This message was self-deleted by its author

[Dragonfli]

115. It's about very brave antisemitism :

Quote# 117360

I cannot stand him. His fans are racists who run around calling blacks racist and wonder why we hate him and them. I don't even LIKE Hillary but I will vote for her just so his fans can feel the sne BERN that they have been passing out.
Look at the racist comments here. I did not know jews hated us blacks so much. Good to know. I will return it in kind. There are so few of them It's a wonder they have the gall to think about being racist against blacks.

Bravenak, Frontpage Mag 6 Comments [3/11/2016 4:32:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

It also fits a common Hillary Campaign pattern that encourages hatred and division, some posters have a real nak for it, and are a great asset to disunity, David Brock, and of course Hillary Clinton whom it is meant to help politically.

Any candidate that would actively try to divide Americans across racial and cultural lines

Then attempt to foster hatred of each group against the other is harmful not just to the process but to the innocent people they are trying to divide into racial political wars, even if it is only an attempt to do so temporarily (as they likely tell themselves), just until an election is won, it is deplorable behavior and often seen used by hate groups across the globe.

This is becoming a pattern from the Clinton Campaign.

Incredibly well-respected surrogates sent out to attack Bernie or his supporters, get some pushback, accuse Sanders and his supporters of racism and/or sexism for pointing out the smear isn't true. It's sickening and cynical and divisive. I expect this stuff from Repugs- this divisiveness from the Clinton camp is heartbreaking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511300567#post4.

Brock is a big part of this (pit one poor race against another) in order to win victories designed to profit the wealthy at the expense of all the people that will suffer under their trickle down neoliberal policies which will harm all of us struggling people no matter the race, but those that hire them also have a history of agitating people to hate by race and so are just as, if not more, accountable for such deplorable tactics.

It is a tactic often used by the wealthy in order to keep the power and money while continuing to steal even more in the face of glaring wide spread wealth disparity across all racial and social lines, In war the tactic is called divide and conquer, the wealthy have throughout history done this at the point where the difference between the rich and poor becomes widespread and apparent.

A true leader on the other hand, one that wants to help all the people historically tries to bring all the people together to fight the aristocracy.

It is clear which candidate is following which tactic, just as it is clear which candidate is little more than the puppet of the wealthy and attempting to win yet more of their favor. Such candidates often acquire excessive wealth during their lapdog tenures practically rubbing it in our faces (how much wealth have the "public servants" the Clintons acquired again, and from whom?)

The honest candidate, not swayed by or wiling to be used by by an uncontrolled group that worships at the altar of greed often lives a relatively normal lifestyle, not depending on acquiring wealth in order to achieve their version of a happy life, again which candidate more closely represents this lifestyle?

I have told you of tactics as old as the existence of extreme wealth at the expense of others. In your hearts the signs of their use are evident, some would say axiomatic.

I have also told you of some common traits of leaders on the side of the populace.

There is enough for you to decide for yourself which side you are on. And who is on your side as well.


choose well.

(edited to add a few things)