A key point about our democratic candidates...

A key point I'd like to make is that we have two people we can allow to get on the ballot come late this year. One is a man who calls for people to rise up and to not accept bad circumstances in the richest country in the world, a man with a solid voting history and with ideas that may be big, maybe too big... But the intentions and heart of it all catches my eye at least. He is calling for the people to make change. He isn't calling to make himself a dictator from what I've seen.

Our other choice is a lady who has allegedly killed for self gain, lies, covers up, has shown incompetence over and over again, flip flops on the issues year to year to appeal to what group she wants to appeal to for the day, is paid for by wall street and investment bankers, makes fun of rape victims, supports the worst health care legislation ever written - one written by corporations... Uses an insecure Gmail account for above top secret classified documents, gets people of ours killed.. And a big part of her campaign is to support a president who continued a corporation fueled war for his whole presidency, allowed Healthcare legislation written by corporations to pass as law... What exactly does this lady have going for her?

If even a percentage of what I just wrote is even partly true... The lady flat out scares me.

Who do I want in office?

A guy with good intentions that might have to compromise to make America better for the average citizen?

Or a lady who has been deemed by many people as Satan herself?

Hilary smears her opponents every chance she gets. Her most liked twitter posts are anti-gop posts... Why is there nothing on Bernie, then?

All the while Republicans are screaming and crying about communism and bernies economy killing ideas.. Yet very little dirt on him, and lots on Hilary...

I happen to be of the position that Clinton's crimes are, at the very least, not all made up.
Intentions, altruism, character... These go a long way with me.

Show me the dirt, and I'll think twice. Show me the people who died mysteriously after challenging Bernie. Show me the affairs, show me how many people of ours he has supported being killed in a war that has done nothing...

As far as I can see, he's a better man than most politicians, and that to me is important. He is far more likely to be receptive to what the 99 percent want, and seems far less likely to just want power and money for himself.

Food for thought.

-deadlyhope.

P.S. I am here to learn.. Not preach. If you disagree with my assessment, be civil, I would be happy to hear you out and consider your responses.

a reply to: deadlyhope

This is like the 500th post you have about how great Bernie is, etc. If you were not convinced by the opponents of that position in your other 499 posts, why would you be now? I don't understand the purpose of this post (in light of the hundreds that preceded it). To get flags and stars or to rabble-rouse?

I have read all of your other posts and your responses to people's perspectives (aka "hearing them out""). You have your mind made up. No more need to post about it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm exhausted trying to illustrate the inherent dangers of introducing even more socialism to a corrupt system.

Like the poster above me, if you don't get it by now, then you just won't get it.

You have a fundamental right to vote for whomever you wish.

The American people have the right to vote for whomever they wish.

And if the people vote for a system that removes freedoms, then so be it.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm curious about something.

If Hillary wins the DNC nomination, will you vote for her?

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

No, this is not the same. I'm talking about the opposition.. If it were Carson against Hilary, I would choose Carson.

Because I perceive him to be less of a snake than Hilary. Even if I don't agree with all he has to say.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Definitely not. I'm not a Democrat at heart, I'm more a libertarian that believes business has gotten out of control.

No libertarian has more than fraction of a percent of the National attention, though. Not to mention just leaving big banks and corporations alone to do what they will doesn't seem like the best idea for me.. Not for a while at least.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

No, this is not the same. I'm talking about the opposition.. If it were Carson against Hilary, I would choose Carson.

Because I perceive him to be less of a snake than Hilary. Even if I don't agree with all he has to say.

and of course you know this by listening to who? I'm NOT voting for a person that thinks the pyramids were used for grain storage. I don't want "ignorant" to be a qualification for POTUS

a reply to: deadlyhope

As another poster recently pointed out, what would Bernie do?

I mean, specifically?

What could he legally do against the banks and corporations?

It's tough sounding to be "against" them. It sounds good to be "against" the corruption.

But what would Bernie actually do?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am not rejecting your premise that socialistic implementation could be bad for our nation. I am asserting my premise that if Hilary actually commited even a tenth of what she is blamed for, we will be worse off as a nation following her lead...

The values of Bernie, to me, are not mainly his economic ideas.

It's his anti banks, anti corporate bribery and subsidy ideas.
Its his "power of the people" mentality, where he admits we will get nothing done without the people.

I know the inherent risks of introducing more socialistic ideas. I realize the possibilities... However, I know and have seen throughout my life the risks of letting the system stay as is. The system needs changing, in my opinion..

a reply to: jimmyx

So you'd vote for a murderer, liar, thief, a corrupt and morally bankrupt person.. Before you would vote for someone you deem to be ignorant because somehow you were alive a few thousand years ago and know exactly what pyramids were about...?

Okay.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Executive orders can do a lot if anyone in the Supreme Court agrees with your cause..

On the other hand, if neither Congress, Senate, nor the judicial branch want to stand up against corruption... There's nothing anyone can do, and it doesn't matter who we vote in. However, I am of the opinion that Hillary would be favored and more things would get though that hurt the people and help the corporations.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I don't think there'd be much difference in policy regardless who gets in.

But there are just some people I would like to see lose.

Hillary and Jeb top the list.

About the only thing that might change is with a Bernie win, DC might see that as a mandate to expand even more than they are now.

That's my main reason against Bernie. I just can't justify his plans.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I am against the expansion of the government, however I do believe Bernie calling upon the people to take action, could help limit it's power, in essence.

Think of the longer game.

4 to 8 years from now.... What will give us the biggest chance to reduce government power and elect someone who's a true outsider and represents America in a better way?

I would really like to know your answer.

My answer is Bernie. He wants to cut the ties that the Fed has with large corporations. It may or may not happen... But who else even has an idea that would severe this tie, thus allowing politics to become an average man's game, not just an elite puppet show?

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy



4 to 8 years from now.... What will give us the biggest chance to reduce government power and elect someone who's a true outsider and represents America in a better way?

I would really like to know your answer.

Why wait 4 to 8 years?

Why not try to reduce government now. We can do it on the local, state, then federal level by voting against anyone who wants to expand government.
We could vote against any and all intrusive laws.

We could stop supporting and enabling government.

The biggest reason that government has to grow is the number of people who constantly rely on government for everything.

Government has no reason to shrink if we have populations clamoring for handouts and social programs.

You starve the beast by stopping the reliance on the beast.

Government is always going on about helping the poor.

But what if we did that instead of government? The people of the US have abdicated their responsibility to help those in need. As a result, government has stepped in and has taken our tax dollars to do what we have failed to do.

As a result, government has grown and it is now expected for the nanny-state to exist by nothing other than the constant reliance on it.

Want to control government and make it shrink?

Stop asking for government to do the job we should be doing.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You still didn't give your solution.

Which candidate, which has a possibility of getting into office, is going to reduce the government? And how will that candidate reduce the chance of a wannabe dictator funded by the elite from going in and doing what they want in four years?

Give me a name.

Trump?
Carson?
Cruz?
Clinton?
Kasich?
Sanders?

There's like a 99 percent chance one of those people will get in.

Who best represents smaller government, and less greed in government, giving a path for future presidents to reduce government and enhance freedom?

a reply to: deadlyhope

I gave my solution. Apparently you don't like it.

As for presidents?

Either Cruz or Trump. Not that they are even great choices, but they don't want to increase government at least.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Solutions are only as strong as the possibility of them being implemented.

Cruz has a good tax plan. Get rid of the IRS, flat tax, no loopholes or wonky laws. However, he does seem theocratic and funded by big business, so I don't really trust that he would create a less corrupt, and smaller government.

Trump, eh, I don't have much opinion either way.

Do you believe those two will encourage future situations in which the government becomes smaller, less corrupt? Just curious.

Bernie Sanders is unelectable. Hillary is demolishing him in more diverse states and she's just toying with him in the debates as she hasn't even aired that many ads against him.

Imagine if he gets the nomination though, Republicans and especially Trump who is an entrepreneur who has managed to make a fortune worth billions, will have a field day with him calling him a communist and a socialist.

Now that several positions in the supreme will be filled out by the next president, my support of Hillary Clinton has been reinforced.

a reply to: muse7

I haven't seen any reasons to vote for the lady.

She bashes the right - But that doesn't give her credit.
She wants to follow in Obamas footsteps.. That sure as hell gives her no credit.

Her most liked ideas are just left-wing ideas. Pro-choice, pro-immigration and the like. Bernie and her alike have many likes on such topics, she doesn't have many of her own, though.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Yes she wants to incrementally add to what Obama has accomplished, which is a plus in my book. Obama is very popular amongst Democrats.

She can not only dish it out to the Right but she has also withstood a barrage of attacks from the Right for decades now.