-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Reuters: “I thought a woman could win; he [Sanders] disagreed,” Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, said in a statement.
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
Maybe so, but they bitched and complained every step of the way. I just hope Democrats are not as negative about their own nominee this time around.
I think if she hadn't hedged on actually supporting M4A the way she did she would have seen a bigger boost than she did after the not-quite-frontrunners started exiting.
Wonder what the Democrat billionaire class will do if it's Bernie? I mean, they wouldn't sabotage the nominee for personal reasons, would they?
Didn't Warren also lie about her kids being in public school? And didn't she very recently before this case deliberately construe a claim from a staffer in the Bernie campaign about her support being largely white and educated (and therefore limited) as some kind of unfair attack, when it is in fact true? Warren's fine, especially in the context of this election, but she's definitely shown more opportunism or deception in prevaricating on things like medicare for all, just because she didn't want the optics or soundbite saying that taxes would go up. She imo has a tendency of freezing at hard questions and opts to tell half truths that look better or shut down the line of questioning. Can someone honestly tell me why Warren should automatically be afforded the benefit of the doubt over Sanders? Really, I'd love to hear why anyone treating this account with suspicion is somehow egregious or by some token of Warren being a woman emblematic of a personal and systematic disregard of women's issues.
The juxtaposition of this with fucking Meghan McCain being so quick to repeat 'BeRnIE iS A mIsoGYnIsT!1' on The View kinda betrays the apparent strategy of what is in effect or practice a limp attack from the right hopefully destined to be repeated until it becomes true. And honestly that's kind of true for both Warren and Bernie. Neither candidate benefits from 'will misogyny prevent Warren's success' and 'is Bernie a misogynist' from circulating in the discourse.
The juxtaposition of this with fucking Meghan McCain being so quick to repeat 'BeRnIE iS A mIsoGYnIsT!1' on The View kinda betrays the apparent strategy of what is in effect or practice a limp attack from the right hopefully destined to be repeated until it becomes true. And honestly that's kind of true for both Warren and Bernie. Neither candidate benefits from 'will misogyny prevent Warren's success' and 'is Bernie a misogynist' from circulating in the discourse.
Last edited:
do you think that the reporting was done without the anonymous staffers' knowledge?
no one has used that type of rhetoric
This whole thing was such a fuck up on Warren's part. She has awful political instincts at times.
No. I bet the tip for the story which led to the staffers came from outside the campaign. This type of story in truth is damaging to both campaigns.
Oh they will be. Hell, I remember posters on the old site proudly claiming that they didn't vote at all, then instantly went ghost the moment they saw that Trump had won.
If it is Bernie let's hope he doesn't alienate political allies too. It is a concern I have with him as nominee.
would they still be able to quote them in that case? I don't think they would. I think that either Warren leaked it and it backfired (most likely) or it was a rogue staffer
It was her campaign that made it go public and when asked for a statement it was her who decided to intentionally obfuscate what he actually said to insinuate the worst possible interpretation, all the while asking to "move on" so the accusation could float around out there with no further discussion on the matter. She didn't set him up, but her campaign acted poorly and her instincts were not to walk it back at first until just now when it's obviously looking like it was a poor decision.
Honestly I believe that he said it. I don't think he meant it in a "woman are unqualified" way. He obviously doesn't think that. I just think he sees what other people see in that there are certain people who won't come out and show out to vote for a women. Of course that's the same logic that got us stuck with Joe Biden leading....
I'm sorry but this is incredibly naive. If she didn't want it to be a thing, Warren could've easily thrown the leakers under the bus instead of Bernie.
no as this stigma is very real in the real world so it makes no sense to try and reinforce a discussion on it. This type of story only benefits Biden or Buttigeig..maybe Steyer.
Wouldn't be the first time Bernie - in all his well-meaning ways - stuck his foot in his mouth.
Or. Or, Bernie could have came clean on what happened. Or better yet, not commented at all instead of letting him and his staff frame Warren a liar.
The story has been around for a while. Bernie turned it into a mess with the full on denial and accusation on her staff. With a bury lede that lines up with her interpretation.
But yes, let's blame the lying woman and her incompetent staff instead.
Change or no, coming into a thread to state that you refused to take part in the election because your guy didn't win the nom is so, so lame. And then to bolt in the aftermath? lmao
I suspect the majority of people pointing out his public record are saying Bernie said something that didn't contradict his public statements while still acknowledging the reason why it is noteworthy to say that publicly in the first place. Sanders citing the type of things his public comments are pushing against could've been said in a way that Warren took personally as anattack on her instead of a critique on huge swaths of society,
This is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things, but it plays into the morality of the progressive left. Bernie could be misunderstood, or he may be mistaken in thinking something, etc. and it's not that big of a deal, but there is an attempt on making it a bigger deal because how would you choose someone that says something like this about women while he's trying to sell himself as the opposite of the misoginist trump/biden, right?
These kind of issues are as big as their electors make it.
also in line with his previous comments that "white people that wouldn't vote for a black person are not necessarily racist"
Or his comments have been completely misrepresented. I still go back to the original article that immediately mentions identity politics after saying Bernie said a woman can't win. That is extremely telling in what Bernie was actually talking about... critiquing identity politics and saying "a woman can't win" aren't consistent and really don't make sense in the same conversation yet whoever is leaking this wants it to be known he was talking about identity politics.
This sounds insufferable.Tht posters name? Kevin Costner
In a presidential election set in an alternate 2008, Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a man from Texico, New Mexico, who is coasting through life and has not had a single political thought in his head, while being coaxed by his twelve-year-old daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) to take more of a serious approach to life. Molly runs the household and sees an opportunity on election day to energize her father: frustrated with her father's apathy toward voting, she sneaks into her local polling place and tries to vote on behalf of Bud. However, due to the voting machines being unplugged, the ballot is registered, but no decision is indicated on which candidate gets the vote. The entire election now comes down to this one man's vote. Neither candidate has a majority in the electoral college without New Mexico's electoral votes. The popular vote is tied for the two major candidates in New Mexico, leaving Bud to decide the next President of the United States. Bud gets wooed by candidates from both sides: the incumbent Republican, Andrew Carington Boone (Kelsey Grammer), and his campaign manager, Martin Fox (Stanley Tucci); and the opposing Democrat, Vermont Senator Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) and his campaign manager Art Crumb (Nathan Lane).
Bud's actual opinions (or lack thereof) are misinterpreted by the media, causing the candidates to flip-flop on several positions (the Democrats take a pro-life and anti-illegal immigration stand, while the Republicans take a pro-environmental and pro-gay marriage stand). As the film progresses, however, the two candidates are shown to move away from the cynical tactics forced on them by their advisers, and both gain Bud's respect. In the end, he chooses to hold a final debate the day before he is set to recast his ballot. In a written speech, he confesses that he knows little to nothing about politics, or for that matter, life, and decides to ask questions people have sent to him in the mail. The film ends with Bud casting his vote, though for whom he voted is never revealed.
Bud's actual opinions (or lack thereof) are misinterpreted by the media, causing the candidates to flip-flop on several positions (the Democrats take a pro-life and anti-illegal immigration stand, while the Republicans take a pro-environmental and pro-gay marriage stand). As the film progresses, however, the two candidates are shown to move away from the cynical tactics forced on them by their advisers, and both gain Bud's respect. In the end, he chooses to hold a final debate the day before he is set to recast his ballot. In a written speech, he confesses that he knows little to nothing about politics, or for that matter, life, and decides to ask questions people have sent to him in the mail. The film ends with Bud casting his vote, though for whom he voted is never revealed.
This shit should be bannable. Any impartial moderation team would agree. But i guess this is modwhining because god forbid there is any feedback on moderation.
One more reminder that this is just days after Team Trump "shifted" attention toward Sanders.
Democrats need to be united period. I don't always like it but it's too important not to.
How would she have thrown the leakers under the bus? By changing her story about the situation that she told them about in the first place? She specifically told everyone it wasn't a big deal and to stop talking about it. Unless you believe she's blatantly lying about the conversation, what more could she have done?
I have to seriously question anyone who thinks that Warren's campaign did this on purpose as a gotcha moment looking at their response to it. Her campaign has stumbled in many places but they're not stupid enough to do this and think it could work. It reads pretty clearly to me as a some political insider trying to stir shit up just because they can. No one comes out of this looking good, not Bernie, not Warren, and certainly not the media outlets covering it. This stupid dems in disarray bullshit keeps rearing its ugly head over and over again
This is a nothing statement. 90% of the country has been residing in the internet for a decade thanks to facebook and youtube.
You have no clue what a Warren voter is going to look like demographics wise.
yeah they ignored the first rule of offence in elections, get some distance from it.
Those posts are completely accurate though. It's been an issue since before the last election and continues to be. It's only going to get worst because when bernie loses.
All Warren had to say was "Bernie Sanders is not sexist, we disagreed over the challenges a woman might face getting elected in 2020."
There...the entire controversy is done.
i still probably like elizabeth warren (for her positions on domestic issues) but ill never see her the same after this. fucked up
Even that doesn't reflect well on him, imho, as I said before. I used the analogy of a man and a woman going for the same job, and the man talking about allllll the difficulties the woman would have getting it. So, my reading of his account of what happened still feels self serving and dismissive of her.
Im reading that and im like yeah no fucking shit
Most of our candidates have been mostly consistent in their messaging and values to this point
What the fuck are we even doing here. This is all just noise and self inflicted wounds with no purpose other than to sow discord among the coalition
I thought this was more of a staffer thing. I always thought Warren and Sanders were just getting mixed up in a larger thing that was going on. I still like both and hope the best.
'Anyone who challenges our self-awareness is wrong and deserves banishment!'
Sounds kind of cult-y tbh.
Did they even disagree?
I think we all inherently understand that women have the deck stacked against them in this damn country and we have ample proof
No one was telling Warren she couldnt win despite this.
I've come around to the Bernie side, but man I had to put a few Sanders folks on ignore for their Biden threads over the last few months because of the hyperbolic bullshit and dog piling.