Post removed

[KingFlorez]

1. No

But it's not like those are even real goals, they are just promises to get elected.

[Ron Green]

3. They're not even promises. Where's the link to this?

[libtodeath]

2. Care to link to where he said that?

[guillaumeb]

5. Good luck. Certain posters specialize in just this type of silliness,

and rarely respond to demands for proof. Care to guess why?

[libtodeath]

6. Pretty ironic that a thread blasting someone for telling lies is actually nothing but a lie itself.

The op should be ashamed.

[guillaumeb]

10. This particular post is representative of very many posts.

Generally in the form of a GOP talking point framed as a question.

When people feel that only tiny changes are possible, that serves to frame the debate in such a way that the GOP position is seen as the obvious workable one. This type of incremental nonsense is what leads voters to believe that there is little difference between the two parties.

In my view.

[PatrickforO]

4. No he doesn't. A study by an economist who actually favors Clinton said this,

not Sanders. Predictably, for the specific purpose of defeating Sanders in this primary, 4 Third Way economists came out ridiculing the study.

However, now we can add Reich and John Kenneth Galbraith to economists who support the idea of big results from Bernie's plan. Here's a nice link: http://usuncut.com/politics/robert-reich-bernie-sanders-plan-can-get-us-to-3-8-unemployment/

[left-of-center2012]

7. Another Clintonista drive by attack

And Hillary whines about Bernie being unfair in commenting on her record. boo hoo boo hoo

[Broward]

8. Get your facts straight.

[guillaumeb]

11. Facts? Who needs facts when you have talking points? eom

[HooptieWagon]

9. Heaven forbid...

You'd have to pay the nanny and maid more, plus taxes to cover their health insurance.