"The Guy is Hiding Something": Top Hillary Aide Suggests Bernie Colluded With Russia Too

[Maxima1]

You fail to show how changing the CA primary date disadvantages progressive candidates at all. As it is, the Primary is basically over before CA progressives have any input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

The CA primary was June 7-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_primary,_2016

He didn't endorse her until July 12-

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/elections/100000004525555/sanders-endorses-clinton.html?mcubz=1

I don't know why you're talking about the 2016 election primary date for CA. I posted a news article showing that they want to change CA towards the beginning -- right after 4 or so states. That disadvantages anyone going in without name recognition and money, which was the case with Bernie in 2016. This is assuming they don't think Bernie would run or that they think progressives even ones with higher recognition like Warren would have a difficult time beating an establishment pick like Harris in CA. They also have the likes of Feinstein to guide who wins CA.

Too bad not enough people listened to him but chose instead to label Hillary & the Dems as Cheaters! instead. It's just one aspect of the ongoing mass psychosis that made Trump president.

What's wrong about that? It's a fact that the parties try rigging the process in favor of the candidates they want.

We could argue the extent of it, but you don't even realize the irony in what you are saying. It's funny how you'll dismiss anything about unfairness to Bernie, but latch onto any trivial **** (see below or bold above) that could have possibly made Hillary lose. Let's get real. He wasn't even in the spotlight for months. If it was anything, it was Comey, which may have cost her about a 1%. Also, why don't you say anything about Hillary or the Dem establishment media saying supporters of Bernie are sexist, etc.?

"Something relevant-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html?_r=0

Which isn't to say Bernie was complicit at all but rather that he served as a foil for the Russians to attack Clinton." -- Jhhnn

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know why you're talking about the 2016 election primary date for CA. I posted a news article showing that they want to change CA towards the beginning -- right after 4 or so states. That disadvantages anyone going in without name recognition and money, which was the case with Bernie in 2016. This is assuming they don't think Bernie would run or that they think progressives even ones with higher recognition like Warren would have a difficult time beating an establishment pick like Harris in CA. They also have the likes of Feinstein to guide who wins CA.



What's wrong about that? It's a fact that the parties try rigging the process in favor of the candidates they want.

We could argue the extent of it, but you don't even realize the irony in what you are saying. It's funny how you'll dismiss anything about unfairness to Bernie, but latch onto any trivial **** (see below or bold above) that could have possibly made Hillary lose. Let's get real. He wasn't even in the spotlight for months. If it was anything, it was Comey, which may have cost her about a 1%. Also, why don't you say anything about Hillary or the Dem establishment media saying supporters of Bernie are sexist, etc.?

"Something relevant-

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html?_r=0

Which isn't to say Bernie was complicit at all but rather that he served as a foil for the Russians to attack Clinton." -- Jhhnn

You argue in circles. By the time the CA primary happened Bernie obviously had established his following & lost anyway. The late date offered him no advantage he could capitalize upon.

CA wants to move to an earlier date to establish a leadership role & greater influence over the outcome.

Your "its a fact" isn't a fact at all. What exactly did the DNC do that cheated Bernie? It's not like they rigged the actual voting, is it? Hillary handled him & his supporters with kid gloves, per her new book, but that wasn't good enough to dissuade his supporters & others from getting suckered by concern trolling from many sides. I documented some of it with the link you quoted.

Your whole schtick is a bitter & divisive extension of that trolling.

 

[Maxima1]

You argue in circles. By the time the CA primary happened Bernie obviously had established his following & lost anyway. The late date offered him no advantage he could capitalize upon.

What are you talking about? You're the one who is bringing up 2016 CA. I didn't Anyway, are you really that obtuse? CA was really far in. Candidates behind do worse because voters get discouraged, since the outcome had already been sealed earlier on. I'm sure you know this and are just being disingenuous on purpose.

CA wants to move to an earlier date to establish a leadership role & greater influence over the outcome.

It sounds more like an attempt to stop a progressive candidate in their tracks.

Your "its a fact" isn't a fact at all. What exactly did the DNC do that cheated Bernie? It's not like they rigged the actual voting, is it?

Bull****. There were many shenanigans. It was similar to the DNC chair fight with Perez. Slimey Democrats will likely blow all the money on overpaid consultants again to enrich their buddies and friends again.

Hillary handled him & his supporters with kid gloves, per her new book, but that wasn't good enough to dissuade his supporters & others from getting suckered by concern trolling from many sides. I documented some of it with the link you quoted.

lol She brought up Chavez and Castro connection, but nobody really cared. We can say the same of him with Hillary, btw. "I'm sick of hearing about the emails". But nooo, somehow Bernie mortally hurt her.

Handling with kid's gloves? Sounds like she's bitter and just reflecting back to spite others. Even going back to the debate with Trump and saying she wanted to say he was "stalking her".

Your whole schtick is a bitter & divisive extension of that trolling.

lol If you think my posts show bitterness, you certainly show it with Hillary's loss.

 

[maddie]

As an additional example of deception.

Amazon seems to deleting nearly all 1 star reviews from H. Clinton's new book. I eargerly await the defense in explaining this outright censorship.

Check out the timeline. All seem to have changed today between time 15:16 with 1630 reviews (45 - 1 - 1 - 3 - 50)% & 21:28 with 442 reviews (97 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1)%. All 5 star to 1 star in order.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https...Happened-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1501175564

 

[Victorian Gray]

As an additional example of deception.

Amazon seems to deleting nearly all 1 star reviews from H. Clinton's new book. I eargerly await the defense in explaining this outright censorship.

Check out the timeline. All seem to have changed today between time 15:16 with 1630 reviews (45 - 1 - 1 - 3 - 50)% & 21:28 with 442 reviews (97 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1)%. All 5 star to 1 star in order.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https...Happened-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1501175564

Yes, it's a conspiracy:

"The publisher of Hillary Clinton’s new book What Happened is questioning Amazon reviews posted within a day of the book’s release.

Published Tuesday, the book is Clinton’s retelling of her presidential election loss last year.

As of Wednesday morning, more than 1,500 reviews appeared on Amazon. Many contained little information about the book and instead offered high praise or sharp criticism of the Democratic candidate.

Simon & Schuster publisher Jonathan Karp tells The Associated Press: “It seems highly unlikely that approximately 1,500 people read Hillary Clinton’s book overnight and came to the stark conclusion that it is either brilliant or awful.”

He said the company hopes the online commentary would reflect opinions of people who have actually read the book.

Of the reviews of the 500-page book posted to Amazon.com, 95 per cent are 1- and 5-star ratings."

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/clintons-book-publisher-questions-reviews-from-amazon-users

 

[Jhhnn]

What are you talking about? You're the one who is bringing up 2016 CA. I didn't Anyway, are you really that obtuse? CA was really far in. Candidates behind do worse because voters get discouraged, since the outcome had already been sealed earlier on. I'm sure you know this and are just being disingenuous on purpose.



It sounds more like an attempt to stop a progressive candidate in their tracks.





Bull****. There were many shenanigans. It was similar to the DNC chair fight with Perez. Slimey Democrats will likely blow all the money on overpaid consultants again to enrich their buddies and friends again.



lol She brought up Chavez and Castro connection, but nobody really cared. We can say the same of him with Hillary, btw. "I'm sick of hearing about the emails". But nooo, somehow Bernie mortally hurt her.

Handling with kid's gloves? Sounds like she's bitter and just reflecting back to spite others. Even going back to the debate with Trump and saying she wanted to say he was "stalking her".



lol If you think my posts show bitterness, you certainly show it with Hillary's loss.

Your assertion that CA wanting to move towards the front end of the primaries is an attempt to stifle progressive candidates makes no sense in the context that CA is one of the most progressive states in the Union. If them being later somehow improves the chances of more progressive candidates then 2016 didn't show that at all. You merely obfuscate & make excuses for Bernie's loss there.

You merely assert shenanigans as an article of faith w/o any evidence offered in support.

You do the same with the allegation that Clinton denounced Bernie for his stated views about Castro & Chavez. This covers the incident in question-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550

There's also this, that earned Bernie 3 Pinocchio's-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clinton-objected-to-meeting-with-our-enemies/

The rest? Your whole spiel is just concern trolling the Dirty Democrats over imaginary wrongs done to poor Bernie. So Cheated! He woulda won! Evil Hillary! It's the same bullshit as the Trumpsters with a twist.

 

[maddie]

Yes, it's a conspiracy:

"The publisher of Hillary Clinton’s new book What Happened is questioning Amazon reviews posted within a day of the book’s release.

Published Tuesday, the book is Clinton’s retelling of her presidential election loss last year.

As of Wednesday morning, more than 1,500 reviews appeared on Amazon. Many contained little information about the book and instead offered high praise or sharp criticism of the Democratic candidate.

Simon & Schuster publisher Jonathan Karp tells The Associated Press: “It seems highly unlikely that approximately 1,500 people read Hillary Clinton’s book overnight and came to the stark conclusion that it is either brilliant or awful.”

He said the company hopes the online commentary would reflect opinions of people who have actually read the book.

Of the reviews of the 500-page book posted to Amazon.com, 95 per cent are 1- and 5-star ratings."

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/clintons-book-publisher-questions-reviews-from-amazon-users

Agreed. The split between 5 star & 1 star reviews are extremely suspect, and if you read some of them, most, on both ends of the spectrum, appeared trivial. My post was that Amazon only removed the 1 star reviews. Don't you find that suspicious? I do.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Agreed. The split between 5 star & 1 star reviews are extremely suspect, and if you read some of them, most, on both ends of the spectrum, appeared trivial. My post was that Amazon only removed the 1 star reviews. Don't you find that suspicious? I do.

I'm betting that you have a real interest in ethics in gaming journalism as well.

 

[maddie]

I'm betting that you have a real interest in ethics in gaming journalism as well.

That's a very revealing comparison. Almost Freudian. I do suppose it's all entertainment after all.

 

[blankslate]

I'm betting that you have a real interest in ethics in gaming journalism as well.

I have posted in the gamergate thread and have been very critical of pro-gamergate posts and I find Amazon's deletion of apparently the only one star reviews for her new book makes me suspicious. I think that anyone not critical of such is probably extremely biased toward Senator/Sec. of State Clinton. Just saying.


______

 

[Maxima1]

Your assertion that CA wanting to move towards the front end of the primaries is an attempt to stifle progressive candidates makes no sense in the context that CA is one of the most progressive states in the Union. If them being later somehow improves the chances of more progressive candidates then 2016 didn't show that at all. You merely obfuscate & make excuses for Bernie's loss there.

CA isn't the most progressive for Democrat primary. It would probably not even be in Top 10, and some other states even then would probably be more liberal on economic issues. I believe just like the black population, the Hispanic population also gravitates towards towing the establishment line.

You merely assert shenanigans as an article of faith w/o any evidence offered in support.

You're just disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

You do the same with the allegation that Clinton denounced Bernie for his stated views about Castro & Chavez. This covers the incident in question-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-1985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550

What was that article suppose to prove?

"The Clinton campaign continued to hit Sanders over the remarks after the debate. It sent an email blast to reporters titled, "Bernie Sanders Refuses to Disavow Praise for Fidel Castro."

The primary point was what exactly would be going hard on Bernie look like? What was his big scandals that Hillary was holding back on?

There's also this, that earned Bernie 3 Pinocchio's-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/12/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-hillary-clinton-objected-to-meeting-with-our-enemies/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...clinton-objected-to-meeting-with-our-enemies/

That article is weird. He's basically getting 3 Pinocchio's (again showing the bias in establishment media) for saying Obama said something different than Hillary, which he did, even if he's trying to disingenuously obfuscate things. And I don't know what your point even is for bringing this up, since Hillary undoubtedly has even more Pinocchio worthy statements and claims.

The rest? Your whole spiel is just concern trolling the Dirty Democrats over imaginary wrongs done to poor Bernie. So Cheated! He woulda won! Evil Hillary! It's the same bullshit as the Trumpsters with a twist.

i don't believe Bernie would have won even if the process was fair. As I said, his main problem gaining the money and name recognition he desperately needed. Even prior to primaries starting, Hillary was already thought by many to be the next president.