The only people who will actually believe this are the ones that already think Bernie is a sexist. It speaks miles to Warren's character though.
Or Bernie has real issues. We don't know what's true right now.
The pushback you've received is due to a combination of a few inflammatory choices of words/phrasing and the inaccurate claims you made about relevance. It's not even so much about you personally (as I said, I don't care or expect you to structure your free time based on my suggestions), but if someone reading/listening sees someone claim that they don't want to read leftist thought just like they don't want to read religious literature and because it's fringe, and the response was "yeah fair call you're not missing much it's basically a minor thing, it's more of a personal philosophy really,", it'd be dishonest and self-defeating.
All the best with your studies.
Maybe open up a freaking history book my dude?
Not if their respective supporters are soured by these attacks/claims that Bernie was dismissing women."You hate to see it" Why? Whoever survives this would be the front-runner.
I think you're right if he makes it to the general. In the primary though? It makes Warren's team look desperate. It certainly doesn't uplift Warren as a candidate.You really see it that way? I think this story plays into tropes that Bernie is divisive and damages him more than anyone else.
I smelled this shift coming pretty recently. The biggest red flag was her directly commenting on Sanders going out to "trash" her with the volunteer memo incident. The entire tone of her campaign has just become so suddenly weird with respect to her and Sanders's treatment of one another.
If this is how her campaign is choosing to deal with declining numbers, then I'm even more disappointed than I thought I'd be. I guess I'd like to believe that some particularly awful beltway advisor got the ear of a decision-making part of her campaign, but given other recent developments, I don't even know anymore.
As an economic system capitalism relies on an exploited underclass and stratifying them. This is especially the case for racism as white supremacy functions to dehumanize minorities and rob them of their agency for capital - slave trade etc. Most leftists wouldn't tell you abolishing capitalism would create an equal, free minded society overnight, but capitalism looms over minority groups and denies them equal treatment because it requires a deprived underclass to function, and that underclass is predominately made of minorities.
If Warren wasn't planning on leaking this herself, and it was the work of a rogue staffer, I don't want to think about the kind of cabinet positions she would make if she was elected.
No, you're making snide jokes assuming that the man is lying before the woman has said her side of the story.So we're choosing to believe a man completely before the woman herself has said her side of it, and also accusing her of cowardice and manipulation. And we're doing this after multiple issues regarding him endorsing or hiring people with less that reputable views or history, no questions asked.
I don't need to tell you all what this sounds like. But hey, he said the opposite in front of cameras, so that must mean he'd do the same in private, to a political rival.
If she can't control her campaign staff, or if she's getting abvise like this from them, I don't know why we should expect anything different from her potential cabinet staff.Are you under the impression that a candidate personally hires thousands of their workers and volunteers?
Or Bernie has real issues. We don't know what's true right now.
anyone that she described this private meeting to in any detail was probably a direct hire. they would be at the top level of the campaign.Are you under the impression that a candidate personally hires thousands of their workers and volunteers?
I'll take King's tweet the same I did with the initial story, with doubt.
If Bernie said this, shame. If Warren is making a political play, shame.
Warren does need to say something about this though...whatever that may be.
I feel like I both agree with this and see it from a different angle.Imperialism and economic plundering is a facet of capitalist worldview..so kind of yeah its a huge part of it. Bragging about getting people off of welfare by cutting welfare roles for millions of black people in inner cities ect.
It is absolutely ridiculous that Warren's campaign hasn't issued an official statement on this.
Are you under the impression that a candidate personally hires thousands of their workers and volunteers?
Its outrageous, specially since she was quick to jump on another fake story about volunteers yesterday.
More outrageous is to see the usual suspects that usually are quick to jump on sanders and anyone on his staff absolutely silent on this fake story and also yesterday's BS about bernie supporters trashing warren when canvassing for him.
It's fair game, considering it started as a fabricated story using anonymous sources. If CNN can make up a story, a regular staffer can debunk the same story. I don't know why CNN would get more credibility in this story compared to a bernie supporter.
Theres a history book of sexist things bernie has said? Damn
Ok? Once again, the primary motivation behind the production and advocacy of most leftist thought isn't to advance an understanding of leftist movements. If someone in a public forum states that it's irrelevant, those who believe it is essential to understanding our world are going to argue otherwise.Leftist ideology (again in terms of like, the dismantling of capitalism which is the defining aspect of leftist discussion these days for obvious reasons) isn't relevant in 99% of the discussions regarding US politics on most topics. It's more relevant on ERA because of the leftist population, but the actual aspects of policy in the US is inherently capitalist for obvious reasons. That's why it's "fringe", because the actual US political population isn't at all leftist and leftists have nearly no influence in US politics. What influence they do have in the Democratic party can be primarily described as Dem-Soc who are 100% talking about capitalist systems in their policies. Now I'm not really sure I would call a Dem-Soc "leftist" by the usual definitions talked about on ERA, because by most definitions I agree with many aspects of Dem-Soc and if I said I was a leftist I would probably have a mob of people bludgeoning me to death with hardcovers editions of various books on the topic.
You can also argue that a portion of Dem-Soc are just using that label as a means for spreading leftist ideology to "prime" the topic of actual leftism within the party, but that doesn't really fit the polls on the topic, at least from what I've seen.
So I agree with the sentiment that Capitalism exacerbates these issues, but I'm wary of people who want to set "identity" aside, because there are people who want to take on the billionaires and corporations, but wish BLM would shut up already. Also, "a rising tide lifts all boats."
Again, I think this current story is probably a game of telephone gone out of control, but it tracks.
I think it speaks to the general confrontational approach Warren has been taking towards Sanders.I missed that NYT actually reached out to Warren's campaign and got "no comment" as a response.
.... why?
it'd be more believable if Bernie and Warren didn't know each other. Maybe if he hadn't asked her to run in 2016.I'm kinda shocked so many people are trying to hard to ignore the likely reality that an old man probably said some diet-sexism shit to a women and didn't think much of it.
It's not like Sanders is immune to saying some really not cool shit when asked about topics lol
The most "likely" reality is;
Sanders and Warren were having a discussion on running in 2020, the topic of Warren's gender and the difficulty of being a women and running for office came up and Sanders worded it in a way that dug at Warren or insulted her, or at worst was dismissive of her chances while still respecting she is "fit" for office.
It's why Warren told staffers about it right after it happened because it got to her and she was annoyed that he would present it that way, and now that she's down in the polls she fed it to some people to write about in the media because it was actually a thing she was miffed on.
The most likely reality is that one of the Hillary staffers now working for her ran this plan by her as a plausibly deniable way to "upset" Sanders for the debate and to plant in the mind of the public that Sanders is Supreme Misogyny Chairman of vermont.
.Again, I think this current story is probably a game of telephone gone out of control, but it tracks.
The most likely reality is that one of the Hillary staffers now working for her ran this plan by her as a plausibly deniable way to "upset" Sanders for the debate and to plant in the mind of the public that Sanders is Supreme Misogyny Chairman of vermont.
I think it speaks to the general confrontational approach Warren has been taking towards Sanders.
it'd be more believable if Bernie and Warren didn't know each other. Maybe if he hadn't asked her to run in 2016.
First off we dont know the gender of any source so its weird to draw lines if gender here when warren herself still hasnt aaid anything regarding this.So we're choosing to believe a man completely before the woman herself has said her side of it, and also accusing her of cowardice and manipulation. And we're doing this after multiple issues regarding him endorsing or hiring people with less that reputable views or history, no questions asked.
I don't need to tell you all what this sounds like. But hey, he said the opposite in front of cameras, so that must mean he'd do the same in private, to a political rival.
On what claims do you know it's fabricated? You know how hard it is to have a "fake" story with four independent sources?
This is fair, I really want to see what she says. I don't think she would make this up, so if she says it happened, I believe her.So we're choosing to believe a man completely before the woman herself has said her side of it, and also accusing her of cowardice and manipulation. And we're doing this after multiple issues regarding him endorsing or hiring people with less that reputable views or history, no questions asked.
I don't need to tell you all what this sounds like. But hey, he said the opposite in front of cameras, so that must mean he'd do the same in private, to a political rival.