The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Continuing to Discuss the [2020 Primary] and Not Other Stuff

1474850525355

Posts

  • PiotyrPiotyr Power-Crazed Wizard SilmariaRegistered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    But again, Warren was the one who said it happened but was no big deal. Why would Sanders deny it?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    I don't think observing an equally qualified woman would have unfairly worse odds is itself sexist.

    I do think people going from "Warren needs to confirm or deny this" to "Warren is deceitful and how dare she" is a pretty big indicator of sexism among those people specifically.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    why yes this does benefit biden

    (she's gonna endorse biden)

    They are all gonna endorse Biden in the end if he wins.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    To be abundantly clear, all of this is basically a complete non-issue of minor blunders, which is why I find it hard to believe that it's some giant scheme and similarly hard to believe arguments about how Bernie couldn't possibly have made a minor blunder.

    I ate an engineer
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    But again, Warren was the one who said it happened but was no big deal. Why would Sanders deny it?

    This angle is pretty laughable after she drcides to make hay off of it last night

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    It's sexist because it helps reinforce the sexist narrative in our society. As feminist pundit Amanda Marcotte put it:


    The other important thing to talk about is how sexism isn't like the common cold, something you just wait out and it gets better. It only changes because people fight. If women wait until the public is "ready" to accept them as equals, we will wait forever.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.

    I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?

    The timing is suspicious and she has been lauding Sanders for a long time. I actually believe her, I just don't really think she should have brought it up because it's completely counter-effective regardless.

    She didn't.
    "We're" believing Bernie over the centrist millionaire friendly candidate

    The media is biased against the working class candidate

    Yeah man the candidate proposing to directly tax the value of gold-plated yachts complete with helipads is "a centrist millionaire-friendly candidate"

    When you wonder why people roll their eyes at the hardcore Berners, this is your answer

    uH3IcEi.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    It's sexist because it helps reinforce the sexist narrative in our society. As feminist pundit Amanda Marcotte put it:


    The other important thing to talk about is how sexism isn't like the common cold, something you just wait out and it gets better. It only changes because people fight. If women wait until the public is "ready" to accept them as equals, we will wait forever.

    Theres no evidence Sanders attempted to dissuade Warren from running for office.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Viktor WaltersViktor Walters Registered User regular
    I mean, the obvious thing is CNN went digging and asking around and found some anti-Bernie, Warren-adjacent people to say some stuff on record and reported it right before the debate so they could hype up the debate as a grudge match.

    There's really nothing more to see there, except that both Warren and Bernie supporters appear to be very easy to goad into fighting each other about next to nothing. This fight wouldn't be happening if it weren't for a lot of people on both sides really chomping at the bit for an excuse to yell at each other. For Warren supporters, its probably the tenacity of the Bernie Bro smear combined with some really obvious and vocal goading from trolls online. For Bernie supporters, they've basically been gaslit by the media repeatedly to the point that they jump at every shadow they can. Combine that also with trolls stirring the pot and we come to where we are now.

  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    I still support Bernie even though he said something sexist and lied about it

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • PiotyrPiotyr Power-Crazed Wizard SilmariaRegistered User regular
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    But again, Warren was the one who said it happened but was no big deal. Why would Sanders deny it?

    This angle is pretty laughable after she drcides to make hay off of it last night

    I don't remember the part where ahe took a turn as debate moderator to ask herself about it.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    It's sexist because it helps reinforce the sexist narrative in our society. As feminist pundit Amanda Marcotte put it:


    The other important thing to talk about is how sexism isn't like the common cold, something you just wait out and it gets better. It only changes because people fight. If women wait until the public is "ready" to accept them as equals, we will wait forever.

    She actually dealt with this during her first run for Senate too. "But a women has never won in MA as a Senator or Governor". She been to that rodeo before.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Did anything of significance get said at the debate, or was it mostly a restatement of existing priorities?

    I think the sum total of my exposure to it was people pointing out that Warren and Sanders got chyrons to the effect of "but how can they PAY for their plans without BANKRUPTING YOU?", and that there were some questions suggesting war was inevitable (and presumably worth paying top dollar for).

    We're all in this together
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    Hillary still won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history. She had 2.8 million more votes than Trump. Second place is Bush v Gore at just over 500 thousand.

    I’m not saying sexism wasn’t a factor in 2016, but I think it should be obvious that a woman can win the even in this toxic environment.

    Hell, Sanders himself was beaten by a woman in 2016 primary, so I have no idea why he would say a woman can’t win 2020.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    Hillary still won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history. She had 2.8 million more votes than Trump. Second place is Bush v Gore at just over 500 thousand.

    I’m not saying sexism wasn’t a factor in 2016, but I think it should be obvious that a woman can win the even in this toxic environment.

    Hell, Sanders himself was beaten by a woman in 2016 primary, so I have no idea why he would say a woman can’t win 2020.

    Maybe he didnt say it.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    It's sexist because it helps reinforce the sexist narrative in our society. As feminist pundit Amanda Marcotte put it:


    The other important thing to talk about is how sexism isn't like the common cold, something you just wait out and it gets better. It only changes because people fight. If women wait until the public is "ready" to accept them as equals, we will wait forever.

    She actually dealt with this during her first run for Senate too. "But a women has never won in MA as a Senator or Governor". She been to that rodeo before.

    Jezebel has a good headline re: this
    Can a Woman Win? There's Only One Way to Fucking Find Out

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • ToxTox I kill threads they/themRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Also, SURPRISE! Turns out that Slack script document was legit and deployed to a few states.

    So much for rogue staffers!
    DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.

    Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786

    Did Sanders specifically deny this or was it a staffer or was The Campaign or was there even a reported denial?

    Discord Lifeboat | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Also, SURPRISE! Turns out that Slack script document was legit and deployed to a few states.

    So much for rogue staffers!
    DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.

    Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786

    Did Sanders specifically deny this or was it a staffer or was The Campaign or was there even a reported denial?

    Sanders himself specifically addressed it with a non-denial that implied it was just staffers saying things they shouldn't, rather than an actual campaign position.

    I ate an engineer
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    It's sexist because it helps reinforce the sexist narrative in our society. As feminist pundit Amanda Marcotte put it:


    The other important thing to talk about is how sexism isn't like the common cold, something you just wait out and it gets better. It only changes because people fight. If women wait until the public is "ready" to accept them as equals, we will wait forever.

    She actually dealt with this during her first run for Senate too. "But a women has never won in MA as a Senator or Governor". She been to that rodeo before.

    Jezebel has a good headline re: this
    Can a Woman Win? There's Only One Way to Fucking Find Out

    Warren's response to the question in a debate was amazing:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4793732/user-clip-women
    (courtesy of Ebum)

    (it also, imo, speaks to the fact that she's demonstratively smart enough to know how to deal with this kind of story and it's not the way any of this broke)

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    Until the popular vote actually matters for electing the president it should probably stop getting trotted out as a metric for winning the election.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    I cant believe anyone would really think the Warren campaign wasnt CNNs source.

    Consider that Nate Silver also believes Warren's campaign was the source and has been in the running for the Bill Kristol Wrong About Everything Award for the last three years

    uH3IcEi.png
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    I think it's perfectly plausible that Warren was unaware of this. She *had* to comment on it, but that she initiated or approved the attack? Perfectly believable that she didn't. I hope she didn't, because if she did, that lowers my opinion of her overall campaign.

    Her reactions afterwards, though, especially with the lack of a handshake, leads viewers to think she didn't think it was a misinterpretation of what Bernie said and harbors some ill will. If she doesn't, her actions don't indicate it. That'll fuel the idea that the leaked attack was intentional, because if she was against it, the argument would go she'd make more of an effort to downplay it and not appear genuinely pissed at Bernie.

    It doesn't matter that she could have legit reasons to be pissed at him, either, since it's all about perception.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    So people are saying "Bernie lied" about this but did he actually do that? I'm having trouble with googling that. I see the thing with him talking about staffers, and I saw a campaign manager saying it was clearly misintepreted, but nothing that has Bernie saying "I didn't say that at all."

    Bernie and Warren definitely have some key differences, but they're close enough and seem pretty clearly better than any of the other candidates that I'm really surprised there seems to be so much vitriol from their supporters towards one another.

    Also considering we know there's just a horde of bots trying to stoke arguments, I think it's best to refrain from using any type of social media to gauge...anything.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is SO vastly different from the initial reporting, one of them is straight up untrue.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.

    Saying women under that environment couldn't win the presidency actually also is sexist, just in a different way. It ahifts the blame to society, but it's still saying a woman shouldn't run with serious intent to win. By analogy, consider how you might feel about "i support socialism but I just don't think a socialist can win 2020"

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is SO vastly different from the initial reporting, one of them is straight up untrue.

    Im not fan of either outlet but CNNs agends was on full display last night

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • ToxTox I kill threads they/themRegistered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Also, SURPRISE! Turns out that Slack script document was legit and deployed to a few states.

    So much for rogue staffers!
    DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.

    Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786

    Did Sanders specifically deny this or was it a staffer or was The Campaign or was there even a reported denial?

    Sanders himself specifically addressed it with a non-denial that implied it was just staffers saying things they shouldn't, rather than an actual campaign position.

    Sooo, kind of like how he addressed the "women can't win" comment?

    Specifically, I haven't seen him explicitly denying saying the thing Warren attributed to him

    Discord Lifeboat | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • LadaiLadai Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Even if you think Sanders was just bluntly stating a fact -- that Warren would face a lot of sexism and weaponized misogyny, making it more difficult to win -- it would still be a dumb thing for him to say, even in a private conversation.

    Warren probably doesn't need anyone to remind her that misogyny exists. And after hearing it over and over again from various people, I could totally see her viewing it more as discouragement than as a mere neutral statement of fact.

    It wouldn't be the first time a well-meaning ally said something dumb. I'm also not particularly interested in the "whodunit" game regarding the initial leak.

    I don't think this makes Sanders a mustache-twirling sexist but this backlash I'm seeing against Warren over all this is seriously grossing me out.

    Ladai on
    ely3ub6du1oe.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2020
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    So people are saying "Bernie lied" about this but did he actually do that? I'm having trouble with googling that. I see the thing with him talking about staffers, and I saw a campaign manager saying it was clearly misintepreted, but nothing that has Bernie saying "I didn't say that at all."

    Bernie and Warren definitely have some key differences, but they're close enough and seem pretty clearly better than any of the other candidates that I'm really surprised there seems to be so much vitriol from their supporters towards one another.

    Also considering we know there's just a horde of bots trying to stoke arguments, I think it's best to refrain from using any type of social media to gauge...anything.

    Bernie has said himself it didn't happen. Warren says it did. The two themselves have said it's not a big deal and everyone should move on but unfortunately here we are.

    Quid on
  • Viktor WaltersViktor Walters Registered User regular
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is what I'm saying. I'm fairly sure CNN cherry-picked from their sources. Warren's statement easily reflects that she heard something different from what Bernie meant. The most obvious source of this "fight" is the organization that reported it, hyped it for their own debate, and continues to harp on it with "Warren-Sanders Feud!" "Fiery response to Bernie's denial!"

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is SO vastly different from the initial reporting, one of them is straight up untrue.

    You can literally make both stories true if Warren asked the question in response to something Sanders said.

    Sanders: I think that a woman has the disadvantage in the election.

    Warren: Are you saying a woman can't win?

    Sanders: No, I'm saying Trump will be especially shitty to women.

    If you read the first two sentences, you get CNN. If you read the latter two, you get WaPo. If you read the last statement as Bernie's true position, you get Bernie's angle. If you read the last statement as backpedaling, you get Warren's position.

    It is really easy for communication to go poorly and different people to interpret things differently.

    I ate an engineer
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is SO vastly different from the initial reporting, one of them is straight up untrue.

    You can literally make both stories true if Warren asked the question in response to something Sanders said.

    Sanders: I think that a woman has the disadvantage in the election.

    Warren: Are you saying a woman can't win?

    Sanders: No, I'm saying Trump will be especially shitty to women.

    If you read the first two sentences, you get CNN. If you read the latter two, you get WaPo. If you read the last statement as Bernie's true position, you get Bernie's angle. If you read the last statement as backpedaling, you get Warren's position.

    It is really easy for communication to go poorly and different people to interpret things differently.

    This, again, loops back to my main point: All of this doesn't matter. Looking for liars or campaign agendas or "the truth" is silly, because this is such a triviality and the current status of "they probably miscommunicated in a mildly dumb way" is true regardless of which story is mildly more accurate

    I ate an engineer
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    This whole damn thing annoys me because both of them need to focus on Biden.

    Yes, Trump is the long term target, but Biden is the immediate opponent that needs to be taken down. Biden is weak in Iowa and if he underperforms in the first primary state, then he’s weakened in the rest.

    Warren or her team should have sat on this until Biden is at least neutralized or campaigning from a weaker position and Sanders needs to not make things worse by lying about it.

    All this shit does is help Biden become the candidate.

    The second they saw CNN and the rest of these fuckers in the media egging then on, they both should have backed off. Now it’s all everyone is talking about and you got Warren supporters saying Sanders is sexist and Sanders supporters are feeling victimized because of how the debate moderators leaned hard into this.

    The media is playing this hard now and Biden is gonna laugh his ass off to Iowa.

    This was a strategic blunder.

    The story was already blowing up. All Warren's campaign did was confirm that it happened, like many people (again, including people in this thread now complaining about her confirming it) were demanding she do.

    Warren and her team couldn't sit on the story, they could only not comment on it. While getting blamed for not commenting on it.

    I don’t mean sitting on Warren’s reaction. By that point it was too late. I don’t fault Warren or her campaign for that.

    I’m talking about the initial report that got this started, the “two staffers close to Warren and two other people” part. Whoever those staffers are should have waited until Biden was out of the way.

    Actually that makes me curious: The script thing was released first, then Sanders denied it, then the leak about Sanders and Warren’s conversation came out, then shit started getting worse.

    Please tell me this isn’t a thing and Biden isn’t going to win because some staffer on Warren’s campaign leaked this too early after Sander’s campaign lied about the script that’s a complete nothingburger?

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Also, SURPRISE! Turns out that Slack script document was legit and deployed to a few states.

    So much for rogue staffers!
    DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.

    Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786

    Did Sanders specifically deny this or was it a staffer or was The Campaign or was there even a reported denial?

    Sanders himself specifically addressed it with a non-denial that implied it was just staffers saying things they shouldn't, rather than an actual campaign position.

    Sooo, kind of like how he addressed the "women can't win" comment?

    Specifically, I haven't seen him explicitly denying saying the thing Warren attributed to him

    He did address it directly.
    Earlier in the day, Sanders said in a statement that “staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened.”

    "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win,” Sanders said. He acknowledged that gender came up during their conversation. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," Sanders said.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/warren-sanders-feud-098494

    Some of y'all are straight up refusing to acknowledge reality and it's more than a little unsettling.

  • ToxTox I kill threads they/themRegistered User regular
    edited January 2020
    Quid wrote: »
    He did address it directly.
    Earlier in the day, Sanders said in a statement that “staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened.”

    "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win,” Sanders said. He acknowledged that gender came up during their conversation. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," Sanders said.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/warren-sanders-feud-098494

    Some of y'all are straight up refusing to acknowledge reality and it's more than a little unsettling.

    Oh right I did see that thank you!

    Tox on
    Discord Lifeboat | Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Tox wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Also, SURPRISE! Turns out that Slack script document was legit and deployed to a few states.

    So much for rogue staffers!
    DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.

    Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786

    Did Sanders specifically deny this or was it a staffer or was The Campaign or was there even a reported denial?

    Sanders himself specifically addressed it with a non-denial that implied it was just staffers saying things they shouldn't, rather than an actual campaign position.

    Sooo, kind of like how he addressed the "women can't win" comment?

    Specifically, I haven't seen him explicitly denying saying the thing Warren attributed to him

    He did address it directly.
    Earlier in the day, Sanders said in a statement that “staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened.”

    "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win,” Sanders said. He acknowledged that gender came up during their conversation. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," Sanders said.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/warren-sanders-feud-098494

    Some of y'all are straight up refusing to acknowledge reality and it's more than a little unsettling.

    Ahh this is the quote I wanted to see.

    So, they're both right, no one lied, it's a miscommunication being propped up as a big news event when in reality it is anything but.

    I would like both Warren and Sanders to release a commercial clearing it up and then ending it with "Now let's all go back to making fun of Biden and Buttigieg"

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Hell, Sanders himself was beaten by a woman in 2016 primary, so I have no idea why he would say a woman can’t win 2020.

    Me neither.

    That's why I don't believe it.

    Plus, didn't Bernie say he tried to get Warren to run in 2016?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    WaPo has two sources that deny the CNN angle on the story



    Jacobin writer but its just so people can see whats behind the paywall

    This is SO vastly different from the initial reporting, one of them is straight up untrue.

    Not really.

    Again, it's best to go back to the actual reporting and such. Here's Warren's statement for instance:
    Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.
    That's what she said happened.

    The difference between this statement and what WaPo is reporting above is pretty small and basically a matter of how you take the meaning and overall point of his response.


    PS - And of course, her whole statement is basically "Yes it happened but this is all unimportant bullshit".

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I feel like while the current discussion is technically about the primary, it's unlikely to have a material effect on either the policies of the candidates or the votes of anyone in this forum and is probably not worth much except as a way to get mad at people who share your goals.

    We're all in this together
This discussion has been closed.