Hi Roger,
I know this is way easier said than done, but how about fixing things so
folks like Jil Stein and members of the SWP get crowds that look more like
those for Sanders at his events. Of course, that would mean changing the
media so that it does the job it was supposed to do and is less in the back
pockets of the Israel lobby and large corporations.
Given more support for outsiders, perhaps that is not as far fetched today
as it was ten years ago.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: What It Means to Be a Socialist
Personally, I lean more toward the Hedges position. What would it take to
tip you over the edge in that direction?
On 9/22/2015 9:08 AM, Bob Hachey wrote:
Hi Miriam,
Wise words here from Mr. Hedges.
I am wrestling in my mind. In this corner we have Chris Hedges and his
definition of a socialist. He argues that Sanders is not a good choice
for a leader because he enables the military industrial complex and
other corporates.
In the opposing corner, we have William Kaufman arguing that the left
needs to relax and support Bernie Sanders.
Seems I'm waffling back and forth between those two sides. No doubt
that sanders had done a good job identifying the scourge of income
inequality and that he has pulled Clinton slightly to the left.
AT this point in time, I'd say my heart is with Hedges and my head is
sort of with Kaufman. My heart is more committed to Hedges than my
head is to Kaufman.
IS that trying to have it both ways? If so, then you may lable me
guilty as charged.
Bob Hachey
