One goofy thing yall got to let go is that a critique is somehow hate, but I'll do my best to answer.

>why does it blow your mind that people are onboard with a candidate who has great policy positions with a legacy of concrete action to back it up?

It doesn't blow my mind that people are onboard, and have that capicity for Warren. I can understand that perspective. I DON'T understand having that perspective though and making that your marker and somehow Warren passes, but Sanders fails. People are allowed to have that position, but I don't reconcile that logic if it is actually about policy and legacy.

>warren was a progressive rockstar before most people even knew who bernie sanders was. the 'bernie wing' of the party was the 'warren wing' pre-2016 (except she actually helped progressives raise money and win elections nationwide). which is why bernie supporters were so thirsty for her endorsement. she had actual credibility and name cache that he lacked (even after a 30 years in congress).

That is fine, but I am not most people. I was a poli sci major in 2003, and in freshman course in rudimentary classes we broke down neoliberalism and the Clinton legacy, and Bernie struck out even then as a person opposing the war on the working class. He came up again as a progressive socialist mayor that had me interested when in my Black Political thought courses in college. In 2008 when I lost my tuition due to my leave of absence happening in the recession I remember Warren ascending into rockstar status screaming at Wall Street after the bail outs. She gets props for that. But in 2006 is was Sanders who was in hearing saying that the banks were too big and a recession was looming. I agree that he wasn't a "rock star" then but he was correct politically. And the reason Bernie wasn't a rock star is because he wasn't a Democrat, which was spoon fed us as the only criteria for a political stance for over a decade.

>lol @ her platform being a hybrid of sanders and steins when she actually conceived an agency from scratch from outside of politics that sanders or stein have only talked/dreamed of from inside politics.

>shes actually done the stuff that theyve only screamed about in speeches lol.

So yes, the platform she has is actually directly represented in Stein's Green New Deal from last cycle, including quantatative easing for student loan debt (except Stein wishes to cancel ALL student debt). Bernie was on the committees that Warren was on regarding consumer protections, but I don't mind giving her sole credit for being the predominant spokesperson. I wish she had this same enthusiasm to push towards candidates that had a real chance at achieving these policies, instead of us needing another four year for her now to endorse these policies (though she is backing down on medicare for all).

>its wild how the only people who really hate warren right now are republicans...and 'progressives' who claim to champion the policies she has been fighting for forever.

>the same folks who put her on a pedestal pre-2016 based on an academic and political career of progressive advocacy are now treating her as some fraud or political appropriator.

>and her only sin is not kissing the ring of saint bernard in 2016.

Again, I don't "hate" Warren, same way I didn't hate Hillary. A critique is not hate. I just don't want selective endorsements of positions that are clear lines in the sand. She didn't need to endorse Sanders or kiss his ring, but if she believes in raising minimum wage or campaign finance reform, then why not support the person who is engaging millions of people on those exact issues? That is all. That to me is my only critique of her for the most part. I would still vote for her, but to me, imho, Bernie is more credible.

>meanwhile those same folks stan for tulsi gabbard who has had a career in congress more conservative than joe manchin and only became 'progressive' in 2017 when she was thinking about a presidential run.
and they only like her because she endorsed bernie.

Gabbard is emerging as a candidate mostly because the diluted definition of "progressive" as a way to pass Buttigieg and Harris and Beto as "progressives" and from an identity politics standpoint of her being a woman of color. However, she does have definitive policy positions that I can get behind, and I do respect that she didn't allow her support of Sanders in 2016 to muddy the waters of the DNC. She stepped down so that she could put her energy behind policies she believed in, and had Debbie Wasserman Shultz done the same our process may not have been as compromised last go round.

>when you rearrange your principles based on the person and not the policy...its a damn personality cult fam.

Again, I have personally campaigned door to door on issues like campaign finance reform, anti-hydrofracking, raising minimum wage, medicare for all, etc. To have a candidate who has embraced ALL of those positions with no wavering? I'm sorry, yeah from a policy standpoint I am still with the guy who has been saying it for as long as I've been alive. He's gone from mayor to this position with the same narrative so until someone else emerges with a better platform and resume, I'm still Sanders. But again, looking forward to this process and actually seeing things play out in the debates.