Being willing to go to jail as a protestor against segregation is about as real as it gets.
Lon Shapiro

I’ve read the two links you posted and my major takeaway is this: According to the second link, in his 25 years in Congress, Sanders has passed three bills he introduced. Clinton has also passed three bills, but in 8 years as a senator. The second link also claims that Sanders has passed record numbers of amendments, but going by the same source they used, we can see that Clinton has more amendments agreed to in the Senate than Sanders (57 to 41) [1] [2].

Of course if we also were to tally up Sanders’ amendments in the House, it’d be 48 + 41 = 89, it’d double his numbers compared to Clinton, but then again, she never served in the House, so the comparison wouldn’t be very fair. I get the feeling those two sources you posted have a certain bias towards Sanders as they fail to present a proper comparison between the two candidates, instead only singing praises for Sanders without reasonable evidence to back up that praise.

I also want to address the claim that because Sanders participated in a protest 53 years ago and got fined for resisting arrest, that makes him a more credible candidate. Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, because I’d much rather vote for an effective representative that can demonstrably get things done, than one that simply makes outlandish promises to prove his idealism. Going to jail or getting fined is not proof of a competent leader, it’s just proof of Sanders’ hot-headed idealism, and again, it was 53 years ago. Hardly relevant today.

[1] Hillary Clinton’s amendment records ://

[2] Bernard Sanders’ amendment records:

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.