Social Media: Creating Hate in the 21st Century

Kike, wop, chink, slope, spic, nigger, raghead, redneck, faggot, honkey, asshole.  Do these words create hate and anger as one reads them?  Will people believe that I am a racist because I choose to start my article with these words?


What about an article with the following headlines:  "How the Elite Exploit Orlando","Hillary's State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando's Killer's Mosque","Obama: Powerful Firearms too Easy to Get in America".  Would I create hate by sharing, posting or replying on these articles?
http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-state-dept-blocked-investigation-into-orlando-killers-mosque/
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/obama-powerful-firearms-too-easy-to-get-in-america-704549443961
http://www.infowars.com/how-the-elite-exploit-orlando/


In today's society these words do not even have to be said anymore to create hatred or for people to become more divided.  In fact, people do not even have to face each other anymore in order to communicate their anger and hatred.  We have now the greatest hatred creating tool of all time: social media.


Alot of criticism has come about the mass television media being biased and not reporting objectively when it comes to people and situations.  I have rarely heard anyone say that social media has caused biased and no objectivity.  In today's world, social media is a greater source of communication than television media.  Where television may only reach 22 million local viewers, social media can reach hundreds of million global viewers.


The best things about social media are also the worst things about social media.  Everyone has a voice and that voice can be shared not only instantly but around the world.  If people are seeking attention by doing some outrageous act, it can be shared around the world and that person can become famous.  If terrorists want their actions to be public, which is their goal because it spreads fear, then social media was the best thing invented in their world.


Just look at the current issue with the Orlando shootings.  An unknown person of Afghan heritage who was a US citizen and obtained guns legally.  He pledges loyalty to ISIS walks into a nightclub and kills 50 Americans.  Immediately the social media went crazy from the moment the news broke into the next day.  Within an hour, his name was known and his father was already talking to the world.


In searching social media, the hatred had already been spread.  There were at least 10 different variations of hate that was being communicated.  Hatred against gays.  Hatred against guns.  Hatred against the President.  Hatred against Hillary Clinton.  Hatred against Donald Trump.  Hatred against Isis.  Hatred against Muslims.  Hatred against the government.  Hatred against Bernie Sanders.  Hatred against the FBI.  This hatred came from people, pages, blogs and the national media.  In the end, 50 people are dead, another 53 are injured and we have a divided country.


This is how things work in the Social Media world of the 21st century.  It is no longer just an incident, it is now a religion issue, it is an immigration issue and it might have well just elected a president.  We start blaming guns for the crime, we start blaming the President for not saying the right words, we start blaming religions because they belonged to them and we even blamed political parties because he belonged to it.  You have the hatred coming from comments and shares of ordinary people.


People actually went on social media sites and congratulated Trump for being right about ISIS, so in reality they congratulated him for people dying.  No longer do we have to justify to ourselves whether the actions we do are ok as human beings.  There were people that made comments that this is okay killing homosexuals because they deserve to die for being gay, maybe this will have them stop killing Christians.  No longer are we thinking of the victims as human beings who lost their life but now they are just part of a group that we hate.


The media starts with the first communication, most notably the heading.  Many people will not look past the heading so it has become important for the heading to grab people.  Some people will look further into the media, some will just look at the heading or a picture and move forward from there with their response.  If this is all we have to go forward, is it really that important to us to know the truth?


If an article is posted that says "Hillary Clinton Wants to Stop Americans from Dying' and it is an article saying we need to look at changing our gun laws to save people, it may not get too many people to read it.  However, if the same article has the title "Hillary Clinton Wants to Take Your Guns”, some may not even get past the headline thus automatically starting to create the hate.  Suddenly, Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns instead of trying to save people.  Another result of this is that the same story may have different headers because it comes from different sources with different agendas.  So it may not just create hate in one place, it may create hate in several.


Then it is onto the next part which is people commenting on the posting or sharing it with others that may believe the same thing they do, which may cause even more anger.  For years, we have internalized our frustration with things, not used our voice because we were afraid of getting into some kind of trouble or simply got mad without a way to express it.  Now we can say whatever is on our mind related to the posting or against the posting.  We sit behind our computers, yelling, screaming and antagonizing as much as we want without repercussions.  We can be as rude and nasty as we want because who is going to stop us.


In the end, the group that uses the hatred tool the most is the one that is most effected by it: We the People.  Is this the most ironic tool in history?


So how does the hate progress in social media?


I think the best example of this is during our current Presidential election cycle.  The candidates may each have several pages or articles out there that show both sides of their campaign.  They may use this to spread the hatred faster than what would happen on television because now the supporters are involved in it.


Bernie Sanders is not attacked by Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump but is attacked by supporters of both as wanting to spend all of our money to give people ‘free’ things.  Not only that but also being attacked by the DNC for not dropping out of the race.  Where the campaign has not seen the bad parts of Bernie Sanders, social media has made sure that his weaknesses and any bad history has come to light to fuel the fire.


Hatred for Hillary Clinton was nothing new, it had been happening since social media had started.  There has been nothing out of bounds, even calling her Killary and even going to the depths of saying she drove a friend to suicide.  The truth or the issues is not important, when people have in their mind to hate someone, it allows them to justify commenting and trolling their hateful rhetoric.


The candidate that probably understands social media the most and has used it to his advantage has been Donald Trump.  He knows that the minute he makes an outlandish comment, it is going viral and it will spring both support and hatred.  He knows this is free advertising, where before you had to pay to show on television.  The hatred caused by his social media has gone one step further to cause violence.


It doesn’t even stop at the presidential candidates, hatred has been thrown at our current president like no other.  No matter what he does, good or bad, he is going to be attacked.  If he says the wrong thing or nothing at all where people think he should, he will be attacked.  If people do not like him because he is black, he will be attacked.  No other president in history has had to endure the social media onslaught that our current president has and all future presidents will have to deal with it as well.  Can you imagine if FDR in his wheelchair had to deal with social media or Washington with his wooden false teeth?


Terrorism thrives on getting attention for their cause and having their actions made public to instill fear.  Have we noticed that terrorism in the new age has actually increased or is it that we just hear about it faster?  Isn't social media the perfect outlet for terrorists?  Think about it, they want to see that their cause all over the place and now it is instantly broadcast throughout the world.  To make it worse, they can now see the fear and division of everyone on line.  They can see our comments, they can see our anger and they can see when we are fighting with each other.  How does this not help terrorists?


Even groups are trying to use social media to get their cause known but many times it actually turns around into hatred.  For example, Black Lives Matter is something that was created because they felt there was no voice about the deaths of black people at the hands of police officers.  Some people took it as offensive that only black lives should matter, some police took it as blue lives do not matter and when BLM spoke alot of people took it as blacks trying to be militant again.  Instead of looking at what they were trying to do or for BLM looking at how it was going to be perceived, everyone took their own view of it and even though some things have been done, people are still dying and people are still hating.


An interesting question is if many of those using social media are using us as hate creators because we have made it so easy for them.  It used to be that incidents would bring people together, now it divides us because all sides get to express their voice about the issue.  Once that voice is spread people take sides and then the issue really doesn't get fixed.  Take the bathroom issue in NC.  First some famous athlete changes gender and makes the entire thing public.  Instead of this being a good thing for others, next thing we know the government is banning people from bathrooms.  Then celebrities are cancelling shows, taking money out of people's pockets.  Politicians are saying these people should not be allowed in the same place as little girls, even though they have been doing it for years.  On the other side, people are saying it discriminating because it has never been proven that people are molested in bathrooms.  In the end, has anything really been resolved on the issue other than hatred?


I saw a comment recently where someone asked how are we suppose to fix these issues if the people are their own worst enemy?  I thought about it and I could only say that the answer lies in each of us as human beings.  If we think that our religion is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.  If we think our social status is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.  If we think trying to stop our fear is more important than treatment of human beings nothing can be fixed.


Social media is only going to increase over the years and with it, the hatred.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this article provoked its amount of hate simply from the words in it.  If that happens, there really is nothing I can do about it.  That is social media in the 21^st century and we may finally be at that point where everything we say will keep us so divided we cannot come together to find the real solutions of the world.

When I Figured Out that I was Wrong

During an election cycle alot of people have opinions and loyalties to the candidates or parties they support.  What also comes about from these is frustration that can result in using social media as a tool to berate people, call them names for supporting the wrong candidate and even be blinded to what point they really want to make.


I built America Lost in Delusion with the hope to never become one of these places that would fall prey to this frustration.  We try to inspire people to look outside the box and be objective.  Maybe this was not realistic because everyone can fall and unfortunately, I became the one thing that I was trying to fight.


I recently realized as I was looking at some of the replies that I received on comments I made that I was falling in the wrong direction.  I reviewed some of the comments that I made and some of the comments that I shared, realizing that they were starting to be biased and not the objectivity that I wanted to achieve.  Because I believe that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate of the three remaining and that Bernie Sanders was an illusion of a candidate, I was letting that biased having me attack Bernie in a way that I shouldn't have.


I was responding to replies in the wrong way to the very people who used their voice to respond to my comments.  Instead of appreciating their opinion, I was making comments that continued in my frustration.


Even though my articles/blogs were being objective some of the information in the articles was not giving all of the objectivity that it should have.  I gave information about single payer health care but only gave from the view of a single person instead of giving for everyone.  This would have changed some of the view of the article in a huge way.


I feel ashamed of myself that I have brought this upon the website and those that had the courage to use their voice.  However, at the same time, I hope that by writing this I can show when we know we made a mistake, we can take a step back and make the action to go back to the original intention.


So I apologize to the supporters of America Lost in Delusion and any disappointment that might have come about from this going in the wrong direction.  I cannot promise that this will not happen again but I will promise to continue to do the best job we can to give people the voice they deserve.


Our voice is necessary more than ever to change the people, the politcians and the country itself.

The Uselessness of Polls

There are alot of things to learn during an election year, both about people and the country that we live in.  One of the things that is very visible is how the use of polls really does effect the decisions that are not only made by our government but by the people that live in it.


All we hear in these polls is that this candidate leads this candidate or this candidate is polling better so they will be winning everything.  We hear that this is what people in the country think or want.  Some of the polls bring out good and some bring out bad.  What I wonder about polls is why we actually listen to them when they do not answer alot of questions.


Something that is so illogical about polls, is that they only take the opinion of anywhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people.  The number of people who will be part of the poll is determined by the people who are running the poll.  In a country of 320 million people, 2000 people make up .00000625 percent of the country.  A crazy small sample yet it is used as if it was one of the most important things in the country.


Another issue is how do we really know what questions were asked?  If a poll says 3 out of 10 women do not have an orgasm during sex, how do we know the exact question they asked?  Sex can be made of many different acts and some women do not orgasms during the physical penetration but may during the oral part.  So if you ask them generally about sex and they think only the physical act, they may say no.


What about the real emotions and feelings of people during the poll?  For example, if one's daughter was just murdered by a person of color, would they say they were in favor of the death penalty where maybe they were not before?  Would they then agree that people of color are justly incarcerated versus white's?  I think people forget that sometimes it is hard to be objective when your emotions and feelings are in different places at the time the question is asked.


What about the part of the country that we live in.  If you ask more people in Texas about abortion than in Colorado, you might get more answers in one direction over another.  Is that really a reasonable response if it is isolated to one area over another?


What about race, gender, sexual oreintation, etc.  All of these are going to get different responses but it doesn't mean that these responses represent all of these groups as a whole.


Let's look at some examples of polls that are currently being used.


Death Penalty


In a poll last year on the death penalty, they got a response of 1,015 people.  The only question they asked is do you agree with the death penalty for murder?  The poll said 61% favored, 37% did not and 2% had no opinion.  Is this really what the country thinks of the death penalty?


What also can't be determined here is what kind of murder do they favor.  Is manslaughter included in that, what about accidental homicide?  What about someone that kill someone while drunk driving?


What about circumstances such as Ted Bundy or Charles Manson?  Does having them in the poll change the thinking of the death penalty?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx?


Socialism v Capitalism


A subject of this election year was the subject of socialism versus capitalism.  Surprisingly a poll done in May 2016 says 60% people have a positive view of Capitalism while 35% have a positive view of Socialism.


The sample was 1,544 people.  What is interesting about it is that even though 60% say they favored capitalism, 85% actually said they favor free enterprise.  How many realize that capitalism is based on the prospect of free enterprise?


Also what was funny is that 53% said they were favorable towards corporations while 96% said they were favorable about small businesses.  Small business thrive on capitalism just as much as corporations but it is the corporations that are always called evil.


When taking ages into consideration, even the younger generation that is favoring all of the 'free' government stuff only 55% still said they favor socialism in the 18-29 and 30-49 was at 27%.  This is a small amount considering the amount of people fighting for this in the election.  The final ironic part of this poll is this same group of 18-29 had a 57% approval of capitalism.  Doesn't this say something about the validity of polls?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx?


Marijuana


A huge debate in the country is the legalization of marijuana.  Since some states have started legalizing it and are bringing in tons of money, I am sure this will be polled to death for a long time.


So the most recent poll was how many support the legalization of marijuana.  It was 58% supporting in a sample of 855.


Not surprising people 18-34 approve at 71% while people over 65+ represent only 35%.
The one question that is interesting to me that really no one asks is why do you want it legalized?  Is it so it can be used more medically, is it to decriminalize people or is it the simple fact that people want to be high all the time to forget their problems?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx?


Politics


There is no place where polls are used more than in politics.  The really amazing thing is that it is not just used to determine who will get elected but pretty much how politicians judge the mood of the people.  So when politicians say 58% of people want legalized marijuana, they are telling you how you should think based on the response of 855 people.


Politicians are even using polls to tell you why you should vote for them.  Bernie Sanders is using a poll to try to get people to vote for him that says he is stronger to run against Donalad Trump.  If you use the You/Gov poll that says Sanders is at 48% v 37% for Trump.  This is based on 1,635 registered voters.  Meanwhile Rasmussen has Clinton at 42% to 38% for Trump out of 1,000 likely voters.


What questions were asked to determine this, was it just who would you vote for?  What about why are you voting for this person?  What about the issues that this person stands for, are they important?


What is interesting about this poll is that only 85% and 80% were even saying they would vote for these candidates.  That leaves 15% and 20% undecided, not voting or going to vote for someone else or could even vote for Trump which would put him over the top.


It also says one poll uses registered voters and one uses likely voters.  So in one poll, people who may be thinking of registering are not taken into consideration.  In the other poll, we do not even know if anyone is even going to vote.


I think when we see these polls, we really do not see how this will effect people when others take these polls seriously.  If a poll of 1,200 people ask what is the most important issue facing this country and the Economy is first and racism is 5th, which one do we believe will be taken more seriously?  Racism is killing people, putting people in jail and having people actually considering putting up walls between countries, yet it is only 5th most important.  Is that logical?
Polling to me is the most useless piece of information out there.  The right questions are not being asked, it doesn't take everyone into consideration and it is based on a one time question.  There has to be a better way of getting to know what people in this country really want.


These are the numbers that are used to determine elections, the future of the country and the people in it.  It is sad when candidates start using the polling of elections against their opponent but what is even more sad is how we the people would take the advice of 1,100 instead of our own will.


I have more to say on the subject but I am hungry and need to go ask 800 people what to have for dinner.

Bernie the Grand Illusion: Why I Would Not Vote for Him

When I look at what kind of candidate I want to vote for, there are three questions that I ask more than anything.  1)  Do they run a negative campaign?  2)  Do they run a campaign where they are doing what is best for the entire country and all of the people. 3) Is the person real or just saying stuff to get elected?  This is what true politicians need to do and understand when running.  I know people say I am dreaming but no one is going to tell me that this person is not our there.

When the campaign started for the 2016 election, the one thing I made sure I did that I had never done before was to become more informed about what was happening.  Not only about the candidates but about the agenda that was being pushed down our throats.

I knew Hillary Clinton was going to get attacked like she has been for 25 years and say the things she needed to for election.  I knew Trump was going to win because people do not listen to what his supporters are saying and some people like craziness.  Then came Bernie Sanders out of nowhere.  I knew from the beginning that he was going to create some havoc because this is what the country always looks for when the younger generation is seeing things for the first time.  We are thirsty for someone that we believe will fight for our country, the same thing happened with President Obama.

When Mr. Sanders started I figured maybe this was a candidate that I could get behind.  He was an underdog, he was fighting for things others were not talking about and he was inspiring people to rise up this electoral season.

However, as he talked he kept saying how much the rich were to blame for the issues of this country and how we don’t do enough for the poor.  He was trying to put more emphasis on the government giving us all of these benefits and basically telling us it was our duty to pay for it.

Then as each speech happened, I just kept hearing the same thing over and over, finally realizing that he is not thinking about the effects on the people he is suppose to be caring about.  I finally realized he was not talking about anything that was helping the type of person that I am.  I have been working for over 30 years, I have a degree that I worked for, I am a veteran of the Gulf War, I own my home, I make a good living, etc.  So by doing most of the things that Mr. Sanders wants to do, my paycheck will decrease by at least $650 per month with really no benefit to myself.  So why would I vote for this type of person?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

I want to help people as much as the next person but the more I found out about Sanders and listed to him, the more I realized that he is not the holy candidate everyone thinks he is.  He is an illusion of the candidate that we seem to want and even though behind the scenes he is not, we want to believe that he is.  He is using all of the tricks, Politics 101 while making himself look non establishment which to me is the worst kind of politician.

One could see the real Mr. Sanders come out with each primary/caucus that he lost.  Of course, it couldn’t be that people didn’t want to vote for him, it had to be voter fraud therefore the blame game.  Did anyone notice that in the states where he got his ass kicked he didn’t complain, mostly the South.  It didn’t dawn on people to check BEFORE the election to see what the rules were or even worse, that not everyone was a Bernie fan.

Already I was starting to stay away from Bernie but then I said maybe the agenda he is saying will still make me vote for him despite the fact that I see through the persona.  The more I listened to it, the more I realized it was not an agenda that was best for this country and ALL of the people in it.  It was an agenda that was best for Bernie and his supporters.

Let's start with the simple fact of using European countries as a blueprint for our country.  Why should we be a country that follows others?  For years, we have been the innovators of the world and now we need to follow other countries as a way of fixing our issues.  I am not saying that something’s other countries do isn’t good but not as a blueprint.

Besides most of these countries are only 1 tenth the size of the US in both mass and people and no one talked about the extreme and expensive task of making it happen here without talking about taxing the rich.  One thing that was also not brought up is the failure of these systems in other countries such as Venezuela.  If you are going to tell Americans to follow other countries you better be ready to be attacked by the ones that didn’t work.  He failed that one.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6124/bernie-wont-answer-questions-about-venezuela-here-aaron-bandler

The real hot topic of single payer health system is also part of the fight.  The first issue I have is Bernie is spouting all of this but in 1993 he refused to vote for Hillary’s health care plan because it was not his.  We could have had affordable health care over 20 years ago and yet the one person who supposedly cares did not vote for it.

We are told that this will have to be paid for with a tax on companies and a tax on employees but that it will be minimal because premiums currently being paid for will be reduced.  This creates a problem with someone who is working without insurance they are now going to have to have their paycheck reduced when they did not before.  Of course, they will have health care but have less money.  The company also will have fewer profits.

Let’s look at how it will effect me.  I currently pay 25% of the health care premium offered which comes out to $124 per month.  That means my employer pays $372 per month.  Under the new program, I will pay $165 per month and my employer will pay $465 per month.  So that is $492 less I will get per year even before any other taxes take effect.  Then the company I work for will have $5,586 more in expense per year.  Now this may not sound like a lot but multiply that by only 10 employees, that is $55,000 less per year of profit or 1 person’s salary.

Some people say an advantage of single payer is that will be less expenses at hospitals because of overhead and inflated salaries.  However, those same people then become unemployed and since there will be no jobs available at other hospitals, they have to potentially find a different career.  Also what happens if people coming out of school do not want to become government employees and stop becoming doctors, won’t that create a shortage?

The final nail in this coffin for me is who will run this program.  We have seen already where the Affordable Health Care process has not been run well and now we are adding more government red tape to the process.  Not to mention how much power the government will now hold over the citizens which is something we are going to have to decide if we can live with.  Funny I never hear about this in any speeches or interviews.

http://www.medcohlth.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-single-payer-health-care/

How about the idea of free tuition?  I am all for people having an opportunity to better themselves by getting an education especially in a time when this is necessary for most jobs.  At the same time why should I have to pay for people to party at college?  I see no parameters for people that do not graduate or even worse do not get jobs in the field they got a degree in.  So I am paying taxes for someone to better their life but what happens if it does not?

It is said that this will be paid for by Wall Street but how can anyone think the middle class will not be effected by it?  Wall Street drives the economy whether we like it or not.  If taxes are applied on transactions, there will be less investment and this will cause things such as 401K’s to go down.  401K are used by the middle class.

Part of Bernie's plan also will make schools keep tenured professors at a 75% level so that means non tenured will be let go or even worse have a harder time finding a job.  Also, the federal government only takes 67% of the cost at the beginning with states taking the rest but after 6 years states are responsible for 100%.  This means states will now have to come up with billions of dollars as part of their budget to cover something they didn’t before.  I do not see that part of this plan being highlighted on social media or on signs when people are protesting.

http://www.americalostindelusion.com/past-discussions/archived-articles/2015/78-details-and-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan.html

The way Bernie really hits people is when he talks about helping the poor, saying the same thing everyone says that the poor need to have a livable wage.  I agree with this completely with people needing to make enough to not have to starve each night.  Where I have an issue is when was the last time a candidate actually went out and saw who the poor really was and why they were in the situation they were in.  Just throwing money at a problem really doesn’t solve it.

Poverty is defined by the government based on income level that will allow people to acquire the basics of life.  So a statistic is suppose to tell us a person’s real situation and how to fix it.

The government’s definition of poverty at its lowest level for a single person, it is $12,331 which equates to 5.92 per hour, this is below the minimum wage of $7.25.  So that means the minimum wage brings them above the poverty level by the government’s definition.  For a family of 3 with one person working, it is $19,078 which comes out to 9.00 an hour.  In this case the minimum wage is below the poverty level.

So the solution has been said to raise the minimum wage to $15 and people are actually out there fighting for this solution.  But in reality it does not help the people it is intended to help.  The livable wage in one county is different than in another county so $15 an hour will be different in those 2 counties.

Take one of the poorest counties in America, Rolette County in North Dakota:

                  1 Person Livable Wage 9.72 per hour                  
                                Poverty Wage  5.00 per hour
                      So it would only take $10.00 an hour for a livable wage.

                  Family of 3 (1 working person)  Livable Wage  18.31 per hour
                                                                     Poverty Wage  9.00 per hour
                      So the $15 an hour wage would not create a livable wage.

                 Single mother of 2  Livable Wage  $24.08 per hour
                                                Poverty Wage $9.00 per hour
                      So the $15 hour wage would not even close to a livable wage.

 This is one of the poorest counties in the country so you can imagine what one of the richest like Los Angeles is going to be.  There is more involved in a livable wage, like the high cost of rent, the high cost of taxes, the high cost of necessities, the high cost of life.  Where is the protesting of all of this?

http://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/about

Why would I vote for a candidate who honeymooned in Communist Russia and shouted ‘Death to the Yankees’ in Nicaragua?  Sounds like someone who doesn’t like this country so why should he be running it.

What about someone who says he fights against the military industrial complex but votes for the War in Afghanistan and NATO occupation in Serbia where tons of people died for ethnic cleansing.  A protest supporter who had war protestors arrested in his office.  One who was okay with the complex when the pentagon brought an F-35 project to his home state of Vermont.  Since Congress approves the budget, how many budgets were approved that raised the budget for the military?

How does an environmentalist supporter justify moving low level nuclear waste from his state of Vermont, then dumping it in Latino based Sierra Blanca Texas.  This has created all kinds of environmental issues.  When activists came to discuss he said he didn’t have time for them.  Guess there was no camera on him to spout his rhetoric.

He visited the border fence in Mexico saying we have to have reform to not divide families.  However, in 2007 and 2015 he voted against immigration reform based on the premise that it would lead to low level wages.

Even though he was a civil rights activist in the 60’s, there is no record of him having done anything in the area over the past 50 years.

He says we should do more for Native Americans, even visiting them during the campaign but there is no record of doing anything in his terms in Congress.

Mr. Sanders says he does not accept money from Super Pac’s yet the National Nurses United has donated over $1 million dollars to his campaign.  Now both Sanders and the United will say they do not think of themselves as a Super Pac but sorry to say that is how they are registered with the FEC.

How does a man who says he cares for the less fortunate ignore a major speaker of the handicapped?

https://shiksappeal.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/berned-by-bernie-sanders/

I am all for helping people in the country, in fact it is our duty as part of living here.  I am not trying to say that Mr. Sanders is a terrible person because people do things for different reasons and they make mistakes.

The issue I have is when someone who has built an illusion of being this great savior is in reality nothing but a person who has built his career doing the things opposite of what he is fighting for.  This makes the person non genuine even if others think he is.

https://www.quora.com/What-dirt-is-there-on-Bernie-Sanders/answer/Mark-Hughes-1?ref=fb

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release#.V0D-j9Zd6_0.facebook

I may come off here as sounding selfish and maybe I am, part of all of us are selfish that is why we do many of the things we do.  However, I worked hard to be where I am today and if I am going to support others with that hard work, I want to know that it is going to help all people not just the ones we are told it will help.  Myself and the people like me should be included in that conversation, not just forgotten because we are no longer young and we haven’t reached Social Security yet.

This is obviously a personal opinion when it comes to this candidate and I would never push this agenda onto anyone else.  We all have our reasons for wanting to elect someone into office and we should stand by those reasons, I do.

In my reasoning, I want some reality, even if it is kind of hard to swallow sometimes.  Someone giving me an illusion of what he will be means that eventually that illusion goes away which usually brings more issues.  In the end, I believe the person I want is out there and definitely know it is not Mr. Sanders.