Instigator / Pro
Type1's avatar
6
Type1
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#609

Bernie Sanders is better than Hillary Clinton

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
oromagi's avatar
14
oromagi
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Type1's avatar
Type1
Pro
#1
My opponent would prefer that we have this debate within the context of the 2016 election, thus we will be contextualizing this around the political climate and the candidates' respective platforms during that specific election and the theoretical presidencies it could have resulted in. This debate is specifically about who would have made a better president, if that is not clear enough.

There are two primary reasons with many sub-reasons why Hillary is worse than Bernie Sanders.

1: She is far more corrupt than him.
 
Hillary is a liar, a fake progressive, and a power hungry tax dollar gobbling corporate sell-out deep state shill.

This video showcases some of Hillary Clinton's many flip-flops, which prove she is a fake progressive because she was literally barely different from a Republican in the 90s and only became superficially progressive (while still being just as authoritarian) because more progressive views were becoming more popular among Democrats.

Aside from being completely fake and only saying what she thinks will get her more power, Hillary is just another status quo politician. Which basically means...she's completely fake and only says what she thinks will get her more power. Bernie Sanders is not perfect, which I'm sure you will go to great lengths to point out, but at least he is a real progressive and will get things moving in the right (as in left) direction. Hillary, for lack of a better way of putting this, is a high ranking member of the Illuminati. What does this mean? Well, it means she is on the side of the super billionare class, the Kissingers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, all those people who control the government from behind closed doors with their huge massive stacks of money.

2: Her policies would not change things for the better as much as his would.

Universal healthcare and education is common sense for starters. Hillary's pseudo-progressive pussy footing is a joke. Her policy is to fidget-fuck around with Obamacare and the shitty education system until it halfway resembles a decent system while many countries are already way ahead of us.



If Hillary became president, you would see a whole lot of rhetoric and not much change. If it was Sanders, you would see change (but still a lot of rhetoric). She would basically just be Obama with a pussy and a creepy smile. A mainline Democrat virtue signaling about transgenders and whatnot while she lets wall street run wild and starts a nuclear war with Russia. Plus Hillary coughs a lot and can't get through a campaign speech without having a seizure.



oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#2

My opponent would prefer that we have this debate within the context of the 2016 election, thus we will be contextualizing this around the political climate and the candidates' respective platforms during that specific election and the theoretical presidencies it could have resulted in. This debate is specifically about who would have made a better president, if that is not clear enough.
Agreed & Thanks for the debate.
There are two primary reasons with many sub-reasons why Hillary is worse than Bernie Sanders.
That's it?  You're not even going to  say something nice about your boy Bernie?  Just Hillary's corrupt and moderate and then you're done?  Well OK, but that's not much of an argument.
1: She is far more corrupt than him.
Don't be so certain.   Hillary has been subjected to seven major investigations since 1992.  Whatever Hillary's ethical lapses, we can be fairly confident that we have seen her worst and her worst has at least never ammounted to much that might be called criminal. 

Bernie hasn't had to withstand so much scrutiny so we can't be so confident. 

We do now know from Mueller's findings in USA vs the Internet Research Agency (Putin's purpose built hacker team), that Russian oligarchs strongly supported Bernie via Social Media and illegal foreign donations.  Support from Russia that Bernie's campaign clearly failed to acknowledge or report as is required by law.  

 "43.
By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
a.
On or about February 10, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted to ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).” [1]

Here's Bernie last year denying any Russian support and blaming Hillary for DNC hacks.  [2]  Were there meetings?  How much Russian money was donated?  How much Russian money was returned?   If Sanders were POTUS, it now seems at least possible that there might still have been some kind of Mueller investigation into possible Russian collusion. 

We know Bernie raised and spent more money than any other 2016 primary candidate- more than Trump or Hillary.  We know the Bernie 2016 got hit 3 times with  FEC fines for failing to catch checks that exceeded max donor limits, was fined for taking illegal foreign donations, finded for failing to itemize millions of dollars in donations. [3]

Vermont's US Attorney may have recently declined to press charges against Bernie's wife Joan for perpetrating the loan fraud that bankrupted Burlington College while she President but there seems to be little denial that it was Jane Sanders who falsified the numbers and who was forced to resign after the school failed to make even the first month's payment on an overambitious, underinsured loan.  Jane also purchased $500,000 worth of woodworking classes from her daughter's business while President.

Nor am I convinced that the least corrupt candidate is always the best type of leader.  Kennedy and Reagan were significantly more corrupt than their opponents but they were popular and remain well-remembered despite the corruption. 

So let's say that the degree of Bernie's corruption is as yet an undetermined variable and also not particularly determinative in the question of presidentialness.

Hillary is a liar, a fake progressive, and a power hungry tax dollar gobbling corporate sell-out deep state shill.
generic ad-hominins applicable to most politicians.  Got anything specific?
 
This video showcases some of Hillary Clinton's many flip-flops, which prove she is a fake progressive because she was literally barely different from a Republican in the 90s and only became superficially progressive (while still being just as authoritarian) because more progressive views were becoming more popular among Democrats.
This kind of flip-flop is absolutely required of any successful modern presidential candidate.  Candidates must appeal to the base in the primaries, appeal to the center during the general.  Let's remember that Hillary was raised Republican.  She left the Republican party because of GOP racism, not because she changed her mind about small governments or big armies.  Hillary is reformed Republican which is what makes her a moderate that can make a deal with the Republican caucus.
Aside from being completely fake and only saying what she thinks will get her more power, Hillary is just another status quo politician. Which basically means...she's completely fake and only says what she thinks will get her more power.
Circular sentence.  Aside from being fake she's also fake.  More generic ad-homs.

Bernie Sanders is not perfect, which I'm sure you will go to great lengths to point out, but at least he is a real progressive and will get things moving in the right (as in left) direction.
How is that?  Bernie is not just not perfect he's also not a Democrat.  Getting things moving implies legislation, which implies popular support.  The Democratic Establishment owes nothing to Bernie, neither does the GOP.  HIllary, like her husband, understands the value of making progress by the increments of the middle road.  Progressivism implies progress and progress in a democracy is made by compromise.  

Hillary, for lack of a better way of putting this, is a high ranking member of the Illuminati. What does this mean? Well, it means she is on the side of the super billionare class, the Kissingers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, all those people who control the government from behind closed doors with their huge massive stacks of money.
Pro has really lost the plot at this point.  The last Rockefeller in politics retired in 2015.  The Rothschilds were never in politics but are famously the target of many wide-ranging anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.  Pro should explain in detail the ways Hillary Clinton is "on the side of the Rothschilds."  If by "Kissingers," Pro intends Henry Kissinger (another oft-hated Jew), then I would say Clinton's world view very likely overlaps with Kissinger's world view to an important degree.  I don't think many Republicans would object strongly to a Clinton foreign policy modeled on Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.  That's a good thing, I think.  A relatively uncontested foreign policy is an advantage for the world's last superpower.
2: Her policies would not change things for the better as much as his would.  Universal healthcare and education is common sense for starters. Hillary's pseudo-progressive pussy footing is a joke. Her policy is to fidget-fuck around with Obamacare and the shitty education system until it halfway resembles a decent system while many countries are already way ahead of us.
If Bernie can't get legislation passed and Hillary can than it  is her policies alone that might make a change that counts towards progress  while his policies would lie unconsidered. Bernie can endorse universal health coverage all he wants but with this present Congress Bernie never gets it to the floor.  Obamacare is Hillarycare to a significant degree-  legislation that reworked Bob Dole healthcare proposal which was itself a reworking of Hillary's 1993 proposal.  Yes, Bernie's proposal  is better but it's never  going nowhere so it counts for nothing.  Hillary has already gotten many good health and education improvements passed and as a moderate POTUS would actually stand a chance of continued improvement.

If Hillary became president, you would see a whole lot of rhetoric and not much change. If it was Sanders, you would see change (but still a lot of rhetoric). She would basically just be Obama with a pussy and a creepy smile.
I'd be pretty happy voting for Obama with a pussy.  Obama had one of the highest end-of-term approval ratings any president has enjoyed.  He managed a number of historic crises with cool compassion, a sense of humor and yes, excellent rhetoric.  Most of politics is rhetoric, that's why future politicians study debate.  Pro needs to give some reason why he thinks Bernie has some agenda Mitch McConnell would be willing to consider.  I don't think Bernie has anything McConnell might approve, that's what makes Bernie useless.

A mainline Democrat virtue signaling about transgenders
Mainline good.  Transgenders good.  Virtue Signaling is defined as the conspicuous expression of moral values, which is also an essential test of most political campaigns.  If a candidate want to be elected, some conspicuous expression of moral values is going to be required.  So all this is fine and necessary.

and whatnot while she lets wall street run wild
Yeah, but a good President doesn't want to regulate the financial sector to hard, either or the money for investment dries up, goes elsewhere.  Any POTUS hoping to reform Wall Street must come as a fiend.  
and starts a nuclear war with Russia.
Following the money, it is clear that Putin was terrified of Hillary as President: more terrified than Obama and certainly more terrified than Sanders.  That position of fear would likely be far more effective than Bernie's grumpy Larry David impression.

Plus Hillary coughs a lot and can't get through a campaign speech without having a seizure.
Sexist BS.  We could put Hillary in a cage with Bernie and we all know she'd kick his stoop-shouldered ass.  Bernie's only 4 years older than Hillary but Bernie's parents died young 1960/1962.  Hillary's mom lived 60 years longer than Bernie's mom.






Round 2
Type1's avatar
Type1
Pro
#3
That's it?  You're not even going to  say something nice about your boy Bernie?  Just Hillary's corrupt and moderate and then you're done?  Well OK, but that's not much of an argument.
Well if you want me to say some nice things about Bernie, here you are:

1: Bernie Sanders has a relatively clean record for a politician, with few scandals or signs of corruption.

2: Bernie Sanders is not a fake progressive who is willing to fondle the balls of corporations.

3: Bernie Sanders has an actual progressive platform which would bring meaningful changes.

4: Bernie Sanders is not a child molester.


Don't be so certain.   Hillary has been subjected to seven major investigations since 1992.  Whatever Hillary's ethical lapses, we can be fairly confident that we have seen her worst and her worst has at least never ammounted to much that might be called criminal. 

Bernie hasn't had to withstand so much scrutiny so we can't be so confident. 
First of all Bernie has never done anything to warrant criminal investigation, the fact that you think Hillary constantly being the target of criminal investigations is a good sign is concerning. Don't you think it's a little fishy that Hillary is constantly being accused of shady activity and narrowly escapes indictment every time? Either she must be a criminal who has the support of other powerful criminals or she just has really rotten luck huh? It obviously must be the latter, I mean it's not like career politicians with former careers as corporate lawyers were ever involved in scandals or corrupt activity right? I feel unpatriotic and unamerican just thinking about it.


But as for the Russia-Bernie connection, it's not as if he actually colluded with Russia, some suspected Russian propaganda trolls supported him on the internet. As for everything else, poorly managing campaign funds is not corruption either. What is corruption is selling weapons to genocidal dictators:
and fondling the wrinkled nutsack of war criminal super-beorgiosie psychopaths
generic ad-hominins applicable to most politicians.  Got anything specific?
Hillary is a liar,
see Hillary's flip-flops.
a fake progressive,
See Hillary's pro-corporations pro-wallstreet-bankster platform.
and a power hungry tax dollar gobbling corporate sell-out deep state shill.
See Hillary's entire career. Hillary has proved that she will say anything to obtain more power by changing her opinion in perfect accordance with what seems popular. Hillary is in bed with wallstreet and with the deep state on every level.

How is that?  Bernie is not just not perfect he's also not a Democrat.  Getting things moving implies legislation, which implies popular support.  The Democratic Establishment owes nothing to Bernie, neither does the GOP.  HIllary, like her husband, understands the value of making progress by the increments of the middle road.  Progressivism implies progress and progress in a democracy is made by compromise.  
Democrats are not democrats, they are establishment centrists and that is exactly the problem. Bernie Sanders is not a democrat or a "democratic socialist" but technically his policies should be called "social democracy".


"Middle of the road" is code for "maintaining the status quo while maintaining the illusion of progress". The one who would change the system is the one who is progressive, not the one who would serve as another paddle on the ping pong table of progress serving the ball right back to the cunts she claims to oppose who have the same exact ideology as her.





oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#4

My opponent would prefer that we have this debate within the context of the 2016 election, thus we will be contextualizing this around the political climate and the candidates' respective platforms during that specific election and the theoretical presidencies it could have resulted in. This debate is specifically about who would have made a better president, if that is not clear enough.
Agreed & Thanks for the debate.

There are two primary reasons with many sub-reasons why Hillary is worse than Bernie Sanders.
That's it?  You're not even going to  say something nice about your boy Bernie?  Just Hillary's corrupt and moderate and then you're done?  Well OK, but that's not much of an argument.

Well if you want me to say some nice things about Bernie, here you are:
1: Bernie Sanders has a relatively clean record for a politician, with few scandals or signs of corruption.
2: Bernie Sanders is not a fake progressive who is willing to fondle the balls of corporations.
3: Bernie Sanders has an actual progressive platform which would bring meaningful changes.
4: Bernie Sanders is not a child molester.
Wow.  After prompting, the best positive recommendation that  Pro can offer is that Bernie is a Progressive. 

The other 3 qualifications (not a crook, not fake, and not a child molester) are shared by any newborn child so they don't really amount to items on a presidential resume.  I find Pro's weakness on the specifics fairly typical of Sanders supporters:  they really haven't thought much about Sander's suggestions for socialist reform or how Sanders might implement such policy within a two-party political system from which Bernie stands aloof.

For example, Bernie's 2016 tax plan increased taxes more than $5000 on an income of $50,000/yr.  But only 3% of Bernie voters were willing to pay that amount for health and education reform, according to a Vox poll that year. [1]  In fact, the same poll found that a full 2/3rds of Bernie's supporters would oppose any tax increase over $1000/yr. That is, in the context of a hypothetical Sander's administration,  only 3% of Sander's 2016 primary voters would actually support Sander's signature reform legislation, less than 1% support from taxpayers overall. 

To claim the mantle of Progressive, a politician must have a plan for progress.  Any plan that polls under 1% is incapable of progress now, incapable of progress for a long time to come and is therefore, by definition, not Progressive.  It is clear that Sander's presidency would have imploded right around the time of the first tax hike.

1: She is far more corrupt than him.
Don't be so certain.   Hillary has been subjected to seven major investigations since 1992.  Whatever Hillary's ethical lapses, we can be fairly confident that we have seen her worst and her worst has at least never ammounted to much that might be called criminal.
Bernie hasn't had to withstand so much scrutiny so we can't be so confident.
First of all Bernie has never done anything to warrant criminal investigation
No?  Here' a picture of Bernie getting arrested in 1963: https://binged.it/2urHeHG 

He pled guilty to resisting arrest.  Bernie was a white civil rights activist in 1963 travelling to multiple states to organize rallies and acts of civil disobedience.  We can feel pretty confident that Herbert Hoover's FBI took a long look at Bernie's civil rights activism in Chicago.  They probably investigated him again during his anti-war period.  We can't know for sure that the CIA took a look at Bernie's honeymoon spent in the Soviet Union or his meetings with revolutionary communists in Nicaragua or his illegal trips to Cuba but all those seems like pretty good bets, too.  It is reasonable to assume that some number of undisclosed  investigations are out there, and we just have not seen them yet.  Bernie knows that and hasn't forced disclosure- which means some reports are potentially unflattering.

And of course, the $10 million bank loan default that ended Burlington College also warranted a criminal investigation into Sanders, which wrapped up without charges last November. [2]

 the fact that you think Hillary constantly being the target of criminal investigations is a good sign is concerning. Don't you think it's a little fishy that Hillary is constantly being accused of shady activity and narrowly escapes indictment every time?

No- shady and fishy and narrow escapes are entirely your embellishments, unsustained by evidence. Are you accusing the ten Republican congressional inquiries into Benghazi of letting Hillary get away with something?   Do you really think that anybody actually believes that Hillary Clinton shot her friend Vince Foster?  Do you really think that anybody actually believes that Hillary was pimping out children out of a popular DC pizza place?  Of course not.  What's the very worst Clinton might ever be authentically accused of?  Sending insecure emails?  Understaffing an underfunded embassy? Hillary is constantly investigated because the GOP has correctly perceived to her to be a formidable antagonist.  Hillary is also constantly vindicated, even if for no more reason than a life lived under such scrutiny forces careful adherence to the rules.

The point is with Bernie that nobody ever found crimes worth charging past acts of civil disobedience.  Hillary has likewise been investigated & cleared. 

The point is that Bernie's 2016 coverage was so rose-tinted (83% positive stories in 2016) there just wasn't  much of a market for Freedom of Information Act requests against Bernie's prior investigations.    It seems very likely there are some reports yet to uncover and we don't know what those reports might contain. 

The point is at least with Hillary (16% positive stories in 2016) we've likely scoured the closet skeleton-free. [3]

I feel unpatriotic and unamerican just thinking about it.
That's on you, buddy.

But as for the Russia-Bernie connection, it's not as if he actually colluded with Russia, some suspected Russian propaganda trolls supported him on the internet.
Well, how we do really know without an investigation?   If Sanders were president, a Sanders-Mueller type of  investigation would be underway with Fox News raging about Russian influence. Hillary would not have a Russian influence investigation which is a decided advantage in her favor vs. Bernie.

As for everything else, poorly managing campaign funds is not corruption either. What is corruption is selling weapons to genocidal dictators:
I can't think of a Secretary of State who has not authorized weapons sales to dictators.  We sold weapons to Germany and Japan before WW2.  We sold tanks and planes to Stalin before the Cold War.  Before the Gulf War, US administrations  sold Saddam Hussein arms half a billion dollars worth of WMD tech, including strains of anthrax and smallpox.  If all Secretaries of State are alike in your definition of corruption, then perhaps your standard of corruption is too sensitive to accommodate the realpolitik of maintaining superpower status with less than 5% of the Earth's population.  If Bernie's platform is to yield our position as top arms manufacturer to China, along with the influence we maintain by those sales, then he has yet to say so.  If Bernie wants to be POTUS, then he will almost certainly need to sometimes sell weapons to assholes.

and fondling the wrinkled nutsack of war criminal super-beorgiosie psychopaths
Kissinger if generally considered the most effective and influential Secretary of State after WW2.  His policies were very consistent with the policies of his predecessor and successors yet those Statesmen are rarely criticized. The 1954 Guatemalan coup supported by John Foster Dulles, for example, saw 200,000 leftists executed compared to Pinochet's 2,200.  Why is Dulles not therefore a hundred times more the war criminal then Kissinger?  In a debate where the Rothschilds have already been mentioned, the principle objection to Kissinger has nothing to do with foreign policy.

We do now know from Mueller's findings in USA vs the Internet Research Agency (Putin's purpose built hacker team), that Russian oligarchs strongly supported Bernie via Social Media and illegal foreign donations.  Support from Russia that Bernie's campaign clearly failed to acknowledge or report as is required by law. 
 "43.
By 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used their fictitious online personas to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
a.
On or about February 10, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators internally circulated an outline of themes for future content to be posted to ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).” [1]
Here's Bernie last year denying any Russian support and blaming Hillary for DNC hacks.  [2]  Were there meetings?  How much Russian money was donated?  How much Russian money was returned?   If Sanders were POTUS, it now seems at least possible that there might still have been some kind of Mueller investigation into possible Russian collusion.

We know Bernie raised and spent more money than any other 2016 primary candidate- more than Trump or Hillary.  We know the Bernie 2016 got hit 3 times with  FEC fines for failing to catch checks that exceeded max donor limits, was fined for taking illegal foreign donations, finded for failing to itemize millions of dollars in donations. [3]
Vermont's US Attorney may have recently declined to press charges against Bernie's wife Joan for perpetrating the loan fraud that bankrupted Burlington College while she President but there seems to be little denial that it was Jane Sanders who falsified the numbers and who was forced to resign after the school failed to make even the first month's payment on an overambitious, underinsured loan.  Jane also purchased $500,000 worth of woodworking classes from her daughter's business while President.

Nor am I convinced that the least corrupt candidate is always the best type of leader.  Kennedy and Reagan were significantly more corrupt than their opponents but they were popular and remain well-remembered despite the corruption.

So let's say that the degree of Bernie's corruption is as yet an undetermined variable and also not particularly determinative in the question of presidentialness.

Hillary is a liar, a fake progressive, and a power hungry tax dollar gobbling corporate sell-out deep state shill.

generic ad-hominins applicable to most politicians.  Got anything specific?

Hillary is a liar,
see Hillary's flip-flops.
a fake progressive,
See Hillary's pro-corporations pro-wallstreet-bankster platform.
and a power hungry tax dollar gobbling corporate sell-out deep state shill.
See Hillary's entire career. Hillary has proved that she will say anything to obtain more power by changing her opinion in perfect accordance with what seems popular. Hillary is in bed with wallstreet and with the deep state on every level.
Sooo…. that's a no, then.

This video showcases some of Hillary Clinton's many flip-flops, which prove she is a fake progressive because she was literally barely different from a Republican in the 90s and only became superficially progressive (while still being just as authoritarian) because more progressive views were becoming more popular among Democrats.

This kind of flip-flop is absolutely required of any successful modern presidential candidate.  Candidates must appeal to the base in the primaries, appeal to the center during the general.  Let's remember that Hillary was raised Republican.  She left the Republican party because of GOP racism, not because she changed her mind about small governments or big armies.  Hillary is reformed Republican which is what makes her a moderate that can make a deal with the Republican caucus.
Aside from being completely fake and only saying what she thinks will get her more power, Hillary is just another status quo politician. Which basically means...she's completely fake and only says what she thinks will get her more power.
Circular sentence.  Aside from being fake she's also fake.  More generic ad-homs.
Bernie Sanders is not perfect, which I'm sure you will go to great lengths to point out, but at least he is a real progressive and will get things moving in the right (as in left) direction.
How is that?  Bernie is not just not perfect he's also not a Democrat.  Getting things moving implies legislation, which implies popular support.  The Democratic Establishment owes nothing to Bernie, neither does the GOP.  HIllary, like her husband, understands the value of making progress by the increments of the middle road.  Progressivism implies progress and progress in a democracy is made by compromise. 

Democrats are not democrats, they are establishment centrists and that is exactly the problem. Bernie Sanders is not a democrat or a "democratic socialist" but technically his policies should be called "social democracy".


"Middle of the road" is code for "maintaining the status quo while maintaining the illusion of progress". The one who would change the system is the one who is progressive, not the one who would serve as another paddle on the ping pong table of progress serving the ball right back to the cunts she claims to oppose who have the same exact ideology as her.
The Ancient Greeks, when they founded democracy, believed that the best way forward was by achievement of the "golden mean"- the middle ground that permits the synthesis of polarized elements.  Bill Clinton called it triangulation- stand in the middle ground then push a little left.  Ronald Reagan would say to Tip O'Neil "I will take half a loaf today, but I will come back for the other half tomorrow.”

That's how democracies work.  That's how American democracy was founded.  The US Constitution is no radical's manifesto: in fact, everybody hated something about the final result.  France's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" is far more radical, what Pro might call Progressive, but of the two documents the compromised  Constitution allowed for 80 years of US growth before the resolution of slavery while the superior Rights of Man resulted In radical counter-reaction, so the French had to wait through 8 more monarchs, more wars and civil wars and revolutions until achieving a stable democracy.  Rocking the boat too far to one side is often mistaken for progress just before the ship sinks.

Hillary, for lack of a better way of putting this, is a high ranking member of the Illuminati. What does this mean? Well, it means she is on the side of the super billionare class, the Kissingers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, all those people who control the government from behind closed doors with their huge massive stacks of money.
Pro has really lost the plot at this point.  The last Rockefeller in politics retired in 2015.  The Rothschilds were never in politics but are famously the target of many wide-ranging anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.  Pro should explain in detail the ways Hillary Clinton is "on the side of the Rothschilds."  If by "Kissingers," Pro intends Henry Kissinger (another oft-hated Jew), then I would say Clinton's world view very likely overlaps with Kissinger's world view to an important degree.  I don't think many Republicans would object strongly to a Clinton foreign policy modeled on Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.  That's a good thing, I think.  A relatively uncontested foreign policy is an advantage for the world's last superpower.

 Her policies would not change things for the better as much as his would.  Universal healthcare and education is common sense for starters. Hillary's pseudo-progressive pussy footing is a joke. Her policy is to fidget-fuck around with Obamacare and the shitty education system until it halfway resembles a decent system while many countries are already way ahead of us.
If Bernie can't get legislation passed and Hillary can than it  is her policies alone that might make a change that counts towards progress  while his policies would lie unconsidered. Bernie can endorse universal health coverage all he wants but with this present Congress Bernie never gets it to the floor.  Obamacare is Hillarycare to a significant degree-  legislation that reworked Bob Dole healthcare proposal which was itself a reworking of Hillary's 1993 proposal.  Yes, Bernie's proposal  is better but it's never  going nowhere so it counts for nothing.  Hillary has already gotten many good health and education improvements passed and as a moderate POTUS would actually stand a chance of continued improvement.
If Hillary became president, you would see a whole lot of rhetoric and not much change. If it was Sanders, you would see change (but still a lot of rhetoric). She would basically just be Obama with a pussy and a creepy smile.
I'd be pretty happy voting for Obama with a pussy.  Obama had one of the highest end-of-term approval ratings any president has enjoyed.  He managed a number of historic crises with cool compassion, a sense of humor and yes, excellent rhetoric.  Most of politics is rhetoric, that's why future politicians study debate.  Pro needs to give some reason why he thinks Bernie has some agenda Mitch McConnell would be willing to consider.  I don't think Bernie has anything McConnell might approve, that's what makes Bernie useless.
A mainline Democrat virtue signaling about transgenders
Mainline good.  Transgenders good.  Virtue Signaling is defined as the conspicuous expression of moral values, which is also an essential test of most political campaigns.  If a candidate want to be elected, some conspicuous expression of moral values is going to be required.  So all this is fine and necessary.

and whatnot while she lets wall street run wild
Yeah, but a good President doesn't want to regulate the financial sector too hard or the money for investment goes elsewhere.  Any POTUS hoping to reform Wall Street must come as a fiend. 
and starts a nuclear war with Russia.
Following the money, it is clear that Putin was terrified of Hillary as President: more terrified than Obama and certainly more terrified than Sanders.  That position of fear would likely be far more effective than Bernie's grumpy Larry David impression.

Plus Hillary coughs a lot and can't get through a campaign speech without having a seizure.
Sexist BS.  We could put Hillary in a cage with Bernie and we all know she'd kick his stoop-shouldered ass.  Bernie's only 4 years older than Hillary but Bernie's parents died young 1960/1962.  Hillary's mom lived 60 years longer than Bernie's mom.
Pro has dropped the final third of the round although the arguments are sufficiently repetitive that we're not missing much in terms of response.  









Round 3
Type1's avatar
Type1
Pro
#5
Forfeited
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
Con
#6
Pro has forfeited and apparently left the site.  I'm afraid we haven't left much of a debate for reader's interest. 

I'll just point out that the highest praise Pro offered for Bernie was that he was Progressive.  Political position does not make a good candidate nor does it elevate one candidate above another. 

Con offered several arguments why Bernie was not necessarily a better candidate than Clinton.  Bernie's reputation has enjoyed the advantage of not being tested.  Most of Bernie's supporters have not seriously considered how ineffective a Presidency can be without the backing of party power.  Most of Bernie's supporters have not seriously considered the public response to a major tax increase.  Pro chose instead to concentrate on insulting Clinton without much warrant and made little in the way of constructive reply to my counters. 

Please vote Con with my thanks for your kind attention.