I took time out of my reading to respond to your concerns so I hope you'll actually take the time to think about the responses.

And I appreciate it. Let me preface my response by saying I'm not anti-Hillary, and if Clinton keeps up her pace I'll probably be voting for her in November. Immediately before posting the thread, I was looking at this website as a source for the information I posted.

So did a lot of progressive leaders in the Senate including Joe Biden. The Bush administration was lobbying them with everything they had sending CIA officers to impress upon them the dangers of not agreeing to the use of force. At the end of the day Obama who was also against it trusted her judgement enough to make her Secretary of State.

I've never heard of that, but if it's true that just signals to me a politician's willingness to be bullied, which isn't exactly a desirable quality. Obviously, a decision to go to war is tough. Maybe if I was a little older at the time and knew what was going on, I might have been in support of it. But at the end of the day, Sanders made a better judgement call.

Sanders was anti-Gay Marriage until 2009 which was a full year after Vermont legalized it. Sanders like all politicians evolved on the issue of gay rights.

I read and watched the link. If that's supposed to be a source for Sanders as anti-gay, that's not correct. The video is from 2006, and he says he that marriage is a state issue (which, let me say, I disagree with). He does not say he is anti gay marriage. Even if he's not a "pioneer" of LGBT rights, he's certainly had a better track record than Clinton.

I happen to support the TPP as it will bring much needed jobs to places around the world and lift up women in developing countries. Clinton backed out of her support for TPP after thoughtful analysis of the provisions in it. Sanders being against all trade agreements is not a positive the leader of the US should be able to think about issues in a much more nuanced way that Sanders has shown.

I'll go ahead and admit I'm not extremely familiar with the specifics of the deal, most of what I have heard about is from those against it. After some research, I can see it's certainly not the monster my Facebook feed makes it out to be. I can't say I'm convinced it's beneficial, but I think the deal is so large and complex I think I'd have to be an economist to have an educated opinion on whether it would be good for the US. However, the fact that Clinton flip-flopped on the issue isn't attractive, and I view Sander's stance as consistently looking out for American jobs.

You're misinformed. Bernie Sanders top recipient of outside spending.

After reading the article, and looking up exactly what a PAC is and how it operates, I agree. And I agree it is deceptive that Sanders does this while campaigning against money in politics.

You're again misinformed. POLITICS Hillary Clinton Proposes Sharp Rise in Some Capital-Gains Tax Rates

This is only on short term investments. During her 2008 campaign she stated she never intends to raise capital gains tax above what it was during Bill's presidency. Sander's proposes bringing capital gains tax in line with tax on work, which I agree with. Otherwise, you would be right, the statement "Clinton has never been in favor of raising capital-gains tax" is incorrect.

Again misinformed. Sanders is for single-payer. Hillary Clinton is for expanding PPACA to be full universal health care. They're both for UHC just accomplished by different means.

My understanding on this is correct. Clinton is not for a single-payer system that would universally cover all Americans. She would expand the existing system, where private insurance companies cover claims. Sanders is against this.

That's not Sanders position, you need to look that one up. His position has shifted since this time last year but I'm almost sure he didn't call for full decriminalziation correct me if I'm wrong.

Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act. Not a very creative name, but it gets the point across. Clinton is in favor of easing criminalization of some drugs, including marijuana, but has never mentioned fully decriminalizing it.

Clinton only supports capital punishment in extremely limited circumstances. (I.e. treason)

Here's an article I found regarding her stance. It's not really clear what exactly her stance is, but it's not anti-abolishment. In my opinion, there's not much review to be done. Since it came back in the '70's, we've seen it's racially-biased, expensive, and almost 150 death-row inmates have been exonerated. Time to get rid of it.

This is an outright lie, Sanders voted in 2009 to deny the President the funds needed to close GiTmo.

Sanders was one of few to vote to allow transfers of detainees in GTMO to be transferred to US prisons in order to close the prison in 2007. In 2009, he voted against it while waiting for a report Obama ordered regarding the legitimacy of trails conducted of some prisoners and what would happen to the prisoners after GTMO closed. Sanders has been in favor of closing it, and after some review, so has Clinton, though at times they've voted not to make efforts to close it. So my statement wasn't technically correct, but not entirely incorrect. But it's not really a valid point at separating the candidates.

Sanders foreign policy idea on Syria has been widely panned as being completely unrealistic. Saudi and Iranian troops aren't going to fight side by side against ISIS. Hillary Clinton's strategy is a continuation of Obama's by supporting our allies in the region in their fight against ISIS.

Here's a statement I've seen from Sanders: "I oppose, at this point, a unilateral American no-fly-zone in Syria, which could get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region."

After the debacles which were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm inclined to agree with Sanders. Especially because US operations in the region may actually be benefiting groups like ISIS.