-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
WaPo: Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Wait, now there are not only NeverBerners (there are not), there are multiple layers of them?
Sure, but it would make them uncomfortable that they are being put in the spotlight. They are already sweating and thinking people are going to take them out to central park.
No, they will go out of their way to highlight this kind of news, distort it and present it out of context in order to push a particular narrative.
Boris was an incompetent drunk. He certainly blew a chance to improve his country's situation and take advantage of goodwill and momentum- and the US is always involved in fuckery- but If you're suggesting Putin was an improvement — I have contested land in the Crimea to sell you.
I've seen several people with on twitter with NeverSanders or NeverBernie handles or hashtags. Then there are the media types like Chris Matthews. Unless they're all Russian bots.
Putinstan is a wild place to live, to own the Democratic establishment.
You know that's an Op, right? You know that? Do you understand that Twitter is overrun by bots and sock puppets?
You know that *real* people like Matthews are not saying they wouldn't vote for Bernie in a general, also? That's what a "never" is.
You know that's an Op, right? You know that? Do you understand that Twitter is overrun by bots and sock puppets?
You know that *real* people like Matthews are not saying they wouldn't vote for Bernie in a general, also? That's what a "never" is.
Last edited:
I'm so done worrying about what attacks will come in depending on what candidate we take. I could name several unique ones for each candidate, and they are all gonna get called socialists. Really think that doesn't matter at this point. We need someone that inspires the left and the young people to come out and vote, and we probably need someone that is somehow likeable to the centrists who apparently don't give a shit about policy.
In other words vote for the candidate that you are passionate about.
Dems knew about this last week. I think getting the topic onto a debate stage right before Nevada (especially since it's a caucus state) would've been a little more helpful to anti-Sanders dems than less than 24 hours before Nevada caucus voting.
Bernie just like Trump has anti NATO, and anti interventionist tendencies which would play right into their strategy.
Remember russias ultimate goal is to isolate the US (and the UK but they already succeeded) from germany and france and so far it has been working these past4 years.
I don't think bernie is a russian asset. More like a useful tool for them to further their strategy.
Remember russias ultimate goal is to isolate the US (and the UK but they already succeeded) from germany and france and so far it has been working these past4 years.
I don't think bernie is a russian asset. More like a useful tool for them to further their strategy.
Bernie and Warren are the only two that can actually beat trump due to being different enough and being able to inspire people to think about a different future , it's all about beating trump at the end of the day, let the people vote and decide for themselves and just get him out of the White House.
Anti interventionist is a good thing (most of the crisis in the middle East is due to America's interventionist tendencies it's one big shit show that the world would be better off without). What Trump's doing is barely even counts as that more explicitly doing anything that helps Russia politically.
I do. That doesn't mean every single person doing it is actually a bot.
He's just saying that Bernie wouldn't stop to help someone and alluding to a Bernie government holding executions in Central Park. But I'm sure we can count on him to vote for Sanders in the general...
So instead of american wars you now get russian wars all over the ME with even worse consequences for civilians (just look at syria or libya).
I've been very critical of US foreign policy but thinking the US not meddling there will improve the conditions for people living there is naive as fuck
Classical Russian wars. Siria and Libya. If only the US had backed some far right Islamist forces to enact regime change those two wouldn't have happened.
What reason does Russia have to invade Iraq for example? Russia invades neighbouring states and helps dictators but it's hard to argue that in terms of influence the US has had a far greater negative geopolitical influence in the past two decades.
That's not a testament to how good Russia is but how atrocious the US is.
Who's they?
Russian trolls and hackers helped both Sanders and Trumps 2016 campaign and 99.99% of the story was focused on the Trump side of that story. Why were they protecting Bernie and being so unfair to Trump? This is all part of the establishment trying to keep a 30 year politician in the white house and keep out the outsider who's gonna change washington and drain the- (See how playing the victim and constantly deflecting any news you don't like is EXACTLY the same strategy that Trump uses?)
This isn't even a negative news story, it's just a report on whats happening. Bernie isn't in control of Russia, he can't stop them from doing what they're doing, he's not welcoming the help, and he's certainly not collaborating with them, so there's nothing here to even get upset about. There's no victim here outside of the american people.
In case of Syria the US (and the europeans) should have intervened for democratic oppossition forces at the beginning of the war. Russia was not openly involved and the regime was losing.
In case of libya the US should have intervened when haftar started a civil war against the democratic goverment.
In both cases you wouldn't even need boots on the ground but a no fly zone + air strikes would have won the war for democratic forces.
Why does russia need to invade iraq when it is a proxy of their ally iran?
I said it before, it's the wealthy who don't want the status quo to be challenged. The people who want to go back to having a president who doesn't draw too much attention, but also doesn't threaten their wealth/status.
iirc Russia played all sides in 2016. The goal was to make as much chaos as possible.
I agree that it isn't a negative story, but as this thread will show you, that doesn't stop people from twisting it and interpretting it a particular way. Have you seen the way the media covers Bernie?
Well you did say the downside of American anti-interventionism was instead of American wars you'd be getting Russian wars.
But the US did a bubu and gave weapons to Al-Nusra instead, weird how that keeps happening. Almost as if it's the MO of the CIA since forever.
And i provided two examples which you conveniently ignored. Why should russia intervene in a country when it is in the sphere of influence of a ally? Do you not understand how strategy works?
Exactly, there's no reason to believe an unchecked Russia in the middle East would have even a quarter of the damage an unchecked US has done. There's no reason or purpose to it. That's a testament to US interventionism in the past two decades which has done nothing but make the world less safe.
Sorry, are you saying the wars in Libya and Syria are Russian wars?
If you believe the UN the syrian war alone has caused 400k people (most of them civilians) to die and another 5.5 million to be displaced.
Tell me again how russian damage would be a quarter of what the US did.
What would you call russian airstrikes and SOF fighting for the regime other than a intervention?
You think that makes them Russian wars?
Are you saying absent those airstrikes there'd be no fighting?
This happened in 2016 and the media ignored it and focused on Russia's efforts to help Trump, if their mission is just to hurt Sanders why wouldn't it be the other way around?
What does that have to do with Russia intervening in Syria? What argument are you trying to make here?
Russia is intervening in Syria to protect their lackey from losing just like they do in libya.
Russia didn't even start the war it's a proxy war between the US and it's allies and Russia so your helping my point.
You said if the US pulled out of the Middle East, you'd just trade US intervention for Russian wars.
Your examples were Syria and Libya, but neither of these wars were started by Russia. They'd have happened even if Russia never existed so they're a totally irrelevant justification for keeping the US in the Middle East.
No he has a point. As much as people dislike Drones (and yes they have killed innocent people). Supporting the use of gas attacks makes me fairly certain Russia would kill everyone there to take control.
Says the person litterally capping for US imperialism. How about you show some facts to counter like someone arguing in good faith or continue showing your ass with ad hominem
I remember both being highlighted. Bernie also didn't make it to the general, so he wasn't really a factor. Obviously Trump is going to be highlighted more because he's the president and had more direct connections to Russia.
Either way, all I'm saying is that there are people in the Democratic Party who would happily take Trump over Bernie.
Assad started mowing down opposition forces that were protesting for regime change and civil rights in 2011 which resulted in the rebellion but i guess these protests were all manufactured by the CIA according to your sources at RT....
I can't be arsed to continue this conversation if you continue to spread fake news.
The coverage was slightly disproportionate even during the primaries. It was 99.99% focused on the Trump side of that story.
If the main goal was to keep Sanders out of office, why would they focus almost exclusively on the Trump side of the story?
So let's get this straight how exactly did Russia start the war? Are you arguing that without Russian intervention Assad would not be mowing down opposition?
I'm not defending Russia's actions here both countries have acted heinously in the middle East the difference is Russia tends not to organise large scale invasions like the US does because it does not benefit them. That's not to say they wouldn't if they did because they obviously would but as stands over the past few decades it hasn't. Considering the shit show the US caused for their own personal gain they were the lesser evil in that scenario.
Noone in the Middle East likes the US noone not even the current Iraqi government have you ever stopped to wonder why that is.
While RT is certainly a complete Russian propaganda outlet it is clear that you have no grasp on how the conflict in Syria came to be and how the US is involved in it.
Well that's the thing... we have so little workable information right now that any meaningful response will be laden with conjecture. And as such, the mainstream media and social media together in a feedback loop are amplifying that conjecture into absurdity.
Both in spite of and because of this, we must nonetheless treat the news and the whole situation seriously, and acknowledge the logic of hypothetical scenarios in a way that neither jumps to conclusions nor involves making inflammatory claims based on those conclusions (e.g. declaring Bernie a Russian asset, or lying about his record to support such a conclusion).
chris Matthews is hardly representing a movement - he's a Washington old boy and wants one of his cigar buddies or party apparatchiks to win— and I suspect he'd vote for Bernie over Trump in a heartbeat.
I don't think Bernie is the most electable candidate and I'm concerned that he hasn't been tested in a GE with the scrutiny and focus (and trashfire media and gop bullshit) that comes with it - but don't know a single person planning to vote for a democratic candidate in the primary or General who wouldn't smash the Bernie button as hard as possible come November and if he secures the nomination I'm personally going to transform overnight into the worst Bernie Bro in Christendom.
and anyone who's not taking that position again is trash or being generous- doesn't give a shit about the people who will be possibly permanently harmed by that position.
and the same applies to any of the embarrassing- (and hopefully scarce Bernie fans) on this very site who have offered absurd irrelevant and self defeating arguments for staying home if Bernie doesn't secure it. And tried to avoid explaining their logic by changing the subject. At that stage it's probably smarter to just pretend you're going to vote (d) and keep your absurdity to yourself.
Trump is a national crisis and getting snitty about his opposing candidate's policy or position specifics ignores the catastrophic PERMANENT existential harm that allowing Trump a second term would do. If Bernie's the guy and you don't vote, you may not get another chance at whatever it is you think you want.
Bernie is not going to plunge America into a socialist dystopia but Trump is positioned to destroy the rule of law. He will do anything to stay out of prison and debtors jail and his party is now on the brink of demographic irrelevance- they've ALREADY turned completely traitor and they're on this train till it crashes. They're evil, irredeemable and now they have no choice.
If you don't like Bernie because oooh socialism - or you love Bernie so much you'll refuse to vote for any other candidate — then you two types actually have common ground- which is that he (or other candidates) aren't being pronounced king — and they can't just sweep their vision magically into being. You will not actually guarantee the thing you love or the thing you fear because they still have to work with their party and the house to achieve those goals.
pragmatism is often confused with compromise today and it's depressing to see "uncompromising perfectionist idealists" ignore the reality of their respective situations and what those candidates will actually be able to achieve versus what their opponent already has.
Was the Russia story out during the primaries? I remember it first appearing towards the end or after the primaries and then gaining more momentum after Trump was elected.
Like I said, I'm not claiming any specifics, just that wealthy people will protect their own wealth first and foremost, whether they are a Republican or Democrat. If it comes down to Bernie or Trump, they will choose Trump.
So, we're now criticizing Bernie because he's had the (correct) position for his entire career that the US meddling in the middle east and other areas of the world has done more harm than good. Cool to see some people here will likely support another pointless war that someone like Joe Biden will absolutely start. Cause even Obama couldn't help but fuck more shit up in the middle east, including drone striking targets hiding within civilian areas at a rate far greater than Dubya.
Textbook whataboutism thread.
There will be SO much of this to try to save Trump's re election and end Western democracy as we know it.
There will be SO much of this to try to save Trump's re election and end Western democracy as we know it.
You gotta support the troops, or else someone might call you a Comrade.
this is concerning. What reasons did he give for voting against these or not voting at all?
When you say that you're literally doing his work for him.
I say we elect a Dem, no matter who, in November.
You in?
Stop. Seriously, just stop.
There's a name for the wealthy people that want 45 re-elected: They're called Republicans.