- Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on the Democratic Party and liberal American politics. During the 2016 Primary
- During 2016 as of March 15, they banned third parties and harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton on their site
Daily Kos Editor attacks Nina Turner in a series of tweets
- Thread starter Nocturnal
- Start date
I can't read anything sexist or racist out of these tweets, just personal name-calling by someone with obvious problems.
"what's funny is stupid ass bernie is paying you to fuck him"
textbook sexism
Don't know how I didnt see that, thanks for pointing it out to my blind ass
“Bernie is paying you to fuck him.”
The visible from space sexism
I mean, that's obviously not what that person was implying.
"Paying you to fuck him" in the sense that they're being paid to fuck him over, which is what they're doing. Some of his campaign staff/surrogates are just horrible and that doesn't speak well of Bernie's judgement.
Its not obvious at all even if that is the case. Thats not how i read it.
Don’t know, but that quote is bad enough. Don’t you agree?
Honestly, if it was intended to be understood like that, then it was still expressed horribly. It sounds very sexist.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who's not hellbent on being as uncharitable as possible.
What? It comes across as very sexist. Don't call me uncharitable like I was hoping for it, I got no horse in this race
i'm not american, i don't know who any of these people are except bernie
“Charitably”, it’s still a shitty double entendre. He should still apologize for a shit choice of words.
Yes, this is how I would have read the tweet if I hadn't been primed with "sexist" just before clicking. In context it looks more like "f***ed [him over]" IMO.
Still terrible things to say, regardless. Absolutely unacceptable.
it's all good!Oh, sorry about that flippant reply then.
Okay wait, so you're saying the obvious non-primed implication here is that Bernie is paying Turner to fuck over... Bernie.
Either because Bernie hires bad people and isn't aware of it or because Turner is just bad staff and he's aware of it.
Is that the logic here?
The assumption is that Armando is accusing Turner of being party to Bernie's intentional or unintentional self sabotage?
Last edited:
It seems a valid read? I.e. it's hilarious someone is wasting money on you when you're just hurting his efforts.
It really seems as if not more plausible as him literally wanting to write that it's hilarious that someone is paying you to have sex with him. Which is just kind of a random and sexist addendum if so.
I read this today in reference to primary challenges of Jerry Nadler.
... I don't think McElwee thinks Nadler isn't having enough sex with Trump?
He looks like an idiot whatever the meaning anyway.
For a little more context, the whole meltdown started because Nina Turner refused to support Clinton in 2016. It's essentially a huge furball between establishment vs anti establishment Democrats that Armando jumped into with the tact and poise of a 6 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
Can you point out what gives that away? Because I don't think comprehensive reading is the problem. Seems more like a lack of knowledge about the people/situation.
Okay, I get it. "It's funny that Bernie is paying you while you're sabotaging his campaign"
It comes down to how to read a text properly in context and having experience with how people can mean the things they write.
So lack of knowledge about human interaction and conversations will add to the lack of comprehension.
Sometimes people who lack a sense of sarcasm or sense of humor will have more difficulty with it. Not saying you lack that, by the way.
Last edited:
Read it as fuck him in the sense of fuck him over, but that meltdown looks pretty stupid tbh.
All these intra-left beefs are stupid games, full of stupid prizes.
All these intra-left beefs are stupid games, full of stupid prizes.
This thread is like if people read “Chuck Schumer fucked us” and assumed the Justice Dems were calling him a rapist.
Last edited:
Could go either way on 'paying you to fuck him' comment - probably leaning toward the 'paying you to fuck [his campaign]' angle but hard to say for sure.
If there isn't any racism there it really should be removed from the thread title - or the accusation explained at least. Not helpful otherwise.
If there isn't any racism there it really should be removed from the thread title - or the accusation explained at least. Not helpful otherwise.