BloodRedKane
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2016
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 15
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
i look at it as more of an interventionist / noninterventionist dynamic, with a lot of nuance. that being said, i'd like to see us pull out of the Middle East, at least militarily. as far as political parties / tribes go, i've had enough of them.
There is no representative government in the U.S. anymore. It is an oligarchy.
I'm a liberal. However, my research on the issues are objective and from a Progressive, anti-war viewpoint. Unfortunately for Liberals, they must realize by now they don't have a candidate. And they never did. Not only did Wasserman of the DNC rig the primary process for the warmongering Hillary - it has been proven beyond doubt - but the alternative Bernie Sanders was no Progressive either. Bernies pro-war stance on bombing Libya, Iraq and Syria is in support of U.S. imperialism for the purpose of controlling world oil supplies is identical to the objectives of pro-war DLC Democrats and the Council on Foreign Relations. With Sanders there is no variation from the Democrat Party policy of endless war for oil for power and profit and merciless slaughter. Sanders soft-soaping of the issues was a smokescreen, and his unwillingness to criticize Pres. Obama arming of mercenary Al Nusra, ISIS, and FSA terrorists proved he was as corrupt as the rest of the system. Sanders speeches on Wall Street and income inequality were empty rhetoric in the same vein as Bill Clintons, "I feel your pain," exclamations. They are an election year gimmick. Sanders was never meant to win, but his candidacy was an election year ploy to gin up votes for Clinton. If Sanders were real, he run as a third party candidate against Democrats not endorse Clinton and bow out.