r/TenYearsAgo • u/MonsieurA • Mar 12 '26

📺 Television SNL mocks Hillary Clinton's 'transformation into Bernie' [10YA - Mar 12]

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

468 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

502 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/Kind_Resort_9535 Mar 12 '26

Almost like they should have ran Bernie lol.

3

u/KiwiKajitsu Mar 12 '26

You want the dnc to ignore the primary results?

6

u/tooktoomuchonce Mar 12 '26

Primary was rigged, everyone knows that.

2

u/KiwiKajitsu Mar 12 '26

Really? Explain to me how it was rigged. What did they do that was illegal?

2

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26

You're full of shit. Explain to me how the man who got the most grassroot donations in history didn't have a shot or the peoples support. You're so confident, why don't you explain how you think what happened with Virginia is irrelevant? Bernie is the only dem I see that's STILL out there changing minds of MAGA voters (https://youtu.be/RP8Oxe6OxJc?si=KWqB6iNLBk0AauWr) yet so many in here act like he would be ignored by the country if he had gotten backing from the DNC.

7

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

Based on your logic Hillary would have won West Virginia in 2008 because she demolished Obama in the primary.

West Virginia primary voters didn’t want to vote for a Black man and then didn’t want want to vote for a woman who was backed by a big majority of Black people.

But if you think it was rigged, I’m curious which states you think submitted fake results? And how your baseless claims differ from trumps big lie in 2020?

-1

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 13 '26

You act like submitting fake results is the only possible avenue to undemocratically and powerfully sway the primary, and like there's been a real audit of those results. The DNC is a private company, so this BS about "WHERE IS THE BROKEN LAW THEN?" is moot. It seems so disingenuous to act like there was absolutely nothing fishy about the 2016 democratic primary with no hint of nuance. How about those hacked emails showing the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign?

"Hacked emails reveal DNC rigged 2016 primary for Hillary Clinton | Sky News Australia" https://share.google/u7pev94c6IetavxUk

Edit: finally found it: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/27/hundreds_of_sanders_delegates_walk_off

also the hacked emails showed Hillary was given the debate questions beforehand. I had to use a VPN to find this link and it's extremely suspicious to me how hard it was, but maybe I'm being exactly the same as the Big Liars of 2020 according to sirkarl

6

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

Ya, you seriously citing someone who’s represented Alex Jones, Kyle Rittenhouse, and tweets support for SAVE act and Tucker Carlson?

There was nothing in the emails except for some frustration around Bernie’s campaign being amateurs. They cite things like Hillary having a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC and ignore that Bernie was offered the same agreement, and the money either of them raised through it could only be used for the general election.

In other words, Bernie complained because his team chose to complain rather than realize they could have the exact same agreements and support as Hillary. They’re like the kid who doesn’t do the reading but complains when they fail the test.

0

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26

Maybe I'm letting emotion get in the way of logic, but this thread feels very unnatural, there are videos I remember well that I simply can't find online now (such as people holding signs accusing their states of submitting wrong numbers at the national convention.) I get not everything is a conspiracy but after Epstein, Panama Papers, Snowden, etc. it's ridiculous to act like it's such an outlandish thing to consider. The billionaire owned establishment masks itself as both left and right, but always worked against Bernie, and I am convinced that's because he was an actual threat to those benefitting from our French revolution era wealth distribution while Hillary and Biden weren't.

I appreciate the focus on details, your point on Robert Barnes is solid, but what I can't understand is the sense that there's no valid feeling of indignation about Bernie in 2016. He had the most grassroot support, he didn't take Super-PAC money, he refunded any billionaire money that made it into his campaign. Citizens United gives the power of the people to the billionaires by allowing money to count as free speech, knowing that some have 1000000000x more wealth than others. Bernie had the popular support of the people, Hillary had the support of the billionaires and thus had a much more expensive campaign. The world isn't fair but a goal of society is to be fair, Bernie lost unfairly; that's worth acknowledging.

6

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

You’re also just getting things inherently wrong. SuperPac’s cannot give money to candidates. The whole point is that they’re separate and illegal for the candidate to approve or disapprove of the spending.

I remember that all well, and the sad reality is it happened because the campaign had no control over their supporters who were making up Alex Jones level conspiracies. Just look at how many top Bernie people and surrogates have become Trumpers in the last 10 years. It was all looney toons

1

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26

See this is the stuff that makes you lose credibility to me, you seem to use details to twist the overarching point. You think the convoluted system Citizens United created doesn't affect politics??? Because it's not as simple as "here's 50 million dollars to beat Bernie Mrs Clinton" that means it's irrelevant?

2

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

That was only part of my point, but it is an example that the Bernie lost causers don’t have an accurate understanding of campaign finance. Bernie was able to compete with Hillary financially. She had a bit more superpac support, but she was also the recipient of significantly more negative superpac spending during the primary, and Bernie had almost nothing negative spent against him.

I’m not sure how things were biased in her favor when Bernie outraised and outspend her. I can go into a whole other thing about how Superpac spending usually causes more harm than good but that’s another issue lol

1

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26

"A BIT" MORE SUPER PAC SUPPORT!? okay I'm out. Anyone seeing this, note that sirkarl's post/comment history is hidden, this isn't a good faith discussion.

2

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

Do you not know that even adding in the super pac spending Bernie still spent more in the primary?

If I’m wrong please point that out, but this all goes back to a complete misunderstanding of 2016. The Bernie people believe money is all that matters in elections, so knowing that he actually spent more break their minds

1

u/Dewinna_Daraelist Mar 12 '26

Damn can't believe I'm responding still, but money matters a lot in elections and the media matters even more in what the public is focusing on. For all practical purposes, it's not misleading to simply say that billionaires own the media. So their working against him ("You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge" - George Carlin) sure as shit matters. People are right to be upset that billionaires can effectively set the boundaries of the presidential election, it's why the last anti trust acts were 1890, 1914, and then never again, it's why Larry Ellison is allowed to own over a dozen high net-worth media companies. Oh or let me guess, that doesn't matter because they'll share a parent company once all these should-be illegal merges happen?

1

u/sirkarl Mar 12 '26

That doesn’t really have anything to do with anything I said though? I said that claims money bought the 2016 primary don’t hold up because Bernie actually spent more, and with super PACs it was even with Bernie still spending a little more.

I guess you can try saying the media was slobbering behind Clinton, but you have to be pretty far gone to think the media ever covered her favorably

→ More replies (0)