Reuters: “I thought a woman could win; he [Sanders] disagreed,” Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, said in a statement.

umop 3pisdn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,464
imo the way the sanders supporters are clutching their pearls about how devious and underhanded this shameful attack by the warren campaign is is proof that they're not even remotely ready to handle the GOP in the general because it's like the GOP spent years doing benghazi hearings for clinton and are currently trying to throw biden's son in prison send tweet
Or, people are more likely to take claims presented or perceived as being 'internal' more seriously than ostensibly external ones because there's already a more pervasive implicit understanding that the external ones count for a lot less and are essentially designed to muddy the waters.

And this one is seeming more and more to share at least some of that makeup.
 

Big Baybee

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,537
also in line with his previous comments that “white people that wouldn’t vote for a black person are not necessarily racist”

Yea, it's comments like that one and his "Aren't most of the people who sell drugs African Americans" coloring my judgement here. I can see him saying something like this to Warren's face, and not thinking anything of it.
He was defended For both of these statements as well. He definitely says bad things at times. I had a hard time coming around to him because both he and his hard line supporters are fucking stubborn.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,303
there are maybe - highballing it here - a million people that are that invested to religiously fact check stuff and not just decide like two weeks before the vote which democrat they will actually go for. i would put much more weight into the average voters gut feeling.
Ok?

But valuing your gut feeling over vetted factchecking vis a vis a public record of honesty is extremely bizarre imo.
 
Oct 28, 2017
899
Sounds like Warren doesn't know what she wants. She let it linger for the politics to help her out with her vague statement on the matter, now shes having second thoughts it seems.
She knows exactly what she wants. She wants us to think Bernie is sexist without saying she believes Bernie is sexist (because she doesn’t). Now she’s having second thoughts because the blowback was much worse than she anticipated.
 

Apharmd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,775

Because the best thing to do when your friend wants a he said/she said situation dropped is to dunk on her, publicly, on stage.

But Warren has terrible political instincts.
She let that story out there, to provide an implication that Bernie is sexist. She's earned being dunked on tonight, sorry.
 

Caspah

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,715
Graveyard in Boston
What do you call your previous posts before your mea culpa in this thread, if not looking for a fight?
Poorly worded. I wish I hadn't used the word "cult" but I wasn't on the attack I'm just frustrated with people on the internet these days when it comes to politics. I won't even go to Reddit anymore.

Hell, look three posts above this one. There's someone arguing that verified vetted facts are useless because it doesn't fit their "
Warren is a liar" narrative.
 

MrBadger

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,495
Sanders supporters really cannot take any criticism, and it is kind of scary. My top choices are Warren and Sanders, just to put that out there.
but the entire situation was people calling him sexist over a misunderstanding...?

“the entire thing was bollocks, but it’s kinda scary how Bernie’s supporters were saying it was bollocks and arguing with the people who were buying it, right guys?
 

Tanerian

Member
Feb 24, 2018
420
I'd be very happy with Warren as president, but I dont really disagree.

It's not a knock against women. It's just that our country is filled with stupid/misogynistic people who I literally believe wont vote for a woman cause they are idiots.
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,750
Except it isn't even a god damn criticism at all, that's the spin.
Read that sentence you replied to again.

The best lesson ERA in general could learn is to stop making god damn mountains out of molehills, especially when it's so plainly at the direction of controversy peddlers of the media who just want this trash.
It's not like this is only being discussed on here. What's your point on this, exactly? It's a ratfuck that's definitely going to come up in the debate tonight. The last one before Iowa. The first cacuses, and all, you know?

Pause for a second. Do you really think a CNN moderator isn't going to drill this thing in tonight?

It's not exactly reasonable to act like this is some frivolous thing that only some dorks on this gaming forum are talking about.
 

AkumaNiko

Member
Oct 28, 2017
762

Because the best thing to do when your friend wants a he said/she said situation dropped is to dunk on her, publicly, on stage.

But Warren has terrible political instincts.
Sounds totally warranted to me. Tuck his tail and said let peoples imaginations run wild, or dunk on her and put it to bed. Option B please.
 

The Kid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
910
She let that story out there, to provide an implication that Bernie is sexist. She's earned being dunked on tonight, sorry.
Agreed. She (or a rogue member of her team) opened this door. Her response clearly implied Sanders made a sexist comment. She only wanted to stop talking about it once the expected damage to Sanders was done. Just because this is backfiring on her doesn’t mean Sanders should back down. He has all the right in the world to respond.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,982
Pretty shrewd move by Warren to have it leaked in such a way that she could deny responsibility, but still hours later verify it softly where she still look like a friend to Bernie. Paints her as an underdog, a victim, and harms the opponent most responsible for taking away her support.

This is beginning to look silly now, though.

I don't think he's the number one reason Clinton lost. She had way too much going against her in middle america and every time she spoke she erred on the "eat your veggies" side of things. When she told coal workers their jobs weren't coming back she lost an entire state. Trump lied to them and they ate it up. I do partially blame people who claim to be democrats for sitting out the election because they were upset over the primary. You don't get to do that when you're facing down a president like Trump.
He's not even a reason. The vast majority of his supporters that didn't end up voting for Clinton weren't Democrats in the first place. They never intended to vote for Clinton. Meanwhile the guy campaigned extremely hard for her: 39 rallies in 13 states over the final 3 months.
 

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
2,721
I mean, Bernie will need former Clinton voters and women in general to beat Biden. He needs to grow in support, not stick to his diehards.

But yeah, getting aggressive against Warren is a grand idea.
 
Mar 3, 2019
412
She let that story out there, to provide an implication that Bernie is sexist. She's earned being dunked on tonight, sorry.
That’s pretty much how I see it. I was hoping Warren would be above the trashy part of this political process but I guess not. She’s earned whatever dirt Sanders has to dish on her for this weak gamesmanship move.
 

Caspah

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,715
Graveyard in Boston
Pretty shrewd move by Warren to have it leaked in such a way that she could deny responsibility, but still hours later verify it softly where she still look like a friend to Bernie. Paints her as an underdog, a victim, and harms the opponent most responsible for taking away her support.

This is beginning to look silly now, though.


He's not even a reason. The vast majority of his supporters that didn't end up voting for Clinton weren't Democrats in the first place. They never intended to vote for Clinton. Meanwhile the guy campaigned extremely hard for her: 39 rallies in 13 states over the final 3 months.
Do you have any proof that they weren't democrats and weren't going to vote for Clinton in the first place?

In the absence of that, this is what NPR put out:
Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k

Again, not saying it was his or his supporters fault that we have Trump. Clinton didn't do anything to win over states that she was struggling in. Her arrogance cost her in many key battlegrounds and the Rust Belt.
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,750
Poorly worded. I wish I hadn't used the word "cult" but I wasn't on the attack I'm just frustrated with people on the internet these days when it comes to politics. I won't even go to Reddit anymore.

Hell, look three posts above this one. There's someone arguing that verified vetted facts are useless because it doesn't fit their "
Warren is a liar" narrative.
You mean this post?

She knows exactly what she wants. She wants us to think Bernie is sexist without saying she believes Bernie is sexist (because she doesn’t). Now she’s having second thoughts because the blowback was much worse than she anticipated.
What about this doesn't fall in line with the reporting from the very sources identified in this thread? Buzzfeed and Washington Post, in particular?

These are all based on anonymous sources. Which is fine, to an extent, you just need to try to independently verify things. We all understand that the people in high places who aren't necessarily on the actual apex often can't afford to reveal themselves.

The Washington Post's independently verified sources that leaned closer to Sanders' explanation for what he actually said. Buzzfeed's follow up today includes anonymous conversations between Warren's surrogates, including calling for a step back from outright accusing Sanders of sexism.

Why do "verified sources" matter on one end of this story and not the other?

I'm not going to say all Warren supporters behave like you have on this issue, because I personally know that they're not all like this. So you can understand the annoyance that you'd try to paint Sanders supporters that way.
 

NH Apache

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,589
New Orleans, LA
Not to get all hung up on the facts or anything, but it's worth putting out there that there is no factual basis for the assumption Warren or a surrogate leaked this shit.

But don't let that get in the way of your lambasting and disingenuous arguments.
 

Caspah

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,715
Graveyard in Boston
You mean this post?



What about this doesn't fall in line with the reporting from the very sources identified in this thread? Buzzfeed and Washington Post, in particular?

These are all based on anonymous sources. Which is fine, to an extent, you just need to try to independently verify things. We all understand that the people in high places who aren't necessarily on the actual apex often can't afford to reveal themselves.

The Washington Post's independently verified sources that leaned closer to Sanders' explanation for what he actually said. Buzzfeed's follow up today includes anonymous conversations between Warren's surrogates, including calling for a step back from outright accusing Sanders of sexism.

Why do "verified sources" matter on one end of this story and not the other?

I'm not going to say all Warren supporters behave like you have on this issue, because I personally know that they're not all like this. So you can understand the annoyance that you'd try to paint Sanders supporters that way.
Nah, these story in three parts:

i literally do not believe her. she makes unforced errors all the time and capitulates instantly on everything.



Nope. No compromise from me on this.
Warren politifact

Sanders politifact

Biden politifact


Warren has the best truth telling record of the three. If you don't believe her that's on you
Cool it is on me. Like I give a shit about politifact. If you could somehow make a percentage of lies vs truth that meant anything, I would place MORE weight on something like lying about being Native American for decades then whatever non issue bullshit people can come up with for Sanders.
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,750
Not to get all hung up on the facts or anything, but it's worth putting out there that there is no factual basis for the assumption Warren or a surrogate leaked this shit.

But don't let that get in the way of your lambasting and disingenuous arguments.
The initial sources were two Warren campaign staffers who were present. There's no solid evidence of who knew what before the leak. Obviously, you can use your brain and sort of assume that it's likely such and such thing went down to put this out there a day before the last debate before Iowa. That's an extremely par for the course political move. But you couldn't claim it as objective fact.

However, the timing is convenient, and Warren jumped in a few hours later with her own verification. Others present at that meeting, and some private responses to it since have been published. That's where it stands.
 

Apharmd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,775
I don't think Sanders needs to get very aggressive when this comes up tonight. A gentle, "Liz, I asked you to enter the presidential race back in 2013. If I believed that a woman couldn't be president, why would I have done that?"

This shit is going to blow over in the end. It's a waste of energy, tbh. They should have been coordinating attacks on Biden for tonight's debate instead.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,913
Surprise! It was nothing!

Actually, it was exactly what I fucking said when the story broke!
It’s too late now with all the righteous people dunking on Sanders with something that won’t help Warren and only serve to help a creep like Biden win. For some reason, pundits who are shitting on Sanders are enthusiastic about a guy who has been accused of sexual harassment and who publicly talks about how being a male makes him more electable, because it’s all he has going for him.
 

N. Tyranno

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,605
“Bernie would never say that.”

*Posters point out instances where he’s said similar things about other groups and supported people who have said very misogynistic things.*

“It’s Warren who is the more untrustworthy one.”

*Shows she has a better track record with fact checkers*

“My gut is more important.”

If you want to show you can take criticism, start taking it.
 

Deepwater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,352
Not to get all hung up on the facts or anything, but it's worth putting out there that there is no factual basis for the assumption Warren or a surrogate leaked this shit.

But don't let that get in the way of your lambasting and disingenuous arguments.
how else does this story make it to CNN when all of the sourcing were warren campaign staffers, some of whom said they heard the framing from Warren directly
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,682
I still don't believe her. I don't need some DC dipshit to give me pinnochios on a statement to form an opinion on it. I have a worldview like anyone else.
 

darz1

Member
Dec 18, 2017
2,419
Except it isn't even a god damn criticism at all, that's the spin. The claim laid out is that Bernie pointed out the well known and often repeated *fact* that it's hard for a woman to win a presidential election in a private conversation with Warren and he's not sure a woman can win this election (again, a fair assessment on its face and a point that could be made by anyone), and that Warren took offence to it because it's discouraging (also legitimate as a woman who just announced her presidential bid).

Nobody is calling Bernie a sexist pig that doesn't want a female president here, it was a true (or rather arguable) but insensitive comment in private and that's where the story should die. The fact that people are so overtly defensive over anything remotely insinuating insensitivity that they immediately turn the accusation into an absolute extreme is why it's so damn hard to tackle America's deep-rooted problems.

The best lesson ERA in general could learn is to stop making god damn mountains out of molehills, especially when it's so plainly at the direction of controversy peddlers of the media who just want this trash.
Except this conversation is also taking place outside of ERA and people are insinuating that Bernie is sexist and doesnt support the idea of a female president. Is it a mountain out of a molehill? Perhaps, but ERA didn't make it a mountain
 

NH Apache

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,589
New Orleans, LA
The initial sources were two Warren campaign staffers who were present. There's no solid evidence of who knew what before the leak. Obviously, you can use your brain and sort of assume that it's likely such and such thing went down to put this out there a day before the last debate before Iowa. That's an extremely par for the course political move. But you couldn't claim it as objective fact.

However, the timing is convenient, and Warren jumped in a few hours later with her own verification. Others present at that meeting, and some private responses to it since have been published. That's where it stands.
how else does this story make it to CNN when all of the sourcing were warren campaign staffers, some of whom said they heard the framing from Warren directly

"The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting. "

This is the same language in the Reuters and CNN article. It doesn't say staffer. Where are you getting this?

Mr. Sanders' fans are attacking Warren based on the assumption that she directed the leak. There's nothing to indicate that.

Mr. Sanders' fans are attacking Warren because she said in a statement that the event occurred where Bernie made the sexist statement that a women would not be able to win the presidency.

Mr. Sanders' fans are choosing to lash out instead of reasonably holding their candidate responsible for the alleged shitty thing he said.

Mr. Sanders' fans' actions indicate that little has changed since 2016 with respect to the rhetoric and demeanor to their online presence.

I would hope that Mr. Sanders' fans would apply some introspective before lashing out with wobbly assumptions as a basis.
 

Damaniel

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
2,131
Portland, OR
Bernie is human, man. No one is perfect 100% of the time. I don’t think warren would blantantly lie about something like this. So instead of defending the man to the bitter end, realize that it’s fucked up and make sure this kind of thing doesn’t become a pattern.
My issue here in this case isn't even with Bernie. Did he say this? Probably. Is this some kind of scandal? Not at all - on a scale from 1 to 'pu**y tape', this is a solid 2 at most. The issue is the degree of fervor that the pro-Bernie twittersphere approaches their gaslighting, smearing and demonization of anyone who would dare to insinuate that Bernie isn't 100% flawless. If Warren is out by the time my state votes in the primary, I'll happily and enthusiastically vote for Sanders over Biden. However, I'll never, ever be one of his supporters. In the end, these candidates are all career politicians who can't really get all that much done - creating a personality cult around any of them is a waste of time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,682
If you’re going to make an argument to people, then I’m sorry, the actual facts are gonna be a part of the discussion.
Facts can be as easily corrupted and refit to any ideology as anything else can. Of course they are important, but more important then an ideological platform and worldview? Probably not. Facts and data cannot make up for a lack of enthusiasm. Any prosecutor will tell you that what is more important then the facts, which need to be dealt with, is telling the more believable story. OJ Simpson clearly murdered somebody, so instead of trying to use the facts solely, they instead created a story where it was credible someone else could have done it, including details that are fact, like how the LAPD is an extremely racist organization.

I think what we can infer from the past 5 years is that people will be more engaged and devout to a worldview. Facts from DC think tanks and peer reviewed journals gave us 3 decades of neo-liberalism slowly eroding the quality of living of everyone in this country, because there was an ideology backing up those facts and acting on them. Its not hard to understand why people just tune out.

One where the woman is less believable by default
Interrogate it however you want. Yes I believe Bernie over Warren. This isn't going to work on me. I'll say it - Warren is lying at worst, and at the very least taking massive advantage of a clear cheap shot right before a debate as her poll numbers are in freefall with little chance to win in Iowa.

If you're going to start using "believe women" as a cudgel, its not going to go like you think it will.
 

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,394
Bernie fans are sick of being ridicule and blamed for Hillary loosing the 2016 election. As if people who're #NeverBernie aren't toxic and discredit everything Bernie Sanders has been doing for most of his life.
 

demondance

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,750
"The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting. "

This is the same language in the Reuters and CNN article. It doesn't say staffer. Where are you getting this?

Mr. Sanders' fans are attacking Warren based on the assumption that she directed the leak. There's nothing to indicate that.

Mr. Sanders' fans are attacking Warren because she said in a statement that the event occurred where Bernie made the sexist statement that a women would not be able to win the presidency.

Mr. Sanders' fans are choosing to lash out instead of reasonably holding their candidate responsible for the alleged shitty thing he said.

Mr. Sanders' fans' actions indicate that little has changed since 2016 with respect to the rhetoric and demeanor to their online presence.

I would hope that Mr. Sanders' fans would apply some introspective before lashing out with wobbly assumptions as a basis.
You seriously think "two sources familiar with the meeting" aren't current or former Warren staffers?
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,277
Facts can be as easily corrupted and refit to any ideology as anything else can. Of course they are important, but more important then an ideological platform and worldview? Probably not.
really can't improve on this, pack it up folks

If you're going to start using "believe women" as a cudgel, its not going to go like you think it will.
do you really think this poster is sexist just based on comments like these