Politicians do not need to be lawyers but they do need to know the exact details of their central running promises, yes even the legal details. I’m not a lawyer, I’m a health economist and I work in government and I know a lot of the legal details of my job tasks because it’s my job. It is his job to know the details.…

The thing is she was lying, and the people she lied about got no protection from the press. I think the judge simply wants to avoid a circus in his courtroom, which is a legitimate reason to place the name under seal. But this person is not a victim and deserves no consideration as such.

I dunno, reading the Washington Post article alone is pretty embarrassing. Sanders is like the crazy old uncle that you kinda listen to when you’re younger but realize is a kook as you grow up:

First off, I’ve seen it. It was pretty good. So was the book. But they are no substitute for reading hundreds of Pooling & Servicing Agreements, which are the governing documents for those toxic mortgage bonds they described in that movie and pouring over gigabytes of raw performance data on the trillion plus dollars…

I am genuinely shocked by this interview. That’s not snark, or partisanship, or anything else. 26 years in Congress, all of them championing progressive goals, eight of them since the financial crisis, EIGHT YEARS as a sitting, working legislator during the financial crisis and you don’t even know the legal…

Yeah, stupid Hillary with her research and planning and policy and basically knowing all of her shit. It’s almost like there’s a ephemeral reason why she needs to always come off prepared and not wing it like the rest of the people in the election.

Yes, as Sady Doyle said, Sanders was making law for 27 years. How do you expect for him to know anything about laws? Or even how to ride the Metro in washington?

I find it truly entertaining that the NY Daily News was the one who finally pushed for specific explanations. I suspect this next debate is gonna be little more specific than the previous softballs Sanders footed previously. Every.Single.Time. he went into this breaking up the big banks issue I was like but HOW…

They are excoriating him for it because he demonstrated that he lacked basic knowledge on a topic he talks about constantly. He isn’t wrong about how the system is fucked, but it is a problem that he has zero interest in figuring out how to fix it beyond giving speeches. I like the guy, but this is a serious flaw of…

No, this interview really was a disaster, and now you’re trying to write off how bad it was. His only answer on trade was that he agrees with Trump! And you’re trying to bury it with the inconsequential crap about the subway? Sanders finally gets tested on his policy, fails spectacularly, and this is all you can…

I think Trump and Sanders supporters are equally out of their minds. Neither of these men have any clue what they’re doing or have put forth a reasonable plan for anything. They’re both just touting idealistic (whatever their sides’ ideals are) garbage. I imagine an argument between a Trump supporter and Bernie…

I recently read his tuition-free college plan and it’s crazy how it assumes that states will happily depend on Wall Street success in order to fund their universities (God forbid that economic downturns will happen).

My summary:

I think you kind of buried the lede on this. The president does not need to ride the subway. The president should have some concept of how they would execute their campaign promises.

So this is what it looks like when journalists finally start vetting Sanders, huh?

I’m just gonna say it: Sanders in an idiot.

Is it that much of an overstatement? It is one thing to not know specifics about every issue, but to not be able to coherently articulate an analysis and plan to deal with his main focus is concerning. That he talks about that issue 90% of the time makes his lack of comprehension even worse.

I assumed he was keeping…

Dude’s so goddamn vague about everything. I swear to god, I’ve seen a couple of speeches where he was actually more eloquent and informed about things. Is he trying to make it this generalised to keep up the whole optimistic “revolution” momentum going or what?

The man never expected to be this close. You can practically feel his panic in, “Oh SHIT, I actually have to explain how I’ll do it? I can’t just use my stump speech again?”

Or we could, you know, treat it on a case by case basis. When you determine that all of the facts surrounding the case are false, you can just go ahead and not provide the accuser (because victim is a word for people who have been victimized) any special protections.