I'm sick and tired of hearing Clinton is the most qualified ever w/NO facts cited to back it up.

[kaleckim]

16. Unrealistic?

What is unrealistic about his vision? The things he is pushing for are very popular, have proven to work, and in some instances (like publicly funded college) we used to have that stuff. No one is arguing that he would get it immediately or that the changes would happen overnight. What though is unrealistic about what he proposes? If you party doesn't stand for those policies, what exactly does it stand for? Nothing. The Democratic Party used to stand for most of what Sanders is pushing for, but moved to the right in recent decades and now doesn't. God forbid you all be forced to deal with that.

Can you, or any of her other supporters, name a single movement of historic importance that lacked a long term vision that couldn't be accomplished overnight? I guess the labor movement of the 19th century should have never tried, because as of 1850, child labor laws, the weekend, safe working conditions, overtime pay, the eight hour work day and the right to form unions were not things that the elites at the time were in favor of. Are you under the illusion that the long term vision the movement had wasn't a vision they organized around and didn't motivate people to take part in the fight?

Somehow Clinton is realistic because she will start negotiations from an already compromised position? Let's just assume she is a "centrist" (not sure what she is in the center of exactly, but lets assume it for the sake of argument), and she is negotiating with the right. Every negotiation ends up with a compromise somewhere in the middle of the negotiating parties. So, what would we expect the actual policies to be if they were somewhere between where she is and the right? How is that acceptable, not just ideologically, but the impact of those policies, doubly given how bad things have been in recent decades as is? This makes even less sense when her silly followers seem to think that it is their duty not to push her from the left, but to simply protect her from critiques from the right, as if giving them a monopoly on pushing her makes any logical sense what so ever.

I say all of that assuming that the Republicans would even work with her and none of her followers have ever given any actual logic as to why in the hell the Republicans would work with Hillary Clinton, of all people in the entire universe. They froth at the mouth when you say the word Clinton, but somehow they're more likely to work with her than Sanders. They just can't be honest that the only situation in which they would work with her is if she were to give away the entire store to the rich and corporate interests. Given her record and her top donors, that is decently likely anyway, but they have to pretend otherwise. If you question them, or people like yourself, you'll get a link to a speech where she says some nice buzz words (which were undoubtedly vetted and carefully crafted).