“Typically, you betray the fact that you don’t know much about Clinton, other than propaganda spread by your fellow Berners.”
…says the Clintonite who proceeds to assemble a semi-long reply made up of nothing but bullshit talking-points programmed into her by the Clinton campaign last year.
“The problem of Berners being willing to believe anything became clear when it was revealed the amount of fake news and other pre-fabricated smears that were posted in Bernie FB groups, by Russian bots, and then spread by drooling Berners.”
Nothing of the sort has been “revealed”; things like that have been asserted. Not at all the same thing. In any political movement, there are a certain number of fringe people who will indulge in nonsense. But whether any malefactors in this matter may be genuine fringe or part of some vast (and as-yet-unrevealed) Russian conspiracy, we can say for certain that their activities were of no real impact. The dispute between Clintonites and actual liberals/progressives was a substantive one; no one was voting against Clinton and for Sanders because Russian trolls had convinced them Clinton was having political enemies killed or any of that rot.
The only systematic trolling operation of which we know that carried out the sorts of activities you describe was run by Clintonite David Brock in open conspiracy with the Clinton campaign.
“As evidence I would point to his inability to say what he would do to break up the banks when asked by the New York Daily News. He literally could not come up with an answer, but of course, that meant nothing to his cult. They were perfectly willing to believe it was an unfair question.”
Sanders was asked a question by a reporter who didn’t understand the issue and Clintonites in the press then made a grand effort to turn Sanders’ reply into a major scandal, spinning it similarly to what you just tried right there, except, unlike you, none of them pretended Sanders didn’t have an answer to the question. They just said he didn’t know how to do it. But Sanders had answered the question correctly and the Clintonite spin was corrected repeatedly. Even the New York Times and Washington Post, both rabidly pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders, refused to go down that rabbit-hole and stood up for Sanders:
The DC press corps that goes nuts because Bernie Sanders doesn't know the name of the statute under which he would…fair.org
This originally appeared on Next New Deal. Bernie Sanders gave some fairly normal answers on financial reform to the…www.salon.com
Bernie Sanders gave an interview to the editorial board of New York Daily News last week in which he laid out his plan…www.washingtonpost.com
Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for. The Daily News on…www.nytimes.com
Of course Sanders knows how to bust up the big banks. The recent kerfluffle about Bernie Sanders purportedly not…www.alternet.org
And on into infinity.
“When he and Clinton were in the Senate together, she got more amendments through than he did, and she was able to advance more bills, further, than he could.”
Why, one would almost think Clinton was part of the Establishment clique of one of the major parties while Sanders was just an independent!
“Trade deals are a fact of life. If there are no trade deals, far worse will happen than most anything people complain about with them in place. Example, the TPP. Your first clue that maybe the TPP wasn’t all that bad should be the fact that Trump was against it. When you have common cause with him, you really need to examine how much you really know about it.”
Unless you’re Clinton, right?