Warren the reformer v. Sanders the revolutionary

[ehrnst]

40. That's reaching pretty darn far to find that strawman...

Almost twisting oneself into a pretzel to find it.

But let's break your own logical path to that conclusion here:

If, as you say, that when the hostile lady "corporate mouthpiece" says "Some people say that it hurt HRC's campaign when you didn't concede" she is actually implying that "Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party.." and it's not actually simply a good journalistic followup question, using his past actions related to the original question that he didn't answer...

....Doesn't that also mean when Bernie's says "'Some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," that he is actually implying that "The DNC conspired to defeat me, and put Donald Trump in the White House?" and not actually simply Bernie being "focused on winning the nomination" despite the nefarious mechanations of a hostile lady corporate conglomerate mouthpiece to smear his very motives for running as a Democrat?"

Because you certainly wouldn't want to be promoting some kind of double standard.

And simply copying and pasting "Bernie is focused on winning the nomination and G.E. in 2020" continuing to avoiding answering what seems to be a difficult needle for you to thread...

If she is indeed simply a "hostile corporate conglomerate mouthpiece," why did Bernie even consider speaking with her?

Any thoughts?

And why are you sharing an article from a 'corporate conglomerate media mouthpiece' like "the Hill?"



I won't hold my breath...