Bernie Sanders Colluded With Russia To Beat Hillary

[JasperL]

This is your opinion....Again I disagree. Bernie had a TON of momentum not sure what primary you were watching.

Sure, but that's in large part because he was never a threat to win the nomination and so wasn't ever the subject of any attention by the big boys, or girls with Hillary's people. She needed his voters and the GOP were happy as pigs in slop with him splitting the party through the convention - served their purposes quite nicely.

What would his 'momentum' have been with $300 million in attack ads running non-stop, first during primaries by Democrats who want to win as badly as he does, and then if he wins that, the GOP PR machine with unlimited dark money funds trashing him 24/7, none of which he faced at all in 2016? Who knows, but we can't be naive and pretend nothing would have changed if he'd actually ever been a real threat to win the Democratic nomination, which he just NEVER was.

I've liked Bernie for a long time, listened to him for years on Thom Hartmann's show, Brunch with Bernie, every Friday, voted for him in the primary here in Tennessee, but IMO his popularity on a national scale, at least in the context of a Presidential run, is at best completely untested and unknown.

 

[JasperL]

I'm actually inclined to agree with this point. Every time I see Bernie deal with folks who question or debate him, I lose the impression of the friendly dad figure. He gets cranky and has trouble finding his points. I'd like to back this up with vids, but it's late and I'm very tired. I will remember to look in the morning. It's more of an impression though. He is charming when giving a speech. Less so when he is in a debate situation.

I'm not sure I agree. He was on Thom Hartmann's radio show for years, every Friday, for an hour, and he's quite adept at talking off the cuff on a wide range of issues. Maybe he's lost a little bit of that with age, but he's spent a career as a politician who is always doing town hall formats as well, and those if they're run correctly are as off the cuff as politicians get these days. Could be in some formats with some hosts he didn't do as well, because their job might be to make people look bad, but in general he's pretty comfortable in a free flowing format.

 

[OriginRobot]

Hey man you have to back up your claims with hard evidence. It's okay to make statements like these but you need to back it up with some kind of source.

 

[Nemiroff]

but ultimately couldn't overcome Hillary's and the DNC's election meddling.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-feel-bern-2020-202851088.html

Is the dishonest trolling used in the OP a reportable offense? He completely made up his claim and put in a random link with no relevance?

I'm all for mixed opinions, but putting up random clickbait hoping people only read the title is pathetic. This type of stuff should be moderated. Maybe kept in the April fools forum or something.

 

[NeverTrump]

Is the dishonest trolling used in the OP a reportable offense? He completely made up his claim and put in a random link with no relevance?

I'm all for mixed opinions, but putting up random clickbait hoping people only read the title is pathetic. This type of stuff should be moderated. Maybe kept in the April fools forum or something.

It should be but I doubt anything will happen. It's interesting the the OP hasn't been back and we've had a pretty great discussion about Sanders without the partisan BS since.

 

[tres borrachos]

but ultimately couldn't overcome Hillary's and the DNC's election meddling.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-feel-bern-2020-202851088.html

Is there any particular reason that after reading your link, twice, I can't find a single thing - word, sentence, innuendo - that backs up the subject line of this thread?

 

[Moderate Right]

What does the thread title have to do with the story in the link?

Well, Russia tried to get Trump elected and the left called it the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians in order to get Trump elected over Hillary. This story says that Russia also tried to influence the primary election so that Bernie could beat Hillary. Therefore, Bernie's campaign must be guilty of colluding with the Russians in order to beat Hillary. Fortunately for Hillary though, her and the DNC's cheating was enough to overcome this.

 

[Moderate Right]

Misleading headline from you Not-Moderate. B/C Bernie Sanders got more support via the Anti-Hillary Russian Propaganda that doesn't mean that he actively sought out help from Russia and your article doesn't say he colluded.

But but but Democrats keep on saying there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election. To date, there hasn't been one spec of evidence of that.

 

[Keridan]

I'm not sure I agree. He was on Thom Hartmann's radio show for years, every Friday, for an hour, and he's quite adept at talking off the cuff on a wide range of issues. Maybe he's lost a little bit of that with age, but he's spent a career as a politician who is always doing town hall formats as well, and those if they're run correctly are as off the cuff as politicians get these days. Could be in some formats with some hosts he didn't do as well, because their job might be to make people look bad, but in general he's pretty comfortable in a free flowing format.

Please understand that I don't mean anything too dramatic. He doesn't have meltdowns like Trump. I just feel he gets rougher and has trouble coming up with his points (or maybe just articulating them). You could very well be right. I'm actually having trouble finding the clips that gave me that impression this morning anyway.

 

[Moderate Right]

That article has nothing to do with the bull**** you put in the headline.

Either stop lying or back up your claim with some facts.

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

 

[Moderate Right]

Is there a reason your linked article nowhere supports the claim in the title to this OP? Seems a bit dishonest to me.

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same amount of proof the left has in accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians to influence the election.

 

[Moderate Right]

Someone else was flirting with the Russians back then too. How many votes did she take from Hillary? (I say that because a green voter would never vote for Trump!)

????????????????????? All this proves is that people do business with Russians. Bernie was innocent. Stein was innocent. Trump was innocent. Or, they are all guilty.

 

[Moderate Right]

Honestly, I don't like most of Bernie's policy ideas. I would never want to see him in the oval. Having him as a senator makes my skin crawl.

Now that I've said all that, he is not a bad guy. I certainly think he has a moral compass he follows almost blindly. I don't agree with his compass, but I don't doubt his ardent practice of what he considers morally right. I almost completely skipped the article because the idea of him going outside his preaching seemed so crazy. Then I checked the article. It does not support the tagline on this thread and barely supports it's own points.

Bernie is a little crazy. He's harmless. If Hillary hadn't assassinated him politically, he'd be sitting in the oval office, but she did and we got Trump for the effort.

I doubt he will run again at his age and he is in the senate focusing on the things his state elected him to do. Let him finish his career in peace.

I agree. The point of the thread is that the left are full of **** and hypocrisy for trying to claim that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election and yet the very same thing happened with Bernie and yet the left say absolutely nothing.

 

[tres borrachos]

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same amount of proof the left has in accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians to influence the election.

Where does it mention Bernie colluding with the Russians in those quotes from the article?

 

[Moderate Right]

This whole post is opinionated...Don't agree...

1. How do you perceive this? I don't know any conservatives of any type that supported Bernie. It was 99% Independent and Dems. Sanders didn't "really" want it? What?
2. Lack smart policy goals? Affordable education, healthcare, prescription drugs are not smart policy goals? Wanting infrastructure is not smart? What particular policy do you disagree with? Temperament? Really? Come on now...
3.Bernie is right where he should be...

You're making me out to look like a huge Bernie fan, which I don't consider myself, but I do like him. However, I would vote for Kasich over Sanders I just don't agree with your opinions. Sanders is genuine and does want the best for the American people. There is a reason why he is the most popular politician in D.C.

Yup. The idea that conservatives would have backed Bernie is downright ridiculous.

 

[TheGoverness]

Where does it mention Bernie colluding with the Russians in those quotes from the article?

Here, I'll quote it for you:

 

[Keridan]

I agree. The point of the thread is that the left are full of **** and hypocrisy for trying to claim that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election and yet the very same thing happened with Bernie and yet the left say absolutely nothing.

I get the point you are making. I'm not sure it's directly comparable seeing the outcome of the election, but I do see hypocrisy on both sides of so many issues.

I think that this article doesn't carry enough evidence or weight to draw any traction though. Uncle Bernie also doesn't make a good target since he doesn't draw much ire.

To your own point, though, do you believe that Ivanka's email foul up should be investigated? If so, I agree. If not, shouldn't Hillary's major screw up be ignored? I personally feel both should be investigated completely independently. Ivanka probably didn't do anything harmful, but she broke a pretty big rule and Trump admitted it. We should look into that.

The problem is that the more polarized and loudest members of both sides seem to have no issue being blind to their own side's issues. I'd like to see the same practices be shown regardless of party, but that's just a dream.

 

[Moderate Right]

Hey man you have to back up your claims with hard evidence. It's okay to make statements like these but you need to back it up with some kind of source.

Out of the sourced link:


"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

And this thread was more about the stupid left trying to claim that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in order to influence the election with no more proof than this article has that Bernie colluded with the Russians to influence the election. It is a thread pointing out the total and complete hypocrisy of the left. Either they both colluded with Russia or neither one of them did.

 

[Moderate Right]

Is the dishonest trolling used in the OP a reportable offense? He completely made up his claim and put in a random link with no relevance?

I'm all for mixed opinions, but putting up random clickbait hoping people only read the title is pathetic. This type of stuff should be moderated. Maybe kept in the April fools forum or something.

From the article:

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Very same evidence the left on here claim that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. How about removing those troll posts?

 

[Moderate Right]

It should be but I doubt anything will happen. It's interesting the the OP hasn't been back and we've had a pretty great discussion about Sanders without the partisan BS since.

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! I do have a life going on, especially here around the holidays. From the article:

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same evidence the left claims that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in order to influence the election.

 

[NeverTrump]

Out of the sourced link:


"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo your own quote says they didn't target sanders. How could he collude with them then???

 

[Moderate Right]

Is there any particular reason that after reading your link, twice, I can't find a single thing - word, sentence, innuendo - that backs up the subject line of this thread?

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same evidence the left has that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in order to influence the election. Why isn't Mueller investigating Bernie?

 

[tres borrachos]

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same evidence the left has that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in order to influence the election. Why isn't Mueller investigating Bernie?

So you just made up a lie about Bernie Sanders for no reason. Well that's useful.

 

[Moderate Right]

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Here, I'll quite if for YOU.

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same evidence they have against the Trump campaign.

 

[TheGoverness]

Here, I'll quite if for YOU.

"The runner-up in 2016 for the Democratic nomination, Sanders earned 46 percent of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 54 percent. His strong showing, however, may have been aided by a systematic effort by a large-scale Russian disinformation campaign that targeted Clinton and left Sanders unscathed."

Same evidence they have against the Trump campaign.

Where does it mention Bernie Sanders colluding with Russia? I'll wait.