Bill Clinton Makes Fun Of Bernie Sanders Supporters

[kaleckim]

170. Explain

So, I am arguing that the debate over whether we can break up the banks is complex and the heart of this debate, as is the argument over whether or not there are sound economic reasons for doing so. Sanders has not only been heavily involved in this debate, he has led it. Without him, we wouldn't be having it. To say he lacks substance is absurd on its face, a clear example of attacking a perceived strength of his. You are arguing that it is more important to explain the details on how it would occur (which, by the way, he was far more accurate on during that interview than the right wing Daily News was, and said essentially the same exact thing that Clinton did when asked. Prove otherwise). Explain the logic.

I realize that team Clinton says this stuff, and your job is to repeat their talking points, but I want you to flesh out the logic. First explain how what he said was inaccurate or that different from what Clinton said when asked. Then explain why that is more important than whether or not we could or should break them up. It is a nonsense attack, and you are incapable of doing anything more than repeating the talking points fed to you.