Feb 20: Bernie Sanders says his 2016 team saw effects of Russian anti-Clinton campaign

[ehrnst]

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Sanders described how an aide handling his social media accounts noticed an uptick in “horrific and ugly things” directed at Clinton beginning around September 2016 — long after the Democratic nomination had been decided, and while Sanders himself was traveling the country campaigning on her behalf.

“In many respects, what Mueller’s report tells us is not new to us,” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said. “We knew that they were trying to sow division within the American people. In my case, it was to tell Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Hillary Clinton is crazy, that Hillary Clinton is sick — terrible, terrible ugly stuff — and to have Bernie Sanders supporters either vote for Trump or Jill Stein or not vote at all.”
..............................................................................................................

On Tuesday, Sanders described one spike in anti-Clinton sentiment that he attributed to the Russian campaign. In September 2016, an aide noticed hundreds of “new names” appearing on pro-Sanders Facebook pages to denigrate Clinton and her candidacy — despite the fact Sanders himself was campaigning on her behalf during that same period.

The influx of social media trolls was alarming enough that the aide approached the Clinton campaign to inform them of the situation, Sanders said.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/

[FarPoint]

1. He was a false leader.....

He never Rose to the occasion to do the right thing.....

[Blue_true]

13. After bashing her incessantly, he gave her almost no support in the General.

And waited a long time to do that. BUT, if he becomes my party nominees for 2020 President, I will support him financially, convince people to vote for Bernie and I will vote for him, simply because at that point there WOULD NOT be a better choice.

[Ken Burch]

18. He stumped for her all over the country in the fall.

He faced down his own delegates on the convention floor in speaking on her behalf there.

There's no reason to blame him for T___p or to imply that he somehow wanted what happened in the election to happen.

[Blue_true]

20. He did FOUR events, spread out over two months.

He didn't do one until September 2016.

[ehrnst]

23. Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it? (nt)

[hfojvt]

87. not really

Many people probably thought he should have ended his campaign earlier once it was obvious he was not gonna win. Instead he went all the way to the convention. I would have warned that that could hurt us in the fall.

Of course, I remember many of the same warnings when Hillary stayed in the 2008 primary, even though she had to fund her campaign with millions of dollars that she borrowed from herself. Fortunately it did not matter then, but we had the same worries this time - and it clearly did matter.

If you support one party you always want the OTHER party to have a bitter primary fight, because you know that can help your side.

[KitSileya]

103. You compare Hillary's 2008 concession and candidate support with Bernie's 2016?

Hillary, who conceded shortly after numbers clearly showed she couldn't win (not two+ months later) and who threw herself into a hectic program of events to support the candidate who won the primary (not waited until after the convention and then did four events, spending most time writing a book?)

[TheSmarterDog]

98. Hindsight says attacking Democrats & The Democratic Party

Doesn't help enact a liberal/progressive agenda.

[politicaljunkie41910]

167. In 2016 that might have been hindsight. At this stage it should be bonafide 'foresight'.

[TheSmarterDog]

179. What is the purpose of hindsight if it doesn't educate you to succeed in the future?

In 2016 Russia began working to undermine our democracy, and convinced way too many Americans that Clinton was either just as bad or worse that Trump. Sanders benefited from those attacks. And liberals & progressives lost.

Therefore, with full knowledge that Russia is still working to undermine our democracy, my comment is even more relevant: Attacking Democrats & The Democratic Party doesn't help enact a liberal/progressive agenda. In fact, it works against that.

So, are we going to ensure that we repeat 2016, allow Russia to divide us with lies & fake news from the RW (where literally all the criticism of Clinton originated)? Or are we going to work together & actually succeed? Because, ya know, we're in the majority.

[politicaljunkie41910]

183. You're preaching to the choir Dog. There is nothing Russia can do to change who I'm voting for.

[TheSmarterDog]

185. Yet how many on the Left still think Hillary is corrupt & unlikable?

I'm new here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a place called "Democratic Underground" be a place where people who spend their time attacking all things Democratic would be unwelcome, and Democrats who support the Democratic Party, and Democratic candidates be welcome?

This doesn't seem to be the case.

[politicaljunkie41910]

187. 2016 was an unusual year that's for certain. While people here may have very strong opinions, it is

the first time I can recall that we were as divided as we were between our two primary candidates. Opinions ran strong and I can understand why since I too was one of those who felt that if you want to lead the party, you should first join the party. I had a real problem with that, also many of Bernie's supporters were young, many of them new to the party, and many of them chose Bernie's path, and decided they too, didn't want to bother to join the Democratic Party. They just wanted to run it though, and that left a lot of bad feelings by the roadside. We now know that Russian Bots were invading websites, and that may have been responsible for some of the discord experienced on this website as well, though I'm sure it wasn't responsible for all of it, or even a majority of it.

FTR, even though I've been coming here for years, I only began actively posting during the 2016 campaign, even though I am a news and political junkie, as the name suggest, and have been a member of the Democratic Party for the past 42 years and have voted Democratic in every campaign since I turned 18. However, I used to work for the federal government and we couldn't log on to any password accounts with our work computer, (once we got computers in the workplace) so I could only log on to the DU website and read the comments during my lunch hour, and not log in and post. At home, I had three children to take care of, so there was no time to log onto DU once I got home after work. So my posting history is not that extensive. But that didn't stop me from reading the newspapers, magazines, political websites and watching the news. I have always been an avid reader, just didn't have the time to respond.

[Jim Lane]

190. You're closing your eyes to the criticism of Clinton from the left.

You write that the right wing was "where literally all the criticism of Clinton originated". That's preposterous. Many leftists in this country opposed the Iraq War Resolution and have, for years, been pushing for single-payer health care. Just on those two examples, the criticism of Clinton did not originate on the right.

People can differ about how much weight to give Clinton's vote on Iraq, especially considering that she's since admitted it was an error. People can differ about whether pushing for single payer at this time is the right tactic, or even whether it's the best goal at all. But there's just no basis for charging that everyone who criticizes Clinton on these points is a right-winger.

[TheSmarterDog]

192. So, you think she was worse than Trump?

If not, there is no fucking reason in the universe not to support her over him.

If so, then you're just hopeless...

[Jim Lane]

194. What an absurd non sequitur.

I'm like several million other progressives.

During the primaries, we criticized Clinton from the left. We voted for Bernie Sanders because his views were closer to ours than hers were.

In the general election, we voted for Clinton because her views were closer to ours than Trump's were.

I obviously wasn't saying that people shouldn't support Clinton over Trump. I was pointing out how idiotic it was to say that all the criticism of her originated on the right.

[Jim Lane]

73. Do you have a link for that charge of "FOUR events"?

My recollection is that there were more, and that the correct information has been posted on DU multiple times.

I'm not going to go to the effort of refuting this bullshit yet again, unless and until I see something credible -- i.e., something other than blind Bernie hatred.

[Blue_true]

86. Someone posted last year.

One large joint appearance and three smaller solo appearances by Bernie. Bernie was not an attack dog on Trump during the last month of the General, it would have helped if he had taken bites out of Trump.

[Jim Lane]

90. This mysterious "Someone" was totally wrong and your subject line in #20 is false

I know, I said I wouldn't bother presenting any facts to the closed minds of the Bernie-haters, but I ended up wasting a little time doing research, anyway.

Just a few links from the first page of search results:

"Bernie Sanders to step up campaign schedule for Hillary Clinton"

"Bernie Sanders’s Hard Fight for Hillary Clinton"

"Road trip: Bernie Sanders hits the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton"

"Bernie Sanders Goes 'All In' for Hillary Clinton With an Eye Toward Post-Election Goals"

That last one, for example, reports on a joint rally with Bernie and Hillary in North Carolina, and adds:

Sanders will campaign today for her in Iowa, the state that in many ways put him on the map during the primary race, where he came within a fraction of a point of beating her in their first-in-the-nation caucuses.

The stop is one of more than a dozen he has scheduled across the country this final week before the general election, from New Hampshire to Arizona, as he continues to rally support behind his former rival.

“No one can say he didn’t go all in, and if they do they are lying,” Pete D’Alessandro, Sanders former Iowa caucus director who is now working in behalf of the Democratic Party in the state, told ABC News. “It’s amazing what he’s doing.”

Please note that: more than a dozen appearances just in the final week.

Now, I know the Bernie-haters won't care. He didn't do enough, he did it too late, blah blah blah. I'm merely pointing out that the totally unsupported assertion that he did only four events is bullshit. For anyone reading this thread who cares about facts, I didn't want to let the lie in #20 stand. For the rest of you, you may now resume your regularly scheduled Bernie-bashing.

[Blue_true]

113. He did one joint event and three singles.

That was posted on DU and it confined what I saw with my own eyes, I just pointed the coincidence out. I paid close attention to how little Bernie worked for Hillary because it was concerning after the ruckus he caused.

[Jim Lane]

116. I gave you multiple links to sources refuting that lie.

You want to just keep on lying (without any evidence) because it supports your agenda of maligning Bernie.

You claim that you somehow saw with your own eyes that he did only four events. You were personally present at all the many locations around the country where professional journalists saw and reported that Bernie was doing events, and thus you know that all those reports were lies? My, you must have racked up a lot of frequent-flyer miles last fall. And with all this concern about Russian bots, why has no one except you noticed that there was a vast conspiracy to lie to the American public about Bernie's campaign activities? And why has no one come forward to refute the reports of these multiple phantom rallies that never actually occurred?

Sorry, but I'm going to go with the obvious explanation. The reports of Bernie doing many more than four rallies are truthful. Your assertion to the contrary is false.

[Blue_true]

117. I saw what happened with my own eyes. I don't need your filtered "facts". nt

[Jim Lane]

124. ROTFLMAO. A classic, a true classic.

I expected that the Bernie-haters would completely close their minds to the facts.

I just didn't expect them to be so brazen about it.

[Blue_true]

125. I won't spend anymore time on you. It is a waste for me. nt

[lapucelle]

160. Here is a complete list of Sanders' appearances

in support of Democratic candidates for the GE in the 100 days after the July 25-28 Democratic convention.

September 5; New Hampshire; 1 event
September 17; Ohio; 3 events
September 28; New Hampshire; 1 event
October, 4 Minnesota; 1 event; (2 planned 1 cancelled)
October 5; Iowa; 1 event; (2 planned, 1 cancelled)
October 5; Wisconsin; 2 events
November 2; New Hampshire; 2 events
November 2; Maine; 1 event
November 3; Michigan; 2 events
November 3; Wisconsin; 1 event
November 3; North Carolins; 1 event
November 4; Iowa; 1 event
November 5; Iowa; 1 event

9 dates / 18 events

http://blog.4president.org/2016/bernie-sanders/

[politicaljunkie41910]

173. That list doesn't prove that those events were in support of Clinton.

There were other candidates running for other offices that Bernie supported, although I'm not going to give you a list.

[George II]

161. The 2016 Democratic National Convention closed on July 28. His first appearance...

...was on September 5. That's 39 days after the Convention.

In 2008 the losing candidate began making appearances a day or two after the Convention.

[ehrnst]

165. I wonder what he was waiting for. (nt)

[still_one]

199. hmmmm. Perhaps to change his party affiliation back to independent, and disassociate himself with

the Democratic party

[George II]

200. A week before the Convention, maybe even earlier, he'd already registered his re-election....

....committee under the "Independent" affiliation.

[still_one]

213. no surprise

[Jim Lane]

216. He couldn't change his affiliation "back" because he never changed it.

Vermont doesn't have partisan voter registration.

Before, during, and after Bernie's campaign, he was registered to vote in Vermont with no party affiliation listed.

Before, during, and after Bernie's campaign, he was listed in the Senate records as an Independent.

Before, during, and after Bernie's campaign, he was a member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

This image of Bernie cynically manipulating the poor, unsuspecting Democratic Party is a DU urban legend. It was always obvious that he was an Independent who was nevertheless seeking the Democratic nomination. That fact was even mentioned here once or twice. Some people thought that the party label was more important than public policy, and those people were free to vote against him on that ground.

[lapucelle]

157. From a story datelined Sept. 30 from one of your links:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is about to start tearing up the campaign trail.

The Vermont independent will campaign for Hillary Clinton in the battleground states of Iowa and Minnesota on Monday and Tuesday, and appearances elsewhere are in the works.

“He’s talking about traveling all over the country to help Secretary Clinton," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Friday, adding that Sanders also will help other candidates and discuss ballot issues he cares about.

Sanders spent most of August writing a book but has since campaigned for Clinton in Ohio (once) and New Hampshire (twice). An event Wednesday in the Granite State was the first joint appearance for Sanders and Clinton since he endorsed her in July.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/30/bernie-sanders-step-up-campaign-schedule-hillary-clinton/91342564/

[lapucelle]

158. From The Hill three days later...

Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Sunday night that it had canceled tentatively planned events with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for Monday. Instead, her primary rival will now be on the campaign trail Wednesday in Iowa and Wisconsin.

“Wednesday's Des Moines stop was added to make up for appearances tentatively scheduled in Iowa on Monday, October 3,” the campaign said in a release.

[lapucelle]

159. You can see a complete list of what was planned

and what actually materialized at this website. It may be helpful to remember that working as hard as one can is a relative measure.

http://blog.4president.org/2016/bernie-sanders/

[George II]

162. "All over the country"? He never made it further west than Minnesota.

From the closing of the Convention in July, he traveled to just seven states and made 12 stops (17 appearances) in 100 days. That's an average of one campaign stop every 8 days.

But Michael Briggs was correct: “He’s talking about traveling all over the country to help Secretary Clinton."

[lapucelle]

166. Press release, October 31, 2016

BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Tuesday will kick off a coast-to-coast campaign swing that will take him to 12 states in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election contest.

“I am working as hard as I can to see that Donald Trump is defeated, that Hillary Clinton is elected president and that Democrats gain control of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate,” Sanders said.

snip=====================

"Sanders will make stops in 12 states from Maine to California to discuss the Democratic agenda."

snip=======================

"Leading up to Election Day next Tuesday, Sanders also plans campaign stops in Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and California."

Actual appearances post press release:
November 2; New Hampshire; 2 events
November 2; Maine; 1 event
November 3; Michigan; 2 events
November 3; Wisconsin; 1 event
November 3; North Carolina; 1 event
November 4; Iowa; 1 event
November 5; Iowa; 1 event

http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/10/bernie-sanders-to-close-2016-campaign-with-coast-to-coast-swing.html

[George II]

169. Never made it to Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, or California.

Furthest west he got was Minnesota and furthest south was South Carolina. Nothing in the key states of Pennsylvania or Florida.

[George II]

171. Looks like he did make it to NC to rally with Clinton a few days before the election. That's it.

[lapucelle]

181. Yes he did.

I revised the list to include that appearance.

[Cha]

201. Wow.. so What, sanders only did 9 events?

Thanks, lapucelle.

Hillary joined Obama in 2008 in June..



US Election 2008: Hillary Clinton to join Barack Obama on campaign trail in White House race

More.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2164891/US-Election-2008-Hillary-Clinton-to-join-Barack-Obama-on-campaign-trail-in-White-House-race.html

[lapucelle]

204. In the 100 days after the Democratic convention,

BS did a total of 18 events on 9 different dates, 3 days in September, 2 days in October, and 4 days in November.

[Cha]

206. Whoa.. could he spare the time?

smh.. I'd heard it wasn't very much.

Like I said Hillary was out there for Obama in June and she did work very hard to get him elected.

[lapucelle]

207. Seven of the events were in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Cha]

210. Hmmm

[Omaha Steve]

175. There you go writing the truth again!!!!!

[George II]

177. "more than a dozen appearances just in the final week." That's what he said, not what he did....

...and did you read the article in your first link? Not much of that came true, either.

[Jim Lane]

189. Do you agree with the assertion that he did only four events?

There's a lot of goalpost-moving going on here. I'm perfectly well aware that, for the Bernie-haters, there is absolutely no level of activity on his part that would meet the test of "he did enough to satisfy us."

Giving up on meeting that impossible standard, I confined myself to refuting the charge in #20 that he did only four events. The purveyor of that lie responded to my refutation by saying, "I don't need your filtered 'facts'."

Thus, the line is pretty clearly drawn between those who adhere to their preconceptions, regardless of the facts, and those who are members of the reality-based community. Which side are you on?

[George II]

196. I didn't say that, but we all know that he didn't do more than a dozen in the final week either.....

...and we also know that he didn't make his first appearance until 39 days after the end of the Convention.

Lots of what was said in the articles was before hand, and much of it didn't come to pass. He didn't travel from coast to coast or all over the country. In fact, in the 100 days between the close of the convention and election day he spent only 13 days (three in neighboring New Hampshire) campaigning for Clinton. He traveled no further west than Minnesota and no further south than Raleigh.

That he campaigned was good, very good, but let's not kid ourselves that he campaigned tirelessly for Clinton.

[Jim Lane]

205. True, you didn't say it. You also didn't call out a lie that served your agenda.

Thank you, I have my answer.

[George II]

208. I'm not the DU cop around here, but I DID "call out" the comment you made about him....

....making "more than a dozen appearances just in the final week" (I would never characterize that as a "lie", by the way).

Since it's really up to the person who made the comment that you call a lie to correct it, will you correct your incorrect comment about Sanders making "more than a dozen appearances just in the final week"? It's your comment, you're certainly in a position to correct that. Will you?

[Jim Lane]

215. Let's look at the context here

#20: unsupported charge that Bernie did only four events
#73: I ask for a link, and note my recollection that there were more than four
#86: poster of the original smear reiterates the charge, provides no link, says only that an unspecified "[s]omeone" had posted it
#90: against my better judgment, I break down and do a little research, posting four links to MSM sources, which show that the smear in #20 is false
#113: author of smear again repeats the lie, still no link, but this time with the following support: a reiteration that it "was posted on DU and it confined what I saw with my own eyes...."; still no link, and no explanation of how the poster could personally know that events had NOT occurred
#116: I point this out to the author of the smear
#117: author of the smear comes back with a jewel of a my-mind's-made-up-don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts response: "I saw what happened with my own eyes. I don't need your filtered 'facts'."

Now, I'm biased here, but I think this exchange is a truly extraordinary example of Bernie hatred. People who are shrieking about the need for unity against Trump and the GOP might consider whether that unity is actually promoted by this total demonization of a candidate who went from single digits in the polls to receiving more than 40% of the votes.

Those, IMO, are the important takeaways. You want to focus only on my #90. Unlike the Bernie-hater with whom I was trying to have a discussion, I provided a specific link, from a well-known corporate news organization (not a source known for being friendly to democratic socialism), and I quoted the source accurately.

It's certainly open to people to say that the source concerned events scheduled, and some of those scheduled weren't held. People can go into detail about specific numbers of events and about why plans were changed. It's certainly clear that the assertion advanced in #20 and stubbornly repeated thereafter was false. Beyond that, I'm not knowledgeable about the specifics of schedule changes -- whether Bernie backed out, or the Clinton campaign had second thoughts, or the town wouldn't issue a permit for the rally, or what happened.

Frankly, as I said in #90, none of this matters much to the people criticizing Bernie. They start with the premise that he is Evil Incarnate, that his daring to campaign against their preferred candidate somehow put Trump in office, etc., etc. There is no number of events he could have done that would satisfy them. This whole thread has reinforced my conclusion that their hatred of Bernie is impervious to facts. Trump says "fake news" and they say "filtered 'facts'" and at bottom it's the same thing: adherence to preconceptions regardless of what the evidence is.

I should've followed my original impulse. Getting no link for the smear, I should've just ignored it. From now on I'm going to make a real effort to spend less of my time refuting online bullshit. Haters gonna hate.

[lapucelle]

212. The reality is that he did a grand total of 18 events

on 9 different dates in the 100 days after the Democratic convention.

http://blog.4president.org/2016/bernie-sanders/

[betsuni]

214. Thank you very much for posting this information.

Bookmarking for inevitable future use.

[bettyellen]

176. I know his first reaction after the convention was to take weeks off working on his book.

But was it really only four appearances? I need to find a source for that- wow.

[ehrnst]

21. I saw something different.

But perhaps I was watching a different channel.

[Ken Burch]

25. Whatever channel you were watching, you were always looking for some reason

Not only to blame Bernie himself(which would be one thing-he can take care of himself) but to essentially anathemize any person and any idea connected to his campaign or even in agreement with anything that campaign was about.

Never mind that trying to make the party not only a Bernie-free zone, but a place where that campaign's supporters and ideas are unwelcome(unless the supporters are willing to renounce the ideas and simply obey whatever the party leadership says), costs us votes and makes it harder to gain unity and generate passion and enthusiasm for '18 and '20-elections we CAN'T win by just being against T___p.

Why is it so important to you to push the idea that we must not change anything, that we must never listen to suggestions for doing things even partly differently, and that anybody who does suggest change is just doing "talking points" and acting as a saboteur?

We can't gain votes by telling Democrats to just shut up and keep things the same, ehrnst.

[R B Garr]

36. Seriously?? Quit making this another victimhood manifesto.

Hillary was the target being victimized. Quit trying to make it the other way around. Bernie was not being victimized. Read the Mueller indictments. They are current news, very relevant.

[Ken Burch]

53. Hillary was screwed over by numerous factors

Almost all of them involving the right wing.

I wasn't saying she wasn't the main victim.

[R B Garr]

58. The Russians helped two campaigns. One of them was

protracted and was not RW.

[Ken Burch]

72. If it's not refighting to keep saying he shold have left earlier,

the it's equally not refighting to respond to that.

The main reason he stayed in was to not let his own supporters down.

They all wanted the chance to vote for the guy and they wanted to have as many delegates in Philly as possible to get their ideas into the platform.

He'd have just alienated all of them forever if he'd stood down in March. They would never have listened to him again.

It's enough that he endorsed her after California and before Philly

And what matters now is getting the supporters of all the 2016 primary candidates, and any additional voters we can bring in (almost all of whom will be significantly left-of-center) for the future. While Bernie personally can handle anything said, what is there in raging about this that is worth alienating votes we could gain and will need in 2018 and 2020?

[R B Garr]

74. That is an excuse and not what his wife admitted to.

And this wasn’t about the primary. As the OP notes and my previous post says, this is not about making Bernie the victim. Current news, FBI indictments confirm that Hillary was the target of Russian smear campaigns.

[DURHAM D]

65. Is your avatar Linda Sarsour? nt

[Exotica]

84. I dont know, but it WAS used as a Russian troll pic, and it is from Berlin, not in the USA

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/berlin/-women-s-march--trump-gegnerinnen-demonstrieren-fuer-frauenrechte-25588896



This space is a repository for content from the Russian social media account ‘United Muslims Of America’.

linkie

[NurseJackie]

120. That's very interesting. Thanks very much for the info.

[Hekate]

141. Now that I see the larger picture, that's not the way Muslim women arrange their scarves

[ehrnst]

91. Buying straw men by the case now, are you?

Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Nothing in your insulting rant makes sense in light of my posts.

Yes, I told you to stop PMing me when you couldn't respond to my posts on threads where you got a hide, and I finally had to block you to get you to stop, but I had no idea that it would make you so bitter and resentful that you would save it up to spill out onto posts.

Is that the basis for your accusation, passively worded as it is, that I "tell Democrats to shut up?"

Why is it so important to you to push the idea that we must not change anything, that we must never listen to suggestions for doing things even partly differently, and that anybody who does suggest change is just doing "talking points" and acting as a saboteur?

That tirade has no basis in reality, but clearly you have been saving that up for awhile.

Never mind that trying to make the party not only a Bernie-free zone, but a place where that campaign's supporters and ideas are unwelcome(unless the supporters are willing to renounce the ideas and simply obey whatever the party leadership says), costs us votes and makes it harder to gain unity and generate passion and enthusiasm for '18 and '20-elections we CAN'T win by just being against T___p.

That straw man is another passively worded, insulted filled, furiously typed accusation of even more things that exist only in your fantasies about what I have posted. You have decided to name scores of straw boogeymen "ehrnst" to attack when you are frustrated with with people and media sources who just won't abide by your guidelines for talking about Senator Sanders.

Since my posts seem to be triggers for pent up resentment filled manifestos, I would suggest the "Ignore" feature, as I selected "block this sender" to keep you from ranting at me in my inbox.

[betsuni]

92. We're going to need a bigger haystack.

The "talking points" thing is directed at me. Hi Ken!

[ehrnst]

93. I guess several of us are all really the just one big meanie from Ken's perspective.

[betsuni]

94. Indeed!

We are so mean for no reason

[Ken Burch]

108. I don't resent you...I just wish people here would stop treating me as the enemy

and stop acting as if I have a hidden anti-Democratic agenda when everyone knows I don't.

And I wish you'd people would accusing me of posting "talking points" from opponents of this when I never do that-I simply express my OWN independent opinions, and when the respectful suggestions I've made for changing the party after the election were never about anything about helping us win more votes and do more good when we're elected again.

I've never once insulted you. Not once.

I've also never been the cause of the party's troubles. It's not my fault we ended up with T___p.

I did as much as I could to help Hillary get elected once the nomination was settled.

As to PM's-look, sometimes I do that simply to try to explain where I'm coming from outside of the heat of a thread. I'm sorry for sending you any.

Could you just tell me why, much of the time when I post, and in almost every thread I start, you seem to show up to derail the threads and try to personally discredit me?

I've done nothing, at any point, to deserve that from you. As far as I know, I've never done anything remotely like that to any of your threads.

I don't hate Hillary and accepted her nomination with good grace.

In the spring of '16, I said a handful of things I should not have said and apologized for all of them. Since then, I've totally changed my posting style and it's no longer fair to judge me by what I said then, given that I've done all I could to take ownership of those things and given that none had any lasting effect on the final outcome.

(I don't hate ANY Democratic politician).
I didn't want us to end up with Trump.
I don't want Bernie to run again or to "take over the party&quot something he couldn't do anyway).

So why is it that you seem to be fixated on calling me out and silencing me?

And what would it take to get you to stop?

Can you please

[ehrnst]

109. And the straw man body count increases....

stop acting as if I have a hidden anti-Democratic agenda when everyone knows I don't.

Out there, even for you, Ken....

And I wish you'd and others would stop accusing me of posting "talking points" when I never do that-

I wish you would stop confusing me with other people, or simply lumping us together as an entity, because I never accused you of that.

As to PM's-none of them were personal attacks on your or even personal references to you.

I never said they were attacks, and yes you PM'd me to talk to me personally.

Could you just tell me why, much of the time when I post, and in almost every thread I start, you seem to show up to derail the threads?

I post in threads of interest to me. It's not all about you.... Believe me, Ken, I have no interest whatsoever in "stalking" you. If that was the case, I would PM you, and I've blocked you from PMing me.

So why is it that you seem to be fixated on calling me out and silencing me?

Again, Ken, I post in threads of interest, and the fact that you are still posting responses to me indicates you haven't been "silenced" unless you are talking about my blocking you from messaging me over and over....

And what would it take to get you to stop?

Stop what? Stop replying to you? Stop posting on any thread you start? There is a simple way rid yourself of my presence on a thread that you are on, and that is to use "ignore."

[Ken Burch]

111. OK...why don't you put me on ignore, then?

Why am I the one who has to do that?

It looks as though you simply can't tolerate me posting anything here and take anything I post as either an effort to damage the party or as an attack on Democratic politicians. If that's not your view of what I post, could you tell me what it actually is?

Your responses to me read as though you hold a deep grudge against me and blame me for a lot of things I'm not the cause of, and that you think I've somehow done so much damage that I have no right to say anything here anymore.

[ehrnst]

112. You asked: "And what would it take to get you to stop?"

Ken, it's not me writing long, pained, accusatory, straw man filled missives about you or those you admire being attacked and persecuted.

It's you. That is my view of what you post.

If you have an issue, it's up to you to do something about it. Like I did when I got tired of all the needy, needy PMs and blocked you.

Your responses to me read as though you hold a deep grudge against me and blame me for a lot of things I'm not the cause of, and that you think I've somehow done so much damage that I have no right to say anything here anymore.

So Ken, when someone disagrees agree, or points out problems in your pronouncments, they "hold a deep grudge against you," and think you "done so much damage that you have no right to say anything here anymore?"

Persecution complex?

If you want to continue to feed it, you will. If you want to do something about it, you will. Ball's in your court.

[Ken Burch]

114. But you don't actually say what you disagree about, mostly.

A lot of your posts are essentially two or three words messages on the lines of "shut up".

It's not an acceptable response to try to discourage people from posting.

[ehrnst]

115. More straw men.... you just keep on coming back with more

"A lot of your posts are essentially two or three words messages on the lines of "shut up".

Again, I think you lump all people who disagree with you into one person, and you really don't remember who said what, but I am not known for two or three word messages.

It's not an acceptable response to try to discourage people from posting.

t seems to me that any disagreement or rebuttal is taken in a deeply personal and very emotional way. Nobody is being persecuted. Nobody is being silenced. There's no good reason for anyone to obsess about me.

This is what I talked about when you kept on PMing me before I blocked you.

It's been my experience that when anyone requires others to agree with them for personal validation, and they keep on posting replies to people that they disagree with, that's a recipie for a continuous feedback loop of anxiety.

The "ignore" feature available to anyone who needs it. I don't need it.

When anyone continues to participate in any discussion (in spite of their protestations that the discussion is happening at all) that tells me it's something that they want and that it's something that fills a need.

[Ken Burch]

118. I don't require people to agree with me at all.

All I ask is what I do my best to offer...mutual respect and an acceptance of positive and honest intent.

[ehrnst]

123. If you left the straw men at home, your stated intent would be way more apparent.

[pnwmom]

37. He took July off after the convention, and the entire month of August, and almost all of September.

Then he did aa few events.

What was he doing? Writing the book that he had scheduled to be released the day after the election. Why couldn't that have been scheduled for a few months later, so that he could have done the writing after the election and not during the campaign?

[BoneyardDem]

43. that is simply not true. EVERYONE remembers how he held out on his endorsement

...and refusing to concede. I'm surprised you don't remember....I wonder if I can refresh your memory without being called out for break some rule or another?

http://time.com/4372644/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-speech-democratic-nomination/

By Sam Frizell June 17, 2016

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders promised in a video address on Thursday night to continue his political revolution, declining to concede the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton despite losing a majority of votes to his rival.

then there finally was the luke warm concession, endorsing his Revolution almost as much a the Dem Presidential nominee:

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-endorses-hillary-clinton-concedes-democratic-primary

The Vermont senator stood side-by-side with Clinton in Portsmouth, N.H., Tuesday. He pledged that his "political revolution" would continue. But he acknowledged that she, and not he, had won the delegates to snag the nomination. That has been true for weeks, and Democrats have not-so-quietly been angling for him to drop out and endorse the former secretary of state.

most of us didn't forget

[Ken Burch]

71. What matters is he endorsed her before the convention.

It wouldn't have made any difference if he'd endorsed her earlier.

It's refighting the primaries to keep attacking him for not withdrawing earlier. Stop.

[Ken Burch]

88. He clearly preferred her to T___p

Look, the guy made some mistakes and clearly shouldn't seek the nomination again, but he never wanted us to be in the situation we're in now.

If you lock in on making him the enemy, we can never get the votes of most of the young people who backed him, especially if that was coupled with making sure the ideas associated with his campaign were anathemized.

I don't personally give a shit about Bernie(other than the concern I'd have for anybody else facing what I saw as false accusations). it's the unintended consequences of the direction this seems to be going-a direction that would have us being the party we would have be if we steered clear of all of those ideas and without the voices of any of his supporters.

It is imperative we not go in that direction.

[Exotica]

96. I just hope we all stop refighting 2016 and concentrate on 2018

2020 has not yet come remotely into focus.
I also do not like false accusations, as evidenced by my replies on the NRA Bernie thread.
I just wish that the circular firing squad would cease.
It is exactly how Russia and others enact nonlinear war, they bank on the secondary and tertiary reactions to cause chaos.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210257721

[Ken Burch]

107. That's what I've been saying since over and over.

Trying to blame individuals allied with is a waste of time.

There are some strategy and tactics that need to be adjusted, but we can find a way to discuss that civilly, one that includes is all and is about the future, not the past.

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. Wait, the problem is 2018 and 2020 will be HEAVILY influenced by the man you are all

discussing.

In fact I think we can look forward to PRIMARYING democrats who would otherwise WIN, and I think the main person behind that movement is you know who.

So, while I wish I never had to say his name again, you can be certain he will play a pivotal role.

[Exotica]

133. I have confidence that the best Democrats will win the primaries, regardless

of what he tries to do.

[KPN]

129. WTF?! How do you explain

your post #85 in this thread. Artful deception. Have to wonder ...

[Exotica]

134. I see no inconsistency

Nothing I said is untruthful.

[KPN]

137. Hilarious.

No inconsistency -- that's rich.

[Exotica]

139. I was not the one who started the-refight the-primaries posting

I simply stated what I found to be incorrect, then further down in the thread stated again that this entire rehash is non-productive.

[KPN]

147. Baloney. Post 85 says it all.

[Exotica]

149. you have your opinion, I have mine

thanks for sharing

[NurseJackie]

121. Oh brother! Nonsense!

we can never get the votes of most of the young people who backed him

Nonsense! That's a very pessimistic and backward-looking statement, in my opinion. Personally, I think it's a mistake to underestimate their intelligence. Those "young people" will be four years older and four years wiser. And four years of additional information will have come to light in the interim. It's an unrealistic stretch for anyone to claim that these people won't support Democrats in 2020 because one individual is criticized for what is being said in 2018.

[R B Garr]

135. +1000. nt

[KitSileya]

105. Bullshit.

His refusal to concede made it infinitely more difficult to fight the republicans, because only the nominee could authorize the use of the money collected for the down-ticket candidates (pretty much all of which didn't come from Bernie who refused to stump for anyone but his own, specially selected candidates.) His supporters were frothing at the mouth because "Hillary didn't give the money collected for local candidates" (implying that she was using the money on her own campaign) when it was *specifically* his fault they didn't get it in a timely fashion because HE refused to concede even though he lost back in April.

It would have made a difference if he'd conceded earlier, you betcha!

[NurseJackie]

122. Thanks for your post. I predict that poster won't reply to you...

... because it contains too many facts.

[Hekate]

142. Ken, what matters is he did NOT call out the Russians, trolls, bots, etc once he KNEW ...

...of their interference. We now know that his campaign KNEW. He was TOLD by his own people. It damn well WOULD have made a difference if Sanders had spoken out -- loudly, which he knows how to do.

He was so focused on his personal "Revolution" that he lost sight of the existential threat to our nation by the invasion of a foreign and hostile power. To say I am disappointed in Bernie Sanders is beyond understatement.

[betsuni]

145. I wonder if he takes seriously the fact that if he runs against Trump for president

all those terrible fake news stories are going to be about HIM.

[NCTraveler]

68. Learning moment.

[Kahuna7]

104. That was AFTER he spear-headed a revolt at HER nominating conventions....

You know..people tend to believe you the first time that you tell them, the opponent is not worthy of their support.

[George II]

163. See Posts #160 and #162.

[ehrnst]

19. That's the actual definition of true progressive

One who would rather not see it all burn down because their candidate didn't get the votes, and understands that it's not all about their user preferences being met in order for them to dirty themselves at the polls.

[pandr32]

178. +1

[leftstreet]

2. Oh! Is that what he meant by 'why didn't she do anything?'

Sorry to confuse from another thread, but the quote is him asking why the Clinton campaign "didn't do anything" about the Russian meddling. Which made no sense

But is he asking that in context of his campaign informing hers?

[DURHAM D]

5. You might want to listen to the interview with VPR. nt

[ehrnst]

6. She would not go negative on Sanders.

I find it interesting that he stated today on VT public radio he never knew about Russian bots.

[Me.]

3. Exactly

Today he said he didn't know and why didn't HRC do something about it. Someone on that thread said he was either ignorant or a liar. I think it's pretty clear now which trench he's digging.

[RandomAccess]

24. Yeah, because it couldn't POSSIBLY be

two different time frames he's discussing, could it?

[Me.]

30. NO...And Especially As He Has The Advantage Of HIndsight

and blaming HRC is too nonsensical to be believed, her people didn't steal his data.

[RandomAccess]

40. HIS people didn't steal her data either

But it sure is convenient to spin it that way, isn't it?

[Me.]

44. THey Broke Into Her Files Without Permission

and used/stored her info for their benefit.

[RandomAccess]

46. Nope, they did not USE or even STORE her data

they noticed that there had been unusual access, and were in the process of documenting it.

As a matter of fact, IMO it was exactly the opposite -- the unusual activity was HER campaign trying to steal his data. After all, it was a Wasserman-Schultz relative running that data operation.

[Me.]

48. So They Fired Their Tech For Doing NOthing?

IMO, we are not going to agree on this

[RandomAccess]

50. Of course we're not going to agree on this

And yes, they fired him because it LOOKED bad and rather than come out with charges that it was really the OTHER campaign (Clinton's) that was trying to steal the data. They probably also thought he should've gotten permission beforehand -- or whatever.

Yes, didn't you just see Al Franken sacrificed on the altar of what people (esp. the other side) think?

[Me.]

51. Now That's An Unbelievable Stretch

[RandomAccess]

52. Not to someone (like me) who was very closely following

the whole thing at the time.

But to you? Yeah, no doubt.

[Me.]

54. Now See...I Didn't Make My Comments To You Personal

In fact exactly what the Senator did today because he doesn't have a good answer

[RandomAccess]

56. Well, whatever

I didn't hear him, don't know what was asked, or the rest of the context. So -- ?? You'll have to discuss that with someone else.

ETA: And if you meant that you interpreted what I said as a personal slight, it wasn't. Sorry if it seemed so -- if it did.

[Me.]

61. Thank You

[R B Garr]

66. That is lulz. Uretsky got fired because it was Clinton trying

to steal the data....? Wow...truly unbelievable.

[Hekate]

143. What the ever loving

RandomAccess?

[R B Garr]

57. They created other user names for no reason. And just like

the bogus lawsuit against the DNC, trying to make themselves the victims. This is beyond absurd now.

[RandomAccess]

59. Bogus lawsuit? You've GOT to be kidding.

If you're that seriously biased against Sanders, there's no point in me taking another second to respond.

But you're right about something: This is beyond absurd.

[R B Garr]

63. Lawsuit was tossed out. Of course your database access will be restricted

after it was found you breached protocol. It was restored after they found out what happened.

If a lawsuit doesn’t advance, then the judge thinks it is meritless, which it was.

[RandomAccess]

77. I don't remember it being tossed out -- but I do remember that

it was probably considered moot because the campaign hung onto it even after the DNC restored his access to the data. So if it was tossed out -- and it may have been -- no big deal. It probably was "meritless" at that point. If it had been meritless before that, the DNC would never have reneged on their action and restored access to the data.

[NCTraveler]

70. Some of the most revisionist history I have read on DU.

Keep fighting those primaries. You will set your record straight.

[ehrnst]

33. Which time frames are those?

Can you clarify?

[RandomAccess]

42. Well, it's like this

There's a time when you aren't aware of something, and then a point you become aware of something.

There's a LOT of discussion here and elsewhere around this quote from Sanders that doesn't take that into account. You can't refute the FACT that there was a time he didn't know, couldn't possibly have known.

I don't happen to know the specific points in time for the two conditions (not knowing / knowing), but neither does anyone else, yet NO ONE is taking that into account. Everyone is just eager to once again jump on Bernie and -- if at all possible -- lie about him, or at least throw out piles of slimy innuendo.

[ehrnst]

49. I'm just going on what Bernie said in interviews yesterday and today.

I think everyone is taking that as the starting point.

Then taking into account what his campaign worker, Mattes, said about the timeline of discovery and reporting.

I have no reason to believe that Mattes is lying putting forth "slimy innuendo" if that's what you're saying.

He has said that many people have attacked him as a "Hillbot" for what he has said in interviews about his detection of of the suspicious posts in March of 2016.

I hope that clarifies things.

[dawg day]

62. I don't have a problem with him not knowing all at the time...

But for him to act like the Clinton campaign was wrong not to "do something"-- what? It's churlish and annoying this late, and it makes it seem like he wants to blame someone-- the victim-- instead of his own people or himself. Yes, he was used, but if you are used, it's not the victim's fault. A sincere apology-- "I'm sorry my campaign was used to hurt you"-- would be useful here.

Boy, really, the more we hear about the ubiquity of the Russian project to discredit Clinton, the more impressive it is that she did so well. She was fighting more than her rival candidates, far more, at every stage.

And it is time then perhaps for the Sanders campaign to look at some of those "controversies" during the primaries and see what were invented or intensified by the Russians.

[dawg day]

64. Nixon v. Muskie comes to mind

When Nixon thought he might face Edmund Muskie, a strong candidate, his campaign sought to destroy Muskie (and succeeded) while pumping up the prospects of McGovern (a very good man, but not a strong candidate).

The Russians might have been trying to do that too, to "help" Sanders by destroying the stronger candidate-- fortunately, she was stronger than that. Sigh. What might have been. what SHOULD have been.

[RandomAccess]

76. You're absolutely right

The Russians are very sophisticated and they were absolutely everywhere. Ubiquitous. I was troubled by much of what I saw on FB and Twitter, and looking back I realize how much of it was Russians. They really know what they're doing and have a LOT of experience.

[ehrnst]

95. Actually, no.

It's pretty clear that he's talking about the russian bots active on his FB pages during the 2016 election, unless there's another election that Mueller's investigating...

[RandomAccess]

99. That doesn't change anything

Why on earth would you think it does?

Of COURSE it was during the 2016 election -- but WHEN???

[ehrnst]

100. Weaver is denying Mueller's assertion that Russian Bots backed Bernie at all:

Bernie Sanders blamed Hillary Clinton for for allowing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election in a Vermont Public Radio interview

He aftewards sent out a statement that backed off from that - link to the statement is in the tweet below:

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

While his 2016 campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, denied special counsel Robert Mueller’s assertion that the Russian’s backed Sanders campaign, according to Politico.


Asked why Sanders would blame Clinton for not intervening, Weaver said, “Uh, I don’t know. They [Clinton's campaign] did have more information.”

Sanders went on to indicate that he was at least vaguely aware of the operation that Mueller detailed in his indictment of 13 Russian nationals last week: “What Mueller reported, he had more specificity than we’d seen before. Not exactly new.”

The findings that Sanders is referring to:

Mueller’s indictment states that the 13 Russians indicted “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Among the evidence the indictment cites is a message from the day after Sanders and Trump won their New Hampshire primaries. "Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.),” the document read.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

So - Bernie is stating that he "vaguely knew" and was "not surprised" at the above findings. But also said:

The Vermont senator was adamant that he did not benefit from Russian bots urging voters to support him. “I did not know that Russian bots were promoting my campaign. Russian bots were not promoting my campaign,” he said

Is that clearer? His campaign ended at the convention in July 2016. The Mueller indictment (which Bernie references directly as "not surprising him&quot , as well as some who worked on Sanders' campaign, confirm activity through the General Election.

Sanders described how an aide handling his social media accounts noticed an uptick in “horrific and ugly things” directed at Clinton beginning around September 2016 — long after the Democratic nomination had been decided, and while Sanders himself was traveling the country campaigning on her behalf.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/

So if an aide confirmed this, and as Bernie claims, went to the Clinton campaign with it, why was Bernie silent about it until now? Do you believe that the Clinton campaign would not have come to him with this? Because the best way to neutralize damage that Sanders supporters were doing sharing bot propaganda from his FB pages would have been for him to have spoken publicly about it.

That was not the job of the Clinton campaign to manage Bernie's FB pages - imagine the long knives coming out if there was even a perceived attempt by HRC to stop people from posting on his FB pages......

[RandomAccess]

101. Not at all.

There's still no time line.

But I'm done with this conversation.

[ehrnst]

102. I updated the post. But if you aren't interested in the information, I understand.

Completely.

[RandomAccess]

119. Good

I'm simply not feeling well enough to concentrate on it. Sorry.

[LexVegas]

4. The hits keep on comin'.nt

[ehrnst]

7. That sanctions vote, tho. (nt)

[CentralMass]

8. Cleary not hits against Sander or his campaign. They brought the matter to the

attention of the Clinton capaign and the Obama Administration.


https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html

Local Sanders Facebook Organizer Noticed Russian Influence
"

A San Diego man who organized Bernie Sander’s local Facebook group during the 2016 presidential election told NBC 7 he noticed traces of Russia’s hidden social media trolling campaign years ago.

After Sanders was beat out by Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he noticed something was a little off.

“Hundreds and hundreds of people were joining Bernie Sanders pages on Facebook for a campaign that was over. It made no sense.” John Mattes told NBC 7.

Mattes resorted to checking other Bernie Sanders pages around the country. “It was everywhere," he said. Mattes noticed that the posts had a similar theme. "‘Anti-Hillary’, ‘Hillary is sick’, ‘Hillary is involved in Al Qaeda’, ‘Hillary’s getting money from the Russians’”.

"Mattes soon caught on to some of their telling signs.

"They would misspell where they’re living in the United States or they would have no profile at all, they were just ghosts."

"After a lengthy investigation, Mattes said he took his findings to the Clinton Campaign as well as the Obama Administration last September

[ehrnst]

14. But Sanders said today that he "did not know that Russian Bots were promoting his campaign"

Link to tweet

[CentralMass]

26. As the article I posted states after he lost the primary, ohn Mattes, who the used Sanders FB acct.

noticed a huge up tick in people signing up. "Hundreds an hundreds:"

"“Hundreds and hundreds of people were joining Bernie Sanders pages on Facebook for a campaign that was over. It made no sense.” John Mattes told NBC 7.

Mattes resorted to checking other Bernie Sanders pages around the country. “It was everywhere," he said. Mattes noticed that the posts had a similar theme. "‘Anti-Hillary’, ‘Hillary is sick’, ‘Hillary is involved in Al Qaeda’, ‘Hillary’s getting money from the Russians’”.

“I started digging deeper, tried to look at the servers, I tried to look at the IP address of these people,” Mattes added. Soon, he realized that the people behind these accounts weren't actually people."


“I call them at the time ghosts. Really they’re bots, they’re trolls” Mattes said."

"After a lengthy investigation, Mattes said he took his findings to the Clinton Campaign as well as the Obama Administration last September."

Please read the article for the full details.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html

[ehrnst]

28. I did read the full article.

Hence my response....

[pnwmom]

39. That doesn't explain why Bernie made the comment about Hillary. She HAD been speaking up

about Russian meddling, even during debates with Trump. What else could she do except speak up? She wasn't President and she had no special powers. Why is Bernie acting like she could have done more than she did?

[ehrnst]

55. Clearly just talking about something, and not actually accomplishing anything

toward that end is a bad characteristic in a politician!!!!!

If you're a woman, anyway.

[KitSileya]

106. Yeah, 'cause it's not as if that isn't a pretty good summary of his career. NT

[dawg day]

67. This sounds like it is one man who told the Clinton campaign....

It wasn't Sanders's campaign that did it, but this one fella, and it was in September. Good for him. By October, Clinton spoke about Russian interference in the debate ("Putin wants a puppet&quot . It's scary how right she was then.

[SidDithers]

9. Sep 2016...

Riiiiiiight.



Sid

[MaryMagdaline]

10. Bernie is a patriot, unlike Trump. He is not going to pretend something did not happen

[LexVegas]

12. And he is going to make sure he blames the right people...like Hillary!!

[peggysue2]

35. LOL!!

Splendid response. Thank you.

[ehrnst]

15. However, he denies knowing that it was going on.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210268018

[Cha]

16. The russians were helping trump and BS

They were working against Hillary.

[George II]

17. Here in 2018 he's saying he knew what was going on in 2016, yet did nothing about it in 2016?

[ehrnst]

22. Yes, it's quite confusing. (nt)

[CentralMass]

29. They reported it to the Clinton campaign and Obama administration in September of 2016.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html

[ehrnst]

31. Who is "they?"

Because Senator Sanders said he didn't know about Russian Bots promoting him to Vermont Public Radio as per their tweet today, February 21.

Does "they" include Senator Sanders?

And if so, why was there no public statement by Senator Sanders to those followers on his FB pages addressing this during the General Election?

By all means, if you have a link to such a statement, please share.

[pnwmom]

41. "They" didn't. Mattes did. But why didn't Bernie GO PUBLIC and tell his supporters

what was going on? That was the thing that could have helped.

[comradebillyboy]

60. Bernie didn't want to acknowledge that the Russians were promoting his campaign.

It wouldn't have looked good.

[yardwork]

83. Why not?

It seems to me that Sanders' campaign should have been making a very big deal out of the fact that they had discovered that a foreign nation was attempting to meddle in the presidential election.

I don't recall him mentioning it before now.

[dawg day]

69. Actually, the article says Mattes (the local guy)

.. was the one who reported it, not the Sanders campaign--
"After a lengthy investigation, Mattes said he took his findings to the Clinton Campaign as well as the Obama Administration last September."

[CentralMass]

75. Ok. This article paints a different picture. I'll wait until the dust settles

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

[underthematrix]

27. Mueller hasn't issued a report ONLY indictments

What is Bernie referring to?

[Blue_true]

127. Bernie is deflecting, as always. nt

[betsuni]

32. K&R

[Adrahil]

34. And he did next to nothing to stop it. :/ NT

[peggysue2]

38. Inconvenient truths

Think we better get ready for some very inconvenient truths being exposed during the continuing Mueller investigation. And yes, that will include some squirm-inducing facts on the Sanders' and Stein campaigns, designed primarily to divide Democratic voters and eek out a very questionable win for the Trumpsters.

Trump and his criminal cabal are the main target. But they had help, not only from the Russians but from those inside, who unwittingly or otherwise opened the door for the con and his acolytes. I would think everyone would find Bernie's comments blaming the target--Clinton's campaign--as more that a little disturbing. I might say downright Trumpian.

There are going to be a lot of red faces and anguish before this is over.

[Me.]

45. + 1000

[uponit7771]

82. +1, starting to think this too ... especially sense we've not seen Sanders long form tax

... returns.

Something ... jus aint right about that whole period of time in US politics and Clinton looks like she has the cleanest hands

[peggysue2]

89. Ironic, no?

After all the garbage thrown at Hillary Clinton, after all the accusations and vile spew by opponents and allies alike. She is what she always said she was: a woman dedicated to public service.

We didn't just lose an election. We lost a grand opportunity.

[ehrnst]

110. Just 2014. And just the summary. (nt)

[Blue_true]

126. Bernie never owned up to issues in his campaign in 2016.

He has been largely a free rider on the backs of democrats in Congress, yet some see him as a hero. We need a better nominee in 2020.

[yallerdawg]

47. We are all susceptible to having our...

"confirmation bias" buttons pushed.

Comey did the same thing!

[quickesst]

78. Here is the key

“In many respects, what Mueller’s report tells us is not new to us,” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said. “We knew that they were trying to sow division within the American people. In my case, it was to tell Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Hillary Clinton is crazy, that Hillary Clinton is sick — terrible, terrible ugly stuff — and to have Bernie Sanders supporters either vote for Trump or Jill Stein or not vote at all.”

"We knew", and yet, he said nothing, either to his supporters, nor to the Clinton campaign. Defend that.

[tinrobot]

79. He saw Russian interference in September... yet he said nothing.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I never heard him speak out or support Hillary rgarding Russian interference...

[ehrnst]

97. I never heard anything either. (nt)

[Hekate]

146. Absolute silence from the man with the stentorian voice. Crickets. HIS "Revolution" or nothing.

I am bitterly disappointed in Bernie Sanders.

[yardwork]

81. This is a terrible thing that happened to our democracy.

[KPN]

130. +1000!

Exactly. That's the bottom line. Are we smart enough to move on or do we fall for this fool's gambit still being perpetrated. Seems like the latter.

[ehrnst]

144. The fool's gambit is pretty clear here.

And we can all smell it.

[KPN]

131. Let's make enemies.

[ehrnst]

132. With who? (nt)

[KPN]

136. How about by who.

Geezus ... senseless.

[ehrnst]

138. ??

Can you be less vague?

[Hekate]

140. Do be specific, KPN

[KPN]

148. This thread as one of endless examples

of counterproductive divisiveness. It's pretty petty and pretty senseless in my view. Not a great way to engender trust or team building.

[Eliot Rosewater]

152. Trust? Team building? So if people criticize Bernie, which he seems to be deserving lately

this might drive you away from voting for ANY democrat in November? And you are suggesting others feel this way also?








Sounds real god damn familiar to me

[KPN]

153. Not me, perhaps -- or more like, probably -- others.

This has been discussed here at great length many times so it seems senseless to do it again. I won't waste our time beyond the original observation I already made.

[Hortensis]

155. So you think those others won't learn from

even truly dreadful mistakes they're living the consequences of?

I disagree with what you are suggesting. I just woke up once again in the middle of the night and, as usual, started worrying about what the people who've gotten in power are doing to our country. I believe most people are appalled and frightened by what 2016 brought on us and do learn from mistakes, even if we don't like to admit them publicly.

[KPN]

168. I don't know the answer to that. I do know that a vast number of potentially

Democratic candidate voters (many millions) favor positions that Bernie has championed for decades now and see him as the ultimate progressive leader. Why spend time alienating any of those folks? Why fuel the perception that the Democratic Party establishment is undermining Bernie's credibility? That's what this stuff can look like.

Will those potentially Democratic candidate voters look elsewhere in the face of two more years of GOP control of DC or four more years of Trump? I don't know. I certainly hope not, but it makes no sense to me to alienate or stir up mistrust. Why do that?

I appreciate that you wake up at night worrying about our future. I do too. I'm sure there are tens of millions of us. That's a good sign.

[Hortensis]

193. You need to understand the liberal progressive ideals

of the Democratic Party came long before Sanders was born and his goals our goals long before he ran for president. His stated positions have always been derivative of the party's long-established goals, but were chosen by some quirk of his personality to be believed out of reach at any particular point in time -- a lack of viability that made Democrats who had many problems to solve to shelve them until a better time came, defined in his mind as "corruption." And of course, that makes also them useful tools for opportunistic demagoguery since we all want them.

I eventually saw this as the reemergence as a type that I saw all too much of (literally and figuratively) in the 1960s, when they last became really noisy. For the people I remember, rebellion against and rejection of mainstream thought ALWAYS trumped achieving the goals claimed. In those days I wasn't an enemy Democrat but a bemused observer wondering why "we" didn't unite with others who believed in them to achieve those goals.

They don't know that about themselves, though, and their passionate rhetoric draws many earnest, sensible people who want to strive for more but who also don't know that about them.

Which is why it's important to speak UP. Rhetoric without achievement is just hot air.

COUNTDOWN TO GIVING AMERICA A DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED CONGRESS: 253 days

[ehrnst]

164. How many threads discussed the revelations last month about the 2008 campaign?

I recall many here, ahem, who clearly felt that wasn't "senseless" or a "waste of time."

[KPN]

170. I vaguely recall those, but didn't pay much attention.

Not sure there were a lot of them or that there's equalization here, but your point is a good one. I tend to focus on the threads that disparage Bernie, progressives (so-called far left), economic progressives (again, far left), and call for party loyalty just because (I will admit that Trump and GOP control are a BIG BECAUSE and hopefully that BIG BECAUSE helps us prevail -- but that doesn't and won't take away from or stifle my expression of longer term concerns about the party on the economic/labor front).

[ehrnst]

180. You mean threads that share quotes from Bernie

that don't further his messaging about himself and his agenda?

I don't let that take away from or stifle my expression of longer term concerns about the Democratic party.

[KPN]

184. You make assumptions that I don't agree with regarding Bern. So there's probably no reason

So there's probably no reason to think anything will be gained from continuing this discussion.

Re: the Democratic Party, maybe there is some ground for further discussion. What are your "longer term" concerns about the Democratic Party and why? Or if you'd like, I can go first.

[ehrnst]

156. If one is very upset about such examples

one is free to ignore.

Clearly other people on DU don't see it as "divisive."

[KPN]

172. Correction: some other people don't see it as divisive.

Ignoring is kind of like being quiet.

[George II]

150. You mean "by whom"?

[KPN]

154. OK.

[liberal N proud]

151. Well, yes, he thought he could win because of it.

[Quixote1818]

174. One of the main attacks on Hillary from Russia was her emails. Sanders wanted nothing to do with

that line of attack. EVERYONE knew Russia was involved as they probably almost always are messing around in our elections. 538 suggests Russia probably didn't impact the election much. Not nearly as much as the FBI suggesting they were re-opening her email investigation a week before the election.

Snip>

1. Russian interference is hard to measure because it wasn’t a discrete event.
You know what probably did cost Clinton the election? The letter that former FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress on Oct. 28, 2016, and the subsequent media firestorm over it. The impact is relatively easy to measure because it was the biggest news event in the final two weeks of the campaign, and we can compare polls conducted just before the Comey letter to the ones conducted just after it.1
Russian interference isn’t like that. By contrast, the indictment (and previous reporting on the subject) suggests that the interference campaign had been underway for years (since at least 2014) and gradually evolved from a more general-purpose trolling operation into something that sought to undermine Clinton while promoting Trump (and to a lesser degree, Bernie Sanders). To the extent it mattered, it would have blended into the background and had a cumulative effect over the entirety of the campaign.

Snip: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/

[bettyellen]

182. Trump has the same defense. Billions in ads and tweets didnt matter?

Hard to imagine anyone honestly taking that position. In such a close race, it mattered greatly. The results are devastating.

[Quixote1818]

188. Editing after seeing the following line in the OP

Last edited Sun Feb 25, 2018, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Snip>On Tuesday, Sanders described one spike in anti-Clinton sentiment that he attributed to the Russian campaign. In September 2016, an aide noticed hundreds of “new names” appearing on pro-Sanders Facebook pages to denigrate Clinton and her candidacy — despite the fact Sanders himself was campaigning on her behalf during that same period.

The influx of social media trolls was alarming enough that the aide approached the Clinton campaign to inform them of the situation, Sanders said.


So what more did you want Sanders to do? Note that he didn't know this was occurring until after Hillary got the nomination.

[bettyellen]

195. People organizing FB groups had proof and tried to share it- but screwed up.

Part of the reason people didn’t believe Hillary when she talked about it was that the same crap was being pushed by purported Bernie fans- so it made it look more “legitimate”. He let her ass hang in the wind all alone, when he knew she was speaking the truth - and let it be becasue he was benefiting from it.

Same as the questions Donna Brazile sent him. He allowed people to believe that somehow it was only Hillary. If it were one thing, and he actually fought hard for her, I’d give him some credit. Too many cancelled campaign appearances, too much feint praise for me to believe his support was deliberately soft.
He was afraid of pissing off the BOBs and having what he knew were the bots turn on him.

[Quixote1818]

197. According to the OP she already had the nomination before his campaign discovered

this and shared it with her campaign. She was up so big against Trump and the odds of her winning were so high I doubt if even Hillary was that concerned about Russia at the time. Had Hillary asked Sanders to say something I am sure he would have.

I imagine Obama felt the same way. He probably thought she was going to win so he just hit Putin behind the scenes.

[bettyellen]

198. Thats the thing-the BOBers were worse after he was eliminated and horrible during the DNC itself.

Sanders had the power to shut that down- but like the media- he was okay with continuing attacks eroding support for her and other Dems. The whole nation is suffering from the result.

It was unethical to allow that, and to remain silent for so damn long. And totally shitty for blaming her for not saying anything when she alone did. The point is it should not have been her alone. Sanders failed her same as the media did- they both allowed the scales to tip to help their own narratives.

[Cha]

202. Well said, bettyellen.. Thank you!

So true.. every bit of it.. Reality, baby!

[bettyellen]

209. Youre welcome- as always, Cha! 👊

[Cha]

203. P.S. Hillary Worked Hard for Obama

in 2008.. that's how it's done.

Hillary joined Obama in 2008 in June..



US Election 2008: Hillary Clinton to join Barack Obama on campaign trail in White House race

More.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2164891/US-Election-2008-Hillary-Clinton-to-join-Barack-Obama-on-campaign-trail-in-White-House-race.html

[George II]

186. The effects that his campaign saw first hand was on Facebook, not the emails.

[Quixote1818]

191. That's why Sanders aid warned Hillary as to what was going on there as noted in the OP

Snip from the OP: The influx of social media trolls was alarming enough that the aide approached the Clinton campaign to inform them of the situation, Sanders said.

Obama, Dems, McConnell, the FBI etc. all knew about this so why blame only Sanders? What exactly would you have expected him to do more than what the article above said they did by informing Hillary what they thought was going on?

There were LOTS of people who could have done more in hindsight. I think Hillary was so far ahead in the polls up until the FBI email shit hit the fan, no one thought it mattered what Russia was doing. They didn't expect it to make a difference because according to the polls Hillary had it in the bag.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

[bettyellen]

211. The man who warned the PAC (not Hillarys campaign) was NOT a staffer at all... which is why

People are upset that this was being reported incrredtly and pushed out by sanders as well. You’d think he’d fact check before blaming Hillary? Naaah, easier just to blame her.