He has made many, many statements of what he believes is necessary for the country, and these statements are aspirational, not 'here's what I will achieve if I am President.'
He's saying 'here's what I will strive for if I am President.' Sanders supporters aren't naive fools - we know that the work required to achieve, to the extent possible, such things (the two things you cite) as free tuition at public universities for all who are qualified to attend and resuscitation of enforcement of anti-trust laws, would be very demanding. Such things will not be achieved by a magic wave of President Sanders' pixie-dust wand of democratic socialism-power. The key point is that such things certainly won't come to pass if we elect public officials who don't want them to. That's a non-starter.
Your statement is unworthy of reasonable consideration. That's fine, in itself. You can make a broad statement such as 'free tuition at all public colleges is unaffordable' based on your claim of having 'dug into' this and other stated goals of Sen Sanders. It's not likely to mean much to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, as your words strongly suggest that, if you have examined the two (of course, you left 'big' out of 'breaking up banks,' and I expect you are likely not confused by the distinction) goals you described, you approached them with intent to find things to criticize, rather than with any sort of interest in considering their viability.
However, your third is a direct insult to millions of Democrats, and that's not fine.
I have never stated that people who support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee are in any way ignorant in their support of her. I will no do so. Such a thing would be flat-out rude, and I accept the ever-present possibility that I am wrong. We're all wrong about things all of the time, and calling someone ignorant, given the possibility that I'm wrong, is reckless and counterproductive. It says 'I'm right and you're wrong and your perspective is utterly without merit.' Taking such a position in your own mind ensures that you will never learn from people you disagree with. And voicing such a position only insults - it never yields a positive outcome, unless your definition of a positive outcome is to insult and demean.
It appears to me, however, that what you're really saying is that supporters of Sen. Sanders are ignorant. By claiming that one of his stated goals is unattainable because 'That money doesn't magically appear' and another is so vague as to be meaningless, you're not defending supporters of Sec. Clinton from claims that they are ignorant, you're making the opposite claim of Sen. Sanders' supporters.
I'm far from ignorant on subjects such as 'what would be positive and negative about free tuition for all who qualify as able to attend in a publicly maintained secondary education system,' 'what would the potential costs and potential revenues resulting from such a system be,' and, 'does such a proposition represent a net gain or net loss for our country from a cost/benefit perspective?' And, finally 'who wins and who loses? (which is, unfortunately, where the analysis starts for a great many, and the primary losers, oddly enough, in such a proposition, are... big banks.)
If you mean only to insult, then at least have the courage to say so. If you don't mean only to insult, then why declare that millions of Democrats who are supporting the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders are 'assuming ignorance as the prime factor' when they evaluate the positions of those who support Sec. Hillary Clinton. I certainly don't. I have never participated in a discussion on the subject of the merits of the candidacies of Sanders and Clinton, during which a position that supporters of Sec. Clinton are ignorant was advanced.
= new reply since forum marked as read
