"Bernie Sanders Loves This $1 Trillion War Machine"

[BainsBane]

Sanders has made his opposition to Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness a cornerstone of his campaign. But he hasn’t exactly been antiwar all his career. When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peaceniks—leading to tension with some of the most adamant adherents of progressive ideology.

In 1985, for example, protesters massed at the General Electric plant in Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders was serving as mayor. They were protesting the fact that the plant was manufacturing Gatling guns to fight socialists in Central America. . . .“There were protesters who were unhappy that General Electric was manufacturing Gatling guns at the plant, and so they would lock themselves to the gates and engage in civil disobedience. And so the mayor, Bernie, finally got cops to go in and arrest the protesters,” Condon told The Daily Beast. “The GE plant was one of the largest providers of jobs in the city. So it was economically important that the plant stay open and people who worked there went to work.”

When it comes time to make speeches, Sanders has slammed defense corporations for political gain.
. . . But when those defense corporations come to his own backyard, he quietly welcomes them in.
The Vermont senator persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington, according to Newsweek, and managed to get 18 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets stationed at the city’s airport for the Vermont National Guard.

“In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they’re saying is you’re going to be losing jobs in that area,” Sanders said at a Q&A in New Hampshire back in 2014. “[W]e’ve got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that.”

History has shown that Sanders has not had the courage to do that.
Immediately after he made those comments, an audience member pointed out that the F-35 fighter jet project had a lifetime cost of $1.2 trillion: “When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?” the questioner asked.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

[djean111]

1. Let's see - one type of airplane compared to actual wars and dead people -

thinking that this cancels out the distaste for Hillary's proclivities to actually use these things is a bit simplistic at best.

[BainsBane]

2. Actual wars that Bernie voted for

the only one he didn't was the Iraq War Resolution, yet he voted for every other one you all fault Hillary for. What do you think those weapons are used for anyway? They fight actual wars, kill actual people.

The point of the article is the vast difference between rhetoric and action.

[BainsBane]

20. The GOP Senators want the manufacturing jobs for the MIC in their states too

as does WA. That is how we get such broad support for the MIC. Bernie himself commented on that.

“In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they’re saying is you’re going to be losing jobs in that area,” Sanders said at a Q&A in New Hampshire back in 2014. “e’ve got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that.”

History has shown that Sanders has not had the courage to do that.

Immediately after he made those comments, an audience member pointed out that the F-35 fighter jet project had a lifetime cost of $1.2 trillion: “When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?” the questioner asked.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

[azurnoir]

39. some of those planes were already sold to Israel and Saudi Arabia

and in Israel's case that amounted to getting some of the billions we've given them

[tammywammy]

46. No F-35s have been sold to Saudi Arabia. n/t

[azurnoir]

74. the US agreed to sell them to SA and then under pressure brought by a Republican visit with Bibi

withdrew the offer , however Israel up the ante with numbers ordered

[tammywammy]

77. Saudia Arabia is neither a F-35 partner nor FMS customer

Israel increasing the number of F-35s was related to the sale of F-15 upgrades to Saudia Arabia among other arms.

[azurnoir]

81. the F-15's were a sub at one point we were going to sell SA too, it was a different version than

the enhanced ones we're selling to Israel

[okasha]

47. You don't get it, BB!

When Bernie wants them, they're Peace Planes! Peace Planes!

[tammywammy]

23. No F-35 manufacturing takes place in Vermont.

There are three final assembly and check out facilities for F-35: Fort Worth, Texas; Italy and Japan. 18 F-35s will be stationed in Burlington.

[AgerolanAmerican]

13. Voting for and engineering are two different things

HRC's influence was decisive in the wanton destruction of Libya.

At no point was Sanders' influence decisive in any war.

If you are concerned about the evils of war, as I am, then there's no question.

I don't need purity. I need movement in the correct direction, not the wrong direction. Right now, even the smallest course correction seems completely beyond the influence of the electorate.

The establishment is hell bent on doing what it will, damn the will of the people. This election will provide a definite answer to the question of whether the will of the people is a factor at all.

[beam me up scottie]

15. "Every other one"? What wars did he vote for? As in voting to intervene in a genocide in Bosnia?

And voting to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan after he attacked us on 9/11?

I'm confused, do you believe he should be have voted against those actions?

[BainsBane]

17. Libya, Kosovo

the authorization of Forces Resolution, all subsequent funding for the Iraq War.

The point is if you're going to vote for something, own up to it. Don't blame someone else for the policies you yourself voted to implement.

[beam me up scottie]

18. He rightfully voted to stop genocide in Bosnia. And when did Bernie vot for war in Libya? Link?

Voting to support the troops as part of an omnibus spending bill is not "voting for wars".

[MaggieD]

55. Right here

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/

Look, we didn't have a war in Libya, but he was happy to vote for regime change. I don't know why his supporters act like he's anti-war just because he voted against Iraq. He is a huge supporter of the MIC.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Wrong again, read your link: "Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya"

The vote

The U.S. military spent about $2 billion and several months backing the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, who had held power for decades. The uprising -- part of the Arab Spring -- toppled Gaddafi in August 2011, and rebel forces killed him the following October.

Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

Bernie never voted for war in Libya.

[MrMickeysMom]

57. Well, THAT was a bullshit link, wasn't it?

But, it gave you a subject line that says, "look at me!", then to link to -

Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders voted for regime change in Libya

Yawn...

[MaggieD]

58. Nope

"On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors."

[beam me up scottie]

59. So he never voted for war in Libya, thanks for clearing that up!

Congress condemned the government for human rights abuses, they didn't authorize military force.

Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya

[MaggieD]

60. We didn't have a war in Libya

But he loves his MIC. That's for damn sure.

[beam me up scottie]

63. So then BB was wrong when she said he voted for one, thanks again!

[MaggieD]

66. He was in favor of regime change in Libya - you get that, right?

I realize you're trying to sneak by on technicality, but he voted for regime change in Libya. You know, that SAME regime change all his supporters like to bitch about. It always cracks me up when I see that, knowing that Bernie voted for regime change in Libya.

[beam me up scottie]

67. No technicality, BB claimed he voted for war in Libya and you just helped prove her wrong.

I'll bet she'll want to thank you for helping clarify that.

[MaggieD]

69. But you realize Bernie voted for regime change in Libya, right?

I don't think it matters whether you call it a war or "regime change" her point is exactly correct. Bernie loves the MIC.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Yes words do matter, Maggie - war isn't defined as a condemnation of human rights violations.

Perhaps you need a new dictionary.

And they never voted, remember? Why do you keep claiming otherwise?

From your link:

so senators never actually voted on it.

[MaggieD]

71. So you realize Bernie voted for regime change in Libya...

He was a co-sponsor of the resolution. You get that, right?

[beam me up scottie]

72. Your link says they never voted, why do you keep claiming otherwise?

The vote

The U.S. military spent about $2 billion and several months backing the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, who had held power for decades. The uprising -- part of the Arab Spring -- toppled Gaddafi in August 2011, and rebel forces killed him the following October.

Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/

You do realize that we know you're making up falsehoods, right?

I'm not going to alert but if you keep saying Bernie voted for regime change when he clearly didn't it could give someone a reason to do so.

[MrMickeysMom]

65. You're hilarious...

Who loves their MIC? "This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make, but I cast it with conviction."

Excuse me, I have to pick myself up off the floor!!!

[MrMickeysMom]

62. Yeah, THANKS!!!

[beam me up scottie]

64. She's so helpful!

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. That is so fucking dishonest and disingenuous it's not funny.

"Actual wars..." What actual WARS did Bernie Sanders vote "FOR"?

Did he vote YES on the IWR, or did he vote to make sure troops were properly equipped after his side LOST the vote on the IWR? Be honest for one minute for fuck's sake.

[Ken Burch]

52. What matters is that Bernie questions militarism, and HRC never does.

The fact that Bernie could have been more dovish on some things in the distant past does not mean there's no difference between Bernie and HRC on war.

It's going to be impossible for HRC or anyone else to do anything progressive at home if she keeps us in Syria in her pointless obsession with a "no-fly zone". There are no policies that can be both progressive and low-cost. That's why the right has been so obsessed with trying to force the party to nominate HRC...because they know she will forever keep us in war, which will forever make change impossible.

[Vattel]

3. Lol, we are back to the lame F-35 thing again?

Only Donald Trump is stupid enough to want to cancel the F-35. Sanders says that it was a wasteful program, but it is the new fighter of choice and it would be beyong crazy to cancel it now that billions have been spent on it and it is going into the production. Clinton has raved about it and approved many sales of it as SOS. As Sanders has made clear, now that it is inevitable, why shouldn't Vermont benefit from it?

[BainsBane]

8. and that is how the MIC is built

and funded. People want to take that approach, fine, but don't pretend to be doves or anti MIC.

The F-35 was build in Vermont. Read the article. Sanders recruited Lockheed to establish a program there. It also gives other examples, like using the police to repress protestors at a GE plant while he was mayor.

What I find particularly objectionable is that Sanders refuses to take responsibility for any of the programs or policies he votes for. They are all everyone else's fault, and he always comes up with excuses for his own role in them, and his supporters repeat them. He denounces the MIC while acting and voting in ways that completely contradict that rhetoric. The same with the crime bill, and a number of other issues.

[Vattel]

82. Horseshit. You are just being duped.

[BainsBane]

14. Read this part

“In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they’re saying is you’re going to be losing jobs in that area,” Sanders said at a Q&A in New Hampshire back in 2014. “[W]e’ve got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that.”

History has shown that Sanders has not had the courage to do that.

Immediately after he made those comments, an audience member pointed out that the F-35 fighter jet project had a lifetime cost of $1.2 trillion: “When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?” the questioner asked.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

[okasha]

51. And what would be the rationale

for making planes NOT to use them? Just to throw a few trillion down a black hole?

Allow me to introduce you to the word "enabler."

[litlbilly]

5. Are you gonna post this everyday now? try something else,

[BainsBane]

25. Please, provide a link to where I posted this before.

Unless I have early onset Alzheimer's, I feel quite sure that I haven't posted it until today, particularly since I only read it for the first time today.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Recycling day again? Yay!

[stonecutter357]

10. K&R!

[Depaysement]

11. Do you mean the "most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed?"

Hillary Clinton at Brookings on September 9, 2015

"I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years."

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish-speech/

You can see the Secretary's speech in full here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?328006-1/hillary-clinton-address-iran-nuclear-agreement

[Logical]

12. LOL, so nice to just ignore posts with your name on them. nt

[ucrdem]

16. FP is my strongest objection to Sanders

He would be putty in the hands of the war party. There's no other way to express it. Hillary has at least been through that wringer many times already, both as senator and first lady and of course SoS. And personally I don't see her favoring an aggressive FP once she's in office and I don't see the usual suspects getting away with their usual tricks either. She knows every one of them.

[islandmkl]

21. she IS one of them....eom

[BainsBane]

28. What this article highlights

is the considerable discrepancy between what he says in speeches and how he votes and acts. I find that concerning, as well as foreign policy, mostly that he doesn't seem to have surrounded himself with a team of foreign policy advisers to prepare for being president.

[ucrdem]

36. Exactly. And that Iraq AUMF he's gotten so much mileage out of

even though he voted to fund the Iraq war the same day:

On October 10, 2002, Sanders voted against the Iraq AUMF, but on the same day, he voted to fund the Defense Department in fiscal year 2003:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3083/12790/27110/use-of-military-force-against-iraq#.VYZ9uba1qSo

https://votesmart.org/bill/3122/8511/27110/department-of-defense-appropriations-fiscal-year-2003#.VYZ8NLa1qSo

And those problems at the VA the RW is ready to nail him for. Once you start peeling the onion the tears come quickly.

[Kittycat]

19. Daily Beast, tell Chelsea hi!

[AtomicKitten]

27. Cenk explains it all.

[BainsBane]

29. There are specific votes and actions noted in the article

Do you have evidence that any of them are false?

[Octafish]

80. Snarf!

Thanka you, Kittycat.

Hedgefund people know how to diversify.

[beam me up scottie]

22. This is the same Tim Mak who wrote for the conservative Washington Examiner?

Tim Mak is a Senior Correspondent for The Daily Beast. He covers campaign politics, national security and Congress. He previously reported on politics and defense at Politico and the Washington Examiner.

The Washington Examiner

The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine.[2] It is owned by MediaDC,[3] a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group,[4] which is owned by Philip Anschutz.[5][6] From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed free throughout the Washington, D.C. metro area, largely focused on local news and conservative commentary.[5] The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, and its content began to focus exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Let's see what Mr. Mak had to say about Hillary and her emails:

How The State Department Caved To Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer On Classified Emails

Clinton’s private lawyer got his way when he pushed back after being asked to delete all copies of a classified email—a level of deference an expert calls ‘far from the norm.’

The State Department put up virtually no resistance when Hillary Clinton’s private lawyer requested to keep copies of her emails—even though those emails contained classified information, and even though it was unclear whether the attorney was cleared to see such secrets.
Experts on the handling of classified information tell The Daily Beast that the seemingly chummy arrangement between Clinton’s lawyer and her former State Department aides was “quite unusual.”

Newly released documents, obtained by The Daily Beast in coordination with the James Madison Project under the Freedom of Information Act, include legal correspondence and internal State Department communications about Clinton’s emails. Those documents provide new details about how officials tried to accommodate the former secretary of state and presidential candidate.

In May 2015, a senior State Department official informed Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, that government reviewers had found at least one classified email among the messages she sent using a private account, which she used exclusively while in office. That email was only part of the “first tranche” of the review, a State Department employee noted at the time, leaving open the possibility that more classified information would be found, which it was.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/15/how-the-state-department-caved-to-hillary-clinton-s-lawyer-on-classified-emails.html

[BainsBane]

30. As usual, you avoid the point of the piece

There are specific votes and actions noted in the article. Do you have evidence that any of them are false?

[beam me up scottie]

32. I'm still waiting for you to post a link showing Bernie voted for war in Libya.

And as you know if the source is biased the conclusions will be also.

[BainsBane]

33. Here

Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power. While the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent -- meaning no one actually voted on it -- Sanders was one of 10 cosponsors.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/

Now do you have anything other than the usual ad hominems?

[beam me up scottie]

37. Did you read the entire thing? It proves the exact opposite of what you claimed:

The vote

The U.S. military spent about $2 billion and several months backing the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi, who had held power for decades. The uprising -- part of the Arab Spring -- toppled Gaddafi in August 2011, and rebel forces killed him the following October.

Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

Where's the part where it says he voted for war in Libya?

And my post contains no ad homs, perhaps you're confusing facts for attacks?

[BainsBane]

41. It ruled Clinton's statement mostly true

There was no vote for military authorization, but he CO-SPONSORED a resolution to replace Gaddafi.

Your answer to my question about the substance of the article is clearly no, you have no evidence. The votes and policies recounted in the article are factual, and they contradict Sanders rhetoric on military spending.
You continue to want to side track to distract from the central point about the considerable gap between his speeches and actions.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Clinton never claimed Bernie voted for war - you did. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya." [/div

How is that voting for war?

And as you well know the Daily Beast is a biased source, the author cited facts and then drew false conclusions.

Just like you tried to do by claiming Bernie voted for war in Libya then citing a link that lists some facts but proves no such thing.

[azurnoir]

42. LOL Hillary could have written the resolution it basically says to Gaddafi-"cut it out"

[beam me up scottie]

44. Wanting to stop human rights abuses in Libya now = voting for war in Libya.

We're officially in bizarroland.

[Vattel]

83. It has gotten to the point of absurdity.

The press let's Clinton get away with being deeply dishonest. The let her shamelessly suggest that Sanders' vote for the ILA and for the resolution on Libya were comparable to her cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq and pressing Obama for using military force to achieve regime change in Libya. The press should be pressing the point that the ILA contained text specifying that it was not to be construed as authorizing US military force. They should point out how Sanders basically predicted the bad consequences of going to war in Iraq, that Clinton parroted all of Bush's lies to justify the invasion and supported Bush's ultimatum to Hussein that he leave the country or be invaded. I could go on and on, but it feels like spitting into the wind.

[azurnoir]

40. Do you understand what non-binding means? and from your own link

On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."

The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.

The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."

A Senate resolution carries very little weight. It has no legal teeth and is more like a statement expressing the general "sense of Congress," said Joshua Huder, senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.

"In effect, all this resolution does is say, ‘Gaddafi is a bad person and should stop,’ " Huder said, noting that this document cannot be interpreted as expression of congressional intent to take specific action to oust Gaddafi.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/

[earthshine]

24. It's a mayor's responsibility to uphold the law.

and so they would lock themselves to the gates and engage in civil disobedience. And so the mayor, Bernie, finally got cops to go in and arrest the protesters,” Condon told The Daily Beast.

People who chain themselves to fences (or say, lie down in the middle of the streets to protest), make a loud statement via civil disobedience, and know they're going to be arrested. That's part of it. That's what makes it a daring and noteworthy protest.

It is the responsibility of law enforcement officials to do their part.

Case closed. Please go back to reinforcing your own opinions by reading the Daily Beast, which is known to be a Clinton propaganda machine. It will sway none of us.

[BainsBane]

31. And the $1.2 trillion to Lockheed-Martin?

For the F-35? Is that now a "progressive" policy too?

[earthshine]

34. Was that embedded in a larger bill?

Good luck painting Bernie as a warmonger. That boat won't float.

[dana_b]

26. Bernie's words:

"As a member of Congress, I have supported the use of force only when it was a last resort and America’s vital interests were at stake. I opposed the first Gulf War, as did many other Members of Congress, because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. And, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us." - Bernie Sanders from his website

So you see, he is not against ALL war. He is against unnecessary wars.

[mvd]

49. Exactly

It's not about having no defense - it's about not having a bloated defense that helps the defense contractors more than the soldiers. I am confident Bernie would not lead us into unnecessary war. I am not confident that Hillary would do the same.

[Beowulf]

35. The Daily Beast!

Chelsea's digital tabloid. Ignore!

[TheFarS1de]

38. I prefer news to propoganda

So there goes the Daily beast and no one following behind it picking up after it craps all over the place .... some pet owners are jus irresponsible .

[BainsBane]

50. If you can point to any inaccuracies

in the piece, please provide evidence. It discusses actual votes and actions Bernie took. Yet you don't engage with any of the substance of the piece.

[TheFarS1de]

79. That's right ....

If they had anything of substance to offer you may have a point . All I see is puppets and strings .

[kstewart33]

48. Interesting facts. Thanks for posting! nt

[Hiraeth]

53. HE LOVES IT !!! LOVES. LOVES. LOVES. IT !!!!

[vintx]

54. This is just pathetic.

I wonder if the people churning out this trash realize how many people see right through it.

[mhatrw]

61. Another day, another Daily Beast hit job on Sanders. nt

[Autumn]

68. Not as much as Hillary loves the Trillion Dollar Wars

[BainsBane]

73. I have no idea how you gauge

"Love" in politics, but sanders record on defense stands in direct contrast to his rhetoric.

What do you think trillion dollar war machinery is for anyway?

[Autumn]

75. You tell me. You and the author gauge Bernie as loving the military weapons

that are manufactured in and the fighter jets stationed in his state for the National Guard. Here's the thing those are for defense, I applaud Bernie getting those jobs for his state. No one goes to war unless politicians like Hillary vote to send them to war or SOS's like Hillary push for those wars, which she certainly does seem to do. It's the cost of unnecessary, unending and unprovoked wars in death, destruction and tax dollars that I object to, not the cost of the weapons for defense. Get that? Defense, the defending of our country. The wars are where the obscene costs come in.

I own guns, that doesn't mean I love them.

[itsrobert]

76. Bernie is exposed as just another politician

n/t

[djean111]

78. Of course he is a politician.

But - miles better than Hillary.