I find it amusing that you question my ad hominem attack on your motives, yet you do not seem to recognize that your unsubstantiated article was itself an ad hominem attack impugning the integrity of Bernie Sanders. Also, just because my point was “ad hominem”, does not necessarily make it fallacious. As a matter of course, your role as a venture capitalist, and especially as one who’s interests include healthcare/insurance, places you in a relatively small group of people who could benefit directly from a Clinton presidency. You have stated that this is not the case, and so I must take that at face value, since I have no evidence suggesting otherwise. However, raising the question in the first place, is a viable concern.

Regarding Bernie’s vote on the Brady Bill, Mr. Sanders has explained his reticence to that legislation in the past. (Bernie-“For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don’t.”) Personally, I agree with Mr. Sanders on this point. Oh, and by the way, I never questioned your report of his voting record. I do however question your leap of logic due to that record. Your point was to question Bernie’s political “courage”, but then you make a completely absurd reference and expect the reader to make an emotional leap of faith, that at its best would require knowing Mr. Sanders’ innermost thoughts and motivations. That, in itself, is a type of ad hominem attack against Mr. Sanders. Neither you, nor I, truly know Mr. Sanders motivation. But posting a record of his vote without taking into consideration his reasoning behind that vote, shows a callous and reckless disregard for the truth in order to make an emotional point with your reader. It is an oft used literary device in today’s world, but one which actually demeans both the writer, as well as the reader who accepts these associative, emotional, relationships as some sort of fact.

Regarding your claims on the economics of Bernie’s plans, you state that I am somehow “nihilistic”, because I stated that one would have to poll economists to gain a better understanding of their level of acceptance of Bernie’s plan. You further state that “ no economists other than UMass Amherst folks” have reviewed Bernie’s plans favorably. Both of these arguments are patently untrue. First, my original point was hardly nihilistic in approach. I was simply pointing out that your grandiose and sweeping statements regarding Bernie’s economic plans depended greatly on whether definitive polling among economists had taken place. I know of no such polling. As to your second point, that only “UMass Amherst folks” have favorably reviewed Bernie’s plans, I have to say that that is a complete fabrication on your part. ( The following link lists supporters from such lowly establishments as the Federal Reserve Board, Duke University, and Harvard. https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf) You then go on to compare me to “climate skeptics”, another ad hominem attack (against me this time) and one that is completely fallacious. Saying that there is a complicated and clear consensus on the macroeconomics of Mr. Sanders plan is patently false, and unless you can supply the numbers to support that view, I stand by my assertion that your broad sweeping statements hold no merit in this regard. You see, my point in saying that polling economists was necessary was neither nihilistic nor easily dismissible. My point was that you are not entitled to make those types of broad sweeping statements unless you can back them up with established data. So far, you have been incapable of presenting any hard numbers indicating that vast numbers of economists are opposed to Mr. Sanders plans. As far as I know, no such numbers exist.

Regarding Hillary’s support: Considering that we are talking about one of the most well-known political insiders of the twentieth century, it would be hardly surprising that Hillary has received numerous endorsements. Seriously, it would be strange if she had not. However, I don’t question the veracity of your statement here. I question the importance of it. Saying that an “establishment” candidate has many “establishment” endorsements is akin to saying that the Democratic nominee will probably receive a lot of votes from registered Democrats. I hardly consider that earth-shattering news. Nor do I think that it has any bearing on either candidate’s trustworthiness, which is supposedly what your original article is about. If your point is to falsely link endorsements to trustworthiness, I am sure that I do not need to expound on why that is a ridiculous argument.

Finally, you question my reasoning behind my distrust of Hillary Clinton. Well, lets start with the most recent lies from the Hillary campaign regarding her funding from fossil fuel donors. Bernie was absolutely correct in linking fossil fuel lobbyist donors to Hillary’s support. To date, I have not seen any source even questioning that data (only whether those donations would affect her positions). http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

But there are other issues with Hillary. Here are some other points of falsehoods from Hillary: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/video-whoppers-of-the-year/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

And the list goes on and on. Let’s remember her lies after lies regarding a trip to Bosnia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

Or more importantly, perhaps you should read this article about the shenanigans that the Clinton campaign pulled yesterday in the Nevada caucuses. This is voter suppression at its worst. Thankfully, two honest Hillary supporters fought to preserve the integrity of the caucus by standing up for the rights of the citizens of Nevada. http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/apr/02/sanders-wins-most-delegates-at-clark-county-conven/

These are just a few of the reasons why I do not trust Hillary, but I could go on…and on…and on…