Dear Clinton Supporters,

[Dimitri Valko]

I implore you to change your mind-- don't destroy the United States of America. Clinton only says what the polls want her to, no matter how bad the consequences. She campaigned for Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in 1964 whose promise was to re-enact segregation in America and abolish the Civil Rights Act. She was even against gay rights-- the staple of her presidential campaign, until the polls favoured it. Do you want a good candidate? Consider Sanders. He's the only one that can stop this witch.

 

Please, change your minds, and open your eyes.

 

NOTE: Video contains explicit language

 

[Quasar]

Don't forget!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/hillary-clinton-promotes-law-to-ban-violent-video-games-1.550126

[Dimitri Valko]

Don't forget!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/hillary-clinton-promotes-law-to-ban-violent-video-games-1.550126

 

That c*nt...

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Sanders is being way too softball with her, he could easily come out with some brutal ads that would "expose" all this history and push hard on the angle that she and the Republicans are the same thing.

[Stormrideron]

It is all money talks.

 

While I have completely faith in Sanders that he would win the presidential election, it is very important that everyone should vote for him. We do need honest and straightforward president who place their interests in the 99% and not to make the rich people richer.

 

Before anyone like Raedal bashes me for being socialist, no it is simple economic reform. Rich people will still make money under this system. It is just to adjust the income inequality which will fix many issues in United States, namely overcrowded prisons, poverty, healthcare, education, infrastructure and more.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Vosunda]

It is all money talks.

 

While I have completely faith in Sanders that he would win the presidential election, it is very important that everyone should vote for him. We do need honest and straightforward president who place their interests in the 99% and not to make the rich people richer.

 

Before anyone like Raedal bashes me for being socialist, no it is simple economic reform. Rich people will still make money under this system. It is just to adjust the income inequality which will fix many issues in United States, namely overcrowded prisons, poverty, healthcare, education, infrastructure and more.

 

 

Except I'm rich. I want to be richer.

[Buorhann]

no it is simple economic reform. Rich people will still make money under this system.

 

I don't think you know how businesses work, or why people create companies.

 

Regardless of what economic system you have in place, the rich will always be rich.  They have the ambition and knowledge to make money if they so choose.  If you take away the incentive(s) that got them started, that will only chase businesses away.

[Captain_Vietnam]

 

 

I implore you to change your mind-- don't destroy the United States of America. Clinton only says what the polls want her to, no matter how bad the consequences

so does sanders

 

trump is where it at. he'll stop the islam

[durmij]

so does sanders

 

trump is where it at. he'll stop the islam

This is how we know you're a troll. On top of your sudden ability to type english well, you claim to be a socialist and are endorsing trump.

 

Or did you just forget which account you are using.

[Captain_Vietnam]

This is how we know you're a troll. On top of your sudden ability to type english well, you claim to be a socialist and are endorsing trump.

 

Or did you just forget which account you are using.

trump wants to destroy the wall street bankers and the coorpacrats ruining america 

[Nadir Aminu]

trump wants to destroy the wall street bankers and the coorpacrats ruining america

Yeah, so he has all the money.

[durmij]

trump wants to destroy the wall street bankers and the coorpacrats ruining america 

1. no he doesn't

2. That still doesn't account for why your grammar just got a lot better.

[Captain_Vietnam]

1. no he doesn't

2. That still doesn't account for why your grammar just got a lot better.

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-09/-tax-wall-street-trump-pledges-after-stock-market-selloff

2. athiest like yourself attack rather then debate? my english poor!

[Nadir Aminu]

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-09/-tax-wall-street-trump-pledges-after-stock-market-selloff

2. athiest like yourself attack rather then debate? my english poor!

Yeah, so he has all the money.

[durmij]

2. athiest like yourself attack rather then debate? my english poor!

Your english wasn't poor 2 posts ago, that's the point.

Edited February 19, 2016 by durmij

[Rozalia]

I don't think you know how businesses work, or why people create companies.

 

Regardless of what economic system you have in place, the rich will always be rich.  They have the ambition and knowledge to make money if they so choose.  If you take away the incentive(s) that got them started, that will only chase businesses away.

 

Someone will always be at the top that much is true. To me it becomes a simple case of just nationalising the lot of them. If not outright to begin with then do so if they try any of this "moving away" business, see how quick they are to move away then.

 

I think most people can accept the existence of the rich, the issue is the belief that the rich are unfairly benefited beyond simply their wealth, that the deck is stacked unfairly to their benefit. That the state can spit on the poor and scrutinise their benefits, but happily without issue give "Corporate Welfare" which for the most part merely functions to make the rich richer, as the poor are made to subsidise the rich for no reason (well nonsense reasons).

The state is the tool to bring them in line, aggressively if required... but as everyone knows the state is corrupt and controlled. Of course some would say the state is always corrupt and controlled... but then, can it be corrupt in a better way? It's why dictatorships aren't something I think to be as vile as people make out. If the dictatorship is fairer then the current order then I'd go for it with no issue. 

[Moreau]

You should vote for hillary and see your country getting slowly destroyed

[Nadir Aminu]

You should vote for hillary and see your country getting slowly destroyed

Pls no

[Doktor Avalanche]

It is all money talks.

 

While I have completely faith in Sanders that he would win the presidential election, it is very important that everyone should vote for him. We do need honest and straightforward president who place their interests in the 99% and not to make the rich people richer.

 

Before anyone like Raedal bashes me for being socialist, no it is simple economic reform. Rich people will still make money under this system. It is just to adjust the income inequality which will fix many issues in United States, namely overcrowded prisons, poverty, healthcare, education, infrastructure and more.

If you seriously want to fix the system then the government itself needs to enact laws to limit/end the corporate welfare state which picks and chooses which businesses get to pick the pockets of the State and the tax payer. The largest, but just a small fraction of the huge corporate pickpocket, who legally steals the public funds and the tax payers right now are the insurance industries due to requirements instated by President Obama, via the Healthcare Act, who supports the Corporate Welfare State- as does Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and every Republican in office. Until we elect, not a Socialist, Democrat or Republican but someone who is willing to end this absurd practice we will continue to have economic and social divisions which separate us into classes, mostly because our current government desires us to be.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Someone will always be at the top that much is true. To me it becomes a simple case of just nationalising the lot of them. If not outright to begin with then do so if they try any of this "moving away" business, see how quick they are to move away then.

 

I think most people can accept the existence of the rich, the issue is the belief that the rich are unfairly benefited beyond simply their wealth, that the deck is stacked unfairly to their benefit. That the state can spit on the poor and scrutinise their benefits, but happily without issue give "Corporate Welfare" which for the most part merely functions to make the rich richer, as the poor are made to subsidise the rich for no reason (well nonsense reasons).

The state is the tool to bring them in line, aggressively if required... but as everyone knows the state is corrupt and controlled. Of course some would say the state is always corrupt and controlled... but then, can it be corrupt in a better way? It's why dictatorships aren't something I think to be as vile as people make out. If the dictatorship is fairer then the current order then I'd go for it with no issue. 

Assuming the State can fix everything is like drinking the water in Flint, Michigan and saying its better than the Rocky Mountain Springs simply because the free spring water is not being overseen by bureaucrats and regulated to death.

 

Mmm! Yummy Vichy Water is delicioso!

 

I will fill you in on a secret. Not everything needs to be fixed by a government entity. We can actually exist without oversight, believe it or not.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Lord Asmodeus

[GentlemenJack]

I implore you to change your mind-- don't destroy the United States of America. Clinton only says what the polls want her to, no matter how bad the consequences. She campaigned for Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in 1964 whose promise was to re-enact segregation in America and abolish the Civil Rights Act. She was even against gay rights-- the staple of her presidential campaign, until the polls favoured it. Do you want a good candidate? Consider Sanders. He's the only one that can stop this witch.

 

Please, change your minds, and open your eyes.

 

 

 

NOTE: Video contains explicit language

Andddd whats so good about a grouchy old man who hasent led a damn thing in his life? Oh crap isnt he a socialist too? Wowww id vote for him .

 

#Americaisdoomed #NOtodemocrats

Edited February 19, 2016 by Cranberries

[Rozalia]

Assuming the State can fix everything is like drinking the water in Flint, Michigan and saying its better than the Rocky Mountain Springs simply because the free spring water is not being overseen by bureaucrats and regulated to death.

 

Mmm! Yummy Vichy Water is delicioso!

 

I will fill you in on a secret. Not everything needs to be fixed by a government entity. We can actually exist without oversight, believe it or not.

 

You take an extreme view, I take the other opposing extreme one. There is a balance of power, and the state is the only tool the common man has to equalise the situation, a situation that has been stacked one way for far too long.

 

The problem to me isn't that there is too much state, but not enough and what is there is nothing but a corrupt entity controlled by Neo-Liberals/Conservatives/whatever they call themselves to con people. Defeat them and their ideologies and use the full power of the state and much can be accomplished very quickly. The opposite of the state doing very little like you want may cripple the cretins government yes, however it will just cut the middle man so to speak the corrupt villains outside politics (all naturally rich) will then simply do things openly.

 

As for your comment with the water... not really seeing it, it's a caricature and one based on governments I've already said are corrupt and wrong.

[Rozalia]

Andddd whats so good about a grouchy old man who hasent led a damn thing in his life. Oh crap isnt he a socialist too? Wowww id vote for him

 

#Americaisdoomed

 

Never gotten the "he hasn't lead anything" comment. Why would he lead anything if he is an outsider in his own party? In Britain an attack on Corbyn for example is he has "no experience" as he was never a member of a cabinet... because New Labour who are Red Tories would give a position to a socialist right.

 

Not leading anything is actually a positive as it shows that the ideals aren't thrown away for a little taste of power or prestige.

[GentlemenJack]

Never gotten the "he hasn't lead anything" comment. Why would he lead anything if he is an outsider in his own party? In Britain an attack on Corbyn for example is he has "no experience" as he was never a member of a cabinet... because New Labour who are Red Tories would give a position to a socialist right.

 

Not leading anything is actually a positive as it shows that the ideals aren't thrown away for a little taste of power or prestige.

And i can agree to that but hes trying to lead an entire country and id like him to have some kind of background and experience leading something.

[Rozalia]

And i can agree to that but hes trying to lead an entire country and id like him to have some kind of background and experience leading something.

 

Why? If he had been a Democrat ideologue then he'd be corrupt just like Hillary as they'd only give it to him if he "played ball". "Political Experience" is just something the establishment uses to try and paint themselves as experienced and accomplished and to paint the outsider as the opposite. How competent are these experienced and accomplished men anyway? Not very. Having beliefs and actually believing in them strongly instead of merely going by whatever the polling data says is far more valuable then someone who has experience being part of a corrupt system. It's one reason Trump is also so popular, people know he may be many things, but he ain't a corrupt politician and considering his comments he isn't a man who looks at polling data and goes "Yeah I'm going to say X to get more votes". Some may say otherwise but before Trump unleashed his barrages no one would have believed someone saying stuff like that would gain all this support, he took a hell of a gamble.

 

As for Sanders like with Corbyn they've had a long life in politics and they're not exactly young men anymore, this is pretty much their last chance which is why it's now that they've run. It's terrible to think that instead of looking to the young who we are told are always more "progressive" we instead have to look to those who are of advanced age to fight for the cause. What happens when the old men who stubbornly held on to their beliefs die? Who'll fight it then? It's a terrible thought to have.