Bernie Sanders Supporters are Hypocrites

originally posted by: WCmutant

And you know what he's going to do with all that money he raises? Probably turn it into a PAC and give it to Clinton when she is given the Democratic nomination for president.

All politicians are hypocrites, that's the only failure in your argument. ALL. None of them have our best interest at heart.

Sure because that makes sense. I imagine he'll either give it all to Hillary's campaign or perhaps he'll spend it on his own campaign which is what it's for in the first place. I know it's a stretch to believe that theory but if you apply a tiny bit of common sense it just might start making some sense.

a reply to: mOjOm

Either OP is a sad troll or has absolutely no idea how capitalism works or the differences between personal wealth and political donations.

Either way, it's a silly thread and a weak argument against Sanders.

Great. Another confused person who has no idea what they're talking about. Did I fall asleep at my desk because I feel like I'm at work.

Congratulations. You just made me feel like I was still on the job. Truly awful.

a reply to: ancap4liberty

I'll be honest that I really like Sanders and trump stirring the pot. But really 16 million? I understand the point but when the two people, one of whom will be president will spend around 3 billion a piece to claim the prize , Bernie is like an expensive add during the super bowl. Funny and amusing but has nothing to do with declaring the winner.

My hope is that Sanders and trump stir the pot as long as possible before Clinton or Bush wins. Let's be real, Bernie isn't really that much more of a socialist than Clinton. He is just honest about it. I can respect 16 million honesty more than a 3 billion dollar lie.

First, I dont see any difference between that, and the other candidates. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Got to take advantage of how the political system works inorder to get where you want to be to make proper change. It's not Sanders fault that the system works the way it does.

They are politicians, non of them got where they are without cutting some corners, taking advantage of the system.

a reply to: ancap4liberty

I'm a supporter of his, I have a great grasp on economics. Everything he has said makes sense and he has put forward actual plans rather than empty rhetoric, something that is very rare for a politician to do.

You say that Bernie could have fed 108k children? I take it you live in a slum and donate 90% or more of your earnings to feeding children as well? Or are you slamming him for something you don't have the backbone to do yourself?

Also, he is not spreading the wealth around, the wealthy still remain wealthy under socialism, not that the US will ever go socialist in our current political climate.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
What isn't sensible is day in and day out ATS complains about the debt and career politicians. Yet despite his plans requiring an exorbitant amount of money, and his 19 years in congress, you all are ga ga for him.

He has a plan for the debt, he has a plan to fund all of his programs, and not everyone is against career politicians. A career politician knows how things work and knows how to get things done, it's a prerequisite to stay in office that long. It's only some people, mostly those obsessed with only bringing in outsiders that have a problem with his 19 years in Congress.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
The list of links goes on and on. I just copied and pasted the links to the first few I found. Basically the college misrepresented the amount of money and assets it had in order to secure a loan to buy property for a new and bigger campus. Bernie's wife was president of the college at the time and abruptly resigned when it started unravelling.

Redstate is unreliable.
WND is worse than the national enquirer.
Loading dailysurge brings with it an in tab popup that you have to agree Al Sharpton is a minister of hate in order to see the content.
The newsmax article is much less of an indictment and instead asks the questions without really getting into any details or providing any answers... so, pretty average for hit piece journalism.

The main issue appears to be roughly half of the funding that was promised and put up as the borrowers share came from a will that had yet to take effect, it was a gift when the person died. However the way they treat gifts, is that they're revenue right away rather than when they're received. So while the school had the money in the future (assuming the will wasn't changed), it didn't have it at that moment. It's a stretch to call that fraud, but I could see where the bank would want to try and back out of the deal.

If anything it looks like the bank had some internal debates and in the end was star struck at having a Senator and other influential people involved and they pushed through a deal that didn't meet their standards. Which shouldn't be a surprise really, that's ultimately what happened in 2008 as well. The more I read the less it seems like Sanders was trying to screw anyone.