What shall it be next!?

A blemish on his perfect skin.
A mar on his flawless finish.

so sad.

politifact stated Bernie lies.Is it invoking the truthiness argument?

Let me know when you catch up to the 21st century.

Can you not help it??

Lying is part of being a politician, and Sanders is no exception.

PERIOD!

to get off your lawn I see.

Berne is a career politician! But Hilary, well, this isn't easy for her. She's not a politician!!

a career politician.

You might also tell Donald Trump.

"a career politician"? If so, do tell us all what that might be.

...is lacking in relevance.

adult like would make them part if the establishment. But not Bernie no sir.

in 1910. He's now the guy you see on a dime. JFK was a part of politics much of his adult life. His portrait ordains the 50-cent piece.

There is nothing innately wrong with being a politician, and fighting on behalf of those in need of help.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of BS fans when they scream about the evils of the "establishment" yet are all ecstatic over a guy that has been part of that same system for ever & a day.

has me SMH is when the media networks like MSNBC continue to paint him as an outsider candidate despite working in D.C. for over 2 decades. It doesn't make sense how someone could be an outsider even though they've been part of government for years. Is the media just painting him as an outsider because he holds a few non-conventional stances? I don't get it.

He has had paying jobs. Unless you think he just lived off the mana of the universe for 40 years...

I guess lying is also part of posting on a discussion board too. Hillary and everybody running is also a career politician.

Care to name his other careers?

columnist, he was 40 years old when he first took office. To say he never had a paying job is intellectually dishonest.

He is a career politician but he has earned it and worked for it all the way. He didnt get there because of his family name, his associations, his rich friends, or because he went to an ivy league school or sat on the boards of corporations. He got there because he has worked his way up the political chain through support of the citizens of his state and the citizens of this country. A career politician like Sanders is exactly what we need to fix the political landscape of this country.

He had at least seven distinct jobs in the 15 years between his graduation from college until his 35 years (and counting) political CAREER began.

The ONLY career he's had is politician.

to now having 7 jobs prior to his career as a politician. So now you are contradicting yourself and proving your own blatant lie. Thanks!

The point is he's a career politician who, until he became a career politician, had no other career.

or do you think the poster is incapable of carrying on a conversation?

Have the last word. You're wasting my time.

You're responsible for what you do with your time. I already have given you proof he's held other jobs but... "those aren't careers" is your new defense so, whatevers...

and he is good at it!

I didn't call her the voice of "the people." His not doing something doesn't mean that she does.

"Sanders is a career politician who has never held a paying job other than politician."

You then changed the entire meaning to say his only career was as a politician when it would pointed out that your original statement was a lie. Well, I guess that makes you a true Hillary supporter.

Do you feel the point wasn't made adequately the first two times?

You're "error" is so egregarious that people felt a need to point it out. I see in the replies that you continue to try to change what you said, while also sidestepping that you're story is changing: "What I meant was...." as if that should be obvious, even though the original statement was quite clear (and wrong).

Now, your reply of, "three people have already pointed that out," seems to say, "shut up about it already."

Cognitive dissonance?

..there you go screwing up a really pathetic attempted smear with real world facts.


Her Royal Inevitableness will not be pleased!

Do the math

That "people" were saying about Obama.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/

"Never had a 9 to 5 job

This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed?

If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term — that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment — then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39 — working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications:"


http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-loser-meme/

not Obama

Learn to flail better.

of living off of taxpayer's dollars?

that's some right wing talking point right there. "living off of the taxpayer's dollar"? Sounds like what we heard about teachers in Wisconsin during the union busting.

Just as long a Bernie has.

Atleast Bernie has been working in the interest of the people and not the oligarchs.

Besides Bankers.

That's a pretty broad generalization.

I am a lawyer and my practice is almost entirely devoted to suing thieves, specifically, employers who steal from their employees by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime and/or stealing their tips. Does that make me a liar and a thief?

What about lawyers who work for organizations like Legal Aid, who make peanuts in exchange for representing some of the most vulnerable citizens who could never afford private lawyers? Are they thieves and liars too?

But the entire legal system is rigged. It should be set up that an educated person could represent themselve without legalease and filing the right paperwork this motion that motion say this do that. It should be show up state your side boom.

200 300 dollars an hour even 150 an hour for what writting form letters and prefilled documents and knowing the right wording to use. Its a scam. Especially criminal justice and the prosecutors. Its a license to steal.

There are some that do it for the right reasons ill grant you my generalization was a little broad but not much.

If the system were set up so that an educated person could represent themselves, what would the uneducated do?

But not ones charging $100 to $infinite rates an hour for filing paperwork.

Could the educated individual get an advocate? For example if she were involved in a lawsuit with an uneducated individual?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-from-hippie-migrant-to-would-be-president/

Being a "career politician" is only a bad thing if you've spent the better part of your career flip-flopping and lying your way every moment of it.

Like your candidate...

The 50's want their language conventions back.

(don't worry: I recognize that you're not really all that offended and are just using a convenient excuse to not have to defend you specious twaddle...it's okay)

... and repeating bullshit other posters say.

You're a bit boring.

It's a guilty pleasure, to be sure...one should prefer an actual challenge, and relegate nonsense-spewing, non-contributing gadflies to the sidelines (or Ignore list) where they belong. But guilty pleasures have their place.

As do you.

Bernie has been a carpenter and has run a business distributing educational videos to public schools.

Wanna do your research before slinging shit around? LMAO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-from-hippie-migrant-to-would-be-president/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927

trying to discredit the man because he lived below his means?

point is, he worked. people claiming he never worked before politics are wrong. those were the goalposts. I just provided the truth. :/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927

In 1974, he ran for office while on unemployment benefits.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-unemployment_n_7471056.html

politician Hillary lies.

than Politifact.

- neither of which Hillary does well on but Bernie does do well on

the various politicians.

And it checks out. A lot of articles over the years have documented Hillary's problem with telling the truth. There are about 350 Youtube videos - many from news organizations documenting the problem showing what Hillary said and then showing the facts. And then we have the various polls on honesty or trustworthiness.

And they all basically say something similar: all politicians may be accused of lying but Hillary is one of the most dishonest or untrustworthy in the eyes of the American public (and arguably American media).

Go figure.

Nice.

Crying from laughing so freaking hard.

began polling whether Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. They polled no other politician on that same question even though we all knew that the GOP and Congress in general had a 9% approval rating which is actually lower than Hillary's approval rating. If you keep asking the same question long enough, "Do you think candidate A is honest and trustworthy", you imply that there is a reason for asking the question, even if there is none. You plant the thought that they must not be honest and trustworthy. Politicians lie just like people on DU lie, and just like humans in general lie sometimes. It could be as innocent as the proverbial, "Does this dress make me look fat?"

What I find more offensive is Bernie sitting in Congress for 25 years voting his principles and having nothing to show for it. When you come to Washington to try and change things and get an agenda passed, you make enemies. Bernie sat in Congress as an Independent collecting his congressional salary in excess of $175K for a 3 day work week, casting protest votes. He caucused with the Democratic Party so that he could gain seniority for better appointments to Congressional Committee's than he would otherwise as a lonely Independent, while all the while proclaiming that he wasn't a Democrat. All the while standing on his principles while going against the Democrats on key votes often when he knew they had enough votes to get the bill passed without him while standing on his principles so he doesn't have to be accountable for his votes, but rather can play the holier than though role, when he decides to use the Democratic Party to run for President. His standing on his principles didn't create any jobs, and his principles didn't put any food on anyone's table but his own. With the makeup of Congress being close the past couple of decades, politicians have had to make deals to get things done. I don't hold my Congressman or Congresswoman in contempt for having to make deals or compromises to achieve an end result that is more beneficial than no deal at all as has been the case for the past 7 years. Congressmen get a salary and a 3 day workweek with lots of congressional breaks whether they produce something, or produce nothing. That doesn't work for John Q Citizen. Bernie likes to tout repeatedly the fact that he got a bipartisian bill for veteran's assistance through congress. If you can't get a Bipartisian bill for veteran's assistance through Congress with the support of the "Lapel Flag Wearing" "We Support the Troops Shouting" members of the GOP, you are worthless.

"... the pollsters spent an entire year before the 2016 campaign began polling whether Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. They polled no other politician on that same question ...."

Guess what? Your trustworthiness just took a hit. "no other politician" ? That's absolutely false.

Gallup: Americans Deem Obama Honest, Less Sure of His Leadership MAY 1, 2015

Poll: Florida gov race a toss-up 09/24/14

Voters don’t see either candidate as “honest and trustworthy,” according to the poll, with fewer than two-in-five saying those words describe both Scott and Crist.

Fox Poll: Most Americans Think Obama Lies April 2014

Hillary Clinton did far better, the survey found: 54 percent of voters say the former first lady and secretary of state is honest and trustworthy. Forty-nine percent say the same of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, while 41 percent think New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is honest and trustworthy, the poll found.

I could go on. I think I saw some assessing Rand Paul, Huckabee, etc honesty and trustworthiness.

Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2016, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

at the following info, it supports my case that there are polls for Hillary polling her honesty and trustworthiness and no other politicians. Now I had googled this almost more than six months ago because I kept seeing polls about Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness, but no others and I was curious as to what other politicians were polling as to their honesty and trustworthiness. I found the first link below which I clicked onto it and the second link was from the first link. The first link took me to the CNN Poll about Hillary and the second link took me to the detail supporting it. I noticed that the second link also had polling info about other candidates, but none polling their honesty and trustworthiness. So I always wondered why they tracked only polling info on her honesty and trustworthiness. It appears to go back for decades. I wasn't able to find any polling information on any of the other current candidates for president regarding their honesty and trustworthiness, but perhaps you might have more time than I do and would like to provide the data on the other candidates. The data I've provided supports my statements and I even realize that it provides fodder for the Bernie Supporters here, but I'm willing to risk it because I don't just make up crap.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html

Be sure to check out pages 1-3, 18-25 of the link below for the details

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf

this is what you claimed:

"The problem with your argument is that the pollsters spent an entire year before the 2016 campaign began polling whether Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. They polled no other politician on that same question even though we all knew that the GOP and Congress in general had a 9% approval rating which is actually lower than Hillary's approval rating. If you keep asking the same question long enough, "Do you think candidate A is honest and trustworthy", you imply that there is a reason for asking the question, even if there is none. You plant the thought that they must not be honest and trustworthy. Politicians lie just like people on DU lie, and just like humans in general lie sometimes. It could be as innocent as the proverbial, "Does this dress make me look fat?"

"They polled no other politician on that same question"

is bluntly false as my above post above shows with three links to polls that reviewed other politicians honesty and integrity. They were not hard to find - it took seconds in google.

Politicians have been among or the least trusted profession for quite some time. Same type of polling goes on in other democracies in Europe or Canada for example.

This is basically a tracking poll - you can see they've taken several times over for Obama
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182975/americans-deem-obama-honest-less-sure-leadership.aspx

Perceptions of Obama's personal character -- his honesty and his understanding of Americans -- have both improved slightly since last June, when 47% of Americans thought he was honest

They also tracked honest and trustworthy for George W Bush's time in office. 58% didn't think Bill Clinton was "honest and trustworthy" when he left office.

This poll on honesty with Christ and Scott - I don't see Hillary
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/poll-rick-scott-charlie-crist-2014-111283

Chris Christie's honesty was polled. After bridgegate, they tracked it even more.
Ditto for Rahm Emanuel after the police shooting video was not released for ages.

Romney, McCain, Palin, Edwards, other candidates for president, too. Joe Biden too, relative to others, he's a well trusted politician.

With that, your whole paragraph leading to "Does this dress make me look fat? falls apart because many politicians have had the same questions asked about them - and have for years.

For one who claims to have followed politics as much as you do, something doesn't add up. Again, this type of polling has been done for years. If you followed politics as closely you claimed, you'd think you might have encountered it.

I was around for Nixon's entire time in the Oval office - I streaked in protest against him. To me, Hillary handily wins the contest between the two in dishonesty with voters. Beyond what dishonest things she did in 2008 and before, Hillary or her campaign seem to have done something deceptive, sleazy and/or dishonest, etc nearly every day since the primaries started voting. I think you have it backwards - Hillary's been so dishonest during her time in Washington, they may ask the question more frequently about her. I don't think this one is a chicken and egg issue. Hillary earned the scrutiny with her dishonest behavior.

president and purposefully went looking for other candidates currently running for president. I originally googled using Gallop and the names of various GOP candidates. None came back with questions about honesty and trustworthiness. I then went to the Real Clear Politics website looking for the names of other polls to google. The only one I came up with was the one I posted on since most of the polling data was on the presidential races and not the candidates honesty and trustworthiness.

I don't apologize for the fact that I don't have time to spend all day searching poll data just to satisfy you. I have a life beyond DU. I didn't cherry pick my data as you allege, I spent more than enough time searching the sites I was familiar with and came up with what I came up with. This wasn't a college term paper or a work project after all. You asked for sources and I provided you with them. If it wasn't sufficient for you then, whatever. But notice that you were the one that made this personal by attacking me first. I gave you a little background to show that I've been a political junkie for many years and that I'm not someone just out trolling and you chose to question my motives and my experiences while at the same time you are criticizing me, you disparage Hillary calling her "...deceptive, sleazy, and/or dishonest, etc nearly every day since the primaries began and extending that to her entire time in Washington. ..." based on your word alone after having attacked me for providing a post that you claimed was unsubstantiated. Amazing.

Don't bother responding because I won't bother returning to this thread. You are every bit the typical Bernie Supporter who sees the speck of dust in everyone else's eye, but fails to see the log in your own.

"I did see the Gallop poll on President Obama"
"I originally googled using Gallop and the names of various GOP candidates"

When searching in google, you have to pay attention to spelling:
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

So your theory falls apart because you cannot spell Gallup properly and you relied your theory on bad results from poor spelling - rather than using your years of experience following politics and your head.

Now there are a lot of companies who do this polling: Quinnipiac, CNN, FOX (the enemy) etc. For one who claims to have been around politics as long as you have, I shouldn't have to fill you in. Gallup is not the only polling game in the country.

2014 honest trustworthy poll Republican
- cut and paste the above into google and see how long it takes you - about a second or two. You can get even better results if you know more about how to do google searching - which only take a couple of seconds.

As for your concern about me backing this up,
"...deceptive, sleazy, and/or dishonest, etc nearly every day since the primaries began and extending that to her entire time in Washington. .."
I think the links below will provide you with all the substantiation you require and then some while saving the rest of us from having to spell it all out again:
All the evidence you need about Hillary's lying in the last 60 days

All the evidence you need about Hillary's deception in the last 60 days

All the evidence you need about Hillary being sleazy in the last 60 days

Only took a few seconds to come up with that evidence.

A political junkie like yourself should have a great time with that.

Happy reading!

".. and having nothing to show for it."

Again, I don't think that's a very accurate claim either.

He was known as the "amendment king". He got more through congress in amendments than anyone else. And those amendments were largely to help relieve issues he's been concerned about for decades. He has sponsored over 6,000 bills in congress. Without the backing of either party directly, he got a bunch of stuff done.

H.R.4206 - Cancer Registries Amendment Act 1992

H.R.665 — Victims Justice Act of 1995 Amendment
-require offenders convicted of white collar crime to give appropriate notice to multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.

1997 - Increase funding for the Meals on Wheels program by $5 million and reduce funding for the Food and Drug Administration by $5.5 millio
- Prohibit funds for the U.S. Customs Office from being used to allow the importation into the U.S. any material mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.

2000 -Increase funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program by $13 million and reduces Strategic Petroleum Reserve funding accordingly
- Increase funding for weatherization assistance and energy conservation programs by $45 million and reduce fossil fuel energy research and development programs accordingly.

2002 - Prohibit the importation of goods on which the United States Customs Service has issued a detention order on the basis that such goods were made by forced or indentured child labor.
- Provide $100 million for federally qualified community health centers (later into Obamacare)
- Prohibit use of funds in the bill giving an exclusive or partially exclusive licenses to pharmaceutical companies

2004 -Increase funding for weatherization assistance grants by $15 million with offsets from other energy conservation activities

2008 - Provide $242 million for the weatherization assistance program
- Establish an energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training program

- Require that not less than 30% of the hot water demand for certain new or substantially modified Federal buildings be met through the installation and use of solar hot water heaters.

2009 secures $3.2 billion in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act for energy efficiency and conservation grant program
- doubles Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding

etc

Here's more on his legislative record:
https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/


- has gotten significant bipartisan environmental bills passed for clean water and anti-climate change regulations.

On Veterans:
- did a bunch for veterans - bill to increase compensation for disabled veterans, - the "lil bill" allowing veterans to be seen outside of the VA in emergencies, dental coverage for vets, major overhaul of the VA with John McCain - bill to help them with housing, has sponsored more veteran bills than any current member of congress. When he chaired the Veterans committee, he got 13 of their bills passed. He's got an award from veterans for helping them to show you

- I cited one earlier today about a national trust for low income housing in 2008 that he was the first in the country to get going in Burlington in 1981 or so.
- He got $12.5 billion in the Obamacare bill for community health centers - that have been so successful some in the GOP want more.

- Dodd Frank bill - amendment to audit the Federal Reserve

- He spoke out and voted against the Iraq wars, DOMA, NAFTA & other Free Trade deals, Patriot Act, Keystone Pipeline, etc

Talking about polls and approval ratings, since those must be meaningful to you, he has the highest favorability in congress - 80 something %.

The notion he hasn't got anything to show for his efforts is ridiculous BS

6000 bills over his lengthy congressional career, the numbers are meaningless, as this is what representatives and senators do. They sponsor stuff. So far the GOP has passed bills in the House of Representatives voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times to no avail. I'm not impressed with that either. Having lived in the DC area for several years and being a political junkie I do follow congress closely. Always have, always will. For the record I record C-SPAN Washington Journal everyday, replay through it every evening to see what's interesting, what to watch, what to keep. I record evening political shows and at least 6 Sunday morning political shows, and I listen to NPR in my car on satellite radio, so I'm a bonafide political news junkie. For relaxation, I watch my recorded shows on HGTV. I have an insatiable appetite for news and information. My son also did an internship on Capital Hill in Harry Reid's office when he was the Senate Leader so even though my interest was there beginning 4 decades ago dating back to my junior high school days on the debating team. My son interning with the the most powerful Congressional Democrat several years ago, only enhanced my interest.

not doing much. Your response doesn't even mention Sanders.

But with that resume of yours, you're a great person to ask to prepare, present and impress us
with Hillary's record in congress. I think it's safe to say that she did considerably less.

Show us how she stacks up. She claims she's great at getting things done. Can you name a signature substantial legislative achievement she took from scratch and got it through? I don't think she has one.

To use your own words, what does Hillary have to "to show for" her time in congress?

First off.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

But our Democrats passing NAFTA and the TPP and quite a few other horrible bills in the name of cooperation, they're OK?


Because the GOP is all about honoring our veterans? That's a whole lot of naive wishful thinking.

Just vote Hillary and be happy, no need to feed us bull.

education & family but not Bernie's. Of lesser consequence than the bias is that we don't even know how old this stuff is.

People believe Hillary lies.

and if I remember correctly it was all over the map in terms of date, severity, and consequence of the misstatements. The impression I got was that there was a lot of cherry picking going on to achieve the scores.

Here's the really really important thing - how do actual voters feel? And what, exactly, are the statements judged not true?
This reminds me of that "Bernie and Hillary voted the same 93% of the time!" (which is weird, seeing as how the objective is to demonize Bernie) - anyway, it is the differing votes that tell the tale - like, oh, the Iraq war.

same standards as HRC. His supporters are too busy with their cute little slogans "feel the bern, to care about his actual truthiness.

They are just an echo chamber for her lies.

It's disgusting.

including you.

Look at you numbers.

Typical Hillary analysis attack crap.

She has 100% more "pants on fire" lies - also known as bald faced lies.

"Typical Hillary analysis attack crap." It's a fact checking website.

Will his ambitious plans require the passage of bills in Congress? Absolutely.

Does he know this? Is he ignorant of how congress and our government works? Nope. He's been in it for 40 years. He knows what it takes for a bill to become a law.

Is the current congress going to pass his plans.. at all? Not a chance in hell.

Is the next 115th congress likely to pass his plans.. at all? Nope, even if the Democrats do take back the Senate (YES!), he won't have a congress that will support his plan. Hell he can't even get a single person that he's been working with in the Senate on the Democratic party side to even endorse him!

Is the subsequent 116th congress looking more hopeful? No, not at the moment. With the right energy directed it's possible, BUT (see next point)

Has he worked.. at all.. to get the landscape of congress changed? Nope.

So, if he knows how congress works, and if he knows that congress as it stands and how the next 115th is looking, and how the 116th is like to shape up unless he works to get it changed, AND neither he, his campaign, or his devoted are making any discernible more at all to reshape the congress.. How is ANYTHING he is PROMISING something other than outright lies??

He is a typical politician. He's used very old style politician tactics of promising all kinds of things he has to know he can't make happen.. and people are eating it up.

I realize nothing liberal will get past a Republican Congress. I'd rather have a stalemate with Bernie than "bipartisanship" between Hillary and the Republicans, the kind of bipartisanship that we're seeing between Obama and the Republicans right now on TPP.

I can both appreciate and respect that.

If I saw the Sanders campaign working at all to get the landscape of congress changed (and I've tried to build up that apetite myself here a few times now such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511453647 ) I'd very likely be feeling the Bern as well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I don't want a President who will kill government functionality regardless of if it's on good principles or not. I'll take a continuation of Obama's bipartisanship that while there's shit in it, does make some progress.

Things like passing the ACA (although admittedly I don't see either Bernie's plan of a new healthcare for all or Hillary's expanded ACA happening for at LEAST a couple of congress cycles).

The stimulus package. Even though it did help out Corporations and big banking, and the auto industry, also created many jobs, and helped pull us out of recession.. which is direct help to the 99%. It also Invested Heavily in Renewable Technology.

Ended the Iraq war.

Huge drawdown on the Afghan war.

Repealed DADT.

Supported Egypt in ousting Murbarak.

Used his AG and justice department to NOT push against the overturn of DOMA.

Eliminated Catch-22 in Pay Equality Laws.

Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco.


So, you give a great answer, and the truth. For that I thank you. If that is Bernie's real agenda, though, am I at all incorrect in calling him a liar and a typical political fraud if he's continuing to push the fake agenda?

I think he believes in what he wants to propose. He has been saying the same thing for 40+ years. It will not pass a GOP Congress, but none of Hillary's more liberal proposals will pass either. When you mention the ACA, that was not passed by a Republican Congress. It's important to keep that in mind.

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton did plenty of bipartisan legislation together that ended up hurting the country. The TPP was passed by a Republican Congress and it's supported by Obama. Hillary helped write the TPP and the Chamber of Commerce is running around saying that she is not really against it despite her statements during the 2016 campaign.