r/conspiracy: Is Bernie's popularity also due to Russian meddling?

Is Bernie's popularity also due to Russian meddling?

0 2017-07-07 by dantot

I was just reading through comments about Russia's meddling in our election to help Trump win. To some extent, this situation is already verified and true according to our intelligence agencies.

Everyone keeps repeating that Russia made Trump look good by using bots/Russian users on social media to publicly support Trump while also attacking Hillary, as well as strategic leaks to influence the people. I don't find any of that hard to believe at all. Something I just started paying attention to though, is Bernie's place while all this was happening. The whole DNC controversy is that Bernie was supposedly wronged, and that's supposed to make you hate Hillary. If that's true, I'd bet there's more going on than just that.

Bernie wasn't super popular until recently. His fame manifested online, much like Trump's, more or less at the same time as Trump's. I still don't understand how people love him so much, or how anyone could paint him as a benevolent grandfatherly figure; he's a crotchety old man that helps his wife steal from college students, makes tons of money while complaining about how immoral rich people are, and is about as corrupt and hypocritical as you can get. So how did he gain such a loving, respected reputation? My guess would be the same way Trump gained a following for being "honest", "devout", and "for the average small town American": Russian interference.

It would make sense. Divide the Democrats, expose information to make them look bad, and paint an image where "the good guy" Bernie was being wronged by them while meanwhile promoting Trump. If no one really knew or liked Bernie, they probably wouldn't have cared at all about the whole DNC controversy. Since they did, it turned into "the corrupt older generation of the Democratic party are supporting the evil Hillary at all costs... the youth must resist!". And now almost every person in their 20s worships Bernie as the "savior we needed". The whole thing seemed to work wonderfully, assuming it was deliberate.

The thing I'm frustrated by is how people still love both Trump and Bernie. Democrats all are claiming Trump's popularity is due to Russian interference, yet Trump-supporting Republicans all deny Russia was involved at all, thus letting Bernie's potentially wrongful rise to fame off the hook.

It worked so well, that all the Bernie lovers still fully support him. If they don't let go of their Bernie-or-nothing attitude by the next election, Trump will likely win again. That would be exactly what Russia wants, would it not?

25 comments

n/a EricCarver 2017-07-07

I was in Philly for DNC and for Bernie. There was great discussion, great debate, lots of patriotism. I looked hard to find one person there that was pro Hilly. Eventually I found one, and it was a respectable hard working guy 45-50. He said he was voting for her because he was a lifelong democrat and the media didn't give Bernie much chance. The guy wasn't a researcher like us, good ole common American type.

With those wandering the parade and protest routes, it was nearly 100% with a bunch of Jill fans. Figured there's be more Johnson fans but not that I saw.

Was cool to see people take time and money and effort to be there. Some emotion but a lot of facts.

I am unsure anyone could inject that kind of feeling towards Bernie other than seeing a guy work hard for people and have the system stick it to him, and ergo us.

n/a Todos1881 2017-07-07

What you said about how the guy mentioned "the media doesn't give him much of a chance" is one of the major reasons we will never have a president that isn't already handpicked.

The vast majority don't want to "waste" their vote and let the opposing team win. We are all already wasting our votes to begin with.

It'd be cool if you know we all came together as a country and decided not to just vote for what the popular choice is.

The guy in the corner at the debates who doesn't get any questions asked and zero media coverage is who we need to be looking at.

n/a EricCarver 2017-07-07

I sometimes wonder if a many party type setup would do it. You get a share of votes for your party depending on your percent coverage of the senate or house. So fringe groups would have a small role but still a role. Britain has something similar I believe.

n/a Todos1881 2017-07-07

Which would obviously be all dems and repubs since there is a handful of independents in congress..wouldn't that just reduce the independent candidates power even more? Sorry if I misunderstood.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I completely agree that our system is essentially fixed in the handpicked's favor.

I think the system needs to be changed, but I can't claim to be an expert on what it should be changed to or how to do it. I wish we were given more choices and everyone didn't take the mentality of "we have to vote for X or else Y will will!"

No one should vote AGAINST another candidate, they should vote FOR who they think is best.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I'm not so sure. Replace "Bernie" with "Trump" in your comment, and that's what most Trump supporters claim.

"He's an outsider", "He's just sticking up for us and getting screwed by the media and the system", "He's one of us", "He's a hardworking businessman", etc.

I think that playing off of people's emotions like that is what creates this devotion to political figures. It definitely can be manufactured- you just have to convince people "it's us verses them, and this guy is on our side".

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I'd also like to add to that, Bernie is renown for dividing people based on financial class. He frequently argues "it's 'us' verses the rich people. They're taking advantage of the poor and we have to stop them."

Meanwhile, Trump divides people people based on political ideology, race, religion, and sexuality.

Division makes people passionate. It plays off of people's sense of morality and wellbeing.

n/a EricCarver 2017-07-07

Could be, but I think the way Bernie lives is proof positive that he isn't lining his pockets ruling for us. I don't know.

n/a UnderwritingRules 2017-07-07

Bernie wasn't super popular until recently

That's not true at all.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I'm sure he was still moderately popular in the past, as all congressmen have some sort of following (they wouldn't get elected if they didn't), but the cult-like following really didn't develop until this last election.

He was basically an average congressman before he ran. During, and after the democratic primaries, he essentially went viral online, just like Trump.

n/a UnderwritingRules 2017-07-07

He was basically an average congressman before he ran.

He got very popular after his filibuster of the Bush era tax cuts for the rich. His popularity just keep building until he announced his run for prez in 2015. It was a very natural and genuine build-up of a following.

Trump's 'popularity' didn't feel the same at all.

n/a Chalcosoma-atlas 2017-07-07

If you accept that Russia fueled much of the anti-Hillary hysteria online in the lead-up to the election, it's hard to ignore that Bernie supporters bought into much of the same rhetoric. We know that the Russian playbook is to pull a thread by both ends, right and left. By playing off the hunger for Bernie's policies and his personal likability, Russia stood to further alienate Hillary from her presumed voter base. And it appears to have worked.

That said, I wouldn't believe every negative or positive thing written about Bernie. He's walked the walk a long time and, compared to most senior politicians, has remained relatively true to his roots. Notice also that he worked hard to get Hillary elected once the threat of Trump became apparent.

As in all things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I highly doubt he would knowingly collude with Russia, but it is very possible that he served as a useful wedge for anti-DNC propaganda. The further right Trump drags the nation, the more fervent the reaction from the left will be. I expect he will be remembered fondly as a footnote in history, but little more.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

Right. I don't mean to accuse Bernie of colluding with Russia. I'm just saying that Russia might have actively promoted and used him to help Trump.

n/a paulie_purr 2017-07-07

I've assumed the bots and trolls and fake news onslaught kicked in after the primary, probably around the DNC leak on the eve of the Dem convention. The point was supposedly to turn Sanders people off Hillary and into Trump. If there had been a malicious propaganda campaign trying to get Bernie over the primary hump, there wouldn't be much to throw at Bernie v Trump (aside from the booooohh he's a communist Jew we all know was being prepped in case he'd pulled out the primary). Certainly no known leaks to spin or anything along those lines.

Bernie has also been as harsh on Putin as the Dems, including belief in the interference stuff. Only Trump was questioning Ukraine and praising the strongman.

n/a CHU_LO 2017-07-07

russian interference is fake news dipshits. or was there finally some proof as of today??

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

It's not fake news. It's been all over the place for a while. If someone is claiming that there's evidence that Trump worked in tandem with them, that would be fake news, as there is no public evidence of that. If someone is claiming that Russia literally hacked voting machines and changed vote counts, that would also be fake news.

It is true that Russia did actively get involved and strategically influenced the election, and the results just happened to turn out how they wanted. You can argue about the degree their influence had on the election results, but you would be wrong to say that Russian interference is fake news.

n/a 19brandon92 2017-07-07

Verified and true? Can you link to any proof I've heard the "multiple agencies" thing before but never seen concrete evidence for it, didn't comey admit that was false?

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I've definitely read it from many sources. Doing a quick google search, here's what I found as the first few results:

Trump Agrees that Russia Meddled: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/trump-putin-election-meddling-accepts-claims-russian-hacking-g20-meeting-rex-tillerson-a7829871.html

Others: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/30/did-russia-interfere-with-our-election-yes-did-it-elect-trump-absolutely-not.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6 http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-downplays-russian-election-meddling-yet-again-n780031

As far as I'm aware, it's pretty much confirmed that Russia meddled in the election. They did not literally hack vote tallies, but they did systematically influence voters through social media and news releases. People argue the magnitude their involvement had, but I think it's pretty widely accepted that they were involved.

n/a spinandflux 2017-07-07

No. It just took one debate to see the difference. I wish more people could have seen it in full instead of the unfortunately biased commentary on it.

n/a Smoothtank 2017-07-07

I doubt it. Bernie's popularity is more of an indictment on structural issues in the reasoning skills (or lack thereof) of the general population.

Any other time his supporters would be complaining about patriarchy and the problem with old white men running the country. For the rest of them they'd go on about jews.

But Bernie promises these perpetual children gibmedats so they love him.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

Perhaps, but I don't want that to be true. I don't want to believe that "Bernie is popular because his supporters are stupid hypocrites". You never know though. Maybe that's just how all politicians succeed.

n/a Girlforgeeks 2017-07-07

Really stupid post, dude.

If you're not a computerized fabrication, then look into some alternate media. Russia may have interfered, but it was the DNC's own cheating that brought down Bernie and Clinton.

That's and some world class cheating.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I have looked into alternate media, and that is where I saw the claim that a DNC insider is behind it. I did not see that on any reputable news sites though, so I'm willing to dismiss it. We live in an era of "fake news", so I'm not fast to believe something that fits a narrative so well from random clickbait sites.

Perhaps it's true. Even so, that doesn't dismiss the rest of my claim. Russian interference still could have helped Bernie along the rest of the way.

Also, please kindly refer to rule 10 of this sub: Posts that attack this sub, users or mods thereof, will be removed. Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context. First violations will usually result in a warning but bans are at the mods' discretion.

n/a Girlforgeeks 2017-07-07

I'm certain that if you are a not computer fabrication, and you are frequenting this sub yet still believe in "reputable news sites," then you are just getting started in your journey of conspiracy.

There have been HUNDREDS of Posts on this sub alone debunking the Russia story. That is why I suspected a bot.

What verifiable proof has been released even supporting your first sentence?

You will find a deluge of highly respected journalists who have debunked that claim alone, making the entire rest of your post, as I stated, stupid.

Excellent series on debunked Russian hacking: https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/debunking-russiagate-part-1-7cca3eb88ffa

This one points out how this exact tactic was used for war with Iraq over nonexistent WMDs: https://www.google.com/amp/s/worldaffairs.blog/2017/03/26/russia-hacking-collusion-conspiracies-debunked-in-2-minutes/amp/

Here's the forced retraction of the NYT "17 intelligence agencies" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-forced-retract-longstanding-17-intel-agencies-lie-about-russian-hacki

That story is DEAD. Long dead.

Putin himself said: presidents come and go, but nothing changes.

That's true for a reason.

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

Really, in today's world, I know you can't trust anything you read. There has been a lot about Russian interference though, so I'm under the impression it's at least partially true. When you think about it, why wouldn't it be? We meddle in other countries' elections, why wouldn't other people try to do it to us? (I'm in no way saying we DESERVE to be interfered with, just that it probably happens much more than you would expect). Plus, let's be real, no one knows the truth here. Even if Trump himself was a literal Russian spy-bot, there's a good chance the government would cover that up to prevent the public from knowing. We really can't be sure about anything when it comes to government and political figures.

Additionally, I don't trust most of the sources debunking the Russia story because I know how many Trump supporters are. My entire family and many people I know fall under this category. On the spot, they make up whatever they want to be true, and just keep repeating it until they've 'won' the argument. I've literally shown them video clips of Trump saying things they didn't want to hear, and they told me I edited it to make him look bad. This type of behavior also exists online, both with Trump supporters and Bernie supporters, thus the reason I made this post; a negative parallel between the two groups stuck out to me. I know this is an empirically formed idea, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

I posted on this sub because I have not yet seen anyone propose this idea, and you know how the internet is: people think up every possibility and discuss it (even possibilities that most people would consider complete fantasy). I guess after seeing things like "all the world's political leaders being aliens", I figured my idea didn't seem so silly. It's definitely not "stupid", even if it is untrue.

I am disappointed that the two major responses to my post were "Russia is fake news" and "Bernie is amazing, you're wrong to write anything negative about him". Those aren't the things I want to spend my energy arguing, because no one knows for sure about Russia, and the politician-worshiping frustrates me. Anytime someone is personally offended by a negative statement about a politician, you know they're too emotionally invested and probably aren't being reasonable. Politicians are not good people; their entire career is based on manipulating and controlling people.

But to address a bit more of what you said, I'd like to point this out: you're saying that because reputable news sites are all false and untrustworthy, I'm wrong to agree with some of them, yet when you agree with 'respected journalists', their claims are true and I'm stupid for saying something to the contrary. That's very inconsistent and unfair. I'm also sorry to say, that I don't consider posts on this sub authorities on issues. Reddit is a place of discussion filled with both true and false claims. It's a place to share ideas, it is not a compilation solely of facts.

I wouldn't say the story is "long dead", as it is still widely discussed on social media, and new information on the topic has been consistently popping up every week or two for a while now. If you choose to make up your mind and selectively accept information that supports your beliefs, so be it. Just don't call other people stupid for questioning or proposing things.

n/a Girlforgeeks 2017-07-07

You're sad to me. But you'll get there. DM me in a year.

n/a EricCarver 2017-07-07

n/a dantot 2017-07-07

I completely agree that our system is essentially fixed in the handpicked's favor.

No one should vote AGAINST another candidate, they should vote FOR who they think is best.