Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president

As first you claim that capitalism has been the basis for America since its founding as an argument for capitalism, but claim when socialist policies were instated that it was a different America. This is terribly self-contradictory. I find it strange that you claim that sites that are funded largely by advertisement revenue, Twitter and Facebook, focus on the common man, when really their focus for making money is making the site appealing to companies that would wish to advertise there, and if companies such as Apple and Microsoft were more focused on the common man than the mighty American dollar, why do they use oversea factories for cheap labour and tax loopholes? Your point in terms of foreign policy that uniting nations to defeat a common enemy would make America a lesser power on the world stage is completely baseless. History shows us that in the World Wars, when The United States needed to ally with other nations to defeat the common enemy, is what made the United States rise to a superpower on the world stage. From then on, it's a slippery slope argument of IF Putin tries to mess with Europe, and IF America declines on a global stage.In Round 3, you reference the Treaty of Versailles. The Islamic State is not an established country, so it would be a fairer comparison to the rise of IS from American involvement in Iraq, which was a half baked plan based on false claims, which Sanders voted against. Finally, wouldn't a good president be more focused on its own citizens instead of the rest of the world's citizens first? I believe you are confused on how primaries and caucuses work. They are conducted in indirect elections, where each party has set delegates who vote, not the general public. Even if the general public were to vote in primaries, he has a hugely mobile following shown in situations such as when he was able to get 3,000 people to rally at a new New Hampshire university, five times as many as Clinton had gotten the previous day, so it sould not be unfair to say Sanders loyal following would make a high voting turnout. I also would like to make the presumption that by "Clinton Democrats" you mean establishment Democrats. It is also a long shot to say that Congress sould oppose Bernie's legislature, but would accept Clinton's legislature. Bernie's policies are incredibly popular with the American public, and as the campaigns are becoming more closely matched, Hillary Clinton has been adopting more of Sanders' policies, one of the most recent was her position on Citizen's United. Congress is already divided as it is, so Sanders would indeed need to work on more bi-partisan issues to advance legislature, but that is no different for any other candidate currently in the field. To say that the NSA [spying] would be able to occur under a Sanders presidency is nearly impossible, as Sanders opposed the bill (The Patriot Act) that allowed such spying. Also, to say his government would be corrupt, while he would be honest is also self-contradictory. My apologies on my remarks to embargoes, where I had mistaken Russia's frozen assets with embargoes, which I site here. http://feelthebern.org...