Let me start by saying that In the beginning I liked a lot of what Bernie said. I found what he had to say of interest and appealing.
I had always considered myself a liberal, and to an extent I found that I did not like how far to the center the Democratic Party was straying. My reason for disliking was, as the Republican Party leaned further and further right, the Democratic party seemed to be following it to "the center".
So hearing Bernie speak once I started listening. And a lot of what he said appealed to me, until I started using my brain.
I had no idea how he expected to pay for anything he suggested, because it sounded like too much pie, in the sky, wishfull thinking. Then he says " The Billionaires will pay for it." Beautiful Theory.
Sadly, a Beautiful theory can be destroyed by an ugly fact, and here we have two.
1. The Congress would never allow a President Bernie to pass these things he is Interested in passing. It's Not because " the Congress is rigged" it's because the costs would be so high it would explode the deficit, unless we "Tax Billionaires at 90 % rate.."
Which leads me to point 2.
2. Even if a Congress was ever amenable to taxing at that rate... there are not enough Billionaires to pay for everything Bernie wants to pass. Which means he HAS to tax the middle class. Something he doesn't really mention much.
Here's the thing. I felt about Bernie the same way that Ms Aperstein felt, before I even read it... and I had fewer facts.
Is anything that she says false? I dincerely doubt it. Since we have the internet, it would be stupid to make stuff up, since you read it, on the same location where you can back up or dispute her points... The Internet.
Everything she has mentioned as facts, have already been reported in many different places, all she did was get them all on the same post.
What she has done is provided context to a Lot of facts.
I was watching him and Hilary debate after debate. And his rudeness was palpable. he speaks, she looks at him as he speaks, takes notes... and waits for him to finish, as he fillibusters. But the mopment it's her turn to respond..he waits a few seconds...and starts with the finger... interrupts, distracts, and when she scores you can tell cause he gives a passive-aggressive sigh. or a giggle.
Anyone else notice he never looks at her?
I said to Myself " if he lifts that finger again, I'll reach through the TV screen and break it."
I had this feeling that he couldn't accept correction from a woman. The sexism, was pretty obvious in how he dealt with a woman that was beating him in votes, and in delegates. Every time she looked at him, dorectly, and said.." Can you point to ONE time, I changed my position because of a campaign contribution?" He refused to even look at her, and started on hi stump speech.
he smears her character through innuendo, and she asks him " I am right here, ..you have anytjhing to say to my face?"
Nothing... stump speech.
All of this was clear to me from watching what he said a few times.
It's amazing that he considers a woman that has been praised as " The Most qualified person to seek the office of the Presidency in modern times" to be " Unqualified."
All that the above did was give me more facts. Before I read it, I felt he was " off". he seemed to be a bit of a Hypocrite, as he went from " Super-delegates are undemocratic, the person with the most votes and declared delegates alone should win the nomination" until..he fell behind with both.... then it's " we'll ry to get the super-delegates because.... Polls."
How anyone can say that is not hypocrisy, and not be seen as disingenuous is beyond me.
None of what Ms Alperstein said was untrue.
You did not try to tackle her facts, all you could do, was say that because she is a Lawyer, her opinion is not valid. And mainly , because she doesn't say how awesome Bernie is... The Irony amazes me.
So you have to attack her character..... Amazingly similar to what Bernie does.
Ad hominem attacks are logically fallacious.
They attempt to convince that something about the speaker... makes what they say invalid. Other than trying to debate what they say.
" hey look, she's a wall street lawyer!!!! that means this is BS"
The thing is... Just because you try to attack her person, does not in any way, shape or form, show that what she has said is not true.
When you start making personal attacks, all you do... uis show that you have run out of legitimate arguments.
The thing is, you never started with legitimate arguments.
PS. I am a not a Wall Street Lawyer, I am disabled. You would think I am the perfect candidate to campaign for Bernie, since his campaign seem to be either...
1. Our present government is corrupt.... or
2. Vote for me, I will give you free stuff.
Now.. considering that the second has already been used against Centrist Democrats like Barak Obama , can you imagine the field day the republicans will have with Bernie?
Wake up...don't drink the Kool-aid.
Fixed it. Thanks for the assist.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You rock!!!!!
