Nah, quite honestly, he did the exact opposit of that.
Remember when Sanders said he was anti-establishment?
Man he really ripped off his supporters for all the donations which eventually went to Clinton.
He "fought" in vain. Clinton is a huge liar, extremely careless, and in Sanders' own words "not qualified for presidency". If you actually think a word Sanders said didn't fall on deaf ears with Clinton then you're incredibly naive.
You could say the same thing and sub in Trump's name instead of Sanders if he really is picking Gingrich as his running mate.Remember when Sanders said he was anti-establishment?
Pretty sure? Based on what?
I don't see why this would be true at all. Under this logic if he made it to president and he in any form or context ever made a concession he would also have betrayed his followers. Sanders has made the point that the important thing is policy. He ran his entire campaign on the premise that policy was the priority. He didn't even discuss hillary's emails because what he cared about was policy... Sanders got hillary and the democratic party to change their platforms and embrace several of his proposals. Sanders is not going to be president but that is still a big deal for the party.
Bernie Sanders supporters, well the vocal ones, seem to all be the same, bitter, complaining that he lost because a few polling places had unconfirmed issues, or blaming his loss of little to no media focus, which by his large amount of grassroots fundraising would imply he was actually having great reach. Also these people seem to be, Sanders or were not voting at all, so I think they will help to move the Republican agenda forward since they wont vote for Clinton.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
...
He had no state in which he won more black voters than Hillary Clinton which means he ignored spending any time with them.Sanders is still acuckdisappointment. Nothing about the campaign he ran is compatible with who Clinton is. The guy is well into his seventies, has no legacy to worry over, has no party loyalty and if he stuck to his guns and refused to endorse her, it wouldn't have hurt his popularity in Vermont either. This decision of his is a bit of a contradiction to the principled conviction he insisted upon having during his campaign. If the Republican nominee wasn't Trump, I wonder if he'd even bother letting down so many of his supporters.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
...
What reality are you from honestly? How does describing what happened require the use of words like "abandoning" or "ignoring"? Politicians campaign more in states in which they seem to have a chance to win. That's why you won't see Trump in traditional blue states either. And I don't even know where you get the idea that he was ignoring minorities...
Yeah sure, because winning votes simply comes down to whether you try hard enough or not. Get real.
Not visiting those states before they were about to vote was a mistake. Why would they vote for someone in the general election if they wont even visit the state during primary season? Its like voting for a mayor who only campaigns in the state capitol but never visits the hometown he will be serving in.
It's a stupid move on all accounts. Gingrich doesn't add anything to his campaign at all which would secure more voters. He has many other better choices. He also confirmed there is a list of people, so he will definitely pick the most beneficial out of all which Gingrich surely isnt.Pretty sure? Based on what?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
AYYY
What about what you're saying here changes my point? You're boiling this down to him not winning more southern states because he didn't campaign there enough. As if spending money on campaigning in places where he didn't have good chances would have resulted in him winning. That's not how political campaigns work.
He adds experience, intelligence, and establishment support. That's hardly nothing.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
To be honest I don't think sanders really cares all that much about who clinton is or his overall popularity (that is a bit contradictory when it comes to politicians but still). Didn't he walk up to democrats a while ago and told them that the goal wasn't to win elections? Sanders doesn't give a fuck.... At least not about hillary or how popular he is. He endorsed hillary because he got a number of concessions when it came to policies. And correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't sanders lways been like that, making policy more important than anything? Sanders got behind hillary because she changed her platform policies to one he could get behind.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/pf/college/hillary-clinton-college-plan/
I think so too, which is why we need to take steps to solve this, not accuse Muslims of being terrorists or making all of them apologize for actions of few. People like Trump will just make things worse.
The University story wasn't really that big of a deal here, I rarely saw the papers or anyone bring it up. Almost everyone brings up Hillary being deceitful or full of shit, while not even mentioning Trump being under investigation. But then, Trump supporters are so full of double standards. Apparently it's okay for supporters to attack protesters, but if the protesters retaliate, the supporters somehow are painted as victims.
I see it as Bernie preferring Hillary over Trump. He likely sees Trump as the worse choice, and he wants to make sure Trump doesn't win. I don't see how he sold out, or what's wrong with this. Chris Christie joining Trump is way worse, and you can see how desperate he is to get some kind of benefit. At least I'm sure Bernie wants to make sure Hillary beats Trump.
Remember when Sanders said he was anti-establishment?
Man he really ripped off his supporters for all the donations which eventually went to Clinton.
Stop reading conservative crap only. There are plenty of articles saying Bernie hired a BLM supporter to help him with this campaign. He never ignored black people, and I think he's the only one who hired a BLM supporter. Funnily enough, Trump himself said he'd beat up BLM supporters if they showed up at his rally, so it boggles me as to why any black people would support him.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
you claim people should get education if they want to make it far in life and be successful, but you seem to be against letting people get education.
Who puts that much weight in campaign promises? If he honestly believes he can trust Clinton of all people with such things, he's a moron. If you're to believe what he says, the reason he's endorsing her is because she isn't Trump. And this is the thinking most undecided voters are probably going to use in November as well.
The proposal has nothing to do with private schools? The article literally mentions public colleges.
black lives matters has proven to be racists and almost terrorists and offensive to cops. How do they protest cops when there are black cops, I dont understand their logic or positions and they are too disruptive.
College is a privilege that people should buy into, having everyone and their grandma receive full tuition support from tax payers is baffling and offensives. Its too risky to support people bound to fail.
Which is why I said thats going to happen to them, since they wont be getting the support for tuition like public schools will, who will reasonably pay top dollar costs to go to them?
I don't think so. I don't think he really abandoned anyone. he had trouble against clinton exspecially when it comes to black people because the clintons have a traditionally good standing with those groups.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I am not naive. Clinton knows the political game, and if you look at bill's term (on which she had a huge influence) you can see that he tried to keep most promises he made.