Bernie Sanders is a total hypocrite.

[greatbernard]

I used to support his campaign because I'm a fan of European policies and a restrained foreign policy. However, from an integrity standpoint, he has unfolded to be the complete opposite of what I originally thought he was.

He said he wanted a positive campaign. He said he never ran a negative campaign in his life. Then, when the race got tight, he started a conspiracy about Hillary taking bribes from Wall Street. Who wouldn't want to get paid $100k to wax poetic on a microphone for an hour? After strongly criticizing Trump for saying "show me your birth certificate", he says to Hillary, "show me your transcripts".

He said he was pro democracy. He was against the party elites. He wanted the people to decide the election (not the delegates). But after Hillary won the popular vote, now he wants to win via delegates., but after Hillary won the popular vote, he wanted the people to decide the nominee and was against delegates.

He said he wanted a deeper discussion. Sanders said he wanted more debates to talk about the issues in depth. But his campaign has only ever consisted of about 10 15-second long stump speeches with little policy specifics.

He said he was against scapegoating. Sanders criticized Trump for running a hateful campaign and blaming most of the country's problems on minorities. But then he blames most of the country's problems on rich people. He's generalizing Wall Street as a wholly bad industry, when there's plenty of honest white collar workers who don't need the stigma.

I'm not saying you shouldn't support Bernie. He may very well be the lesser evil. I'm just saying he's no less inclined to twist things around for his own gain than any other politician.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Equivocating the relevance of birth certificates with what Hillary told Wall Street for an absurd amount of money is quite the stretch don't you think? The details of a candidate's birth aren't nearly as meaningful as Hillary's promises and connections with people that crashed the economy that she claims to be very hard on. Do you see the difference? And it isn't necessarily about bribery. Wall Street giving out gobs of money for this woman speaking to them, who again claims to be very tough and intimidating to them, that begs the question: does Wall Street actually feel that way about her? Actually, between the two, the first one to start smearing was Hillary after New Hampshire in a debate, from my reckoning, quite fallaciously and irrelevantly too I might add.

Of course he wanted the people to bring him in and not the delegates, but just because he lost popular vote doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the change he has been talking about for his entire life, he doesn't want to let down the movement that has been happening and all the people supporting him. And really, the entire system isn't really democratic, so if you had true cause against him being a hypocrite, you'd point out him even running is two-faced. But he can't change anything unless he works with the system in place.

As for the deeper discussion point, I don't know. Every politician, all of them, repeat themselves, and all of them are vague. I still don't know what it means for Hillary to break down "barriers". I don't understand how Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. At the very least, out of the three, he was the most interested in having debates. Though that's not necessarily a testament to character, because of the three, he was the one struggling. He needed to be put out there. Hence why Hillary was the exact opposite; the system is favoring her, the voters all know her unlike Bernie, democrats associate her with Obama, letting things proceed quietly was in her and the establishment's best interest.

As for the scapegoating point, I also don't know. Pinpointing the problem is only not scapegoating when you're actually picking at the root of the issue and not just throwing a possible source under the bus.


I'd like to say that while I understand what your point is, but I'm going to have to disagree, and actually criticize Bernie because of it. I'm not very educated on the subject, but from what I've read and heard, Hillary has a history of corruption, poor decisions, and of being amorphous with her positions. If Bernie was going to defeat her, and to get any publicity at all (which he didn't, it was all given to Trump's tweets), he SHOULD have been more aggressive, and easily could have. Trump got everyone angry, and that gave him power. Bernie is an avenger too, but he didn't summon as much energy to propel him upward like with Trump. Democrats aren't unhappy enough with what is going on, but the conservatives are pissed. If things truly are bad, Bernie needed to point it out more. Being "PC" and polite isn't good when the stakes are so high. I'm not saying he should have behaved and spoken just like Trump, but Trump had no interest in pulling any punches, and Bernie didn't want to seem like a "bad guy". But politics isn't a friendly, pretty game, and with Trump and Hillary rising as the victors, you could, at least in part, put that as evidence as to how trying to be the nice guy doesn't exactly cut it. Now Trump is going to be the one to have the field day with her, the guy who tore apart a dozen fellow candidates effortlessly, much of them not nearly as vulnerable as she is.

I supported Bernie, I didn't care a lick about politics until I still listening to him, and he seemed like an actually genuine and consistent guy, and there was discontentment with the status quo there, which I felt. But I'm not so sure anymore about what needs to be done. While the conservative faith in the invisible hand of the free market and the common sense of the people to me seems like folly, on the other hand the liberal belief that human beings are fit to rule other human beings with laws and policies, that good and bad are the business of politicians, has dramatically declined in me. What is the best way for society to prosper? It is difficult for me to even know where to begin with that question anymore. But I've digressed from the point quite a bit.

 

[Sucumbio]

Bernie was doing good until he started up campaigns in the big states. He just couldn't convince the winner take all states and it pushed him into a corner and that's when politicians are at their worst. He appealed to those who see issues with status quo government. But now he seems almost childish. I wish Bill Weld had run for Republican. I'd have voted for him in a heart beat. But he's going off party as a running mate which is useless. Oh well. Hillary Clinton vs Trump now. Maybe I'll move to Canada :/

 

[greatbernard]

Equivocating the relevance of birth certificates with what Hillary told Wall Street for an absurd amount of money is quite the stretch don't you think?

No. It's not a matter of birth vs. choice as much as it's about confirming prejudices. Trump knew how to get white Americans to rally against people who were different than them via xenophobia. Sanders is doing the same thing for young disillusioned voters (but even far more effectively) in suggesting that Hillary's wealth and clout is inherently wrong.

Maybe it's just a well paying gig, maybe it isn't. Maybe there is foul play, but when you make an accusation, you need hard evidence - not a hunch and then a list of demands. Sanders knew the public was already skeptical, so adding speech-gate to email-gate tremendously. Once you make up your mind, the well is already poisoned. Do facts matter after that point?

Of course he wanted the people to bring him in and not the delegates, but just because he lost popular vote doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the change he has been talking about for his entire life,

he doesn't want to let down the movement that has been happening

He's in a tough situation where he's fed into so much anger. Now, it seems like he wants to endorse Hillary, but he realizes that he created a monster within his fan base, so he's paralyzed. I'm afraid much of his current movement just consists of people who are angry and want a revolution - not so much democratic socialism.

so if you had true cause against him being a hypocrite, you'd point out him even running is two-faced. But he can't change anything unless he works with the system in place.

Being a hypocrite is really detestable. Like a DEA chairman smoking weed, the democracy candidate wanting to realpolitik his way to superdelegate victory. In a way, I do understand that he wants to transform the party. But he should really just accept that he lost fair and square instead of subtly feeding his supporters the idea that his loss was some kind of conspiracy.

As for the deeper discussion point, I don't know. Every politician, all of them, repeat themselves, and all of them are vague. At the very least, out of the three, he was the most interested in having debates.

It's definitely true that all politicans are evasive and pandering. Hillary has shown some deviation and nuance ; Bernie has shown often none. Obama and Hillary had over a dozen debates because he was versatile, able to have discussions in depth about many issues. Bernie, like Trump, is running a minimalist campaign. I'm not convinced there's anything I'd hear from a 7th debate between them that I haven't heard in the first 6.

As for the scapegoating point, I also don't know. Pinpointing the problem is only not scapegoating when you're actually picking at the root of the issue and not just throwing a possible source under the bus.

This is really just a matter of perspective too. Aka, it's not scapegoating unless we all agree on the target. The right tends to blame government and changes to society. The left tends to blame the rich. Moderates and independents often see things in a multi-faceted way.

Bernie still lumps the wealthy, the financial industry and Wall Street all in one villainous category with little distinction, painting them all with the same brush. He has a High Noon mindset where there's only good cowboys and bad cowboys.

People don't want to believe that problems are because of the limitations of many people of all different races, ages and incomes. Voters want Us vs. Them. With Trump, it's Americans vs immigrants. With Bernie, it's workers vs the wealthy.

Bernie was doing good until he started up campaigns in the big states. He just couldn't convince the winner take all states and it pushed him into a corner

He was doing adequately until he reached the deep south. But Bernie, once he realized victory was actually possible, changed. When he won states, he got more angry. When he lost them, he got furious. And when he won them again, he got even more furious.