FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Bernie slams Trump at the Oxford Union

Bernie slams Trump at the Oxford Union

(21:52) Bernie Sanders updates Brits as to what is going on in America. Full address at the Oxford Union. June 2017.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (17 days ago)

If Bernie runs for President again, can this be considered collusion with a foreign country?

Original comment

If Bernie runs for President again, can this be considered collusion with a foreign country?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (17 days ago)

That's an interesting thought. I too was surprised at how partisan Bernie is, and whether this is appropriate for addressing the Oxford Union. His speech is more like a campaign rally speech rather than a talk about US politics at a debating society.

More and more, what happens in other parts of the world matters. Doesn't matter where you're from. Bernie is not running for office, he's fighting a cause. That fight doesn't stop between elections. National party politics is being disrupted by the rise of movements. Both the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party have been infected. Globalisation is coming to politics. The big issues of our time are global - oligarchs, climate change, terrorism, automation etc. Even Donald Trump is a global problem.

Original comment

That's an interesting thought. I too was surprised at how partisan Bernie is, and whether this is appropriate for addressing the Oxford Union. His speech is more like a campaign rally speech rather than a talk about US politics at a debating society.

More and more, what happens in other parts of the world matters. Doesn't matter where you're from. Bernie is not running for office, he's fighting a cause. That fight doesn't stop between elections. National party politics is being disrupted by the rise of movements. Both the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party have been infected. Globalisation is coming to politics. The big issues of our time are global - oligarchs, climate change, terrorism, automation etc. Even Donald Trump is a global problem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (16 days ago)

Can you tell me the difference between Bernie going to the UK to do speeches and Flynn going to Russia to do speeches? Flynn got paid $45K to do his speech and I bet Bernie got paid to do this speech in the UK just like Hillary got paid to do speeches at schools. It's just that the media covers the events differently depending on the slant they want to put on it.

Original comment

Can you tell me the difference between Bernie going to the UK to do speeches and Flynn going to Russia to do speeches? Flynn got paid $45K to do his speech and I bet Bernie got paid to do this speech in the UK just like Hillary got paid to do speeches at schools. It's just that the media covers the events differently depending on the slant they want to put on it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

I can explain the difference. Flynn lied about it. Sanders did not.

Original comment

I can explain the difference. Flynn lied about it. Sanders did not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (16 days ago)

I don't know what Bernie got for the Oxford Union speech, but he was paid $1,867.42 for three speeches leading up to February 2016. He gave it all to charity. LINK

In the case of Flynn, I haven't been following the story, but as I understand it - Flynn is under investigation for dodgy dealings (including highly paid speeches) in Russia that he did not disclose, and should have. Very different to Bernie getting invited to talk at the Oxford Union.

Original comment

I don't know what Bernie got for the Oxford Union speech, but he was paid $1,867.42 for three speeches leading up to February 2016. He gave it all to charity. LINK

In the case of Flynn, I haven't been following the story, but as I understand it - Flynn is under investigation for dodgy dealings (including highly paid speeches) in Russia that he did not disclose, and should have. Very different to Bernie getting invited to talk at the Oxford Union.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (16 days ago)

How people spend the money they earn doesn't make earning it any more legal or illegal. For example, if I'm caught selling arms to Iran but I give the money to charity, does that make it legal? How do you know the Clintons didn't give the money to their foundation, the Clinton Foundation.

From what I understand, Flynn did disclose the income but not on the first form submitten in Febrary but on a subsequent form submitted later. The problem was that he didn't know each speech had to be itemized individually.

Did Bernie rush out and submit a revised form with the speeches he just did and since it's not on an originally submitted form, will people give it as much scrutiny as they did with Flynn? Probably not because he isn't closely tied with Trump so nobody cares and it doesn't add to the Trump bashing that the democrats are trying to do every chance they get.

Why is it different when Bernie gets invited to talk at the Oxford Union versus Flynn being invited to talk to the Russian government run Television Network?

Original comment

How people spend the money they earn doesn't make earning it any more legal or illegal. For example, if I'm caught selling arms to Iran but I give the money to charity, does that make it legal? How do you know the Clintons didn't give the money to their foundation, the Clinton Foundation.

From what I understand, Flynn did disclose the income but not on the first form submitten in Febrary but on a subsequent form submitted later. The problem was that he didn't know each speech had to be itemized individually.

Did Bernie rush out and submit a revised form with the speeches he just did and since it's not on an originally submitted form, will people give it as much scrutiny as they did with Flynn? Probably not because he isn't closely tied with Trump so nobody cares and it doesn't add to the Trump bashing that the democrats are trying to do every chance they get.

Why is it different when Bernie gets invited to talk at the Oxford Union versus Flynn being invited to talk to the Russian government run Television Network?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (16 days ago)

You've gotta be kidding me. All the biased Fake News against democrats and 'nobody cares' about Sanders? Breitbart et al had plenty to say. Let's hear what the investigation says.

However, it does show why the UK can behead a king, whereas the USA can't even impeach a president. They have no appetite for it, even when they have been lied to, when their leaders have deliberately hidden things from them. Gutless sycophants who would prefer to bury their heads in the sand than admit their leaders are incompetent!

The world is watching.

Original comment

You've gotta be kidding me. All the biased Fake News against democrats and 'nobody cares' about Sanders? Breitbart et al had plenty to say. Let's hear what the investigation says.

However, it does show why the UK can behead a king, whereas the USA can't even impeach a president. They have no appetite for it, even when they have been lied to, when their leaders have deliberately hidden things from them. Gutless sycophants who would prefer to bury their heads in the sand than admit their leaders are incompetent!

The world is watching.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (16 days ago)

The USA impeached a couple Presidents -- Clinton was the most recent. Andrew Johnson was also impeached. Nixon would have been but he resigned just before.

Why would the UK need to behead a king since all their powers are allegedly just ceremonial?

Original comment

The USA impeached a couple Presidents -- Clinton was the most recent. Andrew Johnson was also impeached. Nixon would have been but he resigned just before.

Why would the UK need to behead a king since all their powers are allegedly just ceremonial?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (16 days ago)

TWO impeachments? Haha! Hilarious! And here you're desperately providing disclaimers 'just in case' your nominated president was levered into position by the Russians!! Pathetic!

Why did the UK need to behead their king? Read some history. He was the last monarch who thought his powers were more than ceremonial, who thought his was the only decision that matters. Brits didn't like that attitude.

Original comment

TWO impeachments? Haha! Hilarious! And here you're desperately providing disclaimers 'just in case' your nominated president was levered into position by the Russians!! Pathetic!

Why did the UK need to behead their king? Read some history. He was the last monarch who thought his powers were more than ceremonial, who thought his was the only decision that matters. Brits didn't like that attitude.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (16 days ago)

PS; what criminal convictions did your 2 impeachments (in nearly 250 years) lead to? Slap on the wrist and off you go. The USA has no backbone.

Original comment

PS; what criminal convictions did your 2 impeachments (in nearly 250 years) lead to? Slap on the wrist and off you go. The USA has no backbone.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (16 days ago)

No convictions. An impeachment does not mean a conviction and does not mean removal from office.

Since there was no convictions, nobody was found guilty of anything so there wasn't even a slap on the wrist. We do not punish people that are found "Not Guilty." Maybe in your country people are guilty until proven innocent but that's not how it works in the USA.

Original comment

No convictions. An impeachment does not mean a conviction and does not mean removal from office.

Since there was no convictions, nobody was found guilty of anything so there wasn't even a slap on the wrist. We do not punish people that are found "Not Guilty." Maybe in your country people are guilty until proven innocent but that's not how it works in the USA.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (16 days ago)

My point exactly. The Brits are not just happy to find their king guilty of an offence (even if he was "chosen by god"), but they are happy to give the harshest punishment possible. That's how to keep a leader in check. In the USA the simpering sycophants are too scared to even find them guilty of something... like Ford pardoning Nixon. People like you can't even accept the possibility. Trump is safe.

Original comment

My point exactly. The Brits are not just happy to find their king guilty of an offence (even if he was "chosen by god"), but they are happy to give the harshest punishment possible. That's how to keep a leader in check. In the USA the simpering sycophants are too scared to even find them guilty of something... like Ford pardoning Nixon. People like you can't even accept the possibility. Trump is safe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

You agree that the people should be able to establish a militia to overthrow the government in the case of tyranny. Good for you. We have an amendment that covers that.

We haven't had to overthrow our government because our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all independent with equal powers. No one person has enough power to take over the country. Our President has a 4 year term so we only have to wait a couple years to elect a new one whereas the British Monarch stays in office until death and then is succeeded, not by vote, by birthright.

Original comment

You agree that the people should be able to establish a militia to overthrow the government in the case of tyranny. Good for you. We have an amendment that covers that.

We haven't had to overthrow our government because our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are all independent with equal powers. No one person has enough power to take over the country. Our President has a 4 year term so we only have to wait a couple years to elect a new one whereas the British Monarch stays in office until death and then is succeeded, not by vote, by birthright.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (15 days ago)

I think the Brits have shown that their monarch stays in place until they are forced to abdicate, until there is a revolution, or until they are executed by the people, and until that point the monarch will be constrained (as your quote proved). USA have shown that even in the case where criminal activity has occured, it's easier to let leaders get away with it, and easier to pretend it never happened. You're already providing yourself with disclaimers, trying to preempt the conclusion of an investigation. You're not ready for the leader you voted for to be found guilty, so he won't be. Simples.

Original comment

I think the Brits have shown that their monarch stays in place until they are forced to abdicate, until there is a revolution, or until they are executed by the people, and until that point the monarch will be constrained (as your quote proved). USA have shown that even in the case where criminal activity has occured, it's easier to let leaders get away with it, and easier to pretend it never happened. You're already providing yourself with disclaimers, trying to preempt the conclusion of an investigation. You're not ready for the leader you voted for to be found guilty, so he won't be. Simples.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

Our President Nixon abdicated so we have similarities there. Can you tell me the year of the last time you had a revolution that overthew the monarch and the year your last monarch was executed by the people?

Original comment

Our President Nixon abdicated so we have similarities there. Can you tell me the year of the last time you had a revolution that overthew the monarch and the year your last monarch was executed by the people?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (15 days ago)

Nixon resigned and despite being guilty of criminal offences was pardoned because for that's about all yellow bellied sycophants will dare do to a president. Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he broke the law, Nixon did.

Exactly, the Brits haven't needed to overthrow since the civil war because they have bound royal powers within a constitution enforced by elected representatives. If they ever have to overthrow a monarch, it's because the monarch has overstepped the constitution. The USA has had cases where the legal line was crossed, and they still didn't dare do anything about it. Weak.

Original comment

Nixon resigned and despite being guilty of criminal offences was pardoned because for that's about all yellow bellied sycophants will dare do to a president. Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he broke the law, Nixon did.

Exactly, the Brits haven't needed to overthrow since the civil war because they have bound royal powers within a constitution enforced by elected representatives. If they ever have to overthrow a monarch, it's because the monarch has overstepped the constitution. The USA has had cases where the legal line was crossed, and they still didn't dare do anything about it. Weak.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (16 days ago)

"Guilty until proven innocent" - you mean like Guantanamo?

Original comment

"Guilty until proven innocent" - you mean like Guantanamo?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

No US citizens are held captive at Guantanamo.

Original comment

No US citizens are held captive at Guantanamo.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (15 days ago)

That's neither here nor there. no giraffes are held at Guantanamo, either,

The point is that it's US policy to capture/kidnap people and hold them indefinitely without trial.

It must be embarassing to live in a country that rejects such basic human rights as habeas corpus. No wonder Trump and Putin get on so well.

Original comment

That's neither here nor there. no giraffes are held at Guantanamo, either,

The point is that it's US policy to capture/kidnap people and hold them indefinitely without trial.

It must be embarassing to live in a country that rejects such basic human rights as habeas corpus. No wonder Trump and Putin get on so well.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

During wartime, you can hold prisoners of war without a trial and we are at war with terrorists. The Geneva convention dictates how prisoners are to be treated and it states that we can hold them or deliver them to a neutral nation (Guantanamo) for custody until the end of the war. At the end of all hostilities, all prisoners are to be released except those that will be held for trial or serving judicial sentences.

Let's wait until there are no more hostile terrorist attacks around the world and then we can discuss when they should be released. Good luck with that.

Original comment

During wartime, you can hold prisoners of war without a trial and we are at war with terrorists. The Geneva convention dictates how prisoners are to be treated and it states that we can hold them or deliver them to a neutral nation (Guantanamo) for custody until the end of the war. At the end of all hostilities, all prisoners are to be released except those that will be held for trial or serving judicial sentences.

Let's wait until there are no more hostile terrorist attacks around the world and then we can discuss when they should be released. Good luck with that.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (15 days ago)

The Geneva Convention states that PoWs should not be interrogated (as has extensively happened to the inmates in Guantanamo), so your argument falls at the first fence. The USA is breaking the Geneva Convention either by holding them illegally - or by interrogating "prisoners of war". You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, Guantanamo is not a neutral nation: it's an American military base - so your argument is in shreds.

Let's be honest: the USA thinks it's OK to pick up anyone it doesn't like, hold them indefinitely without trial, torture (sorry, "interrogate") them and then to claim the moral high-ground.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Original comment

The Geneva Convention states that PoWs should not be interrogated (as has extensively happened to the inmates in Guantanamo), so your argument falls at the first fence. The USA is breaking the Geneva Convention either by holding them illegally - or by interrogating "prisoners of war". You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, Guantanamo is not a neutral nation: it's an American military base - so your argument is in shreds.

Let's be honest: the USA thinks it's OK to pick up anyone it doesn't like, hold them indefinitely without trial, torture (sorry, "interrogate") them and then to claim the moral high-ground.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

You can interrogate prisoners of war. It's Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Geneva convention that provides the general rule for interrogation. Additionally, we are allowed to hold prisoners of war according to the Geneva rule I mentioned above. I wish you would read my comments more closely so I don’t have to repeat myself.

The "torture" you're referring to was waterboarding and there was a difference of opinion if that was considered torture or not. The overwhelming consensus was that it was considered torture so the USA stopped all waterboarding.

The USA doesn’t just “pick up anyone it doesn’t like.” If that was the case, why didn’t we get North Korea’s Supreme Leader already and the leader of Iran? Because your statement is false, that’s why.

The nation associated with Guantanamo is Cuba. We do have a base there but we pay rent to the Cuban government. That does not mean the land is USA property. If it was an embassy, that would be a different story because that is technically sovereign land for the country controlling the embassy.

If you think all those people in Guantanamo should be released, would you like us to release them in London? They are all innocent, right?

Original comment

You can interrogate prisoners of war. It's Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Geneva convention that provides the general rule for interrogation. Additionally, we are allowed to hold prisoners of war according to the Geneva rule I mentioned above. I wish you would read my comments more closely so I don’t have to repeat myself.

The "torture" you're referring to was waterboarding and there was a difference of opinion if that was considered torture or not. The overwhelming consensus was that it was considered torture so the USA stopped all waterboarding.

The USA doesn’t just “pick up anyone it doesn’t like.” If that was the case, why didn’t we get North Korea’s Supreme Leader already and the leader of Iran? Because your statement is false, that’s why.

The nation associated with Guantanamo is Cuba. We do have a base there but we pay rent to the Cuban government. That does not mean the land is USA property. If it was an embassy, that would be a different story because that is technically sovereign land for the country controlling the embassy.

If you think all those people in Guantanamo should be released, would you like us to release them in London? They are all innocent, right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (15 days ago)

I'm glad you finally admit the USA is guilty of torture inflicted on inmates at Guantanamo (waterboarding) but while that may have stopped, it wasn't the only "enhanced interrogation techniques" practised.

Here's the relevant paragraph from Article 17 of the Geneva Convention:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Are you still going to maintain that the USA abides by the Geneva Convention?

Original comment

I'm glad you finally admit the USA is guilty of torture inflicted on inmates at Guantanamo (waterboarding) but while that may have stopped, it wasn't the only "enhanced interrogation techniques" practised.

Here's the relevant paragraph from Article 17 of the Geneva Convention:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Are you still going to maintain that the USA abides by the Geneva Convention?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (15 days ago)

"Maybe in your country people are guilty until proven innocent but that's not how it works in the USA"

"Would you like us to release them in London? They are all innocent, right"

LOL

Original comment

"Maybe in your country people are guilty until proven innocent but that's not how it works in the USA"

"Would you like us to release them in London? They are all innocent, right"

LOL

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (15 days ago)

do you seriously believe that? When have we not been at war with terrorism? The USA can say theres always a threat of terrorism from someone or another (always has been always will be) and so therefore they always have a right to detain anyone without trial just by saying its terrorism related. What a country! 1984 anyone?

Original comment

do you seriously believe that? When have we not been at war with terrorism? The USA can say theres always a threat of terrorism from someone or another (always has been always will be) and so therefore they always have a right to detain anyone without trial just by saying its terrorism related. What a country! 1984 anyone?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (15 days ago)

On September 14, 2001, our congress declared war on terrorism in our "Authorization for Use of Military Force" and was signed by the president on September 18,2001.

As of December 2016, Obama officially interpreted the Authorization for Use of Military Force as congress approving force against al-Qaeda. This was just a formality and to provide clarity as the authorization already covered terrorism.

Congress does not need to specify a country when declaring war. For example, in 1808 there was a slave trade ban so naval ships were sent across international waters to apprehend illegal slave traders. That was the war on illegal slave trade.

The War in Afganistan is not against the country of Afganistan. It is against Quetta Shura, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad Union, and many others. We are allies with Afganistan but our war is within their boarders.

Original comment

On September 14, 2001, our congress declared war on terrorism in our "Authorization for Use of Military Force" and was signed by the president on September 18,2001.

As of December 2016, Obama officially interpreted the Authorization for Use of Military Force as congress approving force against al-Qaeda. This was just a formality and to provide clarity as the authorization already covered terrorism.

Congress does not need to specify a country when declaring war. For example, in 1808 there was a slave trade ban so naval ships were sent across international waters to apprehend illegal slave traders. That was the war on illegal slave trade.

The War in Afganistan is not against the country of Afganistan. It is against Quetta Shura, Taliban, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad Union, and many others. We are allies with Afganistan but our war is within their boarders.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (15 days ago)

So exactly as I said...all that is needed is for your government to say someone is involved in some kind of terrorism and that gives them the right to imprison them indefinitely without a trial. Shocking.. so easy.

Yes we understand at what point the USA figured out a way of getting around the geneva convention... the question is when will that excuse no longer wash? When will they decide they are no longer at war with any country or group or abstract concept? Why would they ever declare that knowing it would mean you would have to start observing human rights again?

Original comment

So exactly as I said...all that is needed is for your government to say someone is involved in some kind of terrorism and that gives them the right to imprison them indefinitely without a trial. Shocking.. so easy.

Yes we understand at what point the USA figured out a way of getting around the geneva convention... the question is when will that excuse no longer wash? When will they decide they are no longer at war with any country or group or abstract concept? Why would they ever declare that knowing it would mean you would have to start observing human rights again?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

Waging war upon any "ism" with conventional forces is doomed to failure from the very start.

Original comment

Waging war upon any "ism" with conventional forces is doomed to failure from the very start.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

It depends how you gauge success. If what they were hoping to achieve is an excuse to get around an annoying Geneva convention, and a reason to avoid respecting frustrating human rights, the USA's 'wars' have been the most sucessful they've ever waged.

Original comment

It depends how you gauge success. If what they were hoping to achieve is an excuse to get around an annoying Geneva convention, and a reason to avoid respecting frustrating human rights, the USA's 'wars' have been the most sucessful they've ever waged.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)
Latest comment:

They figured out a way to print their own 'Get out of jail free' card.

Original comment
Latest comment:

They figured out a way to print their own 'Get out of jail free' card.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton were convicted at trial in the Senate.

Original comment

Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton were convicted at trial in the Senate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (16 days ago)

When I read your first comment, I thought you were alluding to foreign collusion in elections. Like when Obama came to the UK and gave a speech against Brexit, or when Nigel Farage went to the US and spoke at a Trump rally. In the case of Bernie, he didn't give a speech supporting Jeremy Corbyn. He attacked Trump and his message was focused on the growing income gap and concentration of power. He was explaining to a UK audience what was going on in America.

But you actually want to talk about Flynn because you think he is being unjustly treated because of his links with Trump. I don't know enough about this to really comment. A quick google and I can see it's a complicated story involving Trump, lies, lobbying, Russia, Turkey, speeches... All I can say is Bernie is not under investigation, Flynn is.

Original comment

When I read your first comment, I thought you were alluding to foreign collusion in elections. Like when Obama came to the UK and gave a speech against Brexit, or when Nigel Farage went to the US and spoke at a Trump rally. In the case of Bernie, he didn't give a speech supporting Jeremy Corbyn. He attacked Trump and his message was focused on the growing income gap and concentration of power. He was explaining to a UK audience what was going on in America.

But you actually want to talk about Flynn because you think he is being unjustly treated because of his links with Trump. I don't know enough about this to really comment. A quick google and I can see it's a complicated story involving Trump, lies, lobbying, Russia, Turkey, speeches... All I can say is Bernie is not under investigation, Flynn is.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Naomi Klein on the parallel between Jeremy Corbyn and  Bernie Sanders
Naomi Klein on the parallel between Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders
Bernie slams Trump at the Oxford Union
Bernie slams Trump at the Oxford Union
HARDtalk - Interview with Bernie Sanders
HARDtalk - Interview with Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders on the similarities with Jeremy Corbyn
Bernie Sanders on the similarities with Jeremy Corbyn
Bernie crushes Trump's budget
Bernie crushes Trump's budget