Why Bernie Sanders Should Be President and Why Hillary Clinton Should Not

Bernie Flag

Bernie Is Not Self-Centered and Haughty, Hillary Is                                                                         No one has accused Bernie Sanders of being hard to work with. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton.

When Hillary Clinton is out of the public eye, her behavior is that of the superior elitist who can do no wrong. She loses her temper, and takes her anger out on staffers. Joan Baggett served as an assistant to President Bill Clinton. She had this to say about Mrs. Clinton,

“People didn’t feel comfortable disagreeing the first lady, even when she was wrong.”

“She would blow up over something that she misinterpreted. Again, you can’t take her on, she’s not my boss. You can’t take on the First Lady. I remember one time in one of these meetings where she was blowing up about staff and how we were all incompetent and he was having to be the mechanic and drive the car and do everything. That we weren’t capable of anything.”

Bernie Is Often Described As Genuine And Honest, Hillary Is Not                                                    Being genuine is Bernie Sander’s trademark. Hillary Clinton is always having her honesty questioned, and for good reason.

Mrs. Clinton’s pattern of taking bribes in the form of donations includes her super PACs and the Clinton Foundation. For a FEC investigation into this relationship, click here.

Hillary Clinton is accused of lying on a regular basis.  This has been widely acknowledged among people who aren’t on her payroll. Roughly 20 years ago, a New York Times columnist named William Safire wrote,

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.”

She states she stood up for the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals. When? The Clinton administration stated publicly they were against same-sex marriages. Mrs. Clinton only came out for marriage equality in 2013.

Her husband’s efforts to block Bernie Sanders voters provides a particularly sad, somewhat pathetic example. And then there is her worst ethics award.

Mrs. Clinton Will Drag Us Into Another War                                                                                         Sanders and Clinton have disagreed on some the biggest issues of our times, including issues such as continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The two have very different perspectives on military and foreign policy issues.

Before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State, Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. After becoming Secretary of State, the Saudis asked her for military jets. Two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing, who manufactures the F-15, contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation (according to a company press release). This finalized the deal, with Mrs. Clinton playing middle man and making a hefty profit.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, putting weapons in the hands of governments who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation. While Secretary of State, she also authorized $151 billion in deals for 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation. In essence, a foreign nation makes a donation to the Clinton Foundation, later they request weapons. A major business, typically listed on Wall Street, then makes a donation to the Clinton Foundation (or perhaps to her son-in-law’s hedge fund) to get the contract, and finalize the deal. (Are these donations tax-deductible? Are “we” ultimately paying for Boeing’s donations/bribes?)

If a person has a history of repeat behavior, there’s a real good chance they will do it, again. Mrs. Clinton has discovered selling weapons makes new friends for her and puts money in her slush fund, the Clinton Foundation. There is a good possibility she will draw the U.S. into war, as there is no shortage of invitations, and she does not want to be seen as “weak.”

Bernie Sanders has no history of selling arms, let alone making  profit off of it.

Death Penalty                                                                                                                           Presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton has long endorsed the death penalty, and this may provide some insight regarding her support for war and selling weapons. Bernie Sanders, with one exception, has voted consistently against death penalty legislation.

The Wall Street Bailout                                                                                                                    During the depths of the Great Recession, Senator Sanders was opposed to the wall street bailout. Senator Clinton voted for the bill, which also created a $700 billion emergency fund, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP.

Hillary Clinton Is Ridiculously Rich                                                                                                 Hillary Clinton, early on, opposed the Bush tax breaks for the rich, but her position later changed. By the time the temporary tax breaks came up for renewal, Senator Clinton’s position had evolved into a “maintain the status quo” philosophy. Senator Bernie Sanders has never supported the Bush’s tax breaks for the rich, and voted against their extension.

The different plans for income disparity the two candidates describe are what will have the most impact on our day-to-day lives. Sanders wants to “level the playing field” by increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, across the nation, and by providing free college educations. Clinton seems to have no real interest in redistributing America’s wealth, though when pressed, she suggests a minimum wage of $12 per hour would meet the needs of most working poor, adding large cities could set their own minimum wage at a higher rate than the rest of the nation. Hillary Clinton’s plans for dealing with income disparity are vague, lack detail, and are “wimpier.”

While Bernie Sanders’ politics and practices have evolved with time, his support for “we the people” has remained consistent, as have his core beliefs. Hillary Clinton is the status quo candidate. and seems to have no core beliefs, with perhaps the exception of me, me, me.



Keith D. Foote

Keith is also a freelance writer. He has written an alternative physics book titled the Ultra-Space Field Theory, and 2 sci-fi novels. Keith has been following politics, and political promises, for the last forty years. He gave up his car, preferring to bicycle and use public transport. Keith enjoys yoga, mini adventures, spirituality, and chocolate ice cream.

One thought on “Why Bernie Sanders Should Be President and Why Hillary Clinton Should Not

  • Avatar
    March 22, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Please do me a favor and post this as much as you can. Whether you agree or disagree, whether this has anything to do with a group or not, please share it.

    My posts, which never generate much interest to begin with among whatever percentage of my friends see them, are generating next to nothing in terms of traffic. Same goes for my posts in groups, which usually get much more attention.

    Between the Senate Republicans refusing to consider Obama’s choice for the SCOTUS and the Senate Democrats piling on Bernie to stop fighting HRC and instead criticize the Dump Truck, I am becoming a bit concerned the powers that be are nervous and suppressing anything but troll droppings.

    I try not to think too much about dark conspiracies, but maybe it wasn’t a coincidence that I just heard “The Room Where It Happened” from the musical Hamilton on the radio. If you don’t know, the song is about Alexander Hamilton wanting to cut a deal to create a national bank as Secretary of the Treasury because he thinks it is necessary to stabilize the economy. He trades his wish for his support of placing the federal capital on the Potomac in the South near Washington’s estate.

    Why is almost no one outraged that HRC admitted that she “owed” George W. Bush a yeah vote on authorizing the Iraq War because he got her money for New York in the aftermath of 9/11. Her yeah vote and that of others led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of Iraq’s ability to govern itself, and the rise of the Islamic State. That is a lot of blood.

    But worse is that she thinks she had to trade favors with W in order to get money New York needed as a result of 9/11. Why would she need to trade a vote for something that was so obviously needed and so obviously something the federal government had to do? She is admitting that she voted for an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands of human beings rather than call W out for not giving money to New York in the wake of terrorist attacks.

    Given this, it is possible HRC agreed in 1996 that she would not say anything about her husband’s infidelities and would not divorce him provided that he did everything he possibly could to make sure she would be the first female POTUS. If I am delusional, that’s okay. My mind works finding similarities, patterns, sets, etc.

    I have finished the book I have been working on called “Restoring the Republic: A New Social Contract for We the People” about democracy, citizenship, political participation, the current problems facing the USA, and the 2016 presidential election.


Leave a Reply