A lot tells me to really not engage in any point making here. Trying to explain such points feels like explaining how 2 + 2 = 4. Are we 4 years old here? But perhaps I should anyways. This is the problem with vision, which is the problem with vision. First off, she is obviously biased. Enough said right there. Secondly, is her vision or lack thereof. She has this magnifying glass of hers on things she's biased towards. Absolutely nothing is perfect, and therefore anything can be painted as imperfect, the degree of which depends on its messenger (in this case an extremely biased, scared woman [yup, woman, cause she's got issues upthe wad]). This imperfection includes contradictions and hypocrisies. As such, one's imperfections, and however one wants to paint them, is not the point. The point is truth, however cliche that sounds. Now back to that vision thing. She's swell at her magnifying glass skills. I'll give her that. She's definitely done lots and lots of reading. And she's extremely skilled at associating facts with conjecture. What she doesn't have is overall vision. She doesn't see the big picture; she's very far from it actually, no pun intended. Bernie, on the other hand, has great overall vision, perhaps too much for his sake at surviving skepticism. If I applied her biased magnifying tactics on Hillary, which many many many people have correctly, factually, and conjecturally done, the same negative results will show. So, again, the question is truth, as cliche as that is. Is it worth it to make public colleges tuition-free? Should they be tuition-free? Should we have actual universal health care, or its quasi vesion like we have now? Should we just eradicate such detrimental business greed, or kind of punish them while kind of trying to mitigate them while kind of trying to correct them? Should we literally avoid war as a literally last resort, or kind of avoid wars until they're kind of the last measure? Should we raise the minimum wage to $15, or kind of raise it to $15 but not really as we raise it to $12 and then encourage individual states to raise theirs to as close to $15 as they say they can? (Btw, mathematically according to inflation and worker productivity, the minimum wage should be well over $20/hour; but, of course I'm not going to cite my sources to that because she didn't cite any sources herself; altough that is mathematical fact). Should we, the liberals, the progressives, not advocate to the ends of our principles, and instead advocate compromised measures and goals, while the conservatives and regressives advocate to the ends of their principles, only settling for compromises when they have no other choice? (That is, btw, what Mr. Maher rightfully always cracks about - Dems not having any balls, while Reps have huge balls and little brains but huge balls nevertheless).
What should we do, really? Yes, with that magnifying glass of hers, she pointed out many well-argued flaws and questions of Sanders's campaign. But, like it or not, the truth is that overall visions is what we vote for, not details. Our wants, desires, moralities, principles, convictions, even beliefs, are not details, they are visionaries. Her blog is utter details with utter bias falsely claiming objectivity. That is not what humans are about. We figure out the details after we've decided. And history has proven this actual self-evident fact: when we want and decide on something and anythng, we figure the details out, ultimately.
Whether you agree that absolute truths exist or not, if they don't, then why debate? Why vote? Why question at all? Why research? If you do agree that absolute truths exist, then those truths should absolutely be followed, however imperfect the details seem beforehand.