destroys it. Clinton is much more dangerous to the progressive movement than Trump is.

  35. This is the HOT, HOT, HOTEST SMOKIN’ show on TYT. I never thought anything could match the first hour with Cenk alone. Apple could use this kind of innovation rather than coming out with a new rev on the same thing over and over and charging more and more $ to keep over seas.

  37. Best show ever! Tell Cenk a hour a day or even 30 minutes a day would be awesome! Keep up the great work Jimmy, Steve, Jordan, and your guests.

  38. What a great show today guys well done! Please have Kshama Sawant back on the show. What a breath of fresh air to get a new vibrant personality talking about these issues and who exuberates the passion that’s needed to inspire people. I was so impressed by how she expressed her opinion and laid out the concrete examples of what we need to do and the importance of mobilization.

    Aggressive Progressive just might be my new favorite show on the network!

  39. Holy shit. There is no better show, right now, than Aggressive Progressive on TYT. If I believed in heaven, I would have thought I had died and gone there!

    Kshama & Jordan both on with good long discussions? Fuggit about it!
    I could listen to her talk for 2 hours easy … that is one woman who is walking the talk. She donates a portion of her salary to their Progressive party? Wow! Love it.
    I would love to see Cenk try to debate her on the merits of voting for $hillary vs.Jill Stein! She’s not waiting until after the Queen has been officially crowned, she is fighting NOW! Which is what we all should be doing.

    Love Jordan too … truth-telling at its finest. He’s right … pundits & pollsters can blather on all they want about Her projected win. But I don’t know anyone who will go to vote because Trumpzilla must be defeated.
    I think there will be A LOT of people staying home on election day.

    If the weather is bad around the country, it will be the lowest turn-out in history.

  40. Enjoy the show, real progressives need this voice, but Jimmy, what’s the disconnect between the pluralization in the official title and you always saying it as singular? “Progressive” or “Progressives”? it really makes the show awkward right from the top that they don’t agree…

  41. I don’t think you get the breadth of support for Trump by looking at his rallies alone. There are people holding their nose and voting Trump because the Democrats put Hillary on the other side of him. Bernie was a candidate that could garner support from a person that may have identified as Republican but could see that Bernie was sincere in his beliefs and was looking out for the people.

    It’s all speculative now, but don’t you think that there are a lot of people out there looking for an advocate for them, a people’s champion? I think a lot of people are actually voting Trump on that basis, while not supporting his bigotry and fearmongering.

  42. Seeing the interview with Ms. Sawant has given me a glimmer of hope for the future of the republic, but sadly we can’t make her a POTUS write-in as she was born in India.

    It might be wise to move this installment into the free zone to promote TYTAP (my new favorite show) as these segments should go viral and should not be hidden behind a paywall. There are a lot of progressive media refugees who could bulk up the membership numbers if they could get this type of issue-rich content consistently. Excellent work!

  43. I’ve been saying it since day one this should be a daily show. Plus free for every one, thank your for showing your appreciation to the members but a news show shouldn’t be pay to play. I’m a member mainly for the convenience of waching the whole show uninterrupted without ads on my own time, supporting tyt is just the cherry on top.
    PLEASE MAKE IT A DAILY SHOW!!!!!

  45. Kshama Sawant kicks ass! Around when she was making her last comments about how we need our own party instead of running as Democrats Jimmy looked like he came hahahaha But that is ok, ideas like that turn me on too ;)

    You guys are great and I love this show so far, keep it up!

  46. Wow. Um, wow. Multibillionaire buffoon, hired goons…lol. She is amazing. Let us start a 2020 campaign for this woman today — like right now!!!!

    Let’s keep it real, Jill is not Sawant. We love Jill, but she comes off as “educational”, not as a viable candidate like Sawant. Sawant resonates, she’s sharp and has a very commanding style. Authenticity isn’t even a question. Yes…what are your next political steps!!??? Whatever it is I will switch my “Our revolution” dollars to that campaign. Kshama Sawant 2020!

    Also, very impressed with the tease/grab for this additional content within the Aggressive Progressive. No doubt subscriptions will go up. Can you say content marketing genius? Well done. I tell everyone I know about you guys. I’d love to see this wing of TYT grow to a daily show. Good luck!

    Kshama Sawant 2020!

    Kshama Sawant 2020!

    Kshama Sawant 2020!

  51. People are sick of neo liberal agenda, in the absence of a left wing alternative the right will only get stronger garnering more support, it’s exactly what I’ve been saying. So thank you kshama and Jimmy for echoing my thoughts.

  53. I love this woman, Kshama Sawant. She is amazing. Is the female Bernie Sanders. If she runs for President he will be President.

  56. Great idea to interview Kshama Sawant. I hope to see more interviews with up and coming progressives in the future. Keep up the good work guys!

  57. Fantasy. Pure Fantasy. Bernie Sanders being on the debate stage, many trump voters would of jumped shipped and supported Sanders?

    You guys are showing a profound ignorance of the type of people who are supporting Trump. Just look at Jordan’s segments of Trump supporters. They are literally redneck racists who believe Obama was born in Kenya and Michelle Obama is secretly a man. They would not support sanders, under any circumstances, period.

    1. It does not occur to you that perhaps the reason THOSE clips are used, is because of the extremity of those interviewee’s views?

      I know Trump voters who are astonishingly normal. They are just pissed at seeing the elites rig the system, and the lack of economic opportunity for working class people. These people are reach-able,

Leave a Comment