February 21, 2016

Any candidate that would actively try to divide Americans across racial and cultural lines

Then attempt to foster hatred of each group against the other is harmful not just to the process but to the innocent people they are trying to divide into racial political wars, even if it is only an attempt to do so temporarily (as they likely tell themselves), just until an election is won, it is deplorable behavior and often seen used by hate groups across the globe.



Brock is a big part of this (pit one poor race against another) in order to win victories designed to profit the wealthy at the expense of all the people that will suffer under their trickle down neoliberal policies which will harm all of us struggling people no matter the race, but those that hire them also have a history of agitating people to hate by race and so are just as, if not more, accountable for such deplorable tactics.

It is a tactic often used by the wealthy in order to keep the power and money while continuing to steal even more in the face of glaring wide spread wealth disparity across all racial and social lines, In war the tactic is called divide and conquer, the wealthy have throughout history done this at the point where the difference between the rich and poor becomes widespread and apparent.

A true leader on the other hand, one that wants to help all the people historically tries to bring all the people together to fight the aristocracy.

It is clear which candidate is following which tactic, just as it is clear which candidate is little more than the puppet of the wealthy and attempting to win yet more of their favor. Such candidates often acquire excessive wealth during their lapdog tenures practically rubbing it in our faces (how much wealth have the "public servants" the Clintons acquired again, and from whom?)

The honest candidate, not swayed by or wiling to be used by by an uncontrolled group that worships at the altar of greed often lives a relatively normal lifestyle, not depending on acquiring wealth in order to achieve their version of a happy life, again which candidate more closely represents this lifestyle?

I have told you of tactics as old as the existence of extreme wealth at the expense of others. In your hearts the signs of their use are evident, some would say axiomatic.

I have also told you of some common traits of leaders on the side of the populace.

There is enough for you to decide for yourself which side you are on. And who is on your side as well.


choose well.

February 13, 2016

Who would ever want to ask our young people to scale back their dreams and goals?

IMO Bernie's approach gives them the opportunity to fight for idealistic things, Clinton's Me my banks and I approach would discourage fighting for or dreaming of a future they want, a future they need, telling us instead to rely on her and others like her to compromise away the fight in favor of "getting things done"
One can only assume by finding common ground with a John Birch Society/near fascistic Republican party, something she claims only she can do.

If her Mentors Bill Clinton, and Henry Kissinger are any indication of how she would "get things done" it would not only mean giving up on fighting and dreaming of a better, more equitable future, it would mean compromises that favor the wealthy, cut funding for the needy (and likely encourage more profit from college dept), more private prisons and more quotas to fill them, and more free trade that represents corporate interests that will send more jobs overseas leaving our youth nothing but service jobs at a min wage where she would begin negotiations at $12/hr and "compromise" on something less. Those compromises represent the Bill Clinton Mentorship.

The values she learned from her good friend and mentor Henry Kissinger will leave our young people another option to min wage jobs, a career in the military as she will continue along the path (one of her only consistent paths) to fight in wars sometimes preemptively as per her faith in the Bush Doctrine, as well as engaging in regime change across the world including but not limited to overthrowing Democratically elected leaders in favor of any blood-thirsty warlord that will agree to allow US corporate interests to thrive, let's call that the Kissinger doctrine (or what he calls a pragmatic use of our military might to help further our country's interests

They (the younger generation) deserve a chance to fight rather than have no power as the chosen establishment pieces move about the board compromising away their hopes, dreams, and futures.

I want them to have the chance that we did when we fought the good fight and achieved some of our liberal goals. They decided (our party in the eighties, culminating in '92) that there would no longer be a party to fight with the idealistic youth for things like labor rights, The New Deal, The Great Society, Civil Liberties, Equality for Women and the last attempted fight that died on the vine, the fight against poverty that was abandoned in favor of a fight against the poor via welfare reform.

They deserve to fight for these things as we did, not because they are easy, but because they are necessary to their survival.

They deserve more than the smell of sulfur that summons forth a demon of lesser evil that says "no you can't!" - "I will compromise away your fight for you so you may have the crumbs my corporate sponsors allow you to have."

They deserve the right to fight as well as leadership that will help rather than hinder that fight.
We all had that (us older folk) but took it for granted. They have only had dismissal and the lack of support offered by Vichy Republican collaborators.

Let us help them elect someone (many ones) that will allow them to fight.