- Even if true, has nothing to do with Sanders’ anti-Wall Street crusade. Let’s assume it is true… OK. She’s an accomplished woman, etc. Doesn’t impact Bernie’s stated issues with Wall Street. Also, not sure it is true; it’s an opinion. So… minus 1.
2. Same point as above; what Clinton does or does not do has nothing to do with the problems Bernie (and I) have with Wall Street. Also, same as #1 in terms of “may actually not be true.” Minus 1.
3. Straw man to the rescue. Bernie never said it was. But some of the reasons given for why Wall Street isn’t all evil are hysterical. “…in the U.S., we use credit cards, mortgages, credit scores, securitized loans and other Wall Street innovations to do the miraculous: to persuade some institution with a lot of money to hand it over to someone who doesn’t have that much”
Uh… No. None of those things are “Wall Street innovations.” And when Bernie is talking about Wall Street he doesn’t mean “all banks, everywhere, forever.” He’s targeting the financial elite and too-big-too-fail banks. Minus 1.
4. OK. How does that make his plan total BS? Even if we assume hers is better… isn’t even saying “reining in Wall Street” a different flavor of “anti Wall Street?” Not sure how, if it’s his, it’s total BS and if it’s hers it’s simply “a better plan.” Hyperbole has its place. But this ain’t it. Minus 1.
5. I haven’t heard the “relentless call” that you speak of. A couple times? Sure. But it seems past. Yet, again… even if this were true, it has nothing to do with Bernie’s actual issues with Wall Street.
The better title for this article would be, “Five reasons why Bernie’s campaign against Clinton is flawed.” That would be a fine, reasonable title for this. But it’s not as interesting as throwing out hyperbole and cuss words, so whatevs.