The Democrat Party Loves Bernie Sanders!

The Democrat Party is in the middle of a gushing, slobbering, schoolgirl crush on a white-mopped, affable-seeming, loud-mouthed, Brooklyn-accented, jewish guy who looks a little bit like Albert Einstein, but has the single-digit-IQ thinking of Dianne Feinstein.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

Bernie Sanders believes that there shouldn’t be any such thing as “private property.” Because, you see, in Bernie’s eyes, private property is inherently “unfair.”

How’s that, you say?

Well, due to the vicissitudes of life, luck, personal skill, ambition and happenstance, some people will inevitably accumulate more private property, of some kind or another, than others.

Question #1
Question #1

We express this difference using a concept we call “net worth.” That dude? Oh, he’s “worth” five million dollars, we say, while that other guy’s “worth” 100 million.

It means that if you were to collect all the first guy’s worldly belongings together, including his money in the bank, you’d have approximately five million dollars worth of stuff and money. While the second fellow’s collection would have a value of 100 million.

Quaint, little homespun “populist” Bernie Sanders thinks that neither guy should own anything.

Question #1: How is it that in America, someone can look you right in the eye, tell you he’s in favor of relieving you of all that you own, and somehow be a “populist,” and not a flaming, fire-breathing, ranting, left-wing radical moron?

There was a time when you and I, the common folks of the world, were not allowed to own property. It was called feudalism, and we were called serfs. We worked, tilled, harvested, tended and protected vast estates that didn’t belong to us. Those vast tracts of land, and all on them, belonged to people we called ironically “nobles.” Their “nobility” had nothing to do with their character as people — the real definition of the noble adjective “noble” — but spoke only of whether or not they owned property.

So, there were property owners. It’s just that the common ruck — you and I — were not able to own property.

That’s where Bernie Sanders wants to bring us all. Back a thousand years to when you couldn’t own things. Neither land nor goods. All were subject to the taking by the only legal property owners: the aristocracy.

Question #2:
Question #2

Question #2: Didn’t we all have much more than enough of being unable to own property back when we were mere serfs, and the only legal property owners were the aristocrats?

There is no qualitative difference between socialism and serfdom.

There’s a saying: money is power. This is incorrect, or rather, only partially correct. Property is power. If you are fond of that other quaint saying: “Power to the people!” then you’re saying you want the people to own property.

If you’re in favor of handing over vast power to a small group of people who, you think, can run your and my affairs better than you and I can — the thinking of the Bernie Sanderses of the world — then of necessity, you must take away the power from the people.

A simple statement of obvious fact
A simple statement of obvious fact

A simple statement of obvious fact: if the government is unable to steal your land or your possessions, then it is less powerful than you are.

Private property is power.

If you want to measure the power possessed by the people, then measure the extent to which they are able — rich and poor alike — to control their own property. To control what is done with it and when, whether to hold it or sell it, whether to use it for their own purposes or not.

Bernie Sanders thinks that we should go back a millennium or so to the Dark Ages. He calls it “progress” to go way back to when there were only property-deprived, impoverished serfs and wealthy, landowning nobles. Who, pray tell, had all the power then? Well, it certainly wasn’t us serfs, now was it? Bernie doesn’t call himself an idiot, or a reactionary feudalist, as he would if he were striving for accuracy… no, he calls himself a “Progressive.”

This is either because he thinks we’re all idiots, or he’s too stupid to recognize his own idiocy. Or, most likely, both.

His success is compelling evidence that some 40%, or more, of the Democrat Party’s base are little more than idiots.

— xPraetorius

17 thoughts on “The Democrat Party Loves Bernie Sanders!

    1. Let’s see, Ark… a left-wing publication, The New Yorker, writes a puff piece about the hard-left extremist Bernie Sanders and you seem to feel as though you’ve seen great wisdom, instead of the slop you’ve actually seen.

      I read the piece, and it was true fluff, targeted at the brainless drones who read “The New Yorker.” These readers are also NPR listeners, and would all be sure to declare that they never, ever, not ever watch FOX News, thereby confessing what is clear anyway: the American left is nothing but an intellectually bankrupt echo chamber.

      These people are, like Bernie Sanders, trotting out hoary old economic chestnuts from the 1960’s that have been tried, tested and … failed miserably every time. While they depend utterly on the short memory of the American voter, they then have the gall to call their reactionary flapdoodle, “progressive.” They count on the assumption that there are plenty of gullible, poorly-educated fools out there who will immediately be taken in by the bilge they promote.

      The New Yorker piece made Bernie Sanders look like a blithering idiot, all while throngs of nitwits swoon over what they perceive as surpassing wisdom.

      If it weren’t tragic, it would be funny.


      — x

    1. Hmmm, “inciteful,” Ark? Not sure what you meant, but I’m going with “insightful.”

      However, “inciteful,” as an obscure coinage would work as well. Some use the word “inciteful” to mean: something that incites others to do something. The PBS (a hard-left fake propaganda media outlet) piece could be seen as inciteful, in that it might incite the gullible to action on behalf of the idiot Bernie Sanders.

      As far as insights are concerned, yes the piece confirms that Bernie Sanders is a reactionary dinosaur. I guess that’s an important insight.


      — x

      1. Smile, yes. Should check my spelling. Thanks for the pick up.

        No one believes he has any real chance but that’s not the point is it?
        I think the piece suggests he has his head screwed on rather than your position which is simply screwy.
        And the comments seem to support this, other than the rightists who merely fling rhetoric like they were hurling their own excrement, which from my limited exposure to American conservatives ,or GOP I think is the term, seems pretty standard.
        Bit like you, in fact.

        Best 2

        1. Lol! Not bad snark, Ark!

          It’s likely that Sanders won’t win the Democrat Party nomination, but it’s equally likely that someone like him will be the Democrat Party nominee in very short order. Follow the trajectory of the Democrats and you see that a goon like Sanders is inevitably going to be the Democrat nominee.

          Quick question: do you dispute the assertion that in socialist countries the governments murdered 120 million people in the last century?

          Note: 120 million is the minimum figure that pretty much everyone mainstream agrees on (I recognize that’s not entirely dispositive, but it accords with what I’ve read in many sources). Most historians also consider that the number is way too low, but that the toll is at least that number. (Again, not completely dispositive, I admit, but persuasive)

          Since, I gather you are going to stipulate to my number, why wouldn’t you look at someone who says he wants to bring just a little bit of that into your life with utter comtempt?


          — x

          1. Quick question.
            Do you dispute that your god liquidated humanity save for a single son to be incestuous family, and later ordered Moses and Joshua to slaughter hundreds of thousands in systematic genocide?
            Do you dispute that the Colonists in the USA overtime were responsible for the genocidal campaigns against the Native Americans?

  1. Oh, and I couldn’t find anywhere Sanders stated he wanted to do away with private property ownership?
    Is it part of his personal manifesto? Could you point to it?

    1. Sure. That’s a real JV question, Ark.

      Sanders says he’s a socialist. Duh!

      Not sure in what country you live, but if he were to suggest publicly that he believed in the abolition of private property, as a socialist does, then he would immediately lose all electoral viability.

      Socialists lie too. It’s what they do. (h/t: Geico)


      — x

      1. Ah.. as I thought, he doesn’t in fact say this at all, and most modern day socialists in western society don’t either. So in all honesty you are merely being inciteful.
        Funny how some things come and bite you in the backside, yes? 🙂

        As for telling Porkie Pies: I believe the record shows that Republican, George Bush is, by all accounts, considered one of the worst presidents in modern day history, even by his own party. I would hardly consider him the bastion of butter wouldn’t melt-in-his-mouth-virtue .
        I think that speaks for itself don’t you?
        No. Hold on.That’s a silly question. You probably don’t.
        And, silly me, I must remember you believe in the veracity of the bible, and that’s full of lies and you deny or can’t see this either, can you?

        Oh well …

        PS. Hope you don’t mind if I don’t include the ‘kiss’?

        1. Let’s see…Imagine you’re in the Soviet Union, and Stalin goes on the radio and says, “Hey, guys! I’m going to murder 60 million of you and your neighbors, family and friends, so I really need you to think positively about my being your leader.”

          Do you think that he’d get a lot of support?

          Again, JV, you didn’t read what I wrote: If Sanders were to say that he opposes private property, he would immediately lose nearly all the support of his base, who are, let’s face it, not too bright.

          Socialists, and really, the entire left, lie. They have to. It’s how they get into power. If, however, you read, as I have, their sacred books, you realize that they don’t believe in private property. It’s one of the primary characteristics Socialism shares with serfdom.


          — x

          P.S. You do know, don’t you, that “x” is an abbreviation of my screen name? 🙂

          1. Republican’s also lie. I reiterate, look a George Bush.Oh, hold on. There is no evidence, of course. Then maybe he was just an ill informed idiot?

            You really felt the need to explain the x? Lol …Seriously? I am not a GOP you know. I did manage to work that out. You need to turn on your humour meter.

          2. I think my deadpan replies are funny!

            However, it’s an important thing to know: a lie is a purposeful deception. You have to be able to demonstrate that someone is misleading someone else intentionally, to accuse the person saying the false thing of being a liar. Or else the worst you are left with is that the person saying the false thing made a mistake.

            Do Republicans make mistakes? Of course! It’s important to make that distinction, because the accusation of lying has serious implications for the perception of the very character and integrity of the person being accused.

            When, for example, you accused me of lying, you attacked my character. When you withdrew the accusation, you admitted that you had no basis for attacking my character. It’s a big admission on your part, and implies that you recognize that people can disagree honestly with you. Quite a step forward for any leftist!

            Was Bush “an idiot?” Not according to any of the criteria that the left hold dear. He got his undergraduate degree from Yale, and his Masters from Harvard. In both cases, his grades were better than a leftist icon who had roughly the same educational trajectory: Al Gore. Bush flew fighter jets with distinction in the Texas Air National Guard. He ran a large business quite successfully (the Texas Rangers Major League baseball team), and he was the highly successful two-term governor of a state that’s larger than most countries. Not bad.


            — x

          3. Why do you think I am a leftist?
            I know you are a rightist; only one as ignorant as you appear would admit it with such glee.
            . I am not bothered about anything else Bush did or has.
            In fact, I read he is capable of painting more than a barn door. Good for him. Perhaps he should have stuck to the things he was is good at?
            But as a US President, he was an absolute [Deleted: mild profanity] of the first degree.
            And even his party are none too fond of him.

        2. Oops! I forgot something.

          You said:

          As for telling Porkie Pies: I believe the record shows that Republican, George Bush is, by all accounts, considered one of the worst presidents in modern day history, even by his own party. I would hardly consider him the bastion of butter wouldn’t melt-in-his-mouth-virtue .

          This is incoherent. If you’re trying to tell me that George Bush lied (the “Porky Pies” silliness), even Bush’s detractors acknowledge that he never lied. Especially since, at the time of the launching of the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, his opponents all agreed with his conclusions. And they were all privy to the same intelligence information as Bush.

          You and I will agree that Bush was not a good President. Either domestically or foreign policy-wise, in both of which areas he made serious errors. However, compared to, say, Obama, Jimmy Carter or LBJ, and the damage they did to the country and to the world as a result, Bush was heads and shoulders better. That’s pretty clear.

          Unfortunately, at a time when America needed an “A+” President, we had, in Bush, a “C” President, in Obama a “D-” President and in Bill Clinton a “C-” President.

          The big question: Does America have an “A+” President around to elect? Hard to tell. It’s certain that Bernie Sanders would be an “F–” President.


          — x

          1. You and I will agree that Bush was not a good President.

            No, I don’t think that at all. I think he was an immoral, ignorant c********* .
            Or maybe George was just merely the slow kid?
            Hell, what do I know, I’m not a Yank.
            YOu ae the idiots that voted him into power.
            He is simply a reflection of every dumb-arse that put an X by his name.
            Oops! Nothing, personal.

            Besides, without wars,what would you Americans do with your time? And you know what they say – Idle hands do the Devil’s work.
            Mind you, if you weren’t all playing with guns and what not,just think of the economic boon for optometrists?
            And the Churches would be awash with guilt laden Sin Tithes.
            Pat Robinson would have a field day!

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s