Sanders does something that has plausible deniability : Indefinite defense force
Sanders does something that has no deniability : "lol it's nothin"
"The campaign didn't issue these talking points."
This.
Sure, but why lie about having issued them then?This script stuff is nonsense. Warren is my preferred candidate, but I don't find those critiques either malicious or unfair.
Sanders: does something that no one sane gives a fuck about.
Libs: IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!
Highlight the lie, if you please."I think this is a little bit of a media blow-up that kind of wants conflict," Sanders said. "Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine. We have worked together in the Senate for years. Elizabeth Warren and I will continue to work together and we'll debate the issues. No one is gonna trash Elizabeth Warren."
"We have hundreds of employees. Elizabeth Warren has hundreds of employees, and people sometimes say things that they shouldn't," he continued. "You have heard me give many speeches. Have I ever said one negative word about Elizabeth Warren? OK?"
Asked if he personally approved of such talking points, Sanders gave a straightforward answer."
"No, of course I did not," the senator said.
I'm confused too. Why are people so up in arms about this?This script stuff is nonsense. Warren is my preferred candidate, but I don't find those critiques either malicious or unfair.
Yes, please point out where people are flipping their shit over the fact that they lied about talking points?
It's ok to just say "they did a bad", but like we've seen that seems to be impossible for some people.
Pretty clear pattern of the first story out of the Bernie campaign usually being a lie and then needing to be walked back a few days later.
This script stuff is nonsense. Warren is my preferred candidate, but I don't find those critiques either malicious or unfair.
Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
The fact he apparently lied about it, though having now seen his statement about it, it doesn't appear that he did
When I skimmed the first few posts of this thread before reading the article I assumed he lied but after reading the article and also what his response at the time was in full, I'm not sure I see a lie, since you won't "play this game" with them, could you in a non playful but civil manner, explain it to me? Cause I'm open to the possibility, even if I would be very disappointedLol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
drawing any distinction between them is unfair and actually a violent attack on warren and all her supportersThey literally just looked at the demographics from actual polling and tried to use it to differentiate the two. You can say that then saying she can't "expand the base" is speculative but the other parts of the script are truths.
This is absolute bullshit. The campaign itself as quoted in news stories never said it wasn't real. It was volunteers who legitimately hadn't seen it saying it wasn't real.
I was paying very close attention to how this played out and the real surrogates for the campaign took an angle of "these are mild factual criticisms and this is a primary, have you seen what Obama and Clinton ads were like in 2008?"
Can we close the thread then? The OP is almost devoid of content and you don't want to discuss anything with someone who doesn't actually agree with you. The thread seems designed to antagonize.Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
The fact he apparently lied about it, though having now seen his statement about it, it doesn't appear that he did
I look forward to your next Bernie Sanders thread.Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
The very low level staff and volunteers were recounting their own experiences and probably didn't know it differed from other parts of the campaign.
Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
If he didn't personally approve the script he can absolutely think using the script is people saying things they shouldn't.Attributing a script to "people saying things they shouldn't" is literally lying by omission when the people saying the things they shouldn't are reading scrips.
Again, not a big deal, in fact I would say it's usual fair game politics but in the face of everyone trying to pretend they are "buddy buddy" it just makes it all the more funny when actual friction happens and people either pretend it doesn't exist or the defense force outright makes it a non-existent thing.
But this defense force thing some folks have going on for when he spews casual sexism and now this "lol it's nothing omg stop overreacting" to people commenting pretty chill in a thread is just embarrassing, and pretty annoying since you're doing a little routine and trying to act coy.
Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
Ohh sorry, they just waited multiple days to confirm it. So much better.
So Warren was in the right when she said they were being urged to trash her, and so many people were using that as proof she was lying about being told a woman can't be president. Gross
Agreed. What else is new with this poster though. Gleefully antagonistic and unwilling to engage with anything that contradicts their opinions.Can we close the thread then? The OP is almost devoid of content and you don't want to discuss anything with someone who doesn't actually agree with you. The thread seems designed to antagonize.
no. see the post right above yoursSo Warren was in the right when she said they were being urged to trash her, and so many people were using that as proof she was lying about being told a woman can't be president. Gross
Truth be told, the problem is more the supporters than the candidates. The attack is a little unfair, but the real firestorm around it is supporters looking for something to rip into each other about.This is such a fucking shit show. I am so pissed right now. As someone who was happily backing Bernie as my first pick and Warren as my second, they BOTH should know better than to pull this kind of shit at such a crucial point in the primaries, given that one of them is gonna need the voters/delegates of the other if they want to stop Biden.
lol what?Can we close the thread then? The OP is almost devoid of content and you don't want to discuss anything with someone who doesn't actually agree with you. The thread seems designed to antagonize.
He aides never denied the veracity of the documents, and nothing they said was anything damming either so idk why you would worry about this.
Attributing a script to "people saying things they shouldn't" is literally lying by omission when the people saying the things they shouldn't are reading scrips.
Again, not a big deal, in fact I would say it's usual fair game politics but in the face of everyone trying to pretend they are "buddy buddy" it just makes it all the more funny when actual friction happens and people either pretend it doesn't exist or the defense force outright makes it a non-existent thing.
If he didn't personally approve the script he can absolutely think using the script is people saying things they shouldn't.
the stuff in the script wasn't trashing her, but to try to convert supporters of hers to Bernie which was also done for the other candidates. Why is it suddenly not okay to try to convert voters to Bernie voters when its Warren but not to do so for the rest of the candidatesSo Warren was in the right when she said they were being urged to trash her, and so many people were using that as proof she was lying about being told a woman can't be president. Gross
You can argue his wording could have been better sure, but calling it a lie is being purposefully disingenous. This is the same level of mischaracterisation as those assuming Warren is straight up lying about the other situation."I didn't see the script and we are going to be more carful in how we go forward so this doesn't happen again"
vs.
"People said things they shouldn't have"
I'm actually confused now, too. Where's the new information that contradicts what Sanders or his campaign said "over the weekend"?Lol read the article and the timeline of events.
I'm not playing this game with you :)
There's a large difference between acknowledging a fait divers that happened that ultimately has no interest whatsoever and making yet another thread on yet another flimsy excuse for yet another hollow controversy. This thread is not made in good faith in the slightest. The very article quoted belies the very silly and transparent OP.