This is the "change" that so many thought was so essential after the Bush administration.
Granted, some drastic changes needed to be made, but I was hoping for some specifics re; size of the feds, spending, term limits, yada, yada, yada.
I never did, like so many of the "0"'s minions, accept a war cry of "CHANGE", as enough to constitute a viable candidate; but obviously I was in the minority.
I would like to think that at least half the "0" voters would be discerning enough to question further erosion of our system, but from many of the comments of the libs on this board I'm afraid that I'm just whistling "Cum by ya"!
And what you fail to recognize is these movements have changed. It is incorrect to compare the two however the principles by which they are driven remain the same. How those principles are expressed change like everything else. Neomarxism
There is no doubt he is a marxist as was his mentors
At most, I would call him a fellow-traveler of the Marxist.
Believe me, he is still a capitalist by heart.
Although you are right.
Many Marxists have abandoned armed struggle in favor of political struggle which they tended to disdain before, and in this age of "coined" phrases they are called "neo" marxists, or neo-whatevers.
No evidence of that. He is not willing to reveal all his desires up front. He is a true blue marxist. I already made a case on two occasions showing why this is true.