//One of Bernie’s early campaign controversies came when he appointed himself gatekeeper of progressivism.// No, Hillary Clinton appointed him as that: http://time.com/4209825/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-progressive/
//His television debut in this role was a stumbling mess. Pressed by Chuck Todd on whether Obama was a progressive, Sanders claimed he was, but refused to adjust his definition, even after being reminded that it excluded not just Obama but most Democrats.// Clinton accused him of being in this role, and Sanders referred to Clinton as a moderate, not a progressive. I disagree with him but to say it was a direct insult is a stretch.
//Sanders would ruffle more feathers a month later when he declared Clinton unqualified for the presidency due to her support for NAFTA, her Wall Street fundraising, and her Iraq War vote. Once again, when put in a sticky position he backtracked, only to later double down and triple down, even after it was pointed out to him that he was disqualifying most of his Democratic colleagues.// Sanders said a really dumb comment here, not much debate. But, he was responding to numerous headlines suggesting the Clinton camp had called him unqualified and that they planned to smear him until he got out of the race. Doesn’t excuse his borderline pathetic behavior.
// This is one of Bernie’s favorite patterns. He loves to declare himself the only righteous man, then attack fellow Democrats for not meeting his standards.// I have yet to hear him say anything like this. Please provide a citation of him saying these exact words.
//“He screams and hollers,” Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) said… “but he is all alone…” Said Rep. Barney Frank, in ’91: “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.”// This was 26 years ago on his first year on the job. Where’s an example of this criticism going on in this century?
//Despite giving the exact same stump speech for forty years, Bernie has not even attempted to accomplish anything with his power.// Other than the fact he wrote VA legislation that was signed by President Obama. But yes, he’s gotten little done as the primary sponsor.
//Instead, he just introduces the same legislation every year, and makes no effort to pass it. As I pointed out in another article, the legislation Bernie introduces often isn’t even real legislation — for the most part it’s just rhetoric from his stump speech.// That’s quite an opinion.
//When Bernie’s Democratic colleagues won’t pass his bogus legislation for him, he says it’s proof of their corruption and corporate loyalties.// Prove he said this.
//By every indication, Bernie does not care about being effective in his job or working towards real change; he cares about looking pure and occupying the moral high ground.// More opinions.
//He claimed their existence was proof of a Democratic conspiracy against him and that they were stealing his rightful nomination.// No he didn’t. He said that they tell voters that it’s clear who the members of the party were supporting. I never heard him say it was a conspiracy and that it would steal his “rightful nomination”. Citation please.
//Yet as his chances of beating Clinton in pledged delegates dwindled to zero, Bernie began executing a strategy of convincing superdelegates to swing the election in his favor.// https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/ Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing in 2008. Yes, she VASTLY outperformed Sanders, but she was going to lose and she wanted to sway the will of the voters with superdelegates. She pointed to her popular vote total, but her lead came from the Florida and Michigan primaries which were not competeted since they ignored the rules of the DNC. Obama won the popular vote in 2008. Both Hillary and Bernie were being hypocrites in how they dealt with superdelegates, but you don’t mention her same quest in 2008.
//As the situation got more desperate, Bernie added another layer of hypocrisy by saying that superdelegates in states he won should vote for their state’s winner, but those in states he lost should vote for “the strongest nominee.”// In what world is it hypocrisy to say the superdelegates in states he won and Clinton should vote for the overall winner. In fact, a few state parties are agreeing with that and also want superdelegates to be done away with altogether. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/07/even-minnesota-s-superdelegates-agree-superdelegates-aren-t-so-super
Besides, I thought superdelegates were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted. Sanders pleading with them to vote for him is no different than Hillary’s plight in May 2008.
//Bernie has also repeatedly demanded Trump release his tax returns; however, he has refused to release his, and has flat-out lied when pressed on the subject.// Considering the fact Sanders has legal counsel because of his wife’s bankruptcy case it’s no surprise he hasn’t realeased it. Also, Trump is the president, not Sanders, and numerous senators and house members haven’t realized their tax returns. Why not go after them as well? http://media.cq.com/media/congress-tax-returns-2017/
//I won’t speculate on what he’s trying to hide, but it is brazenly hypocritical and deceitful for him to attack Trump on tax returns while repeatedly lying to avoid releasing his own.// Demaning the president release his tax returns is bad? Okay then.
//Bernie made opposition to Super PACs a core focus of his campaign.// Correct.
// National Nurses United for Patient Protection, a federally registered Super PAC, spent millions of dollars supporting Bernie.// They support other candidates as well. Sanders did not have one created for him for his campaign, the NNU organization endorsed him so they helped with transportation among other things. Doesn’t appear he has a team that directly organizes with them. But yes, it’s odd he uses accepts help from a SuperPac.
//Bernie frequently praised their efforts on his behalf and even used their volunteers at polling places and rallies.// He prasied the efforts of their union, and used union members at polling places and rallies.
//The Super PAC’s spokesman gave the astoundingly lame excuse that they’re not really a Super PAC because they’re not billionaires.// You are twisting what they said. Here is what they said according to your article: “We do not view it as a super PAC,” said Charles Idelson, National Nurses United spokesman. “We view it as a committee that was formed many number of years ago, long before Senator Sanders was running for president, that supports other candidates who are supported by nurses because of their commitment to nurses’ values and issues like health care for all.” “Nurses are not billionaires. The only way they can have a voice in the presidential politics is by collective pooling of their resources to engage in grassroots campaign for the candidates they support.” — So, the union raises money collectively to help out candidates they support. They did not say what you insinuated. I wonder if you simply searched the article on google and quickly cited it without reading it all the way through.
//And lest you think this was just a group of nurses who loved Bernie, it should also be noted that “National Nurses United” is a well-funded, highly controversial operation that functions more as a disruptive political machinethan a voice for nurses’ interests, to the chagrin of the nurses it claims to represent.// It is the country’s largest nursing union. It’s controversial only to ones who disagree with their maniac of a leader.
//Its leader, RoseAnn DeMoro, would later support Jill Stein for president.// That was pathetic of her. Stein is one of the biggest reasons we have Trump. She was the literal spoiler in the election, look at her vote counts in the closest states.
//Sanders has claimed that unlimited spending from Super PACs corrupts politicians by compromising their interests.// He did.
//Sanders has claimed that unlimited spending from Super PACs corrupts politicians by compromising their interests. He was supported by millions of dollars from an enormous Super PAC. Should we not, by his standards, consider him compromised, and be skeptical of all his health care statements? What would he say if it was Hillary?// Your citation doesn’t mention Bernie.
// A perfect example of this is his oft-repeated claim of having run a clean, policy-focused campaign.// He didn’t say this after New York. But yes, it was a thin claim.
//While often remembered through rose-tinted glasses as “hard-fought” but ultimately “issues-oriented”, the 2016 primary was in fact characterized by Hillary Clinton’s long slog through an endless swamp of vicious, slanderous, deeply personal attacks by Bernie Sanders.// Most pundits say it wasn’t anywhere close as nasty as 2008. And all these smears you’re going to say against Bernie either come from misinterpretation or are made up.
//Bernie himself enjoyed the luxury of being able to disguise his punches as “contrasting records” while pledging to remain above personal attacks. Let’s look at an example of him “contrasting records”:// No, Sanders was not allowed to contrast records without being accused of personal attacks.
//Let’s be very clear here. Instead of drawing a policy difference with Hillary Clinton, Bernie is essentially saying “yeah, Hillary has policies, but we know she’s lying about them, because she raised money on Wall Street so she must be corrupt.”// No, that is what you are claiming he said. Sanders was bringing up that fact that it’s hard to see how someone who has been helped immensely by Wall Street can be unbiased when it comes to policy regarding them. You are insinuating he’s calling her corrupt, and insinuating he said she was lying about her policies. It’s clear that after the primary he trusted her enough to take on wall street.
//It is the dictionary definition of a personal attack.// Asking about how past policy and financial actions could affect future governing decisions is not a personal attack.
//As another example, remember when Bernie said he was “sick and tired of hearing about Hillary’s damn emails”? Once he got more desperate, Bernie changed his mind and repeatedly attacked Hillary on her emails:// Your first link had Sanders responding to the inspector general under President Obama that Clinton ignored warnings regarding her email server. As her opponent he asked superdelegates to use that common information in their decision regarding the nomination. Notice he wasn’t talking to voters, he was talking to superdelegates. Sanders would have been a fool not to even acknowledge it.
Then you talk about Sanders on Meet the Press. He was asked a direct question on the subject and said while he thought it was a serious issue he would let the American people decide on what they wanted to think. He didn’t attack her personally when he very well could have.
//The Boston Globe summarized it best:// No, a columnist at the Boston Globe made the article. Aka, an opinion article.
//On June 5, two days before the final state primary in California, Bernie accused Clinton of being bribed by foreign governments through the Clinton foundation.// He never said the word “bribe”, you added that word in.
//He would use his supporters to threaten the Democratic Party and demand concessions.// Citation
//Then, after getting his concessions, he’d wait a few days for everyone to forget before going on TV to whip up his army against the DNC and demand more.// This video was made before the June 7th primaries and he said that the convention could be messy if the platform wasn’t “progressive” enough for his supporters.
//For the most part the DNC gave him everything he wanted, yet there he was, a month after the primaries ended, declaring he would win in a contested convention.// The primaries ended on June 14th after Clinton won in DC. Sanders said he would vote for Clinton on the 24th. 10 days is not the same as 1 month. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sanders-clinton-vote-224760
//When the convention did actually roll around, the world witnessed the astonishingly vulgar spectacle of his supporters shouting down speakers with profane anti-Clinton and anti-Democrat slogans and encouraging Democrats to leave the party.// Sanders can’t control every one of his supporters. Besides, 90% of his supporters at that point planned to vote for Clinton: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/?utm_term=.010a834030a7 Are you suggesting he supported what they did? Because he didn’t. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/dnc-2016-bernie-sanders-booed-by-own-supporters-after-asking-them-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-a7155616.html
//The Sanders campaign made a half-baked attempt to tamp down the chaos, to little avail.// False.
// If he actually cared, he wouldn’t have spent the last two months stoking the flames.// He dropped out a month before the convention as previously cited.
// Even at the convention, he wouldn’t cut it out:// Try again. He had nothing to do with that, read your article.
//He chose to use his power to convince them of a simplistic, poisonous worldview. It goes a little like this: the vast majority of America actually agrees with Bernie’s radical policies, but millionaires and billionaires have bribed our entire government, as well as the DNC, into doing everything they can stop true progressive ideas. So many young progressives, once inspired by Bernie, were convinced by him to see corruption and conspiracy behind every corner, to wallow in apathy and anti-establishment helplessness.// I’ll need to see a citation of this quote.
// In the remaining months, contest after contest would be desperately set up by the Sanders campaign as the new do-or-die, only for Clinton to destroy him again and again, all the way until the bitter end in California.// She did not “destroy” him again and again. It took her blowout in New Jersey to stop his run. She didn’t become the presumptive nominee until June 6th.
//In April, for instance, he was touting insignificant wins in Alaska, Idaho and Utah as evidence that he had a “path to victory.”// Him winning blowouts isn’t “insignificant”. And he was saying that before he won in a landslide in Wisconsin. Yes, not worth a whole lot of delegates, but they are wins.
//Even after the primaries had ended, he demanded that superdelegates supporting Clinton flip to him to help him overcome her pledged delegate lead… and promoted this strategy to his supporters as a viable path to victory.// The word “demand” doesn’t appear in the article. Try again.
//When even that fell through, he still insisted as late as July that he could win in a contested convention, refusing to concede the race until July 12, over a month after the final contest.// He said he would vote for Clinton on June 24th. 1 month isn’t the same as 10 days.
//Although his campaign knew in March that the race was over, he chose to continue soliciting those $27 donations from his supporters for four more months, and his supporters, like enraptured televangelism victims, kept pouring in cash, fueling the Sanders campaign’s engine for another week of expensive, futile operation.// He raised far less money than he did in the prior months, and by June much of the cash was going to downballot.
//Bernie was under no delusions about who it was he was taking money from:// He was referring to the entire campaign, you’re insinuating he was referring at that very moment with no proof.
//Let me remind you that Bernie has a history of funneling campaign money to his wife// Since she worked for the campaign it’s not a crime.
//Tad Devine was cashing in to the tune of $810,000 a month.// It’s a crime to pay your campaign advisor according to you.
//Does dragging a lost cause on for four pointless months, using false promises of victory to extract money from “struggling students”, “seniors on Social Security” and “workers earning starvation wages”, seem like something an honest man would do?// Did you actually recieve any of the emails requesting donations? It paid for more than his run. It paid for downballot and other places as well. It was clearly stated on the email.
//He once declared that a JFK speech made him sick// That doesn’t prove he’s trashing the party. He was angry that Kennedy was against the Cuban revolution.
//He has constantly repeated the lie that “both parties are exactly the same.”// The words you added aren’t in the article you cited. Sanders was calling for a third party to challenge the two-party system.
//His first ever congressional race was him throwing a safe blue seat to a Republican by running as a spoiler.// Now you are just making this up. In 1986, United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1986, Rep. Jim Jeffords won Vermont’s house seat with 89% of the vote, 66% in 1984. In fact, it had been a Republican seat for DECADES. Sanders was the closest Democrats got to winning the seat and since he won the seat and later on the Senate seat he has been a dedicated and helpful vote for Democrats.
//In spite of all this, the Democratic party has always been unfailingly gracious and supportive of him.// Because he has been a crucial and reliable vote for them ever since joining Congress. He could have been a purist and voted against Obamacare and we wouldn’t be enjoying it at this moment.
//In 2016, when he begrudgingly joined the party “for media coverage”, the Democrats accepted him without hesitation, giving him a platform and organizational support.// It’s how they repay his loyalty when it came for voting for their approved legislation.
//By constantly attacking DNC officials,// citation
//siccing his rabid supporters on them when he needed a scapegoat for a loss// Citation
//As an example, he claimed the DNC was conspiring to sink his campaign because they wouldn’t schedule extra debates for him.// He correctly pointed out that the GOP had more debates than the Democrats and that debates allow more people to see candidates in action with the exceptions of social media videos and rallies. The DNC skimped on it and chose odd times for the debates to occur. Politifact agrees: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jan/20/debbie-wasserman-schultz/democratic-debates-maximize-exposure-debbie-wasser/
//When they did schedule an extra debate for him in New York, he thanked them by insisting the DNC not be involved in the debate at all.// That’s because it was up to the Sanders and Clinton’s campaigns to set it up the debate, and they scheduled the debate, not the DNC. Read the article you cited. The DNC simply SANCTIONED the debate.
//A particularly infuriating episode occurred when Bernie’s campaign managed to hack the DNC database and steal Hillary’s valuable voter data.// The lowest point of Sanders’ campaign and one that he dealt with terribly.
//The DNC responded by locking Bernie’s campaign out of the database, and he fired back with a lawsuit.// He sued because the DNC voided their agreement in the case of such events happening.
//used the story throughout the campaign as evidence of a grand DNC conspiracy.// No he didn’t.
//He never returned the stolen data.// Citation.
//A nobody with no real platform outside of a rabid hatred of Wasserman-Schultz, Canova is today most well known for aggressively pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy.// This point has nothing to do with Sanders.
//Bernie took significant time and resources from his campaign to support him// He did one statement on Canova, never went to Canova’s district, did a few email promotions. He did not take “significant” time and resources to support Canova liked you claimed.
//Canova was a flaming dumpster fire of a man, but Bernie happily used him to threaten and humiliate DWS, as revenge for her not caving to his bullying.// Interesting how you try and use the faults of one man to attack another.
//This is completely and unequivocally false, yet most of America believes otherwise.// It does show DNC staff personally attacking Sanders after Sanders had very little chance of winning and was mathematically eliminated. There are no attacks on any Clinton campaign individuals. Why is that? Do you defend these attacks on Sanders? Doesn’t matter what point of the campaign it is, the political party cannot claim to be unbiased and then personally attack one of the candidates. That’s not corruption, that’s blatant favortism.
//His campaign knew full well that WikiLeaks was lying to create chaos.// What Sanders said was in response to Ali Melber’s question about whether he and the Democratic Party knew what WikiLeaks was doing. He answered honestly that everyone in those two parties knew it.
//He could have made a powerful move for unity by pushing back against the “rigged primary” narrative.// http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-agrees-democratic-process-not-rigged He did
//Sanders stated “There’s no question to my mind, and I think no question to any objective observer’s mind, that the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton.”// And based on the Wikileak emails, that appeared to be the case.
//The Sanders campaign ultimately succeeded in plunging the convention into chaos and forcing Wasserman-Schultz to resign.// That’s a smear. He didn’t try to plunge the convention into chaos, the Wikileak emails did that by themselves. Blatant examples of attacks from the DNC on Sanders released for all to see. Wasserman-Schultz resigned because everyone knew she was guilty of favoratism and got called out on it.The primary wasn’t rigged, that’s Bernie Bro nonsense, but the DNC was run by a fervent Clinton supporter.
//Let’s take a step and ask ourselves why, on the brink of the convention, Bernie Sanders chose to stoke the flames of WikiLeaks’ lies?// Except, he didn’t do that. First off, there were no lies in the WikiLeaks. They were emails directly from DNC staff. It’s a lie to say they are lies. He made ONE comment that was 100% true, and the emails spoke for themselves.
//Sanders wanted revenge against the Democratic Party, and in particular Wasserman-Schultz, for perceived slights during the campaign, and WikiLeaks proved a powerful ally.// Except, this claim is not true. Sanders said “we should look forward, not backwards.” bernie-sanders-clinton-wall-street-response-229694 He spoke against WikiLeaks, and said it hurt the campaign. He could have used them and run as a third-party, but he ignored them.
//Party unity and the general election be damned, if the opportunity for revenge offered itself Bernie was going to take it.// More garbage. He campaigned for Hillary, was one of her biggest surrogates, and spent months converting his supporters to Clinton voters.
//Bernie supporters would spend the general election citing WikiLeaks conspiracy theories, now with Bernie’s personal stamp of approval, as their reason for hating the Democratic Party and not voting.// I’d like to see your citation for the claim that Sanders approved of WikiLeaks and approved of his fervent bros citing them as a cause to not vote or to vote Jill Stein.
//For a week before the Democratic convention, the self-proclaimed savior of the Democrats was a puppet for the Trump-WikiLeaks axis.// Except, the WikiLeaks emails didn’t come out until the day before the convention. And when has Sanders specifically said he’s the Democrats self-proclaimed savior?
//Bernie knew he was being used to push a lie, and played along to advance his own selfish goals. Was it was worth it? Someone should ask him.// Again, that’s your opinion, not the truth. All the Democrats and Sanders folks knew WikiLeaks was being used to attack them. Sanders spoke out against them and told his supporters on stage to focus on attacking Trump and the Republicans. http://time.com/4421574/democratic-convention-bernie-sanders-speech-transcript/
//His campaign lied about the rules to supporters// If that’s the case, and it appears it is, that’s on Sanders campaign in Nevada
// left death threats on the convention chair’s voicemail// No proof it was a Sanders supporter, but if it was, shame on him. There was word some Trump supporters posed as Sanders supporters to hurt his campaign when this happened.
//Instead, he put out a press release blaming the Democrats and justifying his supporters’ actions.// “ Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.”
//How often has Bernie bragged about creating and leading his “revolution”?// You tell me, since you claim he does this often.
//He demands full credit for the enthusiasm of his army// Prove it
//until someone points out that “enthusiasm” involves them chanting “lock her up” or “she’s a liar” or “corporate whore” at his rallies while he watches silently, or creating the #DemExit movement in his name, or making “hit lists” for threatening superdelegates, or pushing Seth Rich and PizzaGate conspiracies about Clinton online// Sanders is responsible for bots who call themselves Bernie Bros? So if Clinton had bots say they supported these awful things you’d accuse her of being responsible for it? That’s silly. Sanders isn’t responsible for bots on Twitter anymore than Clinton or any other politician.
//Then, suddenly, he shouldn’t be held responsible. It is dishonest and cowardly for Bernie Sanders to demand praise for his movement while dodging responsibility for its dark side.// Citations for him demaning praise and him dodging responsibility.
//How about his campaign’s long, rich history of faking endorsements? First it was the AARP and the League of Conservation Voters in Iowa. Then he put out an ad called “Endorsement” falsely claiming the endorsement of the Des Moines Register, which had actually endorsed Clinton. A week later, in New Hampshire, the Sanders campaign used the exact same “Endorsement” ad, but swapped the Register for the Nashua Telegraph and Valley News, which also did not endorse him. Then the campaign was forced to apologize for lying about being endorsed by the American Legion, which the Legion called “totally illegal.” How many “honest mistakes” does he get to make before we stop believing they’re honest?// Notice how they took resonsibility when they got in trouble? This happens in every campaign. It’s not a shocking thing for sleazy things to occur.
//Other sleazy shenanigans perpetrated by the Sanders campaign include stealing ballot boxes in Puerto Rico (and then complaining of fraud when the DNC wouldn’t let them steal more)// That’s not the story. Sanders’ campaign was angry their poll watchers were not being certified, and so they cried “fraud” when it didn’t happen fast enough. Also something about a prison. And then at the end they accused Sanders of stealing ballot boxes. The fraud accusation was about a completely different problem. Try reading articles before citing them.
//accumulating 639 pages of FEC complaints about illegal donations// http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-primary-616682 Those complaints were thrown out.
//and inciting a riot by brazenly lying to supporters about DNC rules.// You like adding in words to make your claims sound worse than the facts are
// Bernie should be held to a higher standard than Trump, not lower.// A US Senator should be held to a higher standard than a US President. No, Bernie Sanders should be held to a higher standard than any other human on the planet, right? It’s okay to blatantly lie and make up false accusations as long as it’s Bernie since he is the reason Hillary lost, right?
//Also, he’s been using these kinds of sleazy tactics for ages, going all the way back to when he challenged the Democratic governor of Vermont:// Funny, in this entire article there is very little cited. At best it’s unsubstantiated accusations lunged against Sanders from previous opponents in past election he’s partcipated in.
//Bernie is famous for his stubbornness, his impatience, and his abrasive nature.// These are examples of personal attacks. Notice you are not describing his policy differences, you are specifically impugning his character.
//We’ve already discussed how he treated his colleagues in Congress// In 1991…
//Bernie has terminated interviews over subjects such as his opposition to the Amber Alert system, his wife’s meeting with Joe Arpaio, and the Nevada caucuses.// In all those instances, he was being asked dishonest and outrageous questions, and it’s no shock he’d quit before they trap him in lies.
//He became incredibly condescending when flustered in an interview on California radio.// He was talking to a conservative talk show host who was trying to trap him in a bunch of strawman questions. Sanders knew better than to give in to that anti-logical fallacy disaster.
//He rudely cut off a Univision anchor to inform him that he didn’t need to answer questions about foreign policy because he was “running for president of the United States.” And that was all in public!// No, you are taking what he said out of context. Sanders was being asked about the implosion of certain South American governments and it was clear the question was going to paint him as a radical leftist. So, Sanders wanted to get the interview back on track. Sanders isn’t perfect, and while I disagree with his behavior here, I’ll still stand up for him because interviews should be focused and on point.
//But Bernie wasn’t just a jerk to his colleagues and the press. He also treated his employees and supporters like crap:// Every politician has.
// But let’s not blind ourselves to who the man is, how he behaves, and how he treats the people around him.// If all I read was your article I’d think he’s a monster.
//I’ll leave it to you. Is Bernie just a kind-hearted grumpy grandpa? Has he fought tirelessly throughout his life for progressive causes? Is he a paragon of consistent, incorruptible moral virtue? Or is he actually a smug, lying, selfish jerk, who slanders his colleagues, viciously attacks the party, and scams his supporters, all to support a huge ego trip? A man who claims to only care about policy, but has made no effort in forty years to bring about real change? A man who sees his loyal fans as a weapon for revenge against his own allies?// Fun “article” to deconstruct. The citations were for the most part used dishonestly and tons of insinuation. Sanders isn’t perfect, and there are many times I criticized his goofs. When he called Hillary unqualified I was furious. When he wouldn’t drop out I had to quit a bunch of Bernie groups because they wouldn’t give in. I called hundreds of Minnesotans to go to the polls for Clinton and went out and canvassed. I gave both Bernie and Hillary money. But articles like this are meant to inflame Berniebros into acting like the idiots they are times ten, and make people like me who donated dozens of hours to both candidates and supported Sanders in the primary happy to debunk pieces like this.
