Don’t trust the Democrats


With Hillary Clinton definitely the Democrat nominee to contest Donald Trump, the Democrat party has never seemed more like an establishment party than it has now, but as degenerate and corrupt as Hillary is, she is the least of my concerns right now. On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, a number of leaked emails were released by WikiLeaks, and the content of the leaked emails indicated that the DNC intentionally rigged the Democrat primaries in favour of Hillary Clinton, with more leaks on her expected to be released soon.

The amount of corruption and collusion revealed by the leaks was so great that it led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as chair of the DNC, only to become a part of Hillary’s campaign. Of course, if you were a Bernie supporter, you’re probably furious right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole scandal spawned a new wave of Never Hillary voters, which it absolutely should because Hillary is such a fundamentally unlikable politician. The thing to be remembered, however, is that Hillary is the creature of the Democrat establishment, and this isn’t the first time that the Democrats have dabbled in corruption. In fact, some would argue that the Democrats have always been corrupt. Now I don’t personally feel that the Democrats have always been corrupt, but I think they are definitely the shadiest of all political parties, and believe me, corruption is just one aspect of why the Democrats are untrustworthy.

I’ll start by talking about an issue that Democrats just love to exploit – race. Back in the 19th century, it was the Democrats who wanted to keep black people in chains. What progressives tend to forget is that slavery was abolished in 1865, by a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the Republican Party was founded primarily as an abolitionist party back in 1854. The 13th Amendment, which effectively made slavery unconstitutional, was universally supported by Republicans in congress, but curiously, only 23% of Democrats in congress supported it. So why did the Democrats want to maintain slavery in America? Some would say this is because the Democrats in those days were simply the more conservative party back in the day (much like today’s Republicans). However, I personally think that for them to want to preserve slavery obviously meant that they profited in some way from it, as that was certainly the case for most of the world until Britain abolished slavery. The main reason the Democrats supported slavery seems to have been to maintain support from the Southern factions, including the wealthy slaveholders who may or may not have been backing the party.

Even after the abolition of slavery, the Democrats still held deeply racist attitudes that would make the modern Democrat party look very hypocritical. The Democrats supported Jim Crow laws that were in effect from the Reconstruction era up until 1965, and despite what the left may have told you, it was actually the Democrats who established the KKK. In the mid-1860’s, the fact that many black people identified with the Republican Party made it difficult for Southern Democrats to attain power, so they created the KKK with the sole purpose of controlling the electorate by intimidating Republicans (both black and white by the way). The Democrats were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws, and even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is considered one of the best Presidents to ever run the union, held back anti-lynching laws. People didn’t start thinking that the Republicans were racist until Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Right Act of 1964 (which inevitably attracted the support of racist Democrats), giving leftists the opportunity to smear all Republicans as vile racists for the next five decades, this despite the fact that it was the Republicans who were pushing the Civil Rights Act through. Since then, the left has now been able to shame gullible voters onto their side by smearing white Republicans as racists, and black Republicans as “Uncle Toms”. The Democrats and Republicans never switched positions. The Democrats simply adopted a different strategy for dealing with black voters – namely by becoming the party of the welfare state, which brings us to our next topic.

Since the days of the civil rights struggle, the Democrats had essentially become the party of the left, and that meant big government, and a pushing of the welfare state. Democrats will constantly proclaim that they care about the working class, but if you ask me, there’s nothing kind about keeping poor people dependant on government money. In fact, I feel that the only purpose for expanding the welfare state is to keep lazy people dependant on it, who will in term vote for bigger government, which is exactly what the Democrats want. What they won’t tell you is that Democrat policies, implemented without restraint, ruin local communities. A good example would be the city of Detroit, Michigan, a city that used to be famous for being the centre of the automotive industry in America, but after being consistently run by incompetent Democrat mayors for the past five decades, the city gradually became one of the sorriest, most run-down cities in America, to the point that it declared bankruptcy in 2013.

It’s also rich to hear Democrat supporters claim that they’re the party for the working class, when this is the same party that nominated one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory. As I mentioned in my post three weeks ago, Hillary is backed by large corporations and hedge funds who probably don’t give a damn about the working class, and it’s their interests that Hillary will be answering to in the end. If they cared about the working class, they would probably nominate the candidate who actually gave a damn (Bernie was a socialist, but at least he gave air to the concerns of the poor), but they’re main goal this year is to ensure Hillary’s coronation.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Democrats claim to be the liberal opposition to the Republicans, but a cursory glance tells me that the only truly liberal party is the Libertarian Party. It makes no sense that a party that actively seeks to empower the state could honestly be called liberal. In fact, the Democrats are actively trying to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms, under the guise of common sense. The true liberals would support your right to self-defence. What we’re seeing from the Democrats, meanwhile, is cold statism in the making, and yet the Republicans are the bad guys.

I’m no Republican, but I certainly don’t trust the Democrats, especially not with Hillary as their nominee. What’s even sadder is that the presidential race has essentially come down to two of the worst candidates either party has had in history. As bad as Donald Trump might sound, I think Hillary will do more harm to the country by depriving it of the change it so desperately craves because it is suffocating under the Democrat status quo. If America elects Hillary, then the only person who wins is Hillary.


8 thoughts on “Don’t trust the Democrats

  1. I don’t trust the Democrats. However, I distrust Trump FAR more. I can’t seem to find ANYTHING about his virtues he hasn’t lied about! He’s rich from inherited wealth, and because he cheats and sues people constantly, and refuses to pay his bills. Doesn’t even write the books that supposedly outline his business knowledge and philosophies for success. Despite sometimes making serious mistakes and being evasive, at least Hillary hasn’t lied about every single thing. She also has genuine accomplishments.

    • I find it hard to believe that Hillary hasn’t lied about every single thing. For me, it’s a case of what hasn’t she lied about, and she does indeed tell a handful of whoppers, like the time she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, but was actually welcomed in a ceremony (despite her saying there was no ceremony). She also claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to climb Mt. Everest, except that he didn’t claim Everest until she was 6. She claimed that she tried to join the marines in 1975, and that claim made little sense because she was a rising legal star about to marry Bill Clinton. She has also failed to tell the truth about the Benghazi attack, blaming an insensitive YouTube video rather than honestly addressing it as an act of terrorism. There is literally nothing she won’t say in order to get herself, and/or the Democrats in power, and there’s also the number of her husband’s rape victims who came out against her, saying she was basically an enabler for her sex pest husband. Compared to Trump, Hillary is far less trustworthy, and on top of that, she takes money from a variety of interests from which a political candidate should not be taking from, including countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Her accomplishments mean nothing to me so long as she’s a corrupt serial liar, and I know many politicians are corrupt and/or serial liars, but Hillary is this on a twisted new level.

      • What I said was, she has actual accomplishments, not that she has not lied, so you wasted your time re-writing the same old “laundry list”. I know she puffed up her past, and that she’s ambitious. Same for Trump. And that both their personal lives are ugly, which is totally irrelevant to me, because it’s common to MANY past presidents. I’m not looking to marry them, God forbid, only to hire for a job. It’s not illegal for the Clinton Foundation to take money from anywhere, because the money from foreign countries is earmarked for specific projects and grants, like AIDS relief, and it has to be approved by the State Dept. It’s a philanthropic NGO, not a PAC. (I’ve done corporate grant writing.)

        There’s simply no comparison, in terms of ability, between a wonky, driven, smart b—–, and a vulgar, splenetic, megalomaniac with a middle-school vocabulary. Not a choice between positives I admit, but I’ll have to take smart over not smart.

      • I would say its smarter not to vote for any of the candidates you kn’ow you won’t trust. This is why I insist that Gary Johnson is the best possible candidate for President. He knows how to govern, and so does his VP, and I have to say, Johnson’s track record is pretty damn clean compared to Clinton/Trump.

      • Even if Johnson doesn’t win, I think he’ll still garner more votes than the Libertarians ever did in its 45-year history, and I think that may pave the way for the end of the two-party system, which ultimately led to the situation where we have to choose between two terrible candidates just because the US public only counts the two main parties. Personally, I’d like to see something similar to Britain, where you have five notable parties (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and UKIP) and they’re all counted in election polls, or at least they should change the rules on including a candidate in the debates (I’d say dropping the minimum poll requirement from 15% to 5%) so the Libertarians and the Green Party can play on the same field as the Democrats and the Republicans (btw, I don’t understand why the Greens aren’t on the ballot in all 50 states).

      • I agree they should be on all ballots. I don’t know why they aren’t. Signatures required? I also agree we would be better off with 4-5 viable parties. It would force politicians to cooperate, in order to form coalition majorities.

        The American Greens are not at all like the ones I’ve met in Europe though. Here, they are a bunch of woo-woo, hippy-dippy anti-science people. Stein, despite being a physician, says nothing about their platform advocating BS like homeopathy and herbs instead of normal medicine for chronic conditions. Their members are also anti-vaccine, even though Stein isn’t.

      • It seems like Jill Stein is generally more sane than the other US Greens, but I tend to agree with her on a number of policies. The UK Greens are essentially a party of left-leaning progressives who talk a lot about the environment (kind of like the US Greens). They’re basically a party with a nice, soft image, but I disagree with them on policy (I think of them as lefty loonies), and I doubt they’re much competition against the reigning Conservative Party, or the main opposition party (Labour). I’m not sure, but I think they’re full of SJW’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s