by Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show:
Bernie Sanders was a modern-day Gaddafi, but unfortunately Sanders abandoned an entire generation of youth that pinned their inexperienced and naive hopes on a candidate who was only offered as a candidate in order to provide the illusion that Americans actually have a choice in elections, when in fact, they have none.
Sanders was often criticized because of his promises of things like free college seemed impracticable. However, his plan was doable if he identified where the money was going to come from. And where the money could be redistributed if the power of the economy was taken away from the banks. Sanders did not have the guts to wage that battle.
For as impossible as the Sanders platform seemed to be, there is historical precedent for how it could have worked and the answer on how that could have happened would really surprise you.
Would the Younger Generation Have Been Better Off With Gaddafi Than with Clinton As Their Next President?
Question, when does their dictator become more of a dictator than our dictator? Answer, when our future dictator can escape the responsibility of their lengthy history of criminal actions and can act with impunity when elected.Gsddafi was a terrorist, He was vilified by the West, but he was a modern-day Bernie Sanders who, unlike “Chicken Little Bernie”, Gadaffi ACTUALLY delivered on his promises. He made the Libyan middle class whole. Libyan’s youth had a fighting chance when they were preparing to enter the work force.
I have to confess that if had to vote for Hillary Clinton, or the late Gaddafi, I would choose Gadaffi for very cogent reasons that are outlined below.
Choose One for the Office of the President
Because of Gaddafi’s violent background, I would freely choose to not vote for either. However, a with a gun to my head, I would unquestionably vote for Gaddafi. The following paragraphs make it clear why I hold these beliefs.
Clinton or Gaddafi? Our Kids Would Choose Gadaffi and Here’s Why
Libya under Mr. Gaddafi, was Africa’s most prosperous democracy. Their government was much more responsive to the people than the United States. In fact, Gaddafi’s Libya had the United States beat on the on the issue of democracy prior to the assassination of the Libyan leader. That does not seem possible but the fundamental difference between the United States democratic systems and Libya’s former Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya, citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the political decision-making process.
The United States has a very tightly controlled indirect form of democracy. Americans have no say in how the government is run. Americans only get to pretend to elect the “criminals” who are running this country into the ground. In contrast, all Libyans were allowed to voice their views directly, just not in one parliament of only a few hundred elite politicians, but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya, before the murder of Gaddafi, was the most prosperous and democratic nation in Africa.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
gaddafiThe government of Gaddafi brought the Libyan government from poverty and debt, to prosperity and debt-free status in 41 years. In Libya, healthcare was free and Libyan pharmacies and hospitals were comparable to high-grade European medical facilities. This contrasts with America, where our death by doctor fatalities reached 225,000 last year.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.