There's nothing redeeming or politically valid in Sanders speaking at Falwell's Liberty University

[guillaumeb]

216. Let me reframe your argument:

When you wrote:
"I've said it before and I'm saying it again. EVERYTHING that Bernie is doing is in line to demolish the party. He doesn't strive for party building, he doesn't even want to address it, but he wants their votes. He turns his back on huge swaths of voting blocks in favor of those that want more riches, dream of a theocracy, and nothing else. He wants to be President but does nothing to ensure that the future of the party is solid and growing. If he ever gets his 4 years in office, he walks away, the Dems are in a world of hurt...."

All of this could have been said about Presidents Clinton and Obama. To wit:

Clinton signed NAFTA with assurances to all that the agreement would bring a huge growth in jobs. The opposite took place. Now Obama promises much the same thing. Is this not a slap in the face to organized labor, and the working class as a whole, to garner favor with the 1%? Given that the working class constitutes approximately 90% of the electorate, this is the ultimate in "turning his back on huge swaths..."

Clinton and Obama both attended the various prayer breakfast events. Why? Is this catering to the theocrats? Exactly when did the Commander in Chief become the Supreme Faith Leader?

Clinton signed the Gramm Leach Blily Act, the act that deregulated the financial industry and was the foundation of the latest financial collapse. Obama refused to even consider prosecution of the various bad actors who collapsed the economy. Why did each President take these actions? payback for the big money contributors?