>But one of the infuriating things about the Sanders movement
>is that people treat him as being more honest, more genuine,
>and more "pure" than other politicians,

i think you are speaking about a specific group of people that you have engaged with,
in the numerous 'posts that say the same thing, different day',
some of us ignore those posts
because to be honest, they are tinged with the very lack of nuance that makes (american) politics infuriating
(everything is too black and white)
but listen, i think i put up one of the first 'why not bernie' posts on here, way before it became a thing
i also know that since, there are things about him that disappoint me
(including he should *now* be doing more to ensure we all vote clinton, instead of maintaining this division.
and working a bit more to increase # of dems in house and senate- or whatever's up for election) if we are really serious about change).
so.. not everyone has elevated bernie to a lofty pedestal. maybe just those you choose to interact with,
and those of us who haven't also hold views that are rational and would prefer not to included in some mythical 'bernie supporters'
or 'majority of bernie supporters'
its not even a majority, btw.
antivaxxers make up quite a small proportion of the liberal pop (even though they are typically well educated, so even if all liberals supported bernie, this mythical 'bernie supporters' would be minority 'mystical'.


>Though it's obviously a bit of a postjack,

an unnecessary one, at that. i dont know whom it is in here that you are addressing.
maybe you can point them out, so they can read all this. i for one havent talked at all about clinton in nary a post. (i'm about to)

>There really are imperfections in Hillary Clinton's platform.

you dont seem to understand that even if hillary run a 'perfect' platform there would still be people who dont like her
I know i dont like her at all (i remember how sleazy and slimy she was during the last election.)
i dont think she's to be trusted.
i think she is more likely to design a platform based on what she thinks is popular etc.
but whatevr. she's the democratic candidate, and the far better option compared to the other side.

i'd much rather spend time talking about how the american political system does not have a proper conservative or liberal party
at least not in the way these are described. you have a fringe (right) party, and an increasingly right-shifting democratic party.

>If Bernie Sanders became president, I would worry about the
>future of nuclear power (and by extension, the climate and
>energy crises), about regulation of agricultural practices, of
>biotechnology, of aspects of medical research.

again, i appreciate science as much as the next person.
but some of these *do* need regulation (agriculture e.g.- remove the farm subsidies).
I dont think there has been a specific debate on science to even start to know if clinton is any different on these issues.
we just dont know, either.

it just sounds like youn are doing the very same thing you are accusing bernie's supporters of doing...
only that you happen to sit on the clinton side of the fence.

there have been godknows how many posts that have gone back and forth about this very issue
i dont know why you want them to spill over to posts that dont have anything to do with bern-hill

and btw, im not dismissing c.rook.
i am engaging with him because this shit is very very important to me and even being able to change one or two persons minds (or give them pause for thought is worthwhile to me)

so im not here to point and laugh, as you suggest, or feel superior.
im here because this shit is too important to just let slide

holding olympics to see who's the more dishonest between bern or hill
is not.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.