Hacker News Reader

Comment by midoridensha | Hacker News Reader

If that's the case, then I applaud him. But considering the kind of BS he's been spewing for years, I don't think this is some kind of secret long-term plan to destroy Twitter; I think he really drinks his own kool-aid.

View on HN

I don't think so either. But I also know people who still think Trump is playing some 4D chess game and has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them. Any day now he's gonna win.

Same for Bernie after he lost twice lol, somehow both sets of these idiots are front page day in day out though

There's a difference between an idealist in a cynical world, and lying about things proven and admitted to be lies for personal gain.

Just like Trump's followers who think the election was stolen, there are a lot of Sanders followers who think the nomination was stolen, despite the votes going massively against him. The difference is that Trump is telling his followers that this nonsense is true, while Sanders supporters are making their own conspiracy theories.

Huh? The Sanders followers blame the DNC for supporting Hillary over him, during the primaries. I'm pretty sure that was proven by the DNC email leak, it's not a "conspiracy theory": the DNC really was working for Hillary.

I'm not aware of any Sanders followers thinking the actual votes were altered. The voters (in places that had primaries and not caucuses) really did vote for Hillary. The controversy was that the DNC wasn't properly neutral and that this affected the results. Whether the DNC being neutral would have actually resulted in Sanders winning, I don't think anyone can know, though it's probably doubtful. He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!", and lacked all the baggage that Hillary came with, and had far more charisma (which the DNC infamously doesn't understand the value of), but considering the Republican voters were happy to vote for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, I don't think we can assume the best about the voters of any party.

> the DNC really was working for Hillary.

After she won the nomination. What you think was proven is not substantially different from what the My Pillow CEO thinks was proven.

> that this affected the results.

How? https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

> He certainly had a better message than "vote for me because I'm a woman and it's my turn!"

As did every single candidate. The only people I saw use that justification were the Sanders supporting conspiracy-theorists.

> Just like

No, not just like at all. The allegations against the DNC by Sanders supporters are orders of magnitude smaller in scale. There's nothing unrealistic or delusional about "Members of the DNC colluded against outsider" or "Members of the DNC all acted independently against outsider for the sake of their own interests".

Also the difference in evidence and reaction is huge.

> There's nothing unrealistic or delusional about "Members of the DNC colluded against outsider" or "Members of the DNC all acted independently against outsider for the sake of their own interests".

There is a world of difference between those not being unrealistic and "The DNC rigged the nomination so Sanders wouldn't win."

He's got a lot of earned media coming his way for the next few years, so maybe!

> Trump has the corrupt politicians and media right where he wants them.

You could say both sides agree with this, but with opposite interpretations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com