Phillip Schneider, Staff
As the democratic nomination draws nearer, the Sanders campaign has been forced to drop ‘hundreds’ of employees in a last-ditch effort for the white house. Due to the situation at hand, it looks like the race for the presidency will be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Although many millennials support Bernie, the consensus is not clear exactly how many supporters of his would vote for Clinton in the primaries, especially with a stigmatized Donald Trump on the other side of the aisle.
In polls aggregated by the Huffington Post, Hillary is shown to be more ‘unfavorable’ than ‘favorable’ to the American public. Polls from CBS, USA Today and many more show Mrs. Clinton disliked by the majority almost every single time. In fact, out of 101 polls, 99 of them were unfavorable towards her, while the other two were only slightly more favorable by a degree of roughly one percent.
To be fair, internet polls aren’t necessarily representative of potential election results. Although they have been shown to be fairly accurate in some past elections, there are those who support Hillary simply because they consider her a democrat or because they desperately want Donald Trump ousted.
“I would vote for Hillary because I am a Democrat. But I have many friends who say it’s Bernie or bust. And that is the problem if we don’t want a Republican president.” – Larry Kosta, Retired Investor
A Hillary Presidency Means Less Liberty At Home And Abroad
Whatever you think about Trump, a Clinton presidency would be none the better, if not entirely disastrous.
During the George W. Bush era, some very lucrative business deals were made after the occupation and invasion caused widespread devastation to Iraq’s infrastructure. This resulted in Dick Cheney’s Halliburton ending up with the contracts to rebuild Iraq, thereby making a fortune from the military excursion. Similarly, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state she also made some very lucrative deals, but instead of rebuilding, she approved $165 billion in arms sales to 20 foreign nations after receiving millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation. Among these nations are Saudi Arabia, a major Clinton Foundation donor, which has a monumental track record of human rights abuse, especially concerning women’s rights.
Not only is she making lucrative deals with foreign nations, and as Bernie Sanders often points out is deep in the pocket of big banks and special interests, but she is so unprincipled that even the progressive left is calling her out for supporting anti-free market trade deals like NAFTA and engaging in ‘chaotic’ military interventionism in the middle east, just as the Bush administration did.
Top Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied her State Department include the Microsoft/Gates Foundation at $26+ Million, Walmart at $2-10 Million, Coca-Cola at $5-10 Million, Qatar at roughly $1-6 Million, Goldman Sachs at roughly $1-5.5 Million, and the list goes on to include drug companies, biotech and chemical companies like Monsanto, oil and gas companies and more, most of which have “donated” at least one million dollars.
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clinton’s was to give to this foundation… This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.” – Meredith McGehee, Policy Director at Campaign Legal Center
A Growing Need For Third Party Candidates
Each day of the presidential race brings into further clarity the drastic need of a third-party influence in American politics. The reason that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have grown so popular throughout this election cycle is because the American public is simply sick of being lied to by establishment politicians and bureaucrats.
A third-party might open up the debate in a way that could change the landscape of politics for years to come. To its credit, the country’s largest third-party, the Libertarian party, had it’s first ever televised debate on Fox Business in March of 2016. However, it is still being given far less attention by the mainstream media at large than the other two parties, which results in a biased election for alternative candidates.
In fact, when it comes to political parties, George Washington was one of the nation’s biggest critics. During his farewell address of 1976, he warned of the rise of political parties subverting American liberty.
“They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” – George Washington on Political Parties, Farwell Address 1796
The two parties have clearly subverted the power and will of the people, and the time has come to create a new paradigm of honest politics for the people.
Read more articles from Phillip Schneider.
About the Author
Phillip Schneider is a student and a contributing author to Waking Times.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.
This article (Even George Washington Agrees, Two Party Election Politics is a Sham) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commonslicense with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…