Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

15 hours ago, laylalex said:

If a citizen was minded to vote for Candidate A, but then heard and believed a lie about A that was very negative or about Candidate B that was very positive, choosing to vote for Candidate B over A is a vote changed through the lies of propaganda.

 

Not sure why you are bringing up Hillary again, but I agree with you, a LOT of people were duped by the false positive spin that was put upon her in 2016.

 

Fortunately,  some of us have strong enough convictions that said false information is not going to sway us.

[cyclone27 710]

Hillary lost not because of foreign influence, but being a bad candidate making poor strategic decisions.  She took for granted the rust belt voters and never campaigned there while Trump did. It cost her the presidency she believed she was entitled to!!! 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, cyclone27 said:

Hillary lost not because of foreign influence, but being a bad candidate making poor strategic decisions.  She took for granted the rust belt voters and never campaigned there while Trump did. It cost her the presidency she believed she was entitled to!!! 

Wait til her "special documentary" comes out on Hulu.  You'll get to hear all about how unfair the election was to her.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Wait til her "special documentary" comes out on Hulu.  You'll get to hear all about how unfair the election was to her.

More likely to hear some level of intersectionality/identity victim status, including some excessively used -isms. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, cyclone27 said:

Hillary lost not because of foreign influence, but being a bad candidate making poor strategic decisions.  She took for granted the rust belt voters and never campaigned there while Trump did. It cost her the presidency she believed she was entitled to!!! 

This is largely accurate.

In my estimation, Robbie Mook committed campaign management malpractice, there was hubris with the Clinton's thinking, the great recessions impact on industrial America generated a drive for change. No surprise there, Americans have voted for change in nearly every election since 2008.

 

The fallacy though, is to assume that  Russian security did not participate in illegal activities to drive American opinion or that Putin's goal was actually the defeat if Hillary. Her getting crippled and in the Whitehouse was the reward. Trump was a bonus.

 

Trump is definitely Putin's "useful idiot" with help on sanctions and increasing the geopolitical reach of Russia under the Trump adminstration. 

 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Never have I seen so much drivel all in one post.  

[90DayFinancier 910]

"Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixture dementia fuit"

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

This is largely accurate.

In my estimation, Robbie Mook committed campaign management malpractice, there was hubris with the Clinton's thinking, the great recessions impact on industrial America generated a drive for change. No surprise there, Americans have voted for change in nearly every election since 2008.

 

The fallacy though, is to assume that  Russian security did not participate in illegal activities to drive American opinion or that Putin's goal was actually the defeat if Hillary. Her getting crippled and in the Whitehouse was the reward. Trump was a bonus.

 

Trump is definitely Putin's "useful idiot" with help on sanctions and increasing the geopolitical reach of Russia under the Trump adminstration. 

Sorry for the abrupt drive-by earlier.  Now that I have more time, let's discuss...

 

First of all, Robby Mook didn't seem to be in the inner circle during the campaign.  Secret investigations were going on around him, and he wasn't privy to all of it apparently.  

 

The "great recessions impact on industrial America generated a drive for change"... pretty sure Americans have voted for change in every election, period, not just since 2008.  Though I WILL agree with you that the need was greater after 2008 and 2012 than I can remember in recent past.  Hence Trump.

 

Russians have been vying to sway elections since before you and I were born.  Just because it is more widely known today than it was 30 years ago does not make it any larger of a problem than ever.  Just that more Americans are aware, in general.  Israel also tries to influence things here, as do China, India, Germany, etc.  Us common folk just don't really know to what extent other countries try.

 

Can you explain what you mean when you say "increasing the geopolitical reach of Russia under the Trump adminstration"?  What examples do you have of such geopolitical changes that have come about because of Trump?

Edited February 23, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[Dashinka 24,494]

One thing that comes from this thread.  At least the Intelligence Community under the Trump Administration briefed Senator Sanders campaign about their concerns instead of trying to send in spies, or monitoring it.

[laylalex 7,284]

Did I actually mention Hillary? I thought I was presenting a hypothetical. I guess she's right that she's living rent-free in others' heads.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Lol (ex Clinton press sec):

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/opinions/bloomberg-needs-to-take-down-sanders-lockhart/index.html

 

Quote

 

Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders -- immediately

It seems Michael Bloomberg entered the presidential race for at least two reasons: he wants to be president and he understands the importance of denying President Trump a second term.

His late entrance into the race, however, means every decision he makes is exponentially more consequential as the clock counts down to November 3. His strategy so far has been to spend -- and spend some more -- blanketing the media landscape with the message that he's the best candidate to take on Trump.

 

Quote

I don't believe the country is prepared to support a Democratic socialist, and I agree with the theory that Sanders would lose in a matchup against Trump. In a general election battle between two divisive figures who both preach the politics of grievance, I believe Trump will win the battle to the bottom and remain the last man standing.

Quote

Bloomberg needs to use the next $400 million in ad spending to attack Sanders on his potential weaknesses in a general election and highlight how far left his campaign is. Hitting him on his past record on guns is a must.

 

Their desperation is growing. 

 

[TBoneTX 45,288]

10 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

"Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixture dementia fuit"

Tantumodo in regionalibus colloquiis aliter atque Anglice loquimini!  

[cyclone27 710]

Blitzing the airwaves with ads repetitively is not a campaign. If anything it turns voters off.

[Dashinka 24,494]

8 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Lol (ex Clinton press sec):

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/opinions/bloomberg-needs-to-take-down-sanders-lockhart/index.html

 

 

 

Their desperation is growing. 

 

I wonder who Bloomberg's media buyer is?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

What up bureaus+media?

 

 

 

Well I'll be damned. In case it isn't clear..

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie just realized in order to survive he's not going to be able to placate this Russia conspiracy garbage and just pass the trashy hot potato to Trump like he did last week... as it was just used against him. He's going to have to side with Trump. He's going to have to grow a spine and take on this weaponized lunacy by the very people I've been describing that are teaming up against the American populace -- the TDS left, media, bureaus, and neocons.