> The simplest explanation is that these "change message" candidates were paying lip service to the electorate. It's not a charitable explanation, of course, bu

> The simplest explanation is that these "change message" candidates were paying lip service to the electorate. It's not a charitable explanation, of course, but I'm not convinced being charitable ought to be a given when it comes to politicians' motives. They don't deserve the charitable interpretation. These are people that facilitate the sale of weapons to extremists all over the world. You shouldn't have to tip-toe and be polite about it, the recent American presidents are corrupt, murderous authoritarians whose primary function is to act as a talking head for the banks and the war industry.