Bernie: Communist, Socialist, Liberal, or Progressive?

[PoliticalChic]

Gee.....this sounds like the post of one who is afraid to take a position....

You know....a 'fence-sitter.'

This:
someone who supports both sides in a disagreement because they cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side
fence-sitter Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary




I know, I know ...I know what you're gonna say.....
You're right. Sometimes I wish I were a nicer person....but then I laugh and continue my day.

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

Okay, scared little kitty, I'm tired of chasing you. I can see you're going to keep running.

This is boring.

Go rub up against someone else for a while. Thanks.
.

See...now I've reduced you to lying.

I clearly defined your lack of courage here:

" Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."


You are deathly afraid to point to the one who is worse for America.

Grow a pair.

 

[Mac1958]

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

Okay, scared little kitty, I'm tired of chasing you. I can see you're going to keep running.

This is boring.

Go rub up against someone else for a while. Thanks.
.

See...now I've reduced you to lying.

I clearly defined your lack of courage here:

" Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."


You are deathly afraid to point to the one who is worse for America.

Grow a pair.

Ugh. Scared little kitty is back.

Here:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy.

You keep proving you're too stupid to learn the lesson.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

I'm sure you noticed some fool, earlier, saying this: "Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy."

There is no authorization for 'redistributing' assets in the Constitution.

This is only the case in dictatorships...such as what the communist Sanders wishes for America.

 

[deltex1]

Religious until you are educated.

Educated as in buying into an easier way of life that allows you to butt hump your boyfriend and not feel guilty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.

Hyperbole is king.

The crazies have taken over political discourse in this country.

I really wish they'd find another hobby.
.

Gee.....this sounds like the post of one who is afraid to take a position....

You know....a 'fence-sitter.'

This:
someone who supports both sides in a disagreement because they cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side
fence-sitter Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary




I know, I know ...I know what you're gonna say.....
You're right. Sometimes I wish I were a nicer person....but then I laugh and continue my day.

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy.

You keep proving you're too stupid to learn the lesson.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

So if the wealthy can turn the US into a country with most people working for China wages, with no government assistance or protections, with no political recourse in the system to fight for anything better,

you're content with that. No democracy, just might makes right.

 

[Conservative65]

You keep proving you're too stupid to learn the lesson.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

I'm sure you noticed some fool, earlier, saying this: "Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy."

There is no authorization for 'redistributing' assets in the Constitution.

This is only the case in dictatorships...such as what the communist Sanders wishes for America.

I addressed it. They call those of us earning what we have greedy for not wanting to be forced to "share" yet have no problem with someone that didn't earn it getting it for nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You keep proving you're too stupid to learn the lesson.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

I'm sure you noticed some fool, earlier, saying this: "Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy."

There is no authorization for 'redistributing' assets in the Constitution.

This is only the case in dictatorships...such as what the communist Sanders wishes for America.

So you do wish to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Funny you once called me a liar for pointing that out.

 

[Conservative65]

Gee.....this sounds like the post of one who is afraid to take a position....

You know....a 'fence-sitter.'

This:
someone who supports both sides in a disagreement because they cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side
fence-sitter Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary




I know, I know ...I know what you're gonna say.....
You're right. Sometimes I wish I were a nicer person....but then I laugh and continue my day.

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

You keep proving you're too stupid to learn the lesson.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

So if the wealthy can turn the US into a country with most people working for China wages, with no government assistance or protections, with no political recourse in the system to fight for anything better,

you're content with that. No democracy, just might makes right.

It's not my problem you work for low wages. That's your fault.

People have recourse with with to do better. They have the ability to go to school through the 12th grade whether they fund the system or not.

 

[Conservative65]

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

I'm sure you noticed some fool, earlier, saying this: "Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy."

There is no authorization for 'redistributing' assets in the Constitution.

This is only the case in dictatorships...such as what the communist Sanders wishes for America.

So you do wish to abolish Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Funny you once called me a liar for pointing that out.

Medicaid, yes. The other two should give people the ability to opt out, you know, a choice. The only reason you don't support an opt out is you know who truly is funding the system. It's the same ones you chastise yet go to any time you want funding for some redistribution of wealth nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

I'm sure you noticed some fool, earlier, saying this: "Redistribution of wealth is justice when too much of it gets 'distributed' to the wealthy."

There is no authorization for 'redistributing' assets in the Constitution.

This is only the case in dictatorships...such as what the communist Sanders wishes for America.

I addressed it. They call those of us earning what we have greedy for not wanting to be forced to "share" yet have no problem with someone that didn't earn it getting it for nothing.

PC has never had a job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

Namecalling and nothing else is not an argument.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

So if the wealthy can turn the US into a country with most people working for China wages, with no government assistance or protections, with no political recourse in the system to fight for anything better,

you're content with that. No democracy, just might makes right.

It's not my problem you work for low wages. That's your fault.

People have recourse with with to do better. They have the ability to go to school through the 12th grade whether they fund the system or not.

How can they go to school in the system you want where no one has to pay school taxes.

 

[Conservative65]

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....of, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting.

I can see now that this is getting right past you. Sorry.

Look at your definitions of "fence sitter" in your post 30 and your post 165. They are not the same. They are "different". And I know why, of course.

And I can see you're going to continue to avoid my challenge on issues. I'm used to that here, happens all the time with wingers.

Turns out you're pretty ordinary.
.

2. "Regarding my post, I'm not on the fence at all. I'm taking a clear stand with most Americans against the damage done by narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues who are more interested in "winning" for their "side", more interested in providing transparent rhetoric "with a literary flourish" than in being honest and constructive. Or at least interesting."

Stop babbling.

You are obviously equating Trump and Sanders.
This is only possible if one is deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other.


2. I have never altered my disrespect of folks who are deathly afraid of antagonizing one side or the other......fence sitters.

You confuse name calling with telling the truth.

You support allowing the wealthy and powerful to abuse the rest of the population in any manner and to any extent their wealth and power enables them.

You reject any system of government that would allow the people to alleviate that abuse.

I'm not the stupid one.

I support those that earned it keeping it. You support those that didn't getting it from those that did.

That you automatically think someone without is that way because someone else did something to them proves you're stupid. It's your first, last, and only thought.

So if the wealthy can turn the US into a country with most people working for China wages, with no government assistance or protections, with no political recourse in the system to fight for anything better,

you're content with that. No democracy, just might makes right.

It's not my problem you work for low wages. That's your fault.

People have recourse with with to do better. They have the ability to go to school through the 12th grade whether they fund the system or not.

How can they go to school in the system you want where no one has to pay school taxes.

Like my children did with private school. I pay for that AND the taxes so some poor son of a bitch can get something for nothing.

 

[Muhammed]

Getcha 'Program! Can't Tell The Players Widdout' A Program!
The players are communists, socialists, Progressives, Liberals, fascists and Nazis.
They all play for the same team.


Time to dispel the propaganda and embrace the reality: We can quibble over exactly who is who...but any difference between them is simply how dedicated each is to Leftism....that means how far each will go:
a. will they simply deprive opponents of rights, such as respect, or free speech, or one's livelihood...

b. .....or will they round 'em up, put 'em in camps....all the way up to starvation and slaughter.
Of course....that may merely depend on how much power they have in society.



Today....let's look at Bernie Sanders....socialist? Communist? Progressive? Or...Liberal?
Getcha' program!



1. " [At] the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

2. ...graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.” Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post


a. Eugene Victor Debs, Bernie's paragon: "... Debs agreed with the left wing of the Socialist Party—people like Bill Haywood and Mother Jones, who would help found the Industrial Workers of the World (the 'Wobblies). They advocated workers taking control where the power of the ruling class was rooted—in the factories. ... Within the SP, members had very different ideas about socialism and how it would be achieved. Some believed in socialism as a steady increase in social reforms achieved by socialists being elected to political office—others looked to a revolutionary transformation of society.....

Eventually, those leftists who remained in the SP quit to help form a new Communist Party on the model of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks had built in Russia. Debs, while he supported the Russian Revolution and remained a revolutionary, nonetheless stayed in the SP." Socialism according to Eugene V. Debs


Still imagine there is any great difference between socialists and communists....and Bernie?

I think he's just a creepy weirdo from a horror novel.

 

[Contumacious]

Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.

Hyperbole is king.

The crazies have taken over political discourse in this country.

I really wish they'd find another hobby.
.

Gee.....this sounds like the post of one who is afraid to take a position....

You know....a 'fence-sitter.'

This:
someone who supports both sides in a disagreement because they cannot make a decision or do not want to annoy or offend either side
fence-sitter Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary




I know, I know ...I know what you're gonna say.....
You're right. Sometimes I wish I were a nicer person....but then I laugh and continue my day.

Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence.

I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?



You're not nearly as good at this as you think. Are you going to continue to avoid pointing out those issues?

Let me try to help - Abortion? War? Gay rights? Personal income taxes? Corporate income taxes? Political Correctness? Health Care?

Come on, show some guts here. Chasing you around like you're a scared little kitty is becoming tedious.
.

1." Still waiting for you to point out issues on which I sit on the fence."
Your last post, silly.
"Bernie's a communist, Trump is Hitler.
Hyperbole is king."

2. "I notice you changed your definition of "fence-sitter" from post 30. Did you think I wouldn't notice?"
What is the change??


3. I believe I can help you....or, Madeline can.
"In an old house in Paris that was covered with vines lived twelve little girls in two straight lines. In two straight lines they broke their bread and brushed their teeth and went to bed. They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad. They left the house at half past nine in two straight lines in rain or shine — the smallest one was Madeline."

Get that?
"...They smiled at the good and frowned at the bad and sometimes they were very sad."

See....that's what I do....with a literary flourish....

Try it.

You were wrong to call Bernie Sanders a Communist. Comically, or sadly, wrong, depending on how one wants to look at it.

ALL of the above.

He is a Communist and a Socialist which were at one time euphemistically known as Liberal, or Progressive

.