- Oct 27, 2017
I dont give a shit. I just hope they have them or else why are they even running
I dont give a shit. I just hope they have them or else why are they even running
nobody wants to talk about the concentration camps because it might suggest people should do something about them
It's not about you. Start giving a shit about politics, as well.
It's not like I've been given much of an argument.
Oh, please. He's not comparable to trump.Perhaps, just perhaps, at some point it'd be good for people to be self aware about the constant bad hirings and stuff like this to perhaps admit that there is a reason it keeps happening and that perhaps it isn't inspite of the person at the very top.
This script is weak sauce. Lying about it is not the behavior I want to see. That's the problem.
Why should I believe his version of events on the 2018 meeting given it just turned out he was lying about this?
Credibility matters. Being *less* of a liar than Trump isn't going to be good enough.
I'm saying he needs to do better. If he wins I am gladly supporting him. This has been completely mishandled. He can't afford for his campaign to keep fucking up.
You're confusing going on the defensive with mocking the stupidity of it all.'Not giving a shit' would be showing apathy, not going on the defensive to defend your candidate. If that were true this issue wouldn't be so heated with Warren as a candidate, instead many supporters instantly turned on her - looking like they needed an excuse to justify that response.
Because some arguments merit no serious response. It would be giving them a weight they don't have.
Now there's a story that fizzled out with haste.
You're under the mistaken impression that people need to disprove terrible arguments. "____, prove me wrong" is just a meme. You're implying that no other candidate's script uses language like Bernie's because the media hasn't published any other candidate's script. It's nonsense.
I knocked on doors for friends campaigns all last year and will be knocking for Bernie in the coming weeks.
Honestly, I really think there's a solid chance they have a "hug it out" moment on stage tonight.Such a frustrating week as someone that would happily support both candidates and desperately hopes for a non-Pete/Biden victory.
Ugh, Bernie and Warren have had enough on their plate working together to push progressive policy against the moderate flank of the debate stages. Please dear god I hope they both just come together again and squash these terribly stupid fights, they're just so dumb and unnecessary.
You can definitely do both at the same time, IME. If nobody felt threatened by this stuff, nobody would respond to it.
Ah, but don't you see Brazil, Memoghazi is deeply important and must be fought over because it proves a) Sanders is a vicious attack dog or b) Warren is an evil liar and we must tear each other to pieces over it!
a thing I think a lot about in regards to the primary is that when people feel like they don't have control over things in their life they often get much more strident about the things they do have control of, and frankly, nobody seems to have come up with a single working idea for how to disrupt the candidate with the twenty-point lead in the Democratic primary, who is also senile
That's right, one of the strangest hires the DNC made. Was she hired by Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
That's a defensive tactic.
We expect this from Trump, not someone who was a close friend of Warren's who made a truce pact with her.
That's how arguments work. I was asking point blank for evidence about this and was met with a shrug.You're under the mistaken impression that people need to disprove terrible arguments. "____, prove me wrong" is just a meme. You're implying that no other candidate's script uses language like Bernie's because the media hasn't published any other candidate's script. It's nonsense.
But not enough to engage in political conversations here? When you say "I don't give a shit' about politics people will take that at face value.
Did Bernie ever say anything negative about Tulsi Gabbard when she was meeting with Steve Bannon days after the 2016 election and then based on his recommendation went to Trump Tower within two weeks of the election to meet personally with Trump on Bannon's recommendation, where she was reportedly on the short list for Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and UN Ambassador?
technically the vote was unanimous, but, like, yes
Makes sense when Schultz is involved. She was terrible as a Florida Democrat and close friends with the Republicans there.technically the vote was unanimous, but, like, yes
the democrats wanted to push tulsi ahead in line because she was good looking, a military veteran, a person of color, and in a safe seat, so for those of you complaining about the DNC trying to promote their favored candidates for president, believe me, things could've been a LOT worse
What on earth are you talking about? Did your read the line in question? Please tell me what is offensive about it, specifically. Should people canvassing for Bernie be disallowed from making a case for their candidate over another? Do you think Warren supporters don’t rightfully have reasons why they prefer her over Bernie?
Then why engage at all?
It was shade which broke the truce they had with each other. It was an attack I've seen Republicans use, framed in anti-intellectualism.
Sure, but I don't have any comparisons for her scripts and neither does anybody else.
I kinda feel like you're describing people getting defensive about possible bad narratives here, especially given the way it played out - there wasn't a uniform "eh it's nothing *shrug*" kind of response, people got vicious. Are still a little vicious. The thing for me is, the more harmful narrative is "the left eats itself again!" which is... what all the back-and-forth produced.
This is definitely overstating things lol.
Like you awkwardly concede here, that they were distributed doesn't necessarily mean they were approved. Doesn't have to be as extreme as "doesn't have any control over the talking points that it's putting out" either. Could be that Sanders and high level staff weren't as scrutinizing here and it burned them. I think at best it demonstrates sloppiness in their campaign if no one at a high level wanted this distributed as it was, yet it went out. At worst they always meant to issue these talking points which would be super weird since they would have at some point needed to answer for them and backtrack, so.... yeah this seems to be more likely a fuck-up than anything.The Sanders camp had said those weren't signed off on and/ or were "unapproved."
The new information in the article is that those talking points were in fact issued.
So I guess it's possible that the camp isn't lying but also doesn't have any control over the talking points that it's putting out. Either scenario is very problematic and even moreso in light of how the Sanders/ Warren feud has shaken out.
Yeah, Bernie supporters shouldn’t have jumped on unconfirmed accounts of personal experience at a low level of the campaign. The defensiveness surrounding this election causes people to do dumb things sometimes.Part of the job is hiring people who you can delegate stuff like that to safely, I guess.
Again, this is a small thing. I don't even think it's a failure of the campaign so much as a failure of the supporters. Everybody was just looking for a reason to tear into each other, and this gave 'em an excuse.
I mean maybe I'm just a bitter Bernie fan (I'm not), but it doesn't even seems like an equal thing. The word cult keeps being thrown around like that a normal way to talk about fellow posters.
It is when it breaks a truce with another campaign.
True, but that's what it reminded me of.
The script was the first half of the scandal, the rest was how Bernie and his campaign reacted. Both made the attack more controversial then it otherwise would be, put it in circumstances where Bernie is on thin ice with trust with Warren's staff and it's a powder keg ready to blow.Like you awkwardly concede here, that they were distributed doesn't necessarily mean they were approved. Doesn't have to be as extreme as "doesn't have any control over the talking points that it's putting out" either. Could be that Sanders and high level staff weren't as scrutinizing here and it burned them. I think at best it demonstrates sloppiness in their campaign if no one at a high level wanted this distributed as it was, yet it went out. At worst they always meant to issue these talking points which would be super weird since they would have at some point needed to answer for them and backtrack, so.... yeah this seems to be more likely a fuck-up than anything.
People trying to spin this as some 'Lyin' Bernie' thing, though.... seems even weaker than the hand-wringing over his health records.
It’s not an attack, nor is it even a critique of her personally. There is nothing “anti-intellectual” about it, only that her base is limited. It’s completely factual.
I mean no offense, but your appraisal of the comparative degree of leftism between a self-identified capitalist and a self-identified demsoc is not very useful coming from someone who has no interest in reading socialist theory.How about this. She's actually my Senator in the state I live in, someone I've followed for years since I was able to first vote, which was in her first election in the Senate back in 2012. I've followed her achievements, votes, and views for years (obviously more so in the recent years given her re-election in 2018 and the 2020 race), and I've read up on her achievements with CFPB which is one of the most important consumer protection organizations and concepts that has been developed and was basically her brain child.
While I am a Warren fan, and I have reservations about her political instincts, the idea that I'm somehow not as aware of how "liberal" she is or "left leaning" because people who don't even live in the state she represents listen to other people who spew right wing bullshit because their "man" is the "only way" and by default is the "only solution" to everything is fucking beyond annoying.
It's why I don't particularly care for what a lot of "leftists" say when they call Warren a "republican" when she's literally one of the most left leaning representatives in government, representing one of the most left leaning states in the country. The entire concept of being a "progressive" is changing over time. Who she was is clearly not what she believes now considering her crowning achievement is one of the most important consumer protection agencies that oversees the financial sector, said agency the GOP fucking hates and Trump has been attempting to dismantle since he took office.
The fact is, "the left" really did like Warren for years. And while my exposure to leftist wasn't really a thing back before 2015, I never did hear much in terms of leftists shitting on Warren. It's only post "no endorsement" that this started, and only now that Sanders and Warren are opponents that the "well actually she's not really that left leaning and she's just status quo" shit people starting parroting like it's a pamphlet read.
I'm sure there are people here who are from MA who disagree with my readings. I'm fine with that, but I'm really tired of being lectured that Sanders is some sacred King when the reality is he's a 30 year career politician who's current rise to fame in 2020 has been promoting 100 trillion in spending with nobody giving him one bit of kickback for the simple fact there is no fucking reality in the multiverse where his agenda will see such a budget.
Remember when they spent that debate arguing about who had the biggest dick lol
can you explain it to us
It's almost like you don't need to read socialist theory to see how liberal and left leaning a US politician is.
Do the search yourself in private browsing mode and see what pops up.