While I might not agree with everything Sanders says, word for word, there is wheat amongst the chaff. You've convinced yourself that everything he says is wrong and stupid. That speech is boilerplate social democrat rhetoric that wouldn't necessarily translate into policy while in office, although I don't doubt that he would have tried to implement at least some of it, had he been elected. While I grant that your views on economics don't begin and end with stock market performance, you seem to be fixated on business to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. Regardless of whether Sanders would be a good president, or not, Trump has proven that he is utterly unqualified - I don't need to go into detail on that, as it is quite obvious - so if Sanders had been the Dems candidate, I would have been forced to vote for him, as I see NO alternative.
Trump should be preparing his defence against the multitude of court cases he is going to be facing. However, there may be method to his demonstrable madness with the quixotic election legal challenges. He's fleecing his base for contributions, supposedly to finance said legal challenges, but more likely to line his and his family's pockets.
It is quite clear that we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. Fortunately, this discussion is purely academic - neither of them will be president on January 21st. But, I like these discussions, as it's good to see other perspectives on such matters.
While the Atlantic article might primarily concern corporations, the Guardian article looks at meritocracy in society as a whole.
