Amidst the Wuhan virus pandemic, the DNC decided to still hold one of their debates, though without an audience and having the two debaters a good six feet apart from each other to encourage social distancing. But regardless of there being a virus out there or not, the highlights still included Joe’s cognitive decline (although Bernie also showed a bit of cognitive decline at one point too).
When discussing the relevant topic of the Wuhan virus (which no Leftist will dare call it that in spite of the very clear and serious damage the Chinese have caused to the whole world), the former Vice President mistakenly said that the Obama administration had dealt with the Coronavirus, when in fact it had to deal with the swine flu (H1N1): “We’ve been through this before with the coronavirus”; once he realized his mistake, he called the swine flu “N1H1” “… excuse me, we’ve been through this before dealing with… the N1H1”, and outright forgot the name of the Ebola virus, instead calling it “what happened in Africa.” At one point, he also mistook the Wuhan virus for SARS.
Definitely not as massive blunders as he had made previously, but they show the consistency of his declining mental health. However, Joe wasn’t the only one to have made a mistake in this debate. Bernie Sanders also made a similar mistake, often confusing the Wuhan virus for Ebola, saying “The Ebola crisis, in my view, exposes the dysfunctionality of our healthcare system.”
Funny enough, Joe Biden actually said something that I agree with, in that he argued against Bernie saying that Italy, which currently has 24,747 total cases (according to Worldometers) and nearly 2,000 deaths, has single-payer healthcare: “With all due respect to Medicare-for-All, you have a single-payer system in Italy. It doesn’t work there. Medicare-for-All… would not solve the problem at all.”
So kudos to Joe Biden for that little tid bit of not going straight up communist (though he did also support many other far-Left policies throughout the debate).
Fox News reported on the rest of the debate, saying:
“Throughout, Biden staked out unusually left-wing positions for a front runner – including promising that no one would be deported in his first 100 days in office, and by asserting that there would be ‘no new fracking’ under his administration. Fracking, while opposed by environmental activists, has revitalized the economies of battleground states and is expected to be a major issue in the general election.”
He also promised that he would not allow for the oil industry to continue to drill anywhere at all, essentially promising to destroy that entire industry, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without a job (and sending us into an energy crisis the likes of which had only been found in fiction). So the guy still has enough cognitive ability to demonstrate how much of a socialist he is, despite the fact that so many are trying to paint him as a “moderate” candidate.
Apart from his hardline attack on Medicare-for-All, he still said that treatment, testing, etc. for the Wuhan virus should be completely free (meaning the taxpayer is left with the bill, so it’s not free and not very different from Medicare-for-All in the first place), promised not to deport any illegal immigrants, even if they committed major crimes apart from illegally crossing the border such as rape, murder, etc. for his first 100 days (which is a bit of an odd argument because it makes zero sense to approach it that way even if you believe in “illegal immigrant rights”), promised to eliminate fracking, which has enriched middle America, and promised to eliminate all oil drilling and operations. All of these promises are far-Left, socialist promises, so it makes no sense for anyone to genuinely believe the guy is in any way, shape, manner or form a “moderate”.
It’s kind of worrying that the guy’s mental abilities are leaving him, but he can still remember to be a complete authoritarian should he choose to. Again, there weren’t as many blunders that were quite as big as the other ones, but they were still very much present.
Confusing the virus we are currently facing with the one we faced back in 2009, confusing the virus the Obama administration had to face by calling it “N1H1”, confusing the Wuhan virus for SARS and outright not remembering the Ebola virus, despite the fact that that was the last major virus people were talking about prior to the Wuhan virus highlights the decline of his cognitive senses.
“Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Considering the uncomfortably high percentage of young people who say they favor socialism over capitalism, or would describe themselves as socialists (they aren’t really socialists, they don’t even know what it actually means or does), I’d say I am okay with this reality: young people really just don’t show up to vote.
Now, that’s not to say that they don’t vote at all, of course, they just really don’t vote with anywhere close to the same rate as older generations do, and this has been the case for a long time, historically.
Census.gov has an article that details elections (1980-2016) that display the turnout rates by demographic each and every presidential election. One of the figures they show is fairly eye-opening:
As you can see, there are four lines in this line chart that display different voting blocs according to age. From 1980 to 2016, we see that voter turnout for people ages 65 or older is often virtually tied with those aged 45-64. In 1980, 45-64 year olds voted at a recorded rate of 74.4%, those 65 and older voted at a rate of 69.8 and 30-44 year olds were close behind, at 67.2%. But those aged 18-29 are WAY below any of the aforementioned age groups in terms of turnout. In the 1980 election, only 48.2% of people in that age range turned out to vote, 19 less points than 30 to 44-year-olds.
And it’s been fairly similar in each and every presidential election from that point on. We can see that the youth vote spiked in 1992, likely to vote for Bill Clinton, but that still was almost 16 points less than the next oldest group and 23.1 points less than those 65 or older.
In 1996, turnout rates crashed for pretty much every category, but none harder than 18 to 29-year-olds, who turned out at a rate of only 39.6%. As time went on, the rate began to go back up to its usual rates, once again getting another rate of above 50% in 2008 to vote for Obama, but after that, it went down once again.
And this last Super Tuesday was virtually no different, statistically. According to The Inquisitr, “According to results from the NBC News exit poll released at around 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday – two hours before the first poll closings in eastern states – only 13% of Democratic voters in the Super Tuesday primaries are between the ages of 18 and 29. That is 10 percentage points fewer than the second-least likely voters – the 30-44 age group, which made up 23% of Tuesday’s electorate.”
Voters between 45 and 64 turned out at 35% and those 65 and older turned out at 29%. While the actual numbers may be vastly different from the Census figure above, we still see that the turnout rate for 18 to 29-year-olds is far less, by 10 points or more, than the older voting ranges. There is a ten-point difference between 18-29 year olds and 30-44 year olds in that Super Tuesday electorate, as the Inquisitr noted. The difference widens to 16 between 18-29 year olds and 65 and older, and the difference stands at 22 entire points between those 18-29 and 45-64.
This largely explains just why it is that Bernie Sanders lost all but two of the states in this last Super Tuesday (March 10th), just barely winning in the largely socialist state of Washington by 2,084 votes (and both Bernie and Joe got the same number of delegates in both Washington and North Dakota, the other state Bernie won, so those victories didn’t really matter for Crazy Bernie). Bernie’s campaign largely hinges on his ability to attract the youth vote.
On social media, you may see plenty of young Bernie Sanders supporters, like that “OK boomer” dancing girl and many others, but they largely do not turn out to vote, even when their guy needs as much youth support as possible in order to beat Joe Biden. All the pro-Bernie hashtags on Twitter, all the pro-communist t-shirts sold, all the pro-socialist memes posted on the internet don’t really matter because the young people behind the hashtags, t-shirts and memes are simply not turning out to vote.
Now, forgive me if I sound annoyed at that, because I am not at all annoyed in the least. The fact that young people, those who are fresh out of, or still in, college and have been brainwashed by their college professors to believe communism is good and capitalism is bad, don’t vote is a good thing, in my opinion. If they turned out to vote at roughly the same rates as at least the next older voting bloc, the 30-44 year olds, I believe that would largely skew a lot of elections to the Left. So I am glad that younger people largely don’t go out to vote.
The fact that 18, 19 and 20-year-olds can vote, I think, is not even wise at any rate. There are good arguments for RAISING the voting age, as opposed to lowering it to allow for kids who are 16 years old to vote, as the Democrats want to do (seemingly from these figures, it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference). Someone who is 18 years old, one who just recently had to ask permission to go to the restroom (and had to be scolded for saying “can I” instead of “may I”), should not have the responsibility of deciding who runs the country. Arguably, the voting age should be at least 25 years old, as that is the age when the human brain fully develops (I say this, recognizing that would make me ineligible to vote, but I still think that’d be better than what he have now).
Kids who are going into college or recently are coming out of college with the Communist Manifesto forcibly drilled into their brains should not be making the decision as to whom runs the country. Thankfully, even while they are allowed to vote, it seems that they largely simply do not go out to vote at the rate that older generations tend to do.
Looking back at that line chart, the 2016 turnout rate was two points lower than the rate it was in 1980. From that election to the most recent one, youth turnout has largely not been extremely high or varied. Even in the election where youth turnout was the highest (in the chart), it was still, again, almost 16 points lower than the next oldest voting block and each age range saw at least some increase in turnout rate that election.
Young people largely simply do not go out to vote. I don’t know if it’s because they are uninspired (you’d think Bernie’s “revolution” would be fairly inspiring to this Marxist generation) or because they are too lazy or do not know when there is an election or at what time polls close, but they simply don’t show up to vote. This has historically been the case since at least 1980 but more than likely going back further (Joseph Curl of the Daily Wire notes how young people protested against Nixon and the Vietnam War but he still won re-election in a massive landslide in 1972, so that goes to show that this has been the case since even before 1980).
Whatever the reason may be, I can’t say I am dissatisfied. I don’t want Marxists in the White House or in Congress, so if Millennials largely aren’t going out to vote for such people, fine by me.
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
For about four years now, we have heard virtually every major and minor fake news publication make the claim that Donald Trump was “like Hitler” or “worse than Hitler”, which serves nothing more than to criminally minimize the dreadful impact Hitler had on tens of millions of people. In that time, we have also heard some others on the Left claim that Trump was like Stalin or Mao Zedong. Well, one writer for The Atlantic tried to compare Trump to Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.
Allow me to explain just why it is absolutely ABSURD to claim that Trump is in any way, shape, manner or form akin to any of these communist dictators of the past and the present.
Let’s first begin with The Atlantic’s article. Anne Applebaum writes this article and I have to say, apart from the obvious attempt at painting Trump like a communist dictator, it is actually a pretty good article, as it describes the process Chavez underwent to become Venezuela’s dictator, the power that he consolidated for himself, and even attacks Venezuela as being the “endgame” for ideological Marxism.
I know, I found that strange as well. Apparently, this woman is not a fan of ideological Marxism and recognizes that Venezuela is its natural result, and yet, hates Trump and believes Trump to be like Chavez. Ridiculous, if you ask me. But let me share some excerpts from the article.
After attacking Trump for inviting the legitimate president of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, to his State of the Union address and claiming he was essentially just being used a prop by the POTUS (even going so far as to claim Trump has never advocated for the liberty of other people before that point), she writes:
“Regardless of what actually happens there, Venezuela – especially when it was run by Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez – has long been a symbolic cause for the Marxist left as well. More than a decade ago, Hans Modrow, one of the last East German Communist Party leaders and now an elder statesman of the far-left Die Linke party, told me that Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian socialism’ represented his greatest hope: that Marxist ideas – which had driven East Germany into bankruptcy – might succeed, finally, in Latin America.”
“Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of the British Labour Party, was photographed with Chavez and has described his regime in Venezuela as ‘an inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics.’ Chavez’s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos, Spain’s far-left party. Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money, though he denies it. Even now, the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather, whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to ‘protect’ the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse to call Maduro a dictator.”
“And yet – Venezuela is not an idea. It is a real place, full of real people who are undergoing an unprecedented and in some ways very eerie crisis. If it symbolizes anything at all, it is the distorting power of symbols. In reality, the country offers no comfort for youthful Marxists or self-styled anti-imperialists – or for fans of Donald Trump.”
Why would it offer comfort for fans of Trump? ALL OF US ARE LITERALLY AGAINST EVERYTHING VENEZUELA HAS BECOME! We are against the socialist system that has driven it to this point. We are against the socialist system BERNIE SANDERS wishes to impose on us because we recognize IT’S THE EXACT SAME FREAKING ONE!
As the writer of this piece points out, Chavez consolidated power through changing the rules of elections, packing the courts and altering the electoral system so that no one has any chance at beating him. Does that more closely describe the desires of Trump OR THE DEMOCRATS WHO CRY “RUSSIA, RUSSIA” AND WANT TO ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND MAKE D.C. A NEW STATE WITH SO MANY DELEGATES THAT IT OVERRIDES VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ELSE!? DEMOCRATS want to do exactly this. THEY are the ones that want to change the rules of elections, eliminating the electoral college, and pack the courts so that everything they do becomes legitimized by these courts.
The piece also points out the health crisis going on in Venezuela, particularly with food and water shortages. Who exactly wants to socialize medicine in the States, much like Chavez did in Venezuela, Trump or the Democrats?
The idea that Donald Trump is in any way like Chavez is so ignorant, it hurts. The piece even points out that “Venezuela is the endgame of ideological Marxism”, as I mentioned earlier, and still believes TRUMP to be more like the dictators following this ideology than anyone else in American politics. It’s absolutely LUDICROUS.
Every dictator that they say Trump is like, from Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Mussolini, to Chavez, to Maduro, was/is from the FAR-LEFT, COMMUNIST SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE.
Each of these dictators increased the size of the government, nationalizing entire industries. For crying out loud, Volkswagen was created as a STATE-OWNED COMPANY BY THE NAZIS! Each of these socialist/communist dictatorships nationalized healthcare, insurance, banks, EVERYTHING!
The bread lines that people in the Soviet Union had to stand in, or people in Venezuela currently have to stand in, have been PRAISED by Bernie Sanders! Just last week, I wrote an entire article talking about how much of a communist Bernie Sanders is, espousing the exact same ideologies that these communist dictators espouse/espoused, some of which Bernie has PRAISED like Fidel Castro! Don’t even remotely try and tell me that TRUMP has anything in common with these communists because that is a take pretty much NO ONE on either side of the aisle will agree with.
Communists hate Trump because he isn’t a communist. Capitalists love Trump for the exact same reason. Anyone arguing Trump is anything like these fascist thugs is a liar. Matter of fact, the most Applebaum can claim Trump has in common with Chavez (things that are still ridiculous) are the claims of “assault on democracy, courts, and the press.”
Like I said, the Democrats are the ones trying to change the rules of our electoral system and packing our courts. As far as the press goes, keep in mind that they make no effort to be unbiased or even show they are unbiased. They falsely claim to be objective but show none of it and work to directly undermine Trump. The press in Venezuela, China, the USSR, Nazi Germany and any other socialist nation works FOR the government and the leader of those nations. You will never see the press be critical of the government because THEY WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
The leaders of communist nations CONTROL the media. The media in this country works at the behest of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, something that’s long been the case since before Trump became POTUS. I mean, they ran with everything John Kerry and Obama were telling them about the Iran nuke deal, and still do to this day to try and defend Obama’s sorry and diminishing legacy. For those eight years, much of the media acted like the media in these dictatorships because if they went against the president, there would be negative consequences.
One simply cannot excoriate the far-left Marxist ideology and somehow tie it to Donald Trump. There is no basis for such an action and, again, no one on either side of the aisle would agree with this sentiment.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Calling on the spirit of German and Soviet socialists of days gone by, supporters of Bernie Sanders set out to harass and intimidate Democrat congressional candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan by trying to trap her in her car, making demands that she debate her far-left, socialist primary opponent Stefanie Smith.
A video of the incident captured the moment, with one Bernie Bro shouting “Will you support Medicare for All?” and later “block her in” as well as “get by her window.”
Of course, for sane people, this is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and harass a candidate these people don’t like, but unsurprisingly, Stefanie Smith, the aforementioned socialist primary candidate, approved of this brown-shirt style intimidation attempt by the Bernie Bros.
“It was a non-violent protest. [I]f Betsy can’t handle a few people demanding a conversation about the life or death issues facing many of [us] in this district, she should quit now because she will not be able to handle Davis and Trump.”
In a Facebook video, Smith expressed her appreciation for the intimidation of Londrigan: “I can’t tell you how much it meant to me when I watched the video of what happened. Apparently, people are expecting me to make a statement. They’re absolutely the most manipulative, childish, privileged, terrible people I’ve met in my life (unsure who she is referring to here, but I doubt it’s her little brown-shirt comrades),” she added that “campaigning has been a nightmare of alienation, hostility, humiliation, gaslighting, and so much abuse.”
You mean like the kind of abuse your opponent got from your little commie gremlins? I don’t even find it surprising in the least bit that she supports this. She herself is a socialist and socialists love this kind of behavior from their minions. They embrace and adore violence, targeted political harassment and intimidation against political opponents. Of course, she tries to downplay it, saying it was just as “non-violent protest” when it was clearly so much more than that.
Not that this is even remotely a first for the Bernie Bros. Need I remind you of the Bernie Sanders supporter who specifically tried to hunt down and murder Republicans during a Congressional baseball game? Or when a Bernie Bro tried to destroy and blow up ICE vehicles? Even fairly recently, at a Bernie rally, two Bernie Bros got into a scuffle because a black Bernie Bro was wearing a shirt that said “Black Guns Matter”, which a white Bernie Bro, ironically, found to be racist, resulting in the two shoving and attacking each other briefly.
Violence, hatred, insanity, these are a few of the many words that depict these terrible, horrible people. Obviously, not every person that supports Bernie engages in this sort of activity, but his supporters are pretty much the only people that do this on a regular basis. And he doesn’t even mind one bit. He’s not going to outright praise and encourage people to do this but people like Maxine Waters will encourage this behavior and excuse it when it happens because she is just as terrible a human being as the rest of them are.
Bear in mind that we are talking about a DEMOCRAT candidate being harassed here. I don’t know much about Betsy Londrigan apart from what I can tell from reading her campaign page. It says that Londrigan is running “because everything is at stake – access to quality and affordable healthcare, an economy that prioritizes the middle class, and a Congress that isn’t controlled by special interests.” Running as a Democrat, it’s rather clear that she does not believe the economy is good for middle-class Americans (even though it is) and believes in passing legislation to “make healthcare affordable” as though we didn’t have in place a terrible system called the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, that was supposed to do that but clearly has failed.
She is your typical Leftist running in this day and age, which is why I find it so interesting that Bernie Bros would choose to target her and harass her like this. She even said that she’d be willing to support Smith if she won the candidacy, even though Smith did not reciprocate. She is not an outright enemy to the Commie Brigade, she just isn’t these people’s favored candidate. And yet, they choose to harass her like this. Says plenty about the character of these people, who claim to be in the moral right despite all the evidence against that.
It also goes to show they are willing to destroy anyone if it means getting their way. If a Democrat who simply is in the way of their favored candidate is bound to receive this kind of harassment, they will lust for the blood of someone who is actually a political enemy.
A spokeswoman for the incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), the man Smith and Londrigan are running against, denounced the protest against the Democrat candidate: “In 2017, a Bernie supporter shot at Congressman Davis and other Republicans practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game. Since then, Congressman Davis has spoken out against this kind of violence and the harassment others have experienced, saying it shouldn’t happen to anyone. He wishes more people would speak out against this kind of harassment from Bernie supporters.”
No one who is a Bernie supporter will speak out against this because this serves in the interests of Che Sanders. These people, I will repeat, are communists. Communists don’t care for other people. If someone is in their way, they are to be eliminated in whatever manner possible. Joseph Stalin’s own son was captured by the Nazis when they invaded the USSR (Stalin’s son was a soldier for the Red Army) and he refused to make an exchange with them to get him back. He did not like his son at all, thought of him as nothing but a failure, even ridiculing him when he attempted suicide by remarking that he couldn’t even kill himself properly, and believed his son surrendered himself to the enemy rather than having been captured, considering him an enemy of the state.
Stalin did not see any value in his own son and found more value in the prisoners the Soviets had captured, namely a high-ranking Nazi officer and even Hitler’s nephew, than in his own son. This is what communists do. Anyone who is not worth something to their leaders is expendable, utterly worthless, and their life holds no meaning or value. They do not care for the lives of others, not believing that even their own lives have value unless they serve their human masters or the State (but I repeat myself).
Again, it’s not surprising that these commies would be willing to harass someone who is not even ideologically different from them. She is just in the way of their communist candidate. That’s all it takes for her life to be worth nothing. For all the cries about “free speech hurts my feelings”, they sure don’t mind possibly traumatizing someone at best if it means getting their way. And, like Smith, they will call it a “non-violent protest”.
Right, because such protests include harassing someone, trapping them in their car and making them fear for their lives and general well-being. Apparently, a “non-violent protest” can include targeted harassment and intimidation, so long as there isn’t physical damage to person or property.
These people are simultaneously unbelievable and perfectly predictable. I don’t know how they manage to do that.
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Something I find strikingly odd on Twitter is the amount of people who support Bernie but claim that he is not a communist. The reason I find it so odd is because it’s not like the guy hides it and has even said to high school students in 1972: “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a Communist.”
He most often describes himself as a socialist or democratic socialist (as though they are in any way different from communism) mostly because younger people actually believe socialism is a good thing (because they do not know what it actually is and think it relates to social media or being active in your community). But he does not mind people calling him a communist, which is good because he definitely is one.
Which is why I am not even a little bit surprised that, while on a “60 Minutes” interview with Anderson Cooper, he defended prior praiseful comments he had made about Fidel Castro.
According to 60 Minutes: “Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn’t rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: “… he educated their kids, gave them healthcare, totally transformed the society, you know?”
“Bernie Sanders: ‘We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”
“Anderson Cooper: ‘A lot of p- dissidents imprisoned in – in Cuba.’”
“Bernie Sanders: ‘That’s right. And we condemn that. Unlike Donald Trump, let’s be clear, you want to – I do not think that Kim Jong Un is a good friend. I don’t trade love letters with a murdering dictator. Vladimir Putin, not a great friend of mine.’”
Obviously, there is a lot to unpack here. Let’s start from the beginning. “He educated their kids, gave them healthcare…” what a load of crap. First of all, that is not exactly true. Literacy was an issue in pre-Castro Cuba, but it’s not like virtually no one knew how to read or write. The literacy rate was around 60-76%. The rate went up following Castro’s rise to power (and we’ll get to that in a moment), but largely because of the Soviet Union helping it out in spreading communist propaganda. Nothing Castro implemented as national policy helped, as shown by the fact that, upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, any gains the Castro regime had made in terms of education or healthcare pretty much disappeared and went back to pre-Castro rates.
I was originally planning to make a joke socialist argument of “you’re starving but at least you can read” but this is not even applicable here because the latter was not helped by Castro at all, while the former was highly influenced by the communist dictator. And, again, it’s not like almost no one knew how to read or write. The rates were not great, particularly when compared to other nations, but they weren’t abysmally low.
The second thing I want to talk about is that little tid bit where Bernie says: “When Fidel Castro came into office…” That appears to be an attempt to legitimize the communist revolutionary, who, given the word I just used, fought a REVOLUTION to come into power. He did not get elected by the people of Cuba. He led a revolution and took power from another communist who did not call himself that.
Which is also another reason why the Cuban people didn’t help the U.S. against Castro: they had just fought a revolution to put him into power. Now, they were expected to fight another one to remove him? Not to mention the Castro regime spread anti-American propaganda, so they weren’t likely to help the U.S. government at any capacity.
The third thing I want to talk about here is his reflection of the criticism he was getting from Cooper by trying to say Trump also does the same. He does not. President Trump is not friends with Vladimir Putin outright. He has taken great steps to push back on Russian aggression in many former Soviet nations like Ukraine and recognizes the threat Russia poses if left unchecked. President Trump didn’t start playing friendly towards Kim Jong Un until he tamed the Rocket Man after pretending to be the crazier guy out of the two and threatening “fire and brimstone” on the fat dictator if he tried anything. Once the communist was tamed, the two began to be a bit friendlier (though not all that much), and Trump is attempting diplomatic peace with the guy, attempting to befriend one another, not because Trump agrees with the style of government (which I cannot say the same for Bernie, who loved the Soviet Union) but because he’s the POTUS and wants peace, not war.
Trump also never showed adoration for these dictators before he became president, whereas Bernie, on the other hand, clearly has shown such adoration for them and excuses his love and adoration not only for the dictators but the government systems they employ and at no point does he say that he is “wrong”. Even when trying to compare what he does to Trump, he does not even pretend that what he is doing or what he perceives Trump to be doing to be a bad thing. He is using that as a shield to ask “why is it okay for him to do it and not me?” The thing is that that’s not what Trump does at all.
The last thing I want to talk about is the argument some of his supporters often make: “what does it matter what Bernie said in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.?”
It matters for two reasons: number one, it’s not like he was a teenager in those decades. I can somewhat forgive the ignorance of today’s young people in not understanding what socialism is. However, Bernie Sanders was 25 years old when he told high school students that he didn’t mind being called a communist. He was in his 30s/40s when he praised Castro and was 47 years old when he decided to honeymoon in MOSCOW, while also giving praise to the Soviet leadership and saying “things aren’t that bad” despite the fact that communism had killed tens of millions of people by that point.
He wasn’t some uneducated, ignorant young man who was simply unaware of what communism was. He understood it perfectly, saw it for what it was, and thought it was a good idea to apply that to the U.S. He was a grown adult who should’ve known better and didn’t.
Which brings me to my second point: HE STILL DEFENDS THIS BULLCRAP! At present time, the guy is 78 years old. At 78, he is running for President of the United States, seeking to implement the very policies that have KILLED tens of millions of people and destroyed entire nations and their economies. At the age of 78, he STILL thinks communism is a good idea and that it just hasn’t been properly implemented. He thinks the authoritarianism that stems from communism is a bug, not a feature. He still, to this date, does not realize that communism leads to the very same type of authoritarianism he accuses Trump of instilling. He either doesn’t realize it, which would make him an idiot, or realizes it and doesn’t care, which would make him evil.
Under communism, people don’t have rights. They cannot dissent from the official, state-sponsored and state-approved ideology. Any criticism of the leadership or the form of government will be eliminated via imprisonment or execution (or both). You are not allowed to make something out of yourself and be independent from the government. If you are rich in communist countries, it is because the government allows you to be. And that is the true 1% of the world.
Bernie wishes to be the ruler of his own communist nation, which is why he so often praises them and still does to this day. He doesn’t care that communism has been a horrifying failure both for the people and for the countries that apply them.
Bernie sanders praises communist dictators, the government they install and even excuses their horrifying authoritarianism by spreading lies about how “good” the healthcare and education of those countries are. This is something he still does to this day. Bernie Sanders is a communist and anyone claiming otherwise has zero idea of what they are talking about.
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We are still a decent ways away from the Democrat convention, but I believe I should make my thoughts about one of the so-called “frontrunners” known. Of course, I’ve spoken plenty about Bernie Sanders and the Democrats in general, but I do not think I have specifically talked about the reason why I believe that, even if Bernie wins the nomination, he won’t beat Donald Trump.
Now, before I get into that, I wish to point out that I do not think a single one of the Democrats currently running for president has any real chance to beat Trump, including Bernie. However, there are a number of different reasons as to why for each of them.
Amy Klobuchar is straight up unlikeable, much like Hillary Clinton was. Joe Biden has demonstrated an intellectual incapability of being POTUS. Mayor Pete is also fairly unlikeable, but the fact that he is gay might hold him back, even among Democrats (I say this taking into consideration one particular Democrat voter who voted for him in Iowa, found out he was gay, and wanted to rescind her vote for him, so homophobia in the Democrat party might play a part, funny enough) and believes shoving the fact that he is gay in Trump’s face will somehow be effective. Tulsi Gabbard is practically out of the race. Andrew Yang is out of the race. And Michael Bloomberg is practically everything the Left accused Trump of being, and yet they seemingly prefer him over Bernie, despite them not being ideologically different from Bernie at all.
Which brings me to the reason(s) I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency:
First, it’s entirely possible, even likely, that the Democrats will screw Bernie once again and keep him from being their nominee. If you aren’t the nominee of one of the two major political parties, there is virtually zero chance of becoming president, even if running third-party. The closest anyone has come to winning as a third-party candidate is Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, when he ran third-party against Woodrow Wilson and President Taft, and actually garnering more popular and electoral votes than Taft, but the election still went to Wilson. So if Bernie isn’t the nominee this election cycle, I highly doubt he will ever be the nominee in the future, simply due to his age. Bernie is 78. Reagan was 77 WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
Second, even if Bernie does win the nomination, there are plenty of variables that one should consider. For one, the Democrat Party may not be willing to support him. This one seems the least likely to me, but I think they really fear he will lose in a landslide due to him being openly socialist and that the country does not want to elect a socialist (which is backed up by numerous polls). That fear may hold them back a bit in their open support, but again, I do think they would, at least outwardly, voice support for Bernie.
Another variable is what Bloomberg might choose to do. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign ads, in buying various Democrats’ support (including Stacey Abrams, AOC, etc.) and he has just participated in his FIRST debate in the primaries, having fairly recently entered the race. He certainly has the money to run third-party if he so chooses (though not certain about the likelihood of that, if I’m honest). My point is that Bloomberg might try and screw Bernie no matter what and that is likely the reason he got into the race in the first place.
But above all else, the final and biggest reason I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency is simply because he is weak. And I do not strictly mean physically weak (being 78 and coming off a heart attack doesn’t help him any) but he is an all-around weak man.
Back in 2015, a Bernie Sanders campaign event was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters who took Bernie’s microphone. He hardly tried to fight back against such a rude interruption for his OWN campaign event, walked away entirely and didn’t even give the speech he had been planning on giving.
And recently, a Bernie Sanders rally was interrupted by some “animal rights” lunatics who also wrestled away the microphone from Bernie and he just let it happen. Security also took their sweet time resolving the situation, robbing Bernie of precious speaking time in the process as well, as though this is nothing new to them and it’s rather routine for this to happen.
It’s pathetic and speaks to Bernie’s weakness as a person, let alone a leader. Do you think, even for a moment, that Donald Trump would allow that to happen at one of his rallies once, let alone twice? Even Democrats would agree that he would likely kick a protester’s behind if they tried to do that.
Another example of Bernie’s weakness came from January’s debate, where he was maligned as having said something that he claims he did not say to Elizabeth Warren about a woman “not being able” to become president. I’ve already written an article on that subject, but one thing I failed to mention there is just how weak it made him look. Not the part about being lied about, but the part about how he responded to it. He was rather passive. He defended himself, but he stated he didn’t “want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want.” Really? You’re being maligned as a sexist by the mainstream media and by one of the candidates on that debate and your first intuition is to try and fight Trump in some way?
He didn’t even attempt to fight back against Warren’s lack of credibility, which would’ve been like taking candy from a baby. All he had to do was point out how Warren is a proven LIAR and has been a liar practically her entire life as a result of claiming to be Native American and heavily profiting from that lie.
There are other lies as well, such as the lie that she was “fired” from her teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant” when she had previously said in a prior interview that she left of her own merit, saying: “I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college after I’d married. My first year post-graduation, I worked – it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ‘emergency certificate,’ it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”
She didn’t leave that education job because she was “fired” for being “visibly pregnant”. She left that job because she didn’t have the certification to continue in that job, had to go to graduate school to get that certification if she wanted to return and then came to the conclusion that she didn’t think it would work out for her.
She’s a serial liar, a deceiver and a daughter of Satan (not that Bernie is much different) and yet, he chose not to fight her on those grounds. And it’s not like Warren ever had much of a chance of winning anyway. He wouldn’t have hurt her in the general because she was never going to be the nominee, but he has/had the chance to become the nominee. He stood to lose the most by having that lie be propagated. He defended himself fairly well, but he chose not to take prime opportunity to destroy someone who was maligning him, with help from the media, and gave a weak reason for his fairly weak response.
But even despite all of this – despite the, at this point, plurality in interruptions of his own campaign events and rallies by people who would never get the chance to speak anywhere else; despite the weakness in deciding not to flat-out end an opposing candidate’s campaign while being maligned – despite all of this, there are two major instances that I can think of that make him look especially weak.
One, he chose to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016. Despite the fact that it was blatantly obvious that the Democrat Party screwed him over in the primaries and practically crowned Hillary their nominee, he chose to ENDORSE the woman who had been in cahoots with the DNC and cheated him out of the nomination. Now, as I’ve said in the past, I think Hillary would still have won the nomination even without the cheating (at least in terms of delegates because she still had more normal delegates than Bernie, though it would’ve been a far closer contest without superdelegates). However, they still did cheat Bernie and keep him from having any chance at all at being the nominee. Without the cheating, he still would’ve likely lost the nomination, but he at least would’ve had a chance. The fix was in from the beginning and he stood no chance whatsoever as a result of the cheating.
Despite how poorly he had been treated by the Democrat Party, he still chose to endorse Hillary. Now, I do not blame him TOO much here. It was still awfully weak, but I suppose I can understand some of the reasoning. It was Hillary’s “turn” to be the nominee after Obama destroyed her chances in 2008, despite how utterly bogus that is and how utterly corrupt it makes the DNC look (not that that’s any surprise to anyone). If he had tried to run third-party against Hillary, allowing Trump to win by a far bigger margin, he probably would’ve been given the Clinton Special. He might’ve been Epstein’d before Epstein. Plenty of people also expected her to win against Trump, so there wouldn’t have been much point in trying to fight her, especially if people believe she would’ve been the next POTUS.
So I can sort of understand why he would choose to endorse Hillary. Still made him look pretty weak (just not endorsing her would’ve been better), but I get it.
However, I cannot possibly understand what he recently said about the Democrat nominee for this election cycle.
During a town hall on CNN earlier this week, Bernie said of Bloomberg: “I do think it’s a bit obscene that we have somebody who, by the way, chose not to contest in Iowa, in Nevada, in South Carolina, in New Hampshire, where all of the candidates, we did town meetings. We’re talking to thousands and thousands of people, working hard. He said, I don’t have to do that. I’m worth $60 billion. I have more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. I’ll buy the presidency. That offends me very much.”
He added: “I think we’re going to take a look at his record. And there are a number of things about his record that I think the American people may not know. As the mayor of New York City, he was very aggressive in pushing so-called stop and frisk… So, his policies humiliated and offended hundreds of thousands of people, and I think that is something that is worthy of discussion.”
So far, so good, right? It sounds like he is making his thoughts known about Bloomberg and that he doesn’t like the guy, right? He sounds like he is willing to put up a fight against him, right? Well, he later said: “[If] Mr. Bloomberg wins, and I certainly hope he does not, I will support the Democratic nominee.”
… Really? After all that’s been happening. After the numerous times you’ve gotten screwed by the Democrat Party. After voicing all your concerns about Bloomberg and how he is quite literally the very crony capitalist you claim to loathe and actually believe should not have the possibility of existing… you are going to support him if he wins the nomination? Are you freaking kidding me?
Of course, I believe the reason for this is he is trying to negotiate with Bloomberg, essentially saying: “I’m willing to be bought out of the race, but the price has to be fairly high.” There is no reason, before the convention happens and all the votes are counted, to say “I will support the nominee.” That’s a decision one can come to afterwards, but saying this now shows that he is both weak and willing to be bought.
But do you see why I say he is weak? Bloomberg hasn’t even outright won against him yet and Bernie is willing to say he will support a guy he clearly thinks is racist and should not even have anywhere near as much money as he has.
Again, I can understand not trying to get in Hillary’s bad sides, and even somewhat could understand endorsing her, even after the poor treatment he received from the DNC. But now, there is no candidate who has their “turn” to be the nominee. Bernie isn’t being screwed because it’s someone else’s turn. He’s being screwed because the Democrat Party doesn’t want him within 10 feet of their nomination. And yet, despite that b.s., he is willing to support the Democrat nominee, even if it’s Bloomberg, clearly not because he likes the guy, but because he is both weak and can be bought for the right price.
This is why Bernie will never be president. The only advantage he has is his grassroots base, which isn’t even anywhere near as big as Trump’s grassroots base. He is the only candidate I’ve seen be able to draw in big crowds on the Democrat side, but that’s only been a fairly recent development and the crowds pale in comparison to Trump’s.
Bernie Sanders will never be president because he simply doesn’t have the guts to do it. He is a very weak man who would be destroyed by Trump in the debates to the point the Democrats will try and impeach him for the murder of Bernie’s campaign.
Bernie is too weak of a man to be able to become president. He just doesn’t have it. Not that it bothers me in any way. The guy is a communist and if he never wins the presidency, that’s only good news.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Social media was abuzz earlier this week shortly following the seventh Democrat debate and the last one before the Iowa caucuses were set to begin due to how CNN treated Crazy Bernie with some of the questions asked.
There was one particular moment during the Democrat debates that had Bernie supporters actually agreeing with Trump supporters that CNN is garbage. But this moment likely was set up from the start of the week.
You see, back on Monday, CNN reported that Sen. Bernie Sanders told Sen. Elizabeth Warren during a private 2018 dinner where it was just the two of them that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency. CNN’s source? Their usual b.s. of “anonymous sources”.
Of course, Bernie denied such an accusation and again did so during the debate when he was asked if he did actually say that to Elizabeth Warren:
“CNN reported yesterday and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe a woman could win the presidential election. Why did you say that?” asked debate moderator Abby Phillips.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody [who] knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what… [I] stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I… did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?”
I do not like Bernie whatsoever and thoroughly believe that all of his ideas would destroy this country almost immediately. Funny enough, in a rare moment of journalistic integrity (at least, somewhat), a couple of chyrons from CNN during the debate read: “Sanders’ proposals would double federal spending over a decade; how will he avoid bankrupting the country?” and “Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the country?” These are the types of questions journalists NEVER are supposed to ask Democrats, but they did for Bernie (although they didn’t ask the same of Warren, who is pretty well-known for stealing Bernie’s terrible ideas).
However, these chyrons, as well as another one that read: “Warren supports a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada; why is Sanders’ opposition to it wrong?”, lead us to believe that the fix is in for Bernie and that CNN is sidling up to Warren. But none of these compare to the actual moment during the debate when they blatantly took Warren’s side.
Immediately following Bernie’s answer, Abby Phillips said: “So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Bernie, of course, said: “that is correct.”
But then, Phillips turned to Warren and asked: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman could not win the election?”
The question wasn’t “Did Bernie tell you what you said he told you?” It wasn’t “Do you have any proof that he said what you accuse him of saying?” They just assumed that Bernie was lying and that the burden of proof fell on Bernie, not Warren, which is, of course, ridiculous as one cannot prove something didn’t happen, only that it did. One cannot outright prove that Bernie didn’t say something, only that he did, and the burden of proof falls on Warren.
Of course, this led to many people both on the Left (at least those who support Bernie) and the Right to call out CNN for their blatant bias.
Andrew Egger tweeted: “It’s WILD that CNN didn’t ask Warren to positively state that Bernie told her ‘a woman can’t win,’ seconds after he positively denied that it happened. Just ‘what did you think when he said that to you?’ Absolute malpractice.”
Saagar Enjeti from The Hill tweeted: “Seriously it is outrageous that CNN would take Warren’s accusation as a statement of fact.”
Tim Carney from the Washington Examiner said: “Bernie was mistreated by CNN.”
Reason magazine senior editor Robby Soave said: “It was a very telling moment when Bernie said he didn’t say a woman couldn’t win and then in the very next moment, the moderator just asserted that he had.”
Of course, I have my own opinions regarding this. Bernie absolutely got mistreated by CNN there. He was accused of saying something, is being lied about it, smeared about it, and he is being indicted in the court of public opinion by at least Warren supporters and others in the media. Presumption of innocence is not being granted to him by some people. In other words, he received the Brett Kavanaugh treatment from CNN.
But then again, Brett Kavanaugh is also the reason I don’t particularly feel bad for Bernie. Sure, he was wronged by CNN, but he took Dr. Ford’s side entirely when it came to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Back when Kavanaugh was being confirmed by the Senate, various senators got the chance to weigh in and give their two cents on it. This is what Bernie said:
“I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court. If Judge Kavanaugh wants to clear his name on these very serious charges he should immediately demand a thorough FBI investigation. If not, the Senate should reject his nomination.”
Dr. Ford provided zero evidence and the witnesses that she named either did not actually witness anything, had no recollection of anything, or adamantly CONTRADICTED Ford’s testaments. There wasn’t a single shred of evidence that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her or any of the other women that the Democrats called up to accuse him and smear him. His reputation was forever ruined from that day and even now, people believe Dr. Ford and the other accusers, despite the total lack of evidence.
Bernie got a SMALL TASTE of that injustice. Warren didn’t accuse him of sexual assault. CNN and the other propaganda organizations aren’t running hit piece after hit piece smearing Bernie as a serial sexual offender. His political future (short as it might be) is not heavily threatened by these accusations of sexism. Yes, he was wronged by CNN for assuming he said something when there is no proof he did, but Bernie was on the same side as them just a little over a year ago.
He did not presume Kavanaugh’s innocence and believed the statements of an obviously trained Democrat operative who provided zero proof, only a seemingly sympathetic crying face and seemingly innocent manner of speech. That wench tried to ruin a man’s entire LIFE just because she perceived him to be a threat to Roe v. Wade and Bernie took her side wholeheartedly.
CNN absolutely sucks. They are garbage. The hashtag “CNNisTrash” was trending on Twitter following that moment and for good reason: it’s the truth. This “news” organization recently settled with a 17-year-old because they lied about him being a racist in an attempt to ruin the kid’s life just because he supports Trump. For the first two and a half years of Trump’s presidency, CNN ran story after story of nothing but lies and deception about Russian collusion, assuming Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary and reporting that as though it was truth.
CNN is a garbage propaganda organization with zero truth in anything they report. But I do not feel bad for Bernie at all. This is what happens when truth and justice is overtaken by political agendas. There wasn’t one bit of evidence to suggest Kavanaugh did what he did to any of the women who accused him of sexual assault. Not one could provide corroborating evidence or witnesses to back up their claims. And yet, for a few months, the media made sure to forever ruin an innocent man’s reputation and life, like they tried to do with Clarence Thomas, just because he was a political enemy. Bernie played a part, even if a small one, in presuming guilt rather than innocence despite all the evidence AGAINST the accusers’ testimonies.
Bernie got a small taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end when idiots say “believe all women”. There is no reason to believe someone who, for decades, lied about her heritage to get an advantage and constantly lies about virtually every aspect of her life, policies etc. There is no reason to believe this simply due to the lack of evidence that Bernie said what he is accused of having said. But there was also never a reason to believe any of the Kavanaugh accusers, but Bernie abandoned truth and reason for political points and convenience.
If you ask me, he got only a little bit of what he actually deserves. Still, I am amused at the fact that Democrats might be trying to screw Bernie again. Only makes Trump’s win all the easier come November.
“Affliction will slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The socialist lunatic Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular Democrat candidates for college students, enjoying 31% total approval and a three-point lead over Elizabeth Warren in a College Pulse election tracker poll. I can’t say I’m surprised, considering the socialist training camp that colleges and universities are in this day and age.
Regardless, as he is a very popular candidate, when students were asked to guess how much money Bernie gave to charity (with him being a millionaire and railing against the 1% for not “paying their fair share”), they believed he gave a good amount of his money to charity. After all, if he himself is so seemingly passionate about millionaires and billionaires giving as much money as possible, he ought to lead by example, right?
Answers to the question varied, with some believing he gave around 7 or 10% of his total income, some believing he gave upwards of 20%, and one believing he gave 75% of his total income to charity.
Clearly, with the sort of message Bernie gives, he is expected to live by the very ethos he spews. But the students were ultimately shocked to find that Bernie Sanders gave very little of his money to charity. As in, absurdly little, even by millionaire standards.
You see, according to tax returns that were released earlier this year, Bernie Sanders made $1,073,333 in a single year. Clearly, he’s doing pretty well for himself. Now, can you guess how much of that he actually gave to charity? Given the title, you might expect very little. Maybe 5%, or 4% or even 1%.
Well, he gave only $10,600. That’s less than 1%. More specifically, he gave 0.98% of his money to charity.
A few students acknowledged that it was “hypocritical” of Bernie to preach about the rich paying their “fair share” when he, himself, gives so little to charity.
Another student, funny enough, seemed to have retracted some of her support for Bernie after finding out the truth about his greed. Earlier in the video, she had said that she thinks he’s “definitely progressive… I think he’s what our country needs at this point.” However, she later backtracked that support by saying: “I’m not a particular Bernie fan.”
She also acknowledged the hypocrisy surrounding Bernie in this instance.
Another student even went so far as to roast Bernie for it, saying: “Well, he’s always talking about the one percent, maybe that’s the one percent he gave to charity.”
Now, one student defended Bernie, saying that it’s “his money, he can do what he wants with it.” Generally speaking, I agree. People should be allowed to do what they want with the money they earn. However, when they do that while simultaneously telling others how they CAN’T do that and how they HAVE to pay their “fair share”, then that comes across as highly hypocritical and utterly phony.
It’s sort of like this whole situation with China and the NBA. NBA players can speak freely and criticize whomever they want, but will shut up when doing so would affect their bank accounts. You can’t call Trump a “dictator” while also ignoring the actual dictatorial behavior and actions of Xi “Winnie the Pooh” Jinping.
You can’t lecture the 1% about “paying their fair share” when you give LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR OWN MONEY TO CHARITY! And yet, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders does.
It’s disgustingly hypocritical and he should be called out on it and forced to address it. “Why do you talk about the 1% paying their ‘fair share’ when you yourself gave less than 1% of your money to charity? Would it be fair to say that you are not paying your ‘fair share’, then, by your own logic, Senator Sanders?” That’s the kind of question I would LOVE to hear from any reporter or journalist who actually had a spine, but we won’t, sadly.
Another student also came to Bernie’s defense, somewhat, by saying: “I don’t believe that the best way to help the poor is by giving to charity… The best way to support the poor is through systematic intervention – government intervention.”
Yeah, I believe the Venezuelan people, Chinese people, Russian people, Cuban people and any people who live under communist rule would want a word with you, fella.
How exactly does government intervention help the poor? By killing two infants after visiting a “wellness” clinic run by the government and having 24 other infants in “critical condition”? Because that’s what happened in communist Cuba recently.
By killing infant children despite the wishes of the parents just because the doctors deem further treatment to be “futile”? Because that’s what’s happening in Great Britain.
By having 90% of the population living in poverty? Because that’s what’s happening in Venezuela, according to a UN report.
How exactly does government intervention help anyone in anything? All we ever see, historically, is what a massive mistake it is to give the government so much control over people’s lives and livelihoods.
The government doesn’t lift people out of poverty; it does the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t create – it only takes and destroys.
But getting back on the topic of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty obvious that he is a massive hypocrite. If the fact he owns three homes wasn’t enough of an indication of that reality, or the fact that he made over a million dollars in a year, or the fact that, as a result of being a millionaire, he went from saying millionaires shouldn’t get tax breaks in 2015 to attacking millionaires and billionaires in 2016 and ’17 and then attacking only billionaires in 2019, then surely, the fact that he only gives 1% of his money to charity ought to spell it out pretty clearly.
Unfortunately, most Bernie supporters will not care to find out how much (or little) Bernie gave to charity, only taking in the words he speaks and believing them to be gospel, or will outright not believe it when someone reveals how little he gives to charity, so it’s not like this is going to hurt his candidacy so much.
However, you and I know the truth about Bernie Sanders: he’s the very “greedy capitalist” he demonizes and claims to despise. Even more so, considering the average millionaire gives 5.6% of his money to charity and Bernie gives so little, even by that comparison.
And while spreading that news around might not hurt him very much, it’s rather clear that at least some people might be a bit more hesitant about Bernie in the future. Again, one of the students said that Bernie was what we “needed” before finding out how little he gave and went on to say she wasn’t much of a “Bernie fan”.
Yeah, one could argue she was just trying to save face, but who knows how many people might find this truth about him and rethink their support for Bernie? Again, it likely wouldn’t be a lot, given that a couple of people in the Campus Reform video itself (below) came to Bernie’s defense in one way or the other, but not everyone thinks the same way.
The first step is education. The Left has taken that over and is the biggest reason for any success over the last 50 years.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is not often that I write a piece targeting someone who is not inherently a Leftist, but if one were to watch a recent interview of Ann Coulter with Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover, one cannot help but take note of the fact Ann Coulter is simply not a conservative anymore (if she ever was in the first place).
In an interview last week, Margaret Hoover asked Coulter the simple question of what she thinks of Sen. Bernie Sanders and what if the lunatic socialist were to go back to his original position on illegal immigration (which is surprisingly conservative), what would Coulter do?
Ann was quick in saying that if Bernie Sanders took a more similar position on illegal immigration that Trump has (and Coulter believes Trump has completely backtracked on that, so that tells you something), she’d be willing to vote for him, might work for him and she doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff,” according to Coulter herself.
And THAT right there is the moment we can see Ann Coulter completely abandoning conservatism, hell, even CAPITALISM.
Now, I knew Ann Coulter had a few screws loose, but this is stunning. She seriously considers the issue of illegal immigration to be more important than everything else? HOW STUPID CAN SHE BE?!
I understand that the issue of illegal immigration is of top priority in this country, but MAINTAINING THIS COUNTRY AS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY SHOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT! Because guess what? If this country does turn socialist, we really won’t have an illegal immigration problem anymore. BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL WANT TO GET THE HELL OUT!
One idiotic argument the Left often brings up when talking about the Border Wall is that Germany built a wall in Berlin. Yeah, that was to KEEP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNIST SIDE! It wasn’t to keep people out of East Berlin (the communist side), it was to keep those within East Berlin from getting out. And why would they want to get out?
BECAUSE OF THE SAME TYPE OF POLICIES BERNIE SANDERS WANTS TO IMPLEMENT HERE!
There is a reason so many people want to leave Latin American countries (be it legally or illegally) and come to the United States. The reason the Left often gives is that these people simply want a better life here in America. Gee, I wonder why they’d think they would have a better life in a CAPITALIST COUNTRY!
If socialism reigns supreme here, we’re screwed. Utterly and properly screwed. There is good reason Ronald Reagan once famously said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
If America is socialist, there is no other place to escape to. Sure, Israel is nice now, but with a socialist America that would likely support Iran, Israel is toast. A few European countries like Poland are nice, but the E.U. is globalist, or global communist if you will, and Poland is nowhere near superpower status.
If America is socialist, that’s all three world superpowers socialist or communist. If America is socialist, the same exact things that happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and all other socialist countries will happen here. All the despair, all the famine, all the death and destruction.
But we can be happy because we don’t have illegal immigrants pouring into our borders because they have no reason to leave one socialist hellhole for another. We may be left starving, struggling mightily, our economy collapsed, our healthcare system in shambles, and our people utterly screwed, but at least no more illegals, right?
This position is peak stupidity. Either that, or she hasn’t thought this through. And you know, I used to defend her when people called her stupid. I used to think they were completely wrong, particularly because at the time, she would defend mostly conservative stances. But she’s too far gone now and I can see she is either insanely stupid or insanely desperate for attention.
I can’t help but remember her tweets about “putting a fork in Trump” a few months into his presidency when it’d be unreasonable to believe he would’ve solved the world’s problems in a single moment. I can’t help but think back to the joke about “who doesn’t want him impeached?”
One either has to be seriously and properly moronic to think this way or be excruciatingly and pathetically starved for attention.
And despite how I might sound, I am not angry. I’m merely disappointed. And honestly, I feel sad for her. She is fixated on the issue of illegal immigration. And again, that is indeed an issue that ought to be at the forefront of everyone in Washington, with solutions at the ready to actually take care of the problem, not make it worse. But you do not throw the entire country towards the evil clutches of socialism for a singular issue.
There are more important issues at hand, namely things like abortion, in my opinion. You are free to disagree… for now. But even if I was promised that all abortion would end if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Even if I was promised that everyone could become Christians if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Namely because that would never actually happen. Immigration problems aren’t a thing in socialist countries because no one wants to go into one unless they plan to create trouble or to literally be terrorists. But as far as abortion and Christianity go, those two things would never be promised, much less delivered on, in a socialist country.
People aren’t considered people in socialist countries. Hell, people in the womb aren’t considered people here in America according to Roe and the Left. Why would I ever believe a socialist country would stop all abortions? Why would I believe they’d get people to convert to Christianity?
Much less the part about Christianity. Socialism is a system directly opposing Christianity. It replaces God with the government, or at least it tries to. It declares the government to have absolute power, absolute authority over everything. And since we know perfectly well that man is naturally evil, could you imagine a system where the government does this very thing? How horrible it’d be?
You don’t have to imagine it because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN EVERY SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
Socialism and communism are adamantly anti-Christian. They hate the idea of a God being in control over everything including them. They think they ought to be the ones in control over everything. They think they should have the ability to tell you, a poor, uneducated and not-as-smart-as-them individual precisely what to do because you’re too stupid to figure it out on your own.
Socialism is a system the devil is in love with, as that is what he uses in Hell. To allow for America to become a socialist hellhole just to avoid illegals coming in is committing suicide for the country. Naturally, as I explained again and again in this article, a socialist country is not going to have illegal immigration problems. Who would want to go into a socialist country? Who would leave one to go to another that’s hundreds and thousands of miles away?
So while illegal immigration no longer becomes a problem, you have tiny, insignificant things like mass famines, no freedom, highest income inequality imaginable, destitution, man being brought to his knees and overall death. But thank the Lord Almighty we wouldn’t have illegals crossing the border.
That’s worth it, right?
Seriously, one cannot help but think Ann Coulter has utterly abandoned all semblance of not just conservatism or even capitalism, but sanity. But I honestly feel bad for the poor girl. The Left will never accept her because of her previous stances, and particularly because of her current stance on illegal immigration still being fairly conservative. And now, the Right won’t accept her because she’s completely abandoned it.
Fighting a two-front war is never a good idea. Now, that doesn’t mean I’ll start treating her like I do any other insane Leftist, but I really cannot consider her to be a conservative whatsoever. Not anymore.
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In what may be some pretty poor news for Bernie Sanders, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate running for President and only 37% would approve of a candidate over the age of 75 (survey size of 900 adults).
So given that Bernie is both the first openly socialist Democrat I have seen and he’s 77 right now (will be 79 by the 2020 election), this is not really a good thing for him.
Not that I really expect him to be the Democrat nominee, although it’s far too early to tell who it could be.
The poll asked respondents 11 characteristics they would find in their ideal presidential candidate.
Only 18% of respondents approved of socialism in general (and only 25% would want their candidate to be socialist, which seems pretty odd to me, so we might want to take some things with a grain of salt).
50% of respondents also soundly disapproved of socialism altogether. Now, I would personally hope that number would be far higher than that. Ideally, 100% would disapprove of socialism, but that’s not all that realistic (kind of like socialism), but in a sample size so small, I would hope considerably more than 50% would disapprove of socialism.
In any case, 50% of respondents also approved of capitalism with only 19% disapproving, sort of mirroring the numbers for socialism.
Now, even though I would hope far more people would disapprove of socialism and far more people would approve of capitalism, these are still pretty fantastic numbers, in my opinion. The gap between how many approve of capitalism versus socialism is massive, as it should be, and nowhere near what Democrats would want.
Considering that most Democrats are embracing socialism, even if they don’t necessarily call themselves that, these numbers are not a good thing for the Left.
Now, again, the sample size is small, but if socialism were as popular as the Left and the news media want to pretend it is, you’d think the gap between those who approve of capitalism versus socialism would be considerably smaller at the very least.
Moving on, some of the most popular characteristics of a candidate are being African-American, with 87% saying they would be either “enthusiastic” or “comfortable”. I think this makes a lot of sense, particularly if the option of “comfortable” is available. Most people, as it turns out, aren’t racist. So the color of someone’s skin is not really a factor that is all that important to them when it comes to a favored candidate.
At least to me, the biggest and most important qualification for a candidate is their conservatism. If a candidate is truly conservative, that candidate will get my vote. Whether they are an African-American like Ben Carson or a Hispanic like Ted Cruz or a woman like Sarah Palin, I would be elated to vote for them.
What’s also interesting is that 86% said they would be happy with a white candidate (as it turns out, most people aren’t so racist that they would write off a person simply for being white). Being female was also up there at 84%.
Now, the poll also said that 41% would vote for Trump versus 48% that would vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever it may be. However, that’s actually pretty good news for Trump because pretty much all incumbent presidents face a similar challenge. At this time in his presidency, 38% said they would vote to reelect Bill Clinton. 45% said they would vote to reelect Obama, and 46% said they’d reelect Bush.
So Trump is within the numbers necessary to be reelected, given that even Bill Clinton managed it somehow.
Of course, I’d wager to say that this goes in large part to the fact that most polls have him sitting at around a 45% approval rating and higher, and the fact that 93% of Republicans approve of Trump also helps him out.
Now, despite what the poll had to say about socialist candidates and socialism in general, interestingly enough, 55% of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer a non-moderate candidate.
To the Democrat Party, there hardly are any moderates, but those who are non-moderates tend to be of the socialist type, even if they don’t call themselves that.
Now, I don’t know how many Democrats there were in the poll, but if the majority of them want a non-moderate candidate, despite how astonishingly few people approve of socialism and would want their candidate to be a socialist, that tells me that there a lot of people who either don’t know what socialism is or simply cannot discern it from other ideologies.
Which, again, seems weird to me considering how few people actually approve of socialism. You’d think with how much the Democrat Party and the MSM are promoting it, people would be more receptive to it and would not know what socialism is (and one would have to be ignorant of what socialism is and how it works to advocate for it if they themselves aren’t seeking office).
I get that we are a society that carelessly throws words around. For some people, those who would disagree with them cannot be anything other than racists, sexist, homophobe bigots or outright Nazis. For some people, the definition and meaning of life is alien. For some people, the definition of truth has been twisted so much that it can now be considered relative rather than absolute. The same could be said of morality.
So I can’t say I am surprised to know that many people simply don’t know what socialism is or would not be able to discern it from other ideologies or policies. The Green New Deal to some people is not a socialist ploy to restructure the entire country in the most extreme way the Left has come up as of yet, but a supposed “plan” for “saving” the planet.
It’s this deception that has been present in the Democrat Party for ages now. The growing of the government, at any capacity, is the moving of the pendulum towards the left and towards socialism. It is not necessarily always a bad thing, but too much of it definitely is a terrible thing, particularly if the trend doesn’t seem to slow things down.
So this deception ultimately breeds ignorance, to the point where people can hardly recognize socialism and contrast it with other things. As a result, people don’t think socialism is all that bad and it’s simply a new way to try things that they believe are an improvement over the status quo (they are not. Good Lord, they most certainly are not).
Now, I definitely understand that the poll only talked about “non-moderate” candidates, and that sort of word use can definitely change some things.
It’s one thing to ask Democrats if they want a socialist candidate and another thing entirely if they want a “non-moderate” candidate. A non-moderate, in their minds, does not necessarily have to be a socialist, and certainly not someone who would be happy to call themselves one, but in reality, that’s the only actual option (as well as communist, but the two are basically interchangeable given they both stem from Marxism).
If I asked you if you wanted some sodium chloride on your food, what would be your answer if you don’t know what that is? If I then were to ask you if you wanted some salt on your food, would that answer have changed?
At the end of the day, they are both the same thing, but put into different words. The same can be applied to this poll. A “non-moderate” Democrat candidate is essentially a socialist candidate, whether or not they call themselves one. This is my reasoning behind that whole “people might not know what socialism is” tangent. And it’s not like it’s inconceivable that people didn’t know what it was.
Ironically, I saw a tweet from noted Trump-hater and former sports commentator Jemele Hill that read: “My guess is 100 percent of the people who don’t want a socialist have zero idea what socialism actually means.”
She’s got that 180° backwards. Those who want socialism (at least those who want it and aren’t planning to run for office like Jemele here) don’t know what it is. Those who want socialism often ignore or reject the FACT that hundreds of millions of people have died THUS FAR because of it, those who experience it live in abject poverty and have next to no freedoms or even human rights, and often flee those countries given the chance.
No one flees a capitalist country to move to a socialist one because 1) no capitalist country keeps their people in by force and 2) no one in a capitalist country WANTS to move to a socialist one.
Socialist celebrities have all the opportunity in the world to move to a socialist country. Jim Carrey has the money to move to Venezuela should he wish to do so. Bernie Sanders has the money to move to Venezuela and pal around with his good friend Maduro (for however long he’ll be there). These people have all the opportunity and money in the world to make the move, to a place that is supposed to be far better than America in every way possible because socialism is so great, so why don’t they actually do it?
Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is?
I remember Conan O’Brien going to Haiti around the time the story about Trump’s supposed “s**thole” debacle. He did that to prove to Trump that Haiti isn’t what Trump was supposedly claiming it was. The only thing is that he was there only one week and was staying in a four star hotel.
I can go to California, stay in a nice building for a week and say it’s a great State. I could go to North Korea, stay in Kim Jong-un’s palace and say that everything’s great there (I wouldn’t for even a second dare to go to that hell hole, of course, just stating my point). I can go to Hell itself and as long as there’s a nice place with WiFi in it, I would think it’s not such a bad place after all.
My point is that such experiences aren’t equivalent to what the people have to go through on a daily basis. O’Brien stayed there A WEEK in a NICE hotel. I’d like to see him live there for an entire year with the same exact living conditions as the vast majority of the population.
I’d like to see Jim Carrey go to Venezuela, live there for a year and live how everyone else in Venezuela lives and ask him if socialism is so great, that is, if he has a stomach full enough to give him the energy to reply.
No one goes to a socialist country and thinks it’s the greatest place on earth. There are countless stories of people FLEEING socialism to come to America including Donald Trump’s FIRST WIFE.
If people really know what socialism is, they know how truly horrible and inhuman it is. Venezuela went from being the wealthiest nation in Latin America to one of the poorest, with some of the worst living conditions imaginable.
As far as the poll goes, I am ecstatic to see so many people rejecting socialism in favor of capitalism. If you were to only watch the fake news media, you’d think socialism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Good to know so many people are actually not that dumb.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...