Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1695659)

I don't really want Goldman Sachs as president, even if their policy is better than Trump's.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695617)

2) He has little executive experience. He has been in Congress, but never held leadership roles. He served as Chair of the Senate VA Committee for 2 years. Before Congress, he was mayor of Burlington, VT, a town of 42k.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695617)

3) He greatly wants to expand government spending and increase taxes. While I think his goals are laudable, I think he is outside what most people would be comfortable with. Bernie Sanders's single-payer plan is almost twice as expensive as he says
4) He wants large tax increases. That may be necessary, but the last time Democrats ran a nominee who called for large tax increases was in 1984. Mondale was right, Reagan did raise taxes in 1986, but Reagan won 49 states because of it, including Vermont.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695617)

5) He is not a member of the Democratic Party. He is listed as an Independent, but he is actually a member of the Socialist Party.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695643)

1. Old people? You have to worry because if they die the next in line holds the key.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695643)

3. Smeenus. **** your straw-man counterargument. What's with all of this integrity BS?

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1695643)

She has a chance of getting **** done. Bernie? No ****ing way. The establishment (we built it no matter how hard we wanna deny it) hate him.

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1695673)

Is experience necessarily a good thing?

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1695674)

YES!!! The fact that you would ask that question is ridiculous. Knowing how to do your job is most definitely a feather in your cap. Jesus Christ, you ****ing fifteen-year-old.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1695674)

YES!!! The fact that you would ask that question is ridiculous. Knowing how to do your job is most definitely a feather in your cap. Jesus Christ, you ****ing fifteen-year-old.

Originally Posted by Isbjørn (Post 1695680)

Sheesh, I'm not against experience as a concept, why would I be? I'm against voting for politicians with shady involvements and referring to their "experience". Al Capone had a lot of experience as a criminal. Was that "good experience"?

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1695690)

For being a criminal? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty good experience.

Originally Posted by rostasi (Post 1695707)

Thinking that 74 is old, but 68 is not has really got me scratching my head.
When you get there, you'll have a good laugh at that idea.
I have to assume that Hillary supporters won't be voting for her for a
second term when she's sworn in at 73 eh? This was the age of Sanders
when he started his campaign - when he was also "too old."

Sanders has such a famous history of getting so many things done thru
the building of coalitions that he's been given the name "The Amendment King."
Meanwhile, we'll have to deal with constant right-wing badgering of Clinton -
more so than the crap we had to put up with during her husband's reign.
It'll be CONSTANT - with media loving every minute of it. The reason that Sanders
has polled well ahead of Clinton against Trump is that people are very familiar -
on both sides - of how corrupt she is. Probably the worse that Trump can use
against Sanders is calling him some kind of Communist, blah blah... which will be
seen as the desperate attempt that it'll be, but the invectives used towards Clinton
are and will continue to be legion - and in some cases worthy!

Sanders DOES NOT want to "greatly...expand government spending"
and single-payer is NOT "twice as expensive" (where are you getting this?).
As for taxes, he wants the rich to pay their fair share - considering the fact
that they use more of the commons - and to not be hiding their wealth. Paying
your share of the commons worked great for America during our prosperous
years and it works great in the majority of democratic countries.

As for his party affiliation, he is one of the Independents - so what?
There's plenty of them the world-over, including here, and represent us just fine.
Hell, Washington was an Independent - he's kinda famous for getting things done,
dontcha think? Are you really voting for the Party, rather than the person?
Sanders, BTW, HAD to run as a Democrat because of the stranglehold of the two-party
system that you so love. You can't even debate on stage if you're anything but a D or R,
so, unfortunately he had to play the rigged game just to be seen on the same stage.

Also, as an aside: Reagan threw the Neocons out of his administration
because they were subverting his efforts to end the cold war with Gorbachev.
In other words, Hillary would probably have been thrown out of the Reagan
administration for being too right wing.

So forgive me if I find it disgusting: the fools the Dems are making of themselves
by turning down a rare opportunity to have a president who would represent them
while steering the country into saner territory, and instead nominate a corrupt Neocon
who will say anything she thinks Dems might want to hear, and then continue to promote
the fortunes of the world's rich. She has way more loyalty to Ukrainian oligarchs
than she does to any of the Dems. Congratulations Democratic Party.

I have no problem with differences of opinion,
but I do have a problem when they're not based on fact.