Is it? I don't think it's hard to believe that wealthy democrats would take Trump over Bernie. Wealthy people will do whatever it takes to protect their own interests as we've seen again and again.
Just look at the media coverage surrounding Bernie.
Oh look Trump realizes hat the more unhinged NeverBerners think he's a Russian plant and is playing into that.
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.I mean, news flash, the wealthy will still be just as wealthy with Bernie in office.
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.
Yes, that man was Boris Yeltsin and he would not have become president of Russia if it weren't for US meddling.
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.Wait, now there are not only NeverBerners (there are not) there are multiple layers of them?
I've seen several people with on twitter with NeverSanders or NeverBernie handles or hashtags.
Obviously, they think Sanders is a weaker national candidate and I don't think they're wrong to assume that. If he gets the nomination, it'll be wall to wall ads saying he's a socialist and he'll take away your private insurance and raise your taxes (and he won't deny any of it) and that's all people would need to hear. People would be willing to deal with four more years of fucking Donald Trump rather than to lose their private insurance and have their taxes go up.
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.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.
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.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.
I do. That doesn't mean every single person doing it is actually a bot.You know that's an Op, right? You know that? Do you understand that Twitter is overrun by bots and sock puppets?
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...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.
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).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.
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.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
.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Why does russia need to invade iraq when it is a proxy of their ally iran?
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).
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.In case of Syria the US (and the europeans) should have intervened for democratic oppossition forces at the beginning of the war
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?Well you did say the downside of American anti-interventionism was instead of American wars you'd be getting Russian wars.
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.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?
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?
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.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?
What would you call russian airstrikes and SOF fighting for the regime other than a intervention?
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?
What does that have to do with Russia intervening in Syria? What argument are you trying to make here?You think that makes them Russian wars?
Are you saying absent those airstrikes there'd be no fighting?
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.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?
Nice russian propaganda you're spreading there comradeRussia 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.
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.
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.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?
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....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 hoheneims
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?Assad started mowing down opposition forces that were protesting for regime change and civil rights which resulted in the rebellion but i guess these protests were all manufactured by the CIA according to your sources at RT....
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.
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.I can't be arsed to continue this conversation if you continue to spread fake news.
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.This advice follows a lot of totally unsubstantiated conjecture on your part, just for the record.
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.
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.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?
You gotta support the troops, or else someone might call you a Comrade.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.
Bernie didn't vote for sanctions when the Russia sanctions bill came up last year. What makes you think he would push for it now? He didn't vote for the Magnitsky Act in 2012. He didn't vote for sanctions in 2017 following Russian interference in the elections and advance into Crimea. He didn't show up for the vote to preventing Trump from being to rollback regulations on Russian oligarchs.
Putin won. Part of his operation is to destroy the USA from the inside.
Is it? I don't think it's hard to believe that wealthy democrats would take Trump over Bernie. Wealthy people will do whatever it takes to protect their own interests as we've seen again and again.
Just look at the media coverage surrounding Bernie.