Bernie Sanders as President

As expected, Con has chosen to further pursue semantics games, arguing over what constitutes an argument and what doesn't, rather than address the two main arguments presented. Con also makes an additionally false, not to mention distracting, accusation. Con claims that "boundless citations" were provided for the main arguments which "only cited Bernie Sanders, there were no real use of facts/proof/evidence" Something is amiss here. Either Con has not bothered to check the citation which prove the points made by Bernie Sanders rather than direct to transcripts of his own words, as Con claims, or somebody must be tinkering with Con"s internet connection and he is being redirected to Bernie Sanders speeches. Perhaps malware is involved. "In addtion, in those lines, was there ever a single argument made to support why Bernie Sanders should be president, or were you implying that these are the problems in America and Bernie Sanders can solve them?" Both. It should go without saying, as the majority would agree, that the standard for President is the following: the individual who has a clear understanding of the problems facing a country and holds a clear vision as to how to solve those problems ought to be the leader of that country. Bernie Sanders, according to my argumentation, is the most qualified individual to be President of the United States because he meets those standards. "If so, then you have provided no real evidence, facts, or explanations on how he can change these things and be our next president." See ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION. It contains an explanation including fourteen citations of evidence. "Where are the numbers to support thid claim that Bernie Sanders has the most economically accurate and competent plan? There may be statisics brought up in the blog you cited, or the Physicians for a National Health Program (which has obvious bias by the look of the title), but where is it in your argument?" It is impossible to know how one should attempt to answer these two conflicting questions, as they seem to not only be contradicting each other, it seems obvious to me that the answer to the first question exists in the second question and the answer to the second question exists in the first question, once again, raising doubts as to what Con"s probing efforts are. Nevertheless, the citation that I provided gives explicit reasons and data to prove the competency of Sanders" economic plan. The PNHP cites multiple studies which support the overall economic plan. In addition to that, 170 economists have endorsed Sanders" economic plan as the best economic plan for the future of the United States. [1][2] "Many supporters of the system tend to glorify countries such as Canada, Britain, and Sweden who utilize it, when it is really plagued with issues. Most significantly in Canada, waiting list times have greatly increased while the lack of medical equipment has decreased." Yet the vast majority of Canadians and Britons are quite satisfied with their system and are not eager to switch to an American system. [3] It should go without saying that no system is perfect but a universal health care system would be a far better system than the current health care system in the United States, as it is more cost effective and better quality care. Con cites a Politfact article, but omits to factor in crucial information from Sanders' health care plan. "That's still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)." The article uses the cost of health care premiums and out of pocket expenses from 2013 which includes the profits made by insurance companies, thereby grossly inflating what the actual cost of health care services would be without insurance companies' profits factored in. Since premiums will be eliminated under Sanders' plan, the cost for health care services would be significantly lower which is covered by proposed operating revenue costs under Sanders' health care plan. "Also the article you cite states this: "Thorpe assumes huge increases in the utilization of care, increases far beyond those that were seen when national health insurance was implemented in Canada, and much larger than is possible given the supply of doctors and hospital beds." Which describes the exact problem with the system, lack of resources. See above." I have no idea why Con decided to cite this since it states the exact opposite of what he is arguing. "You counter saying that "poll after poll shows that the vast majority of.....etc." Where are the polls that state this? " See ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION - A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION "However, this support doesn't matter, even if he does get elected, partailly the vote will go by those who dislike Trump, the Republican frontrunner, over those who are actually Sanders supporters." "Tens of millions of people will resist any efforts by Bernie Sanders, justified or not, and the majority of America still reject socialist policies as a whole." As stated before, the vast majority of Americans want to see Bernie Sanders's policy proposals become law. For those citations see ARGUMENT 2: THE SOLUTION - A NEW DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE NEED FOR A POLITICAL REVOLUTION Furthermore, there are no mass efforts underway to reject Bernie Sanders' proposals as Con speculates would occur were he to be elected President. Some evidence is in order if Con continues to maintain otherwise. [1] http://www.inquisitr.com... [2] https://berniesanders.com... [3] http://www.gallup.com...