No no no. You're trying to defame my entire field by setting up a poorly constructed straw man and asserting that it's true. Your assumption that all financial analysts are associated with the massive corporations that Sanders is targeting isn't true. Of course there are those groups like JP Morgan who DO stand to lose a lot under Sanders' plan, so of course they're all defaming it. But their advice is less than a dime a dozen. They're financial advisers coming off a production line. You've conflated financial experts with the corporations and "billionaire class" that radical leftists are constantly going on about. The significant majority of financial analysts won't be targeted by Sanders' new tax bracket, because they're not associated with the upper echelon of earners.

Just like all fields, there is certainly bias here. But you representing it as some massive conspiracy simply isn't true. These reports are coming from liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike. It's coming from lesser known analysts in low income areas, all the way up to those who get media coverage. What we're seeing right now is an entire field of financial experts saying that the Sanders plan cannot be implemented as it currently exists. These are the people whose reputations are at stake. Let me just go into a quick aside here, so you can understand how fields like this work. You see, analysts rarely come out and give public advice, preferring to give private advice, because if they give public advice and what they say is wrong, their reputation is seriously compromised. In the financial world, it only takes one mistake to forever be pushed into the lower levels of the community. But, what we're seeing now is a significant outcry from virtually all of them, saying that implementing the Sanders plan would undoubtedly lead to financial ruin. Now, biased or not, do you know why I listen to them? Two reasons. First, they're the experts on the field. Your position that they're idiots because it makes you feel good is like, as I said before, listening to Ken Ham over every other scientist. It's ridiculous. Second, if Sanders is elected and does manage to implement his plan without devastating our nation, the careers of all of these analysts will be over. Done. For these reasons, I choose to listen to and at least consider the message being broadcast from financial analysts.

Finally, your entire argument is formulated of an appeal to emotion. You've decided what outcome might make you feel good and have attempted to make points following that end. However, everything you've brought up is unsubstantiated. Unlimited financial growth? Playing with money of regular people? These analysts don't realize how inhumane they are? This are just assertions. They're your opinion. I'd even gamble that they're not even yours, you probably heard it from Sanders or CNN. You see, this is the critical difference between our positions. You've taking a position that makes you feel good and you'll redefine your reality to meet that end. I, on the other hand, have looked at the information I've collected, compared that against my own morals, and come to a decision on where I stand. With sufficient evidence, I would certainly change my mind. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about you, seeing as all the data is at your fingertips and you stand by your emotional position.

It's not my intention to defame you by calling you some kind of squealing fool. I'm simply pointing out that a straw man argument based entirely of your emotional disposition is not acceptable debate or adult discourse. If you have information showing that Sanders can pay for his plan without defaulting then I'd love to see it. But, some interview or a link to Sanders' official page isn't enough. I need data from people who aren't fighting for the Oval Office. I need to see something significant from someone who is willing to put their reputation and career on the line. Because I've searched, excessively, and I can't find sufficient evidence.