1 - Its hard for me not to read that as a gendered insult
2 - Sanders claiming he's been attacked hard is just not credible, and complaining about it is pretty clearly hypocritical in the first place
1- How can it be a gendered insult? It's not even an insult. Like who is the aggrieved party there Clinton or the interviewer?
2- You're right he hasn't been attacked, but his road to the nomination has been been a much more against the stream affair in the democratic party. The crown already had 'HRC' engraved on it before the election season began.
That entire line of questioning can go DIAF, there isn't even a question in it- outside of the implied "Why are you still campaigning?".
Also really:
"She is now fighting a war on two fronts"
"She's getting beat up by Donald Trump"
"She's fighting Donald Trump"
"She's Fighting Bernie Sanders"
"And that's depressing her overal"
"I'm just saying that Hillary Clinton - the oposition to her, has been built up by donald trump just hammering away at her"
"She's fighting two candidates"
If that isn't moaning about Hillary Clinton's problems idk what is. The entire thing is basically a "let's talk about Hillary now", sander's isn't actually the subject in a single sentence in the question.
The gendered part, I believe, is from the insinuation that when a woman brings up that she has been the source of unfair attacks she should really not bother. Or she should quit whining (moaning) about it, because I'll have you know young lady the male candidate has been attacked too.
Yes, but the sentence isn't Hillary should stop moaning about getting attacked.
It's "[You] please do not moan to me about Hillary's problems'" The moaner there isn't Hillary, it's the interviewer.
And considering that said interviewer is Andrea Mitchell...
She hasn't been subject to unfair attack by Sanders/Trump...?
Calling any comments by any woman "moaning" is Something You Should Not Do.
Just to clarify, cause I can't find the list of SYSND.
I don't think it matters what word he used, be it moan or anything else. It's the insinuation that a woman drawing attention to being attacked, or another woman being attacked, is a complaint not worth taking seriously in the first place.
That whole exchange reduces to "don't talk to me about her being attacked, I get attacked too" which is very dismissive of the reality of how women are treated when they seek powerful positions.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Like, I agree it's dumb comment to make, but only because Hillary has been having shit thrown at her for decades.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I don't think it matters what word he used, be it moan or anything else. It's the insinuation that a woman drawing attention to being attacked, or another woman being attacked, is a complaint not worth taking seriously in the first place.
That whole exchange reduces to "don't talk to me about her being attacked, I get attacked too" which is very dismissive of the reality of how women are treated when they seek powerful positions.
Why would any candidate spend their press time talking about how hard life is for their opposition? Where were the question to Cruz about how Hillary kept attacking Trump? Yeah, they didn't happen cause the question is asinine.
Like there isn't a fucking question in there. She really just starts talking about the woes of Clinton. Then goes on to show a clip of Trump attacking Hillary- and crediting the attacks to Bernie.
Which he addresses- and then she goes back to playing clip collage of Tump insulting Hillary. Which Sander's is somehow responsible for responding to.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
I don't think it matters what word he used, be it moan or anything else. It's the insinuation that a woman drawing attention to being attacked, or another woman being attacked, is a complaint not worth taking seriously in the first place.
That whole exchange reduces to "don't talk to me about her being attacked, I get attacked too" which is very dismissive of the reality of how women are treated when they seek powerful positions.
Why would any candidate spend their press time talking about how hard life is for their opposition? Where were the question to Cruz about how Hillary kept attacking Trump? Yeah, they didn't happen cause the question is asinine.
Like there isn't a fucking question in there. She really just starts talking about the woes of Clinton. Then goes on to show a clip of Trump attacking Hillary- and crediting the attacks to Bernie.
Which he addresses- and then she goes back to playing clip collage of Tump insulting Hillary. Which Sander's is somehow responsible for responding to.
Because the overall question is whether or not Sanders is helping or hurting at this point. In the transcripts Andrea makes the point that as of now Hillary is being attacked by both Trump and Sanders and that Trump is essentially boosting Sanders because it helps sew discord between the two Democratic camps.
That is why he was being asked, because at this point he has absolutely no realistic way to win the nomination and asking if he's doing more harm than good is a valid question.
His entire campaign rests on the farsical notion that he will not only win in California, but he will also do it by such an overwhelming margin that he will finish the primary with a lead in pledged delegates. Never mind that he would have to almost make her non-viable in order to do this.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Harry Reid in "idgaf" mode is not quite Obama-idgaf fun to watch, but he's getting there.
All i needed to know about Reid, i learned from a possibly anecdotal story of someone trying to bribe him, and then law enforcement having to pull Reid away from trying to strangle him.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
I don't think it matters what word he used, be it moan or anything else. It's the insinuation that a woman drawing attention to being attacked, or another woman being attacked, is a complaint not worth taking seriously in the first place.
That whole exchange reduces to "don't talk to me about her being attacked, I get attacked too" which is very dismissive of the reality of how women are treated when they seek powerful positions.
Why would any candidate spend their press time talking about how hard life is for their opposition? Where were the question to Cruz about how Hillary kept attacking Trump? Yeah, they didn't happen cause the question is asinine.
Like there isn't a fucking question in there. She really just starts talking about the woes of Clinton. Then goes on to show a clip of Trump attacking Hillary- and crediting the attacks to Bernie.
Which he addresses- and then she goes back to playing clip collage of Tump insulting Hillary. Which Sander's is somehow responsible for responding to.
Because the overall question is whether or not Sanders is helping or hurting at this point. In the transcripts Andrea makes the point that as of now Hillary is being attacked by both Trump and Sanders and that Trump is essentially boosting Sanders because it helps sew discord between the two Democratic camps.
That is why he was being asked, because at this point he has absolutely no realistic way to win the nomination and asking if he's doing more harm than good is a valid question.
His entire campaign rests on the farsical notion that he will not only win in California, but he will also do it by such an overwhelming margin that he will finish the primary with a lead in pledged delegates. Never mind that he would have to almost make her non-viable in order to do this.
Or that for some reason hillary will just chose to step down. Never mind what that would do to HER voter base if a woman presidential candidate who is ahead in pledged and super delegates is asked to step down in favor of an old white guy. I am pretty sure that would not end well for bernies presidential chances unless somehow he can pull some serious magic and actually get at very least parity in pledged delegates with hillary which is next to impossible for him to do without an utter clinton collapse.
His problem is when he wins he wins small or in states with almost no delegates. The states that hillary has won big have also had massive numbers of pledged delegates and there just not that many of those left other than cali and New Jersy and clinton is currently polling WAY ahead in jersey.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
You shouldn't. It's stupid that english doesn't have a second person plural.
+10
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
What a rude way to generalize.
It's not a generalization, but a response to a comment from a "Facebook Friend".
Whether that is accurate I can't say.
It was said in response to "I don't understand Bernie supporters"
So maybe if it wasn't intended to generalize it should have been written more specifically
There was a bit more in that quote than just that line. In the context of that quote tree, that response seems perfectly fine, and not generalized to other Bernie supporters at all. (to me at least)
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
I disagree that he successfully "called it out", if that's what he was attempting. All I see is a defensive and frustrated retort. If he feels the line of questioning is bullshit, he needs to say that flat out: "Andrea, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm here to talk about the Sanders campaign, not the Clinton or Trump campaigns. I am still in this race to win, and I believe it's better to let every Democratic voter have their say than allow the media to pressure me into conceding prematurely and leaving them voiceless. And furthermore, Donald Trump is a loudmouth and an idiot, and why you continue to give him free airtime despite the hateful and damaging views he continues to espouse about everyone and everything is shameful. Now, do you have a question for me about my campaign you'd like to ask?"
God, Sanders is such a whiny fuck whenever he's challenged on, like, ANYTHNG.
Edit. And wow, that Reid/Grayson exchange. When was the last time there was an out and out fist fight between elected officials in the US? We must be getting pretty close to one.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
Posts
Just to clarify, cause I can't find the list of SYSND.
beef, bellyache, bitch, bleat, carp, caterwaul, crab, croak, fuss, gripe, grizzle, grouch, grouse, growl, grumble, grump, holler, inveigh, keen, kick, kvetch, maunder [chiefly British], moan, murmur, mutter, nag, repine, scream, squawk, squeal, wail, whimper, whine, whinge [British], yammer, yawp (or yaup), yowl
Can you just bold the acceptable synonyms? Because outside of bitch and nag. I really don't see a bunch of gendered insults on the list.
That whole exchange reduces to "don't talk to me about her being attacked, I get attacked too" which is very dismissive of the reality of how women are treated when they seek powerful positions.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
It gets better:
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
Steam: adamjnet
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Why would any candidate spend their press time talking about how hard life is for their opposition? Where were the question to Cruz about how Hillary kept attacking Trump? Yeah, they didn't happen cause the question is asinine.
Like there isn't a fucking question in there. She really just starts talking about the woes of Clinton. Then goes on to show a clip of Trump attacking Hillary- and crediting the attacks to Bernie.
Which he addresses- and then she goes back to playing clip collage of Tump insulting Hillary. Which Sander's is somehow responsible for responding to.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/11/bernie-sanders-goes-off-on-andrea-mitchell-don-t-moan-to-me-about-hillary-s-problems.html
has the video starting at about 4:45.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
Because the overall question is whether or not Sanders is helping or hurting at this point. In the transcripts Andrea makes the point that as of now Hillary is being attacked by both Trump and Sanders and that Trump is essentially boosting Sanders because it helps sew discord between the two Democratic camps.
That is why he was being asked, because at this point he has absolutely no realistic way to win the nomination and asking if he's doing more harm than good is a valid question.
His entire campaign rests on the farsical notion that he will not only win in California, but he will also do it by such an overwhelming margin that he will finish the primary with a lead in pledged delegates. Never mind that he would have to almost make her non-viable in order to do this.
Giving Grayson a much deserved shoeing made it better.
pleasepaypreacher.net
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
Steam: adamjnet
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Or that for some reason hillary will just chose to step down. Never mind what that would do to HER voter base if a woman presidential candidate who is ahead in pledged and super delegates is asked to step down in favor of an old white guy. I am pretty sure that would not end well for bernies presidential chances unless somehow he can pull some serious magic and actually get at very least parity in pledged delegates with hillary which is next to impossible for him to do without an utter clinton collapse.
His problem is when he wins he wins small or in states with almost no delegates. The states that hillary has won big have also had massive numbers of pledged delegates and there just not that many of those left other than cali and New Jersy and clinton is currently polling WAY ahead in jersey.
I'm sure that's still far out there, but has there been anything even slightly official?
Nope, just the usual veepstakes guessing.
I figured as much. Guess it's time to delete facebook*
*he says, every time something vaguely political happens
What a rude way to generalize.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
Steam: adamjnet
How did Sam Bee put it? Their Candidate Canadian Girlfriend?
You shouldn't. It's stupid that english doesn't have a second person plural.
It's not a generalization, but a response to a comment from a "Facebook Friend".
Whether that is accurate I can't say.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th: The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
It was said in response to "I don't understand Bernie supporters"
So maybe if it wasn't intended to generalize it should have been written more specifically
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
There was a bit more in that quote than just that line. In the context of that quote tree, that response seems perfectly fine, and not generalized to other Bernie supporters at all. (to me at least)
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
Steam: adamjnet
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
I disagree that he successfully "called it out", if that's what he was attempting. All I see is a defensive and frustrated retort. If he feels the line of questioning is bullshit, he needs to say that flat out: "Andrea, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm here to talk about the Sanders campaign, not the Clinton or Trump campaigns. I am still in this race to win, and I believe it's better to let every Democratic voter have their say than allow the media to pressure me into conceding prematurely and leaving them voiceless. And furthermore, Donald Trump is a loudmouth and an idiot, and why you continue to give him free airtime despite the hateful and damaging views he continues to espouse about everyone and everything is shameful. Now, do you have a question for me about my campaign you'd like to ask?"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Edit. And wow, that Reid/Grayson exchange. When was the last time there was an out and out fist fight between elected officials in the US? We must be getting pretty close to one.
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
Steam: adamjnet