What a horribly dishonest article.
“I’m well aware that Sanders has strengths and Clinton has weaknesses…”
Yet you mention no Clinton weaknesses. Not one in the entire article. You act like a cult member worshipping her.
“I tried to find unbiased articles assessing his tax policy, looking at how he would fund single payer (and what he meant by that) as well as “free college” and other promises he made.”
Such articles are not hard to find and most say it would work well. And with how he would pay he speaks of it on his site! If you cannot find it you are completely incapable of doing even BASIC research.
“And I could find none who believed Sanders’ numbers added up.”
Your failure to do even basic research is not a reason for anyone to not back Sanders. Here, in about two minutes of Googling!
— — -
Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million
jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
— — -
— — -
ROBERT REICH: YES, BERNIE’S NUMBERS DO ADD UP
Not a day goes by, it seems, without the mainstream media bashing
Bernie Sanders’s economic plan — quoting certain economists as
saying his numbers don’t add up. (The New York Times did it again
on March 1.)
They’re wrong. You need to know the truth, and spread it.
— — -
— — -
In Fact, Argue Experts, Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Numbers “Do Add
— — -
And really this is just common sense. What he is speaking about are things that ARE being done in other countries. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt they can work and do work in at least some of the counties doing what he speaks of.
Add to that, keep in mind Clinton herself used to back a similar health care plan and dropped it NOT because the numbers did not add up but because “the revolution never happened.”
Her claims that the numbers do not add up is not something she believes.
Then the article talks about Sanders’ “magical thinking” without noting that NOTHING Sanders says is nearly as pie-in-the-sky and “magical” as Clinton’s absurd claim that politicians can be heavily funded by special interests and yet not influenced.
He then attacks Sanders for not doing enough in Congress, though he got more bills passed and more amendments added to other bills. He also claims Sanders did not accomplish anything in general, without showing where Clinton has done more than Sanders… whom contrary to his nonsense is a lot:
Then to make it clear just how biased and cult-like the article is it goes into whining how Sanders actually got paid to be a Senator. WTF? ALL Senators are paid!
He goes back to saying Sanders cannot work with others to pass legislation. This is completely false — in fact Sanders was the “roll call amendment king” from 1995 to 2007. He not only was able to work with others, he was BETTER than any other Senator, at least by that standard.
It then goes into claiming Sanders is dishonest. This is just an insane claim from a Clinton supporter. She has literally been deemed the most corrupt politician:
And it is trivial to show MANY lies from her. For any whom have read this far and care to see it, I am happy to post a list of her lies JUST from this campaign. And I can post a list of her deceptions and lies from the last debate. She is grossly dishonest.
And yet the article does not quote ONE lie from Sanders. Not one.
And the author deems his dishonest… again he acts like a Clinton Cult member.
It then claims it is dishonest for Sanders to speak of how Clinton used the racist term “Super Predators” because Sanders used the non-racist term “sociopath” when speaking about some people who should be jailed. What? Just nonsense.