So you're voting for Trump?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I love the same post argument. How many times have we had to hear about Hillary's "honesty", "likability", or ties to corporate America. That dog has been hunting for a much longer period of time. My Sanders critique is a relatively newer and less popular byproduct of this.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

This is an awful attempt at a "gotcha."

I would not have an issue if Sanders supporters told me they were voting for him because they love the fact that PACS and big business weren't supporting his campaign. If they told me they're supporting him because he hasn't used his position to make millions for his family (This is a great thing). If they just want someone who looks and sounds different. Instead they tell me that he's principled. They tell me that he's fought for these things his entire life. They tell me he isn't a politician. They tell me that he's a true believer. They tell me he will get his proposals through Congress. That's why I tell them they're wrong and/or delusional.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I would merely tell you to examine the candidate you support and tell me how you're not sickened.

We know. You've said this at least 20 times, also. And clearly, you are the first person in the world to criticize Sanders. If only we all had your vision...

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

So you're voting for Trump?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

How is that not free child care?

If I offer you a free burrito, and instead you choose to go buy a taco, it is still a free burrito. It doesn't become less free because you can choose to not accept it.

You don't seem to ever criticize Sanders. Very few here have. There has been a fallacy surrounding Sanders.on here. His shortcomings have been completely ignored. Rather than address any of these points made, you choose to comment about repetition. Meanwhile how many posts have been about her dishonesty, likability, and ties to Wall Street? Not so surprisingly, these posts and their redundancy don't seem to bother you. They have only been made by you and other posters for at least the better part of 9 months.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I would not have an issue if Sanders supporters told me they were voting for him because they love the fact that PACS and big business weren't supporting his campaign. If they told me they're supporting him because he hasn't used his position to make millions for his family (This is a great thing). If they just want someone who looks and sounds different. Instead they tell me that he's principled. They tell me that he's fought for these things his entire life. They tell me he isn't a politician. They tell me that he's a true believer. They tell me he will get his proposals through Congress. That's why I tell them they're wrong and/or delusional.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That's literally what I have said about him. He did not line his pockets. He doesn't have a Super PAC. Calling him a "true believer" is meaningless. When was the last time there was a proponent for labor and against the banks that had this many delegates?

You have yet to say what you hope Clinton will accomplish other than vaguely saying you hope she is better that Obama and you realize that she is a disaster ethically. i.e. You know what she is.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Why would an objective person criticize Sanders given the alternative? What about Hilary Clinton excites you?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

That's literally what I have said about him. He did not line his pockets. He doesn't have a Super PAC. Calling him a "true believer" is meaningless. When was the last time there was a proponent for labor and against the banks that had this many delegates?

You have yet to say what you hope Clinton will accomplish other than vaguely saying you hope she is better that Obama and you realize that she is a disaster ethically. i.e. You know what she is.

Right but you are saying Bernie wants to make "all mexican food free". One guy getting a free taco or free child care doesnt mean Child Care is now free for all and run by the government. It may be a program where if you are in a certain income bracket you get free care. Im uncertain of how it will work out. I am certain he has not proposed free child care for all or most.

I'm not sure why you are fighting against stating the whole truth. What is the downside of saying its "free tuition at public schools" since that is accurate or that Bernie wants to make Child Care "affordable for everyone." which are his exact words?

It goes along with your premise that he's proposing a GOVT takeover of these things. It sounds more like a government takeover if you leave out the details.

Well, that is a bigger problem if you are uncertain of how it will work. He is guaranteeing it to all kids so you would assume that all kids would be eligible for it.

I'm fighting against you acting like I am incorrectly characterizing it. I am not. You are free to extend my thought if you want but both are accurate.

It is undeniably a government takeover. When the government is in charge of paying out a large majority of the money then they basically control it and can do with it as they please.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You're mixing the things I have an issue with and the things that I don't. That's why I say you're wrong.

Hillary accomplished more in 8 years than Bernie has in 3 decades in Washington. She has far more knowledge than any candidate. She is the most qualified based on her experience. She has gotten things accomplished that she fought for (women/children/health care/New York). Hell she basically wrote the ACA. She has personal relationships with most of the people she will have to work with to get things passed. She has the knowledge and willingness to develop the relationships she doesn't have (Unlike Obama). She's a pragmatic politician. She's really smart. She's ruthless.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

On Domestic policy she is far more liberal than she is given credit. I also do not believe that she will favor bailouts if such a situation arises again. I think that she will legitimately make our criminal justice inequities an issue also. Based on what? Your feelings?

Hillary Clinton is a true policy wonk. She understands the complexities of the issues going in. Neither Bush, Obama, or Sanders truly does or did. She will not need the sort of on the job training that the other guys have needed. The learning curve for her is not as steep. This is pure opinion. With zero evidence.

As I stated before, being an insider politician is not a disqualifier. FDR was about as politically conniving as they come and he was one of our more effective Presidents. Nixon was manipulating but he did a good job as President. Bill Clinton was also a good President. This notion that being political hampers you as a President is foolish. Now Nixon was a good president? The guy who bombed Cambodia and had to resign for being a criminal?

You are basically saying it is ok to ignore the flaws of Sanders because you do not like Hillary CLinton. Why would I vote for a person that I know will not be able to get anything done as President? Why would I vote for a person that basically just admitted that he doesn't have a plan for the one issue that he has used to signify his campaign? Why would I vote for a person that admittedly knows little about foreign policy? Why would I vote for a guy that I know is much more political than he wants the world to believe? Why Would I vote for a guy that has switched political allegiances twice in order to win elections? Yet Hilary's constant flip flops don't bother you? ie. Guns, Gay Marriage, Super Predators, Iraq, Bankruptcy Law, Banking De-Regulation, etc.


As I stated before being political isn't a disqualifier. Sanders is political yet he attempts to portray himself as being a man of principal. He isn't and I have provided evidence. The guy admitted to voting for pro gun legislation because Vermont is a gun state. Is that a sign of displaying leadership? He basically admitted that he was afraid to take on the pro gun lobby of his state. He based a vote on the values of his state where gun violence was not a problem. Hilary was a pro-gun Church-goer in 2008 when it suited her: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... hurchgoer/

If I truly believed that Sanders were capable of taking on income inequality he'd have my vote. He is the only one really talking about it or proposing anything to change it. That is the single biggest confronting this country. I think he is just another providing lip service. In the meantime there will be 4 to 8 more years of gridlock. Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be much more of a fighter than Sanders ever has or will be.Pure opinion. That is why I am voting for her.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I'm fighting against you acting like I am incorrectly characterizing it. I am not. You are free to extend my thought if you want but both are accurate.

It goes along with your premise that he's proposing a GOVT takeover of these things. It sounds more like a government takeover if you leave out the details.

It is undeniably a government takeover. When the government is in charge of paying out a large majority of the money then they basically control it and can do with it as they please.

No, it's not. There's a huge difference between free college for all and free public universities. If the private market does it better, people will still be willing to pay for private schools.

It's equivalent to the difference between Obamacare with a public option and Universal Healthcare.

What were her accomplishments? Not the things she "basically did" but really did not do. The ACA was Romneycare in MA. And it's a disaster in many ways, honestly. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/obamaca ... to_fix_it/

It was a half-measure. Typical Clinton triangulation. It offers a few good things, but it also makes sure that the ultra-rich get paid.

The rest of your "reasons" are pure opinion. Her "experience." Such as? Her "knowledge". As measured by what? You feel like she will develop better relationships. How did that work in getting her personal healthcare passed?

And you think Bernie supports aren't being honest with themselves?

Are there multiple definitions of free here? If I can get something for 0 cost then it is free. If my kid can go to college and pay 0 tuition then the tuition is free.

Both thoughts are accurate

Not really but we differ on what we define as takeover. A takeover means total control to me.

Some people get food for free (welfare)


So then I guess we could say FOOD IS FREE and call it accurate.

This is one of the stranger arguments I've been in.

Yes

I'll ask you too. Is high school education free in the United States?

A free High School Education is available to all but all High School Educations are not free.

Its a real simple thing to understand.

So you are saying that high school education in the United States is not free. Is that correct?