It Is Sad To See Some Sanders Supporters Acting Like Clinton Supporters & Republicans

Sanders Clinton CNN

We are accustomed to seeing Clinton supporters spread misinformation, ignore facts, and try to prevent those they disagree with from expressing their views. It is a shame to see some Sanders supporters using the same tactics.

There are many valid sources of information about Hillary Clinton which are relevant to the campaign. There are also right wing sources which spread misinformation which Sanders supporters would be wise to stay away from. I recently found a Sanders supporter spreading bogus claims about Clinton, claiming that being on Coumadin should disqualify her from being president.

The claims were written by Jerome Corsi, one of the writers who spread the Swift Boat Lies against John Kerry. The article they linked to was one of many on the same topic posted by him at World Net Daily. The source is a second reason for Sanders supporters to be skeptical.The article uses pseudo-science to make claims which are contrary to current standards of medical care. The source of the information is a quack physician who lost his license due to holding views which could jeopardize the lives of his patients.

As both a physician and long-time Sanders supporter I attempted to correct this misinformation after it was reposted in the Progressive BERN Party Facebook group. Besides noting the medical fallacies in the argument and how untrustworthy the source was, I pointed out that if Sanders had a medical condition which required the use of such a medication we would be defending his ability to still be president.

There are enough valid arguments against Clinton being president. There is no benefit in repeating  bogus claims from the far right. This is true of this particular argument, as well as many others from right wing sources which are sometimes repeated by Sanders supporters.

The reaction at the Progressive BERN Party Facebook group was to ban me from the group after pointing out the medical facts. That is certainly an intellectually dishonest and cowardly way to respond to being corrected on the facts. We might expect such thinking from Clinton supporters, and from Republicans. Unfortunately it is also seen in some Sanders supporters. Besides, if the goal is to really promote a new political party along the lines of Sanders’ views, and in opposition to Clinton’s views, what sense does it make to ban someone who has been promoting such views for quite a long time? Sanders supporters should be seeking to broaden their groups, not play games such as this.


  1. 1
    Mike Hatcher says:

    It is both sad and discouraging how often zeal overtakes sound judgment in people. Sounds like the wisest vote might be for the baked potato. On a somewhat unrelated note, I heard this morning on NPR a study that seems to indicate that negative ads may promote men to act more than they promote women to act. The piece also mentioned a wide gap in Trump's popularity among men compared to women. It stopped short of what I thought the obvious conclusion, assuming the premise it true, it would stand to reason that a hyper-negative campaign on both sides would be one factor that would lean in Trump's favor.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Interesting that a hyper-negative campaign might help Trump, considering that this is what is expected. Regardless of whether this is true, there is little doubt that there will be a significant difference in the gender breakdown of voters for each candidate.

  3. 3
    Jerry Polverino says:

    II am having some difficulity understanding why democrats are willing to support the Clintons and their Wall Street connections in addition to her voting record.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I also find it hard to understand why so many Democrats are supporting Clinton when they opposed many of the same things she supports when done by Republicans. Partisanship/tribalism over principle.

  5. 5
    KP says:

    I am disturbed by a facebook group banning you for sharing 'reasonable medical certainty' outcomes; let alone an opinion.

    It reminds me a website we used to share where two commenters seem determined, over time, to have you banned.

    We have not agreed on some things in the past but I staunchly defend your space to verbalize facts and opinions.

    Having said all that, I am on Coumadin following a massive 'saddle' pulmonary embolism. I read yesterday that there is controversial data that suggests use of Coumadin over six or more years _may_ contribute to dementia. Is that the crux of the thread you were involved in?

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    They were concentrating on other issues, or non-issues with Coumadin. The article they were citing from World Net Daily is in the link on Jerome Corsi’s name.

    Of course the other website you are referring to is largely pro-Clinton and it was the Clinton supporters who drove me away. I expect this from Clinton supporters, but not from Sanders supporters.

    Arguing that being on Coumadin is not by itself reason why Clinton couldn’t be president is hardly an anti-Sanders message. Advising against using Jerome Corsi, World Net Daily, or a doctor who lost his license as the main source of information just seems like common sense.

    Keep in mind that there is a huge number of pro-Sanders Facebook groups so being banned by one means little, and very well reflects the actions of just one or two people who administrate the group.

Leave a comment