Reminder: Days ago Biden said, at an Iowa event, that he wouldn't face the sexism problem, implied because he's a guy.
And somehow no one at CNN made it into a giant fucking news event.
Maybe they knew that nobody, including Biden's supporters, cares enough about him to get upset on his behalf.
While I appreciate the execution of this burn, I feel like the other part is they want two old men with personal anger problems to get on a debate stage together this year.
Also, you know, they host tomorrow's debate so they have a perfect platform for instigating drama.
As far as who this helps, consider that Bernie is currently leading in Iowa, but that it's basically a 4 way tie. If Warren peels off some Bernie voters and they go to her over Biden with even a small disproportionate edge, she could win Iowa. And the media response to a Warren win in Iowa would be tremendously helpful.
I don't think Warren did this on purpose. I think she got hit with a shitty media narrative and handled it reasonably well. But I also think that if this story has a tangible effect - and i'm skeptical of that, FWIW - it could be beneficial to Warren.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As far as who this helps, consider that Bernie is currently leading in Iowa, but that it's basically a 4 way tie. If Warren peels off some Bernie voters and they go to her over Biden with even a small disproportionate edge, she could win Iowa. And the media response to a Warren win in Iowa would be tremendously helpful.
I don't think Warren did this on purpose. I think she got hit with a shitty media narrative and handled it reasonably well. But I also think that if this story has a tangible effect - and i'm skeptical of that, FWIW - it could be beneficial to Warren.
Depends if the extremely online Bernie fan is typical. Or just morons. Because they're all "WE MUST PRIMARY WARREN IN 2024! SHE IS AN EVIL WITCH! BURN HER!" tonight.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Reminder: Days ago Biden said, at an Iowa event, that he wouldn't face the sexism problem, implied because he's a guy.
And somehow no one at CNN made it into a giant fucking news event.
Maybe they knew that nobody, including Biden's supporters, cares enough about him to get upset on his behalf.
While I appreciate the execution of this burn, I feel like the other part is they want two old men with personal anger problems to get on a debate stage together this year.
Also, you know, they host tomorrow's debate so they have a perfect platform for instigating drama.
If they can't pitch Warren and Sanders against each other, then they'll just ding her for not signing her tax forms in triplicate back in '09 and ask Bernie about that time he rode the metro in the USSR while quizzing Biden on how he plans on saving black jewish female America with his jobs and economy initiative
As far as who this helps, consider that Bernie is currently leading in Iowa, but that it's basically a 4 way tie. If Warren peels off some Bernie voters and they go to her over Biden with even a small disproportionate edge, she could win Iowa. And the media response to a Warren win in Iowa would be tremendously helpful.
I don't think Warren did this on purpose. I think she got hit with a shitty media narrative and handled it reasonably well. But I also think that if this story has a tangible effect - and i'm skeptical of that, FWIW - it could be beneficial to Warren.
Depends if the extremely online Bernie fan is typical. Or just morons. Because they're all "WE MUST PRIMARY WARREN IN 2024! SHE IS AN EVIL WITCH! BURN HER!" tonight.
All of this warren/sanders stuff for the past few days feels a lot like getting the proles to fight amongst themselves so they forget what the actual problem is. Its just been a solid few days of thing after thing trying to drive this wedge in there and it's doing it in a lot of really dumb, but seemingly effective, places.
I mean the idea that maybe the country is too sexist for a woman to win isn't even a fuckin controversial thing to say. That's just lookin at the broader fuckin populace. Donald fuckin trump is the president, turns out there's a bunch of idiots out there.
All of this warren/sanders stuff for the past few days feels a lot like getting the proles to fight amongst themselves so they forget what the actual problem is. Its just been a solid few days of thing after thing trying to drive this wedge in there and it's doing it in a lot of really dumb, but seemingly effective, places.
I mean the idea that maybe the country is too sexist for a woman to win isn't even a fuckin controversial thing to say. That's just lookin at the broader fuckin populace. Donald fuckin trump is the president, turns out there's a bunch of idiots out there.
This is all just the dumbest shit.
It is the tried and true strategy of the ruling classes after all
+7
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
It seems kind of hard to imagine the sort of voter who is like, "I was going to vote for Bernie because I like his policies, but now that I know he said this one thing once, I'm all for the other guy."
It seems kind of hard to imagine the sort of voter who is like, "I was going to vote for Bernie because I like his policies, but now that I know he said this one thing once, I'm all for the other guy."
The point is have Warren and Sanders fight so Biden wins.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Let's put down our knives and kiss for progressive taxation.
+22
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
I do not understand why you are harping on CNN when Warren has confirmed the story.
Or at least it doesn't make any sense to keep on that.
Because the story she seems to have confirmed as reported is apparently missing context and twisted to be controversial instead of something we actually all would have agreed on, and as a result we're all sniping at each other like tribalistic geese?
Because maybe we need to stop falling for the fucking bullshit from the network whose literal endgame is to stir up controversy to drum up ratings, to ignore actual news in favor of an empty Trump podium for ratings, et-goddamn-cetera.
But you know who aren't sniping at each other like tribalistic geese?
Warren and Sanders, who are apparently the only two adults left in the room. They've spent their time trying to say "sure okay but this isn't important," because their working relationship and friendship have not actually changed and neither have their policies or goals or what they need to discuss. We should be listening to them instead of all this. When they are both telling you the other is fine believe them. We don't need to have our feelings hurt by Sanders randos or frenetically alternate between infantilizing and vilifying Warren. We look to these people because we think they can be the most responsible adults. If you can't trust them to do that then why bother?
My wet fucking dream right now is for Sanders and Warren to make a joint statement in person at the same time reaffirming all that so that their supporters can see that mommy and daddy aren't getting a divorce.
Even with people trying so hard to burn each other down as messily as possible the conspiracy train manages to be on time.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I do not understand why you are harping on CNN when Warren has confirmed the story.
Or at least it doesn't make any sense to keep on that.
Because the story she seems to have confirmed as reported is apparently missing context and twisted to be controversial instead of something we actually all would have agreed on, and as a result we're all sniping at each other like tribalistic geese?
Because maybe we need to stop falling for the fucking bullshit from the network whose literal endgame is to stir up controversy to drum up ratings, to ignore actual news in favor of an empty Trump podium for ratings, et-goddamn-cetera.
But you know who aren't sniping at each other like tribalistic geese?
Warren and Sanders, who are apparently the only two adults left in the room. They've spent their time trying to say "sure okay but this isn't important," because their working relationship and friendship have not actually changed and neither have their policies or goals or what they need to discuss. We should be listening to them instead of all this. When they are both telling you the other is fine believe them. We don't need to have our feelings hurt by Sanders randos or frenetically alternate between infantilizing and vilifying Warren. We look to these people because we think they can be the most responsible adults. If you can't trust them to do that then why bother?
My wet fucking dream right now is for Sanders and Warren to make a joint statement in person at the same time reaffirming all that so that their supporters can see that mommy and daddy aren't getting a divorce.
Even with people trying so hard to burn each other down as messily as possible the conspiracy train manages to be on time.
Well, god knows they'll be asked about it tomorrow.
Ideally, I would like Warren to offer a mild rebuke along the lines of "With all due respect, (idiotic moderator's name), punditry is stupid. I think anyone can win the presidency whether they're a man or woman; gay or straight; white, black, Hispanic, Asian; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, nonbeliever. But the only way that's going to happen is if everyone votes for the person they think will do the best job as president. I have a plan to do that job."
Of course the follow up would be "BUT DID BERNIE SAY THE THING?" And if she ever answers yes he said the thing, then the response will be "BERNIE WE NEED YOU TO RESPOND."
And then in the corner of your screen will be Joe Biden's giant blinding fucking smile.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Her answer just wasn't very good. Whether he said it or not, she could have clarified. If that's what she wanted and was actually serious about her unity platform.
'We talked about x and he said y' would be perfectly reasonable a response. Instead it reads more like, 'I said it was good he stopped beating his wife. He disagreed. I don't care to go into further details.'
What was the disagreement? That not beating his wife was a good thing or maybe that he beat her at all? Sure is an easy thing to not do, but also just as easy to do if you think it'll help you. It's basically the most 'Have your cake and eat it too' way to answer the statement.
Now as to who this will matter to? Probably only politwitter and maybe waste some bad debate time. It got CNN a few clicks and bucks I'm sure.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
A primary should be a knock down drag out fight from which emerges the strongest candidate for the general.
You know how we get a weak candidate?
A mutual nonaggression pact between two of the top candidates.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+5
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yeah you know what they say, "what doesn't kill you leaves you horrifically maimed going into the general."
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
A primary should be a knock down drag out fight from which emerges the strongest candidate for the general.
You know how we get a weak candidate?
A mutual nonaggression pact between two of the top candidates.
Not really?
Biden is currently the strongest runner in the primary. Warren and Sanders have nothing to gain by attacking each other while Biden is still winning and it only helps him if they do. Once Biden is gone, then they can hash it out.
That kind of strategy is smart, not weak. There’s a difference.
What you’re suggesting is like saying people should never work together because of some Darwinian idea that conflicts inherently make us stronger. Survival of the fittest in political form, as it were.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+4
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
A primary should be a knock down drag out fight from which emerges the strongest candidate for the general.
You know how we get a weak candidate?
A mutual nonaggression pact between two of the top candidates.
Not really?
Biden is currently the strongest runner in the primary. Warren and Sanders have nothing to gain by attacking each other while Biden is still winning and it only helps him if they do. Once Biden is gone, then they can hash it out.
That kind of strategy is smart, not weak. There’s a difference.
What you’re suggesting is like saying people should never work together because of some Darwinian idea that conflicts inherently make us stronger. Survival of the fittest in political form, as it were.
I daresay this was the intent of the quoted post.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
I suspect she got some of the staff and help from Julian Castro, as he has a groundbreakingly good disability platform himself on his site prior to dropping out. It was very notable in accessibility circles.
An important part here:
Fixing the SSDI return-to-work benefit cliff. Under current law, returning to work requires SSDI-eligible workers to risk their economic security, because they lose all benefits when their earnings go one dollar above the earnings threshold: $2,110 for blind individuals and $1,260 for non-blind individuals in 2020. People with disabilities should not be penalized for trying to get back in the workforce, and I’ll continue to fight to ensure they’re not being penalized. My plan would set the threshold at $2,110 for all individuals and index it to inflation and create an offset of $1 for every $2 earned above the threshold so that benefits gradually zero out.
This is so important. The SSDI benefit cliff is horrible and strictly policed. The way the current US policy is, it basically traps disabled folks in poverty. It also has a very judgy sort of aspect to it- as if you are really disabled, you wouldn't be able to make money!
There are several other great points on this page as well. And! Her website is getting much better on the accessibility front after receiving feedback. Back in December ( https://therespectabilityreport.org/2019/12/19/website-accessibility-update/ ) she still needed work- her website was far below the other candidatss, but now she's made some great strides.
Further third party reporting on the subject from the RespectAbility Report, a news outfit focused on disability issues:
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
As somebody else mentioned earlier in the thread, the Democrats Abroad primary actually runs over multiple days to allow for many people in different locations to either vote by email, scanned ballots, or in person. The primary runs from the 3rd-10th Feb.
So here in NZ I have the option of casting my ballot as the first for Super Tuesday, or waiting to see how the states fall and vote after.
I don't personally think that we are going to make much difference, despite having 16 (I think) delegates to give, in who gets the nomination, and I don't see myself changing who I'm going to vote for, but it will be interesting to see how the numbers go and see if we do have more people choosing to vote after Tuesday is over.
Hey guys, after about a dozen reports last night your moderator staff are looking blearily at this thread and wondering if they have the strength to tell individuals who should know better (because they've been told a hundred times already) to stop being dickheads.
Your general opinions about the media and how you don't like them aren't on topic. If you have a specific example linked to this topic then feel free to criticise and post it, but a general summation of how you think maybe the media is bad is of no interest to anyone.
Impenetrable one line koans aren't much use either.
Source your tweets. And don't bother posting them if they're satire.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
CNN is pretty clearly setting up a lets you and him fight for the ratings, LULZ, or just because they want Biden to win. Their actual motive doesn't really matter. They absolutely will want to keep this party going and I'm willing to bet heavily that they'll bring this up in the debate. Fortunately (relatively speaking) we have the 2016 election where a highly qualified woman lost to a gibbering idiot who was on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.
It should be relatively easy to use some verbal judo and turn that line of questioning into an attack on Trump. Unless Warren is much stupider than she seems, which is unlikely, I think she will definitely pull this off. The question is if Bernie will be able to do it because he'll have to suck it up and cop to the basics of the story. I seriously doubt he just up and said, "Silly Warren, wimmens can't be president." but it will take a very carefully formulated statement to prevent the internet hot takes from pushing that line.
I'm really interested in the origins of the story. Biden? Someone at CNN? Warren? Warren seems the least likely by far.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
CNN is pretty clearly setting up a lets you and him fight for the ratings, LULZ, or just because they want Biden to win. Their actual motive doesn't really matter. They absolutely will want to keep this party going and I'm willing to bet heavily that they'll bring this up in the debate. Fortunately (relatively speaking) we have the 2016 election where a highly qualified woman lost to a gibbering idiot who was on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.
It should be relatively easy to use some verbal judo and turn that line of questioning into an attack on Trump. Unless Warren is much stupider than she seems, which is unlikely, I think she will definitely pull this off. The question is if Bernie will be able to do it because he'll have to suck it up and cop to the basics of the story. I seriously doubt he just up and said, "Silly Warren, wimmens can't be president." but it will take a very carefully formulated statement to prevent the internet hot takes from pushing that line.
I'm really interested in the origins of the story. Biden? Someone at CNN? Warren? Warren seems the least likely by far.
I think there’s a good insight in Enlightenbum’s theory that it was Biden staff who probably heard it in just the general gossip of the field, and figured it was a good wedge, then gave it to CNN because they’re the hackiest and most tabloidesque of the major networks, outside of fox
Lanz on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
This really sucks. Many of Bernie's people now hate Warren because of the timing and the nature of her answer, and Warren's people are feeling that Bernie's coalition is being sanctimonious and aggressive. Biden's and Trump's people must be laughing. Hopefully Warren and Sanders can shoto this down at the debate.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
CNN is pretty clearly setting up a lets you and him fight for the ratings, LULZ, or just because they want Biden to win. Their actual motive doesn't really matter. They absolutely will want to keep this party going and I'm willing to bet heavily that they'll bring this up in the debate. Fortunately (relatively speaking) we have the 2016 election where a highly qualified woman lost to a gibbering idiot who was on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.
It should be relatively easy to use some verbal judo and turn that line of questioning into an attack on Trump. Unless Warren is much stupider than she seems, which is unlikely, I think she will definitely pull this off. The question is if Bernie will be able to do it because he'll have to suck it up and cop to the basics of the story. I seriously doubt he just up and said, "Silly Warren, wimmens can't be president." but it will take a very carefully formulated statement to prevent the internet hot takes from pushing that line.
I'm really interested in the origins of the story. Biden? Someone at CNN? Warren? Warren seems the least likely by far.
I think there’s a good insight in Enlightenbum’s theory that it was Biden staff who probably heard it in just the general gossip of the field, and figured it was a good wedge, then gave it to CNN because they’re the hackiest and most tabloidesque of the major networks, outside of fox
Giving it to CNN also guarantees that the story will have at least some legs. Give it to someone else and CNN might want to confirm the story or get stupid about the story not being broken by them. Dropping it directly to them two days before they have the debate on their channel makes it a complete no-brainer.
And yeah, Biden's team seems the most likely culprit.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
If anyone has any actual evidence as to who the sources who dropped this into the media are, let's hear it. I think people's choice of "most likely culprit" will miraculously coincide with the candidate they like the least often enough to make it a non-productive thing to talk about.
Maybe it was Biden's team, maybe someone else, I dunno. But it's not really very useful to talk about without evidence.
A primary should be a knock down drag out fight from which emerges the strongest candidate for the general.
You know how we get a weak candidate?
A mutual nonaggression pact between two of the top candidates.
Not really?
Biden is currently the strongest runner in the primary. Warren and Sanders have nothing to gain by attacking each other while Biden is still winning and it only helps him if they do. Once Biden is gone, then they can hash it out.
That kind of strategy is smart, not weak. There’s a difference.
What you’re suggesting is like saying people should never work together because of some Darwinian idea that conflicts inherently make us stronger. Survival of the fittest in political form, as it were.
Im not sure how a cycle that attempts to paint your rival as a sexist is necessarily a bad deal in the democratic primary.
You've said this a few times now, and I don't get it. If Sanders thinks a woman can't win, and I'd call that a reasonable position, that doesn't make him sexist. I might not agree with him, but that's more a case of pointing out sexism in the electorate. It wasn't racist to think a black man couldn't win in 2008, which I'm pretty sure is part of why Clinton was beating him there until he won Iowa.
I think the past few pages of this thread have been fascinating. My twitter timeline seems to be quite different than some of the people's in this thread. I've seen tons of people talking about misogynist Bernie supporters but I haven't actually seen misogynist Bernie supporters. I have seen a lot of people in the Warren and the Bernie camps saying this story about Bernie being "sexist" is a nothing distraction, although quite a few people seem to think the Warren camp leaked it as an attack, including political podcast folk.
Mostly my takeaway is that the twitter propaganda machine is manipulative as hell and not at all reflective of what's actually happening.
Fun note though, I live in Iowa and we've had a Warren canvasser come by, but not a Bernie canvasser. I'm personally leaning Bernie but would be happy to vote for either of them and told the canvasser that who was pretty much in agreement, just the other way around. Weirdly, the only signage I've seen for a candidate has been for Tulsi.
Bernie supporters tend to decry “identity politics” and see everything through a lens of class, which means they can be dismissive to the non-economic concerns of women, LGBT people, and minorities.
Bernie supporters tend to decry “identity politics” and see everything through a lens of class, which means they can be dismissive to the non-economic concerns of women, LGBT people, and minorities.
This sort of broad brush anti-Bernie people use to paint Bernie supporters seems deeply divisive and harmful, plus I haven't seen a single statistic to say any of it is true. There sure are a lot of twitter bots doing that to be divisive. And yes, of course, there are real jerks that do that. But are they a significant enough number to suggest that it's most Bernie supporters? I certainly don't think so.
It's more worrisome to me that Bernie lied about it than that he said it, as obviously it wasn't bad enough to particularly offend Warren
Where did he lie about it? I googled and found his campaign manager saying it sounds like wires got crossed and they were actually talking about how it's hard for a woman to get elected due to sexism in the electorate as this thread mentioned, but I didn't see Bernie lie about anything. I didn't google very long though.
It's more worrisome to me that Bernie lied about it than that he said it, as obviously it wasn't bad enough to particularly offend Warren
Is it clear that Bernie lied about it? Maybe the person who lied about her race for most of her adult life is being a little dishonest here.
I'm am more inclined to just accept the worst case scenario and see how I feel about it than to make excuses for him just because he's my preferred candidate, it's not like I don't already have plenty of criticisms of him worse than this
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I can't be the only person that likes both Bernie and Warren and doesn't give a shit about this.
My state's primary is on March 17th. What are the odds that the race isn't decided by then?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Posts
Jesus fucking christ.
Can we resurrect the media thread and move this fucking shit there?
Cause between that and the stupid shit from this weekend they are doing a goddamn... I've run out of words.
they're bad.
The media is just goddamn bad
Preclude means to make impossible / prevent.
While I appreciate the execution of this burn, I feel like the other part is they want two old men with personal anger problems to get on a debate stage together this year.
Also, you know, they host tomorrow's debate so they have a perfect platform for instigating drama.
I don't think Warren did this on purpose. I think she got hit with a shitty media narrative and handled it reasonably well. But I also think that if this story has a tangible effect - and i'm skeptical of that, FWIW - it could be beneficial to Warren.
Depends if the extremely online Bernie fan is typical. Or just morons. Because they're all "WE MUST PRIMARY WARREN IN 2024! SHE IS AN EVIL WITCH! BURN HER!" tonight.
If they can't pitch Warren and Sanders against each other, then they'll just ding her for not signing her tax forms in triplicate back in '09 and ask Bernie about that time he rode the metro in the USSR while quizzing Biden on how he plans on saving black jewish female America with his jobs and economy initiative
idk I think this is the worst I've seen so far
And to be fair Pete does have a rat face
I mean the idea that maybe the country is too sexist for a woman to win isn't even a fuckin controversial thing to say. That's just lookin at the broader fuckin populace. Donald fuckin trump is the president, turns out there's a bunch of idiots out there.
This is all just the dumbest shit.
It is the tried and true strategy of the ruling classes after all
*reads 'script'*
No, I'm pretty sure they're not doing that.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
The point is have Warren and Sanders fight so Biden wins.
But you know who aren't sniping at each other like tribalistic geese?
Warren and Sanders, who are apparently the only two adults left in the room. They've spent their time trying to say "sure okay but this isn't important," because their working relationship and friendship have not actually changed and neither have their policies or goals or what they need to discuss. We should be listening to them instead of all this. When they are both telling you the other is fine believe them. We don't need to have our feelings hurt by Sanders randos or frenetically alternate between infantilizing and vilifying Warren. We look to these people because we think they can be the most responsible adults. If you can't trust them to do that then why bother?
My wet fucking dream right now is for Sanders and Warren to make a joint statement in person at the same time reaffirming all that so that their supporters can see that mommy and daddy aren't getting a divorce.
Even with people trying so hard to burn each other down as messily as possible the conspiracy train manages to be on time.
Well, god knows they'll be asked about it tomorrow.
Ideally, I would like Warren to offer a mild rebuke along the lines of "With all due respect, (idiotic moderator's name), punditry is stupid. I think anyone can win the presidency whether they're a man or woman; gay or straight; white, black, Hispanic, Asian; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, nonbeliever. But the only way that's going to happen is if everyone votes for the person they think will do the best job as president. I have a plan to do that job."
Of course the follow up would be "BUT DID BERNIE SAY THE THING?" And if she ever answers yes he said the thing, then the response will be "BERNIE WE NEED YOU TO RESPOND."
And then in the corner of your screen will be Joe Biden's giant blinding fucking smile.
'We talked about x and he said y' would be perfectly reasonable a response. Instead it reads more like, 'I said it was good he stopped beating his wife. He disagreed. I don't care to go into further details.'
What was the disagreement? That not beating his wife was a good thing or maybe that he beat her at all? Sure is an easy thing to not do, but also just as easy to do if you think it'll help you. It's basically the most 'Have your cake and eat it too' way to answer the statement.
Now as to who this will matter to? Probably only politwitter and maybe waste some bad debate time. It got CNN a few clicks and bucks I'm sure.
You know how we get a weak candidate?
A mutual nonaggression pact between two of the top candidates.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Not really?
Biden is currently the strongest runner in the primary. Warren and Sanders have nothing to gain by attacking each other while Biden is still winning and it only helps him if they do. Once Biden is gone, then they can hash it out.
That kind of strategy is smart, not weak. There’s a difference.
What you’re suggesting is like saying people should never work together because of some Darwinian idea that conflicts inherently make us stronger. Survival of the fittest in political form, as it were.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I daresay this was the intent of the quoted post.
The quote seems weird, IIRC Sanders pushed Warren to run against Clinton in the 2016 primaries.
He only ran after she indicated she wouldn’t enter the primary.
It's a little old but got recently updated: Warren has a great disability platform! https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/disability-rights-and-equality?source=soc-WB-ew-tw
I suspect she got some of the staff and help from Julian Castro, as he has a groundbreakingly good disability platform himself on his site prior to dropping out. It was very notable in accessibility circles.
An important part here:
This is so important. The SSDI benefit cliff is horrible and strictly policed. The way the current US policy is, it basically traps disabled folks in poverty. It also has a very judgy sort of aspect to it- as if you are really disabled, you wouldn't be able to make money!
There are several other great points on this page as well. And! Her website is getting much better on the accessibility front after receiving feedback. Back in December ( https://therespectabilityreport.org/2019/12/19/website-accessibility-update/ ) she still needed work- her website was far below the other candidatss, but now she's made some great strides.
Further third party reporting on the subject from the RespectAbility Report, a news outfit focused on disability issues:
https://therespectabilityreport.org/2020/01/07/warren-questionnaire-response/
So here in NZ I have the option of casting my ballot as the first for Super Tuesday, or waiting to see how the states fall and vote after.
I don't personally think that we are going to make much difference, despite having 16 (I think) delegates to give, in who gets the nomination, and I don't see myself changing who I'm going to vote for, but it will be interesting to see how the numbers go and see if we do have more people choosing to vote after Tuesday is over.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Your general opinions about the media and how you don't like them aren't on topic. If you have a specific example linked to this topic then feel free to criticise and post it, but a general summation of how you think maybe the media is bad is of no interest to anyone.
Impenetrable one line koans aren't much use either.
Source your tweets. And don't bother posting them if they're satire.
Quit being dickheads.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It should be relatively easy to use some verbal judo and turn that line of questioning into an attack on Trump. Unless Warren is much stupider than she seems, which is unlikely, I think she will definitely pull this off. The question is if Bernie will be able to do it because he'll have to suck it up and cop to the basics of the story. I seriously doubt he just up and said, "Silly Warren, wimmens can't be president." but it will take a very carefully formulated statement to prevent the internet hot takes from pushing that line.
I'm really interested in the origins of the story. Biden? Someone at CNN? Warren? Warren seems the least likely by far.
I think there’s a good insight in Enlightenbum’s theory that it was Biden staff who probably heard it in just the general gossip of the field, and figured it was a good wedge, then gave it to CNN because they’re the hackiest and most tabloidesque of the major networks, outside of fox
Giving it to CNN also guarantees that the story will have at least some legs. Give it to someone else and CNN might want to confirm the story or get stupid about the story not being broken by them. Dropping it directly to them two days before they have the debate on their channel makes it a complete no-brainer.
And yeah, Biden's team seems the most likely culprit.
Maybe it was Biden's team, maybe someone else, I dunno. But it's not really very useful to talk about without evidence.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'm down for it.
You've said this a few times now, and I don't get it. If Sanders thinks a woman can't win, and I'd call that a reasonable position, that doesn't make him sexist. I might not agree with him, but that's more a case of pointing out sexism in the electorate. It wasn't racist to think a black man couldn't win in 2008, which I'm pretty sure is part of why Clinton was beating him there until he won Iowa.
Mostly my takeaway is that the twitter propaganda machine is manipulative as hell and not at all reflective of what's actually happening.
Fun note though, I live in Iowa and we've had a Warren canvasser come by, but not a Bernie canvasser. I'm personally leaning Bernie but would be happy to vote for either of them and told the canvasser that who was pretty much in agreement, just the other way around. Weirdly, the only signage I've seen for a candidate has been for Tulsi.
Is it clear that Bernie lied about it? Maybe the person who lied about her race for most of her adult life is being a little dishonest here.
oh my fucking God I am so tired of this thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This sort of broad brush anti-Bernie people use to paint Bernie supporters seems deeply divisive and harmful, plus I haven't seen a single statistic to say any of it is true. There sure are a lot of twitter bots doing that to be divisive. And yes, of course, there are real jerks that do that. But are they a significant enough number to suggest that it's most Bernie supporters? I certainly don't think so.
Where did he lie about it? I googled and found his campaign manager saying it sounds like wires got crossed and they were actually talking about how it's hard for a woman to get elected due to sexism in the electorate as this thread mentioned, but I didn't see Bernie lie about anything. I didn't google very long though.
I'm am more inclined to just accept the worst case scenario and see how I feel about it than to make excuses for him just because he's my preferred candidate, it's not like I don't already have plenty of criticisms of him worse than this
My state's primary is on March 17th. What are the odds that the race isn't decided by then?