Why Bernie Sanders is a hypocrite

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite/

The most recent object of his self-righteous ire is the upcoming big-money fundraisers featuring Hollywood glamour couple George and Amal Clooney. The fundraising events set for April 15 in San Francisco and April 16 in Los Angeles will raise a ton of money. At the first fete, it’ll cost you $353,400 just for two seats at their table.

...

Sanders makes it sound like Clinton is raising such obscene amounts of money for her campaign. In actuality, she’s raising money for herself, the Democratic Party and state Democratic parties around the country. Those funds would then be used to finance everything from “get out the vote” operations to phone banks and email blasts not only for the presidential nominee but also for House and Senate candidates down the ballot. In an election year in which the Republican presidential nominee could be Donald Trump, the prospects of Democrats holding the White House and possibly retaking the Senate AND the House are not remote. Having money to do this for the November elections will be essential.

...

Now, here’s where the Sanders hustle comes in. While most people still assume that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, all that money she is raising for the DNC and state parties will go to helping said nominee in the general election — even if that ends up being Sanders. The master fundraiser who hasn’t lifted a finger to help his adopted party. The fiery campaigner who has hammered his opponent for raising the money to fortify the DNC for the general election. The person who stands to benefit enormously from Clinton’s big-money prowess without sullying his carefully crafted aura of campaign-finance purity.

If he doesn’t want to “[waste] my time going to rich people’s homes begging them for their campaign contributions,” if he really is “not even interested in” the kinds of money Clinton has access to, then he should forego all the money she has raised for the DNC and state committees if he were to become the Democratic nominee.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

[This account no longer in use.]

So you deleted this thread and remade it because I called you delusional. You must be incredibly triggered. Give this man a safe space.

[Landslide Lyndon]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

Yes, I don't want you and your minion hijacking the thread.
If you have a counterargument spit it out. Otherwise stay out.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

Yes, I don't want you and your minion hijacking the thread.
If you have a counterargument spit it out. Otherwise stay out.

Well, you are certainly an expert in hijacking threads with your trolling.

Dude, if you make a thread be prepeared to face replies. That's the whole point of internet forums.

[Landslide Lyndon]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

Yes, I don't want you and your minion hijacking the thread.
If you have a counterargument spit it out. Otherwise stay out.

More pure ore. You're a walking oremine, dude.

Ok Kal, welcome to my ignore list. Have fun.

[This account no longer in use.]

Since when am I Kalwejt's minion, you fool? Listen, Lyndon. Even if I don't like some Hillary hacks' political opinions, I still usually respect them as a person. Not you, Lyndon. In my entire tenure on this forum, you haven't shown yourself to be anything more than some delusional crazy who figuratively (and possibly literally) foams at his mouth about how anybody could have the disrespect to challenge Queen Hillary. Originally, you were fine, but it's become an obsession at this point. You're nothing more than a more a--holish version of OC who can speak English slightly better at this point, and the fact that you're getting this worked up about people disagreeing with your opinions on a political forum shows that you can't take any opinions that are against yours. Might as well just ignore every non-Hillary supporter and create an echo chamber; it's not like you'll listen to anyone anyways.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

Yes, I don't want you and your minion hijacking the thread.
If you have a counterargument spit it out. Otherwise stay out.

More pure ore. You're a walking oremine, dude.

Ok Kal, welcome to my ignore list. Have fun.

[Torie]

In other news, I think it may well be that too much of the article has been copied and pasted, raising copyright infringement issues. The standard set by DAVE is 20% as a percentage of the text of the article that can be quoted. This appears to be on the cusp of that.

Px is certainly entitled to trash Bernie all he wants, but hey, it really is not in the spirit of this forum to censor out critical points of view, via deleting and restarting threads. Just my opinion. I don't think the Cave has a policy on that - yet.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In other news, I think too much of the article has been copied and pasted, raising copyright infringement issues. The standard set by DAVE is 20%. This appears to be on the cusp of that.

Px is certainly entitled to trash Bernie all he wants, but hey, it really is not in the spirit of this forum to censor out critical points of view, via deleting and restarting threads. Just my opinion. I don't think the Cave has a policy on that - yet.

If Kalwejt and his minion actually posted legitimate counterarguments of course I wouldn't do that. Their schtick is clearly to hijack the thread by baiting me into a flame-war.
They are not even original, it's the same MO Politico used four years ago when somebody posted something unflattering about Romney.

[This account no longer in use.]

I'm sorry, Lyndon, but you'll never be an atom of the poster that Kalwejt is, and the fact that you'd ignore such a great poster just because he dares to believe that Bernie Sanders isn't an incarnation of Satan just shows how delusional you are.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The problem is not criticism of Sanders. Criticism of a candidate is a fair game, I'm a Sanders supporter myself, but I'm not blind about his shortcomings. The problem is that when you're making threads like "lol, Bernie is a BS artist" you're no better than hacks calling Hillary names. And unfortunately your "contributions" on this board are largely name callings.

Why can't you be more like IceSpear for example? He's certainly felling strongly about Hillary, but you don't see him going around and calling names or turning every thread into a little flame war.

[Bacon King]

Not that Sanders can actually win the nomination but it's not like being a hypocrite would be bad for him here. Bernie reaping the benefits of big money donations raised by Hillary while still being able to say he doesn't do fundraisers for the wealthy is quite literally having his cake and eating it too

[dax00]

Wanting money for a campaign is different from wanting donors to directly stock your personal coffers. I believe Sanders also attacked Clinton on his principle of not siphoning campaign money for your private acount. WaPo is a joke. There was a time they ran 1 negative story about Sanders an hour for 16 hours.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[RINO Tom]

A fulfilling life you lead, Lyndon.  Someone has to sit at his computer all day, look for articles than confirm his views and post them on an Internet message board to prove anonymous rivals wrong.

And I think you're the man for the job.

[Landslide Lyndon]

A fulfilling life you lead, Lyndon.  Someone has to sit at his computer all day, look for articles than confirm his views and post them on an Internet message board to prove anonymous rivals wrong.

Yeah, it is pretty fulfilling. And you know what the best part is? Watching some poor schmuck who is so unable to construct a coherent counter-argument that he has to resort to ad hominem attacks to feel less stupid than he really is. 

[This account no longer in use.]

A fulfilling life you lead, Lyndon.  Someone has to sit at his computer all day, look for articles than confirm his views and post them on an Internet message board to prove anonymous rivals wrong.

Yeah, it is pretty fulfilling. And you know what the best part is? Watching some poor schmuck who is so unable to construct a coherent counter-argument that he has to resort to ad hominem attacks to feel less stupid than he really is. 

This coming from the one who constantly refers to me as 'the child' as if he's trying to prove some point about how he's more mature.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

That's cute you've deleted the original thread after getting not-so-positive feedback.

Yes, I don't want you and your minion hijacking the thread.
If you have a counterargument spit it out. Otherwise stay out.

More pure ore. You're a walking oremine, dude.

Ok Kal, welcome to my ignore list. Have fun.

Damn, Kal!  He told you.  I'm here if you need to talk. 

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Okay.

I love that Clinton supporters are ALMOST as delusional as like, the hippies in the Bernie ranks.

Like, we're SUPPOSED to be the people that are paranoid that the other candidate is part of a vast, globe spanning conspiracy. We're the ones that are SUPPOSED to have theories about this race that outpace our opinions about the JFK assassination (and you should hear those).

And yet there's a group of Clinton supporters who if you scratch them reveal this Theory of Sanders that he's this deeply selfish, megalomaniacal demon whose one object is to destroy THEIR party,* and all of his supporters are selfish, near-sighted conspirators who don't even really want progress. Bernie isn't progressive, he's just exploiting everyone who thinks that way.

Mainly, when you drill down to it, it's because he and his supporters DARE to criticize Clinton who is of course a perfect emblem of the Democratic party's ideals and aspirations I guess?

Such is political discourse. Such it ever was, I suppose.


*tangentially: we populists have been here since 1896. Third Way triangulators have been here since 1992. Back off, it's *our * party.

[Kingpoleon]

The Third Way Democrats I cannot support. They are willing to triangulate to the center or the left as they see fit. At least Sanders is constant.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The Third Way Democrats I cannot support. They are willing to triangulate to the center or the left as they see fit. At least Sanders is constant.

>> I think this is the logic for a lot of the 1) Kasich, 2) Sanders folks. At least in my anecdotal experience.

I can respect it, but then again it's to my advantage so : 3

[Virginiá]

Now, here’s where the Sanders hustle comes in. While most people still assume that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, all that money she is raising for the DNC and state parties will go to helping said nominee in the general election — even if that ends up being Sanders. The master fundraiser who hasn’t lifted a finger to help his adopted party. The fiery campaigner who has hammered his opponent for raising the money to fortify the DNC for the general election. The person who stands to benefit enormously from Clinton’s big-money prowess without sullying his carefully crafted aura of campaign-finance purity.

Maybe I missed what the argument here is, but the article has a decent point here - One I've been parroting for awhile now. I'm not going to call Sanders a hypocrite, but read that. He's not raising money for the party to help take back legislatures and Congress. I don't care what the state of the race is. If you're a viable contender with the means to raise money, you should definitely raise money for the party. It's a big responsibility for presidential candidates to ensure they can build a governing coalition capable of winning. It's not just about the presidential race. That's really not how a party gets things done. He talks about revolution, but neglects to do the one thing that would have the best chance of enacting his policies - helping downballot candidates with their races.

And look at this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He is raising more money than her! If you are a credible challenger who has, or had, a shot, you should consider raising money for downballot candidates a requirement, not a "maybe". And right now, he is very likely not going to win the nomination, and you'd think with that in mind, he'd shift more of his focus to building the revolution he speaks of.

There is really no credible argument against this. He is skirting an unofficial duty to help his (??) party build out. He joined the Democratic party so he had a chance at winning, and yet he's simply using the Democratic label to help himself while not helping the party at all. That's selfish as hell.

That being said, I don't think Sanders is intentionally being a dick, but I think he's naive about his revolutionary prospects and that he doesn't quite understand this situation and how critical his contributions are.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I still doubt Sanders would do something classless to pay them back like the time Michelle Obama presented at the Academy Awards as payment for the millions Obama got from Hollywood.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Now, here’s where the Sanders hustle comes in. While most people still assume that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, all that money she is raising for the DNC and state parties will go to helping said nominee in the general election — even if that ends up being Sanders. The master fundraiser who hasn’t lifted a finger to help his adopted party. The fiery campaigner who has hammered his opponent for raising the money to fortify the DNC for the general election. The person who stands to benefit enormously from Clinton’s big-money prowess without sullying his carefully crafted aura of campaign-finance purity.

Maybe I missed what the argument here is, but the article has a decent point here - One I've been parroting for awhile now. I'm not going to call Sanders a hypocrite, but read that. He's not raising money for the party to help take back legislatures and Congress. I don't care what the state of the race is. If you're a viable contender with the means to raise money, you should definitely raise money for the party. It's a big responsibility for presidential candidates to ensure they can build a governing coalition capable of winning. It's not just about the presidential race. That's really not how a party gets things done. He talks about revolution, but neglects to do the one thing that would have the best chance of enacting his policies - helping downballot candidates with their races.

And look at this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He is raising more money than her! If you are a credible challenger who has, or had, a shot, you should consider raising money for downballot candidates a requirement, not a "maybe". And right now, he is very likely not going to win the nomination, and you'd think with that in mind, he'd shift more of his focus to building the revolution he speaks of.

There is really no credible argument against this. He is skirting an unofficial duty to help his (??) party build out. He joined the Democratic party so he had a chance at winning, and yet he's simply using the Democratic label to help himself while not helping the party at all. That's selfish as hell.

That being said, I don't think Sanders is intentionally being a dick, but I think he's naive about his revolutionary prospects and that he doesn't quite understand this situation and how critical his contributions are.

Exactly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the point of the article.
But I guess every time the Berniebots read something that presents their cult leader in less than glowing terms they are having seizures and are unable to comprehend basic notions of how politics work.