I'm ready for a revolution

[BainsBane]

162. Low?

After months of hearing Sanders and his supporters go on about the 1-99 percent, about "revolution," it's "low" to criticize a super rich person who lectures the poor and middle class about "revolution." No. I disagree. I do not believe Hollywood movie stars more important than the rest of the citizenry and I do not believe they should be immune from criticism. I believe when people talk about revolution, they should think about what it really means and that pointing out hypocrisy is entirely justified.

Low was attacking the mother of Trayvon Martin for refusing to endorse a man who has repeatedly voted against gun control. Low was calling a civil rights icon, Dolores Huerta, a liar. Low was aligning with pro-life groups in trying to strip Planned Parenthood of funding and deprive the poorest women in America of access to reproductive healthcare all because they failed to endorse a politician. Low is pretending to stand for corporate accountability while justifying blanket immunity for gun corporations. Low is claiming not to have super pacs when the fact is exactly the opposite, and supporters showing absolutely no concern that they've been deceived for months on end. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ Low is supporting a campaign strategy that focuses on overturning the results of elections by flipping earned delegates and installing someone in power over the democratic will of the people. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452

Criticizing a campaign surrogate for her hypocrisy is not low. I do not share the view articulated by too many that some Americans are more equal and therefore should be immune from criticism.