Feelin’ the Bern Along the Campaign Trail…

Posted by Tina

Bernie Sanders won the big three on Saturday in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii taking almost 70% of the overall vote and delivering a bit of a stomach punch to the old girl he’s running against. After these wins Bernie still has a long row to hoe with his 975 delegates to her 1,243, but remember, Hillary has a lot hanging over her head. Those so-called secure delegates may run for the hills (no pun intended) if the stuff finally hits the fan.

As for Bernie, in an interview on CNN Sunday morning he let the world know he was in this race to win. He didn’t want to talk about what he’d do (Support Hillary) if Hillary won the nomination…even when pressed by Jake Tapper about her lack of support for his Medicare for all plan.

Hillary continues to be haunted by the gosts of Bills past. Sally Miller is the dame with a lot to say. Will it hurt Hillary? who knows, lefties don’t seem to care about the sleaze factor and the Clintons. It certainly won’t harm Bernie!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Feelin’ the Bern Along the Campaign Trail…

  1. Libby says:

    If you are actually suggesting that the Easter Egg Roll should not proceed as usual … then you are easy pickin’s; not worth an enemy’s time and effort, really.

  2. Tina says:

    Libby, you really are a covert witch, aren’t you?

  3. Peggy says:

    Hard to understand why people are so willing to give up their freedoms to others to control.

    Good read.

    In the Name of Lenin, What’s a ‘Democratic Socialist?’

    “It’s a curious quirk of leftists like Bern Sanders: qualifying “socialist” with “democratic.” Of course, it’s designed to make socialism less menacing and more appealing to Americans, who, at least, have some vague recollection of the “Better dead than red” Cold War trope. But the modifier “democratic” should raise suspicions, and not in ways flattering to Bern and his red ilk.

    If socialism is so wonderful, so about equality and justice, so respecting of the individual and his place in a collectivist system — so inherently democratic — why the need for the qualifier? You mean to say there’s undemocratic socialism afoot? A system of rulers and subjects? Of elites whose superiority confers on them the right to chart the course for the masses? Who won’t blink about using force when the masses get uppity?

    If socialism can be made acceptable by appending “democratic,” why not so for fascism, whose history parallels its socialist cousin?

    Yes, cousin. Those isms are first cousins.”

    Continued..
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/in_the_name_of_lenin_whats_a_democratic_socialist.html#ixzz44IswoJoU

  4. Chris says:

    An alternate take on democratic socialism–from 1984 writer George Orwell, who spent his entire adult life fighting fascism and Communism and supporting democratic socialism–can be found here.

    http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw

  5. Tina says:

    Orwell qualified his support for “democratic socialism:

    “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

    We must remember Orwell was an English writer, raised with English traditions and English laws that had evolved out of the Monarchy. The coding, if you will, is that of serfs and courtiers who depend on the benevolence of a king. Americans are (or were) wired much differently. Our stock fled that servitude for freedom and God given rights! His fight against communism included defending those accused of being Trotskyites in league with Franco…because of what he thought was an injustice. What if they were? That would put his fight against communism in question or at least at odds. Did it matter to Orwell? You’d have to know him better than I, but from his writing at your link, I’d say he wasn’t very political, nor had he given much thought to the American alternative. This is something that “French political thinker” Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859 did do, and wrote about it extensively. “Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated parliamentary government, but was skeptical of the extremes of democracy.”

    Conservatism in America today has it’s roots in classical liberalism

    “Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as “social,” or (erroneously) “modern” or the “new,” liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.

    De Tocqueville Quotes:

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”― Alexis de Tocqueville

    “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.― Alexis de Tocqueville

    “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”― Alexis de Tocqueville

    And if you want to know from whence we’ve come, the true American tradition try this one:

    “Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”― Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. Chris says:

    Tina: “We must remember Orwell was an English writer, raised with English traditions and English laws that had evolved out of the Monarchy. The coding, if you will, is that of serfs and courtiers who depend on the benevolence of a king.”

    I’ve seen nothing to indicate Orwell believed in such an arrangement.

    “You’d have to know him better than I, but from his writing at your link, I’d say he wasn’t very political”

    I don’t understand how it’s possible to come to such a conclusion from this:

    ““Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”

    That would seem to be him saying his writing is entirely political.

  7. Tina says:

    “democratic socialism…AS I UNDERSTAND IT.” the highlighted part of the sentence is important. Had he been more aware of it’s debilitating, freedom robbing properties (and he couldn’t have back then) he might have favored a more conservative ideology.

    I’m not saying he didn’t write about ideology, but it was his sense of justice that fueled his writing and writing that he passionately loved . At least that’s my reading of it.

  8. Chris says:

    We’ll have to agree to disagree over whether Orwell’s understanding of democratic socialism was informed or not.

    I agree that he was fueled by his passionate sense of justice, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.