-
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
One, Bernie has been stating for DECADES now that he believes a woman can be President. He thought Warren could have won in 2016 and he wanted her to run
Two, Warren has exaggerated or misconstrued statements in the past, so it is not a stretch to think she is doing so again.
The takeaway? Bernie's stance is the more credible one here. It just is.
Two, Warren has exaggerated or misconstrued statements in the past, so it is not a stretch to think she is doing so again.
The takeaway? Bernie's stance is the more credible one here. It just is.
The best part is when straight white males say that to you. xD
And again, it's so weird considering he's Jewish. Do people feel that's not a barrier worth crossing? Only women and ethnic minorities, but not a religious minority? I'd love to see a Jewish president, and they're kind of a reliable and vibrant voting bloc of the Democratic Party. It'd be a great statement against the Neo-Nazis who see Trump as an ally.
Not a good look for Warren but I don't want to be part of this kind of mudslinging. Bernie and Warren are the best hopes that the U.S. have at the moment and are both the only viable options. Bernie is my #1 pick of course, but I'd gladly vote for Warren as well.
Then it would probably be good to understand why the soft-bury of the previous thread is horse shit and why Warren's behavior here is utterly contemptible toward one of the most compassionately allied feminist candidates for president in recent history
Yep, if people in this thread keep ignoring this I'm gonna lose my mind
I'm not being disingenuous at all. People are literally taking a piece of out of context hearsay, and essentializing it as a trait about Bernie, rather than using the context of his record and him pleading with her to run in 2016 to glean more context.
Otherwise, if you or others aren't implicating some sort of essentialist trait to Bernie, why would their private conversation even be a big deal?
Saying Trump will exploit American sexism is not a controversial statement in the slightest.
Ohh.
Well, if he's being more specific about what was said I'm taking his side.
I absolutely understand this, but pointing out American misogyny and the misogyny of Trump is not even remotely the same as enforcing it and believing it to be correct.
Didn't think Warren was someone who would play this dirty. Interested to see if Warren and Sanders move on from this or decide to fight each other tonight.
Ironic how a private meeting about not attacking each other for the sake of the progressive movement is being used by Warren to attack Bernie just when he takes the lead in Iowa.
The night before a debate.
Just seems so calculated.
Ironic how a private meeting about not attacking each other for the sake of the progressive movement is being used by Warren to attack Bernie just when he takes the lead in Iowa.
The night before a debate.
Just seems so calculated.
What was his intent behind those words? Because saying that you don't think a lesbian Asian could become president doesn't necessarily make you racist, sexist, and homophobic, if what you mean is that you don't think the country is accepting enough to vote for someone like that. Is this also what Bernie was trying to convey, or did he mean that he doesn't want a woman to become president?
Either way, if it comes down to him vs. Trump, it's Bernie all the way.
Either way, if it comes down to him vs. Trump, it's Bernie all the way.
Corporate media wants eyes and attention for their shitty circus """debates""".
There has yet to be a single debate that has been substantive in policy. It's all a wrestling match. And this is before Trump, before he'd probably refuse debates outside of Fox News.
OP
OP
I seriously question why CNN reported this yesterday right before a Democratic Presidential debate.
And that's definitely a good thing to question. There's enough about this still up in the air outside of just what was or wasn't said that you wonder if the timing was for R A T I N G S
I don't have a stake in this race, but that's how I read it.
Its not like they are hosting a debate tonight.
By the way, I understand your sentiment. Here, in Hungary, I seriously bought in to the hope that a female candidate (one who was the head of the green party in the country) should be able to win and finally turn the country into a better direction. It did not happen, and the whole party collapsed shortly after the election, but it was good to hope, at least. Of course, there are plenty of female politicians in my country who just side with the far-right regime and actively hinder women's rights in the country, but that is a whole different story.
There are many countries in this world where female presidents are an everyday occurence. There is a reason why US lags behind that front, and it has everything to do with the way power and money is distributed. AOC, however.... #aoc2024 baby!
... AOC 2024 either means Bernie stepped down after one term or Trump won? Not sure either are great so probably 2028, but even that feels a bit too early.
I digress, though; let's keep this on topic. I expect CNN is going to hammer both Bernie and Warren tonight to see if they'll forge some sort of split. Hopefully neither bite.
I'm not even a Sanders guy. But, this pisses me off. If you are going to put it out there, you need to give SOME fucking detail. Saying vague nothing's like this makes it seem like you aren't lying... but you aren't exactly telling the truth, either.
probably should be pretty drastically different handling of this entire situation here (ex: threadmarking the old thread with successive statements rather than hiding discourse behind ambiguous threadlocks)
But hey!!! Who knows???
Sometimes people say different things in private than they do in public. Refuting a private statement with a public one is laughable, OP. Just be honest and say you don't believe Elizabeth Warren.
LOL what is this
LOL what is this
Warrens statement last night addressed that it was specifically about beating trump in 2020
So now we have gone from CNN are fucking liars tryijg to smear bernie to this
Reminds me of 2016 when anytime you criticized bernie on racial issues you got He marched with MLK!
Reminds me of 2016 when anytime you criticized bernie on racial issues you got He marched with MLK!
Bernie could be defeated by her in the next primary. He would gladly endorse, as a reversal of her 2020 endorsement. Is that too naive from me? : D
Oh boy, more conspiracy theories. Since you people can't seem to understand that both candidates would like you to drop the issue but you insist on pushing your tribalism, don't be surprised when you get the Biden you deserve.
Why is a front runner opining that a woman probably can't beat Trump a big deal? Seriously?
So. Are you apologizing or admitting you were wrong?
So, this was going to be posted in the last thread but I'll just post it here because similar conversations are already popping up.
It's really amazing that in the face of an old man probably saying something that was sexist enough to miff Warren to the point of telling staffers basically directly after it happened, we have folks bringing out arguments like;
1) Outright denying the validity of the event, even after saying "I'll wait for her to say it happened (and she did say it happened)
2) Saying "it was a misunderstanding" of the two parties.
3) Saying it's a smear (well yea it's politics but that doesn't mean it didn't happen)
4) Finding any excuse to try and give cover for the rather blunt statement Warren described to make his words (which he said he didn't say) not sexist in nature.
5) Question "the timing" (why say it happened now???)
Now, obviously this is politics and this isn't an assault, this is... well, sexism or diet sexism. However you want to put it.
But, it's actually really amazing how quick people are to fall back on the most common tropes of questioning a women's recollection of an event where she felt her sex is under radar when the accused is a powerful man who is "in the middle of important things", so to speak. People who label themselves as progressives so fucking quick to snap into the most used up and ground up talking points to discredit events because of favoritism.
Considering Warren found it hurtful or annoying enough to note it to other aids when the dinner happened it's pretty unlikely it's some "fake news" as a lot of posters seem to want to be labeling this as. Like, the fact she talked about this after it happened (you know kinda like how the serious shit goes down) gives credence that this wasn't just some misunderstood conversation and Sanders probably said this in a way that was hurtful to her.
Other people have talked about the obvious parallels, talking about how quick people are to dive into the usual discrediting of stuff against women isn't "coopting" MeToo, it's making comment of the fact that this shit happens a lot and with various topics/subjects and people really are quick to fall into such similar talking points when threatened.
Food for thought, if Warren leaked this about Biden nobody would be up in arms about "the timing". Nobody would give a shit if it was someone else.
Is there conversation about the sexist aspects of the American electorate and the shitty fact that women politicians in many places are dealing with a barrier to voters based around the simple fact of engraved sexism? Yea, of course. Outright spewing "women can't win" is just that, spewing the same sexist propaganda shit heads have been repeating for years. You're not being some insightful commentator on the state of politics, you're just spewing sexist defeatism because that's all you heard growing up from the same sexist people who go "I mean I wouldn't mind if a women won but there is just no way that women..."
*that women being any women who runs for POTUS at any given point in time
This can be a lot of things happening at once as well
a) Warren is slipping in the polls and either authorized this story to be leaked or a staffer had loose lips and leaked it
b) The story is true and the event pissed Warren off when it happened to where she told people it happened right after the dinner
c) Whoever leaked it intended to hurt Sanders, just like anytime you talk about damning events that... make someone not look good after they say something that hurts you.
Like so many things, the easiest outcome would be to just... say it happened and that Sanders kinda said a shitty thing, at least shitty enough to make Warren annoyed to talk about it with her closest aids. But instead of like, admitting that someone in a private dinner conversation (who is an old white dude) could have dabbled in casual sexism, everyone is grabbing a sword and saying that it's impossible?
Is Sanders a "bad person", I mean I don't even like him but I don't honestly think "less" of him in terms of being some secret misogynist, which I don't think he is. If anything this just reinforces how engraved sexism is in politics, especially in terms of the Executive Branch. I think from a general "look around" of the situation the overall conversation is strikingly parallel to other topics regarding private events between people of the opposing sex.
It's really amazing that in the face of an old man probably saying something that was sexist enough to miff Warren to the point of telling staffers basically directly after it happened, we have folks bringing out arguments like;
1) Outright denying the validity of the event, even after saying "I'll wait for her to say it happened (and she did say it happened)
2) Saying "it was a misunderstanding" of the two parties.
3) Saying it's a smear (well yea it's politics but that doesn't mean it didn't happen)
4) Finding any excuse to try and give cover for the rather blunt statement Warren described to make his words (which he said he didn't say) not sexist in nature.
5) Question "the timing" (why say it happened now???)
Now, obviously this is politics and this isn't an assault, this is... well, sexism or diet sexism. However you want to put it.
But, it's actually really amazing how quick people are to fall back on the most common tropes of questioning a women's recollection of an event where she felt her sex is under radar when the accused is a powerful man who is "in the middle of important things", so to speak. People who label themselves as progressives so fucking quick to snap into the most used up and ground up talking points to discredit events because of favoritism.
Considering Warren found it hurtful or annoying enough to note it to other aids when the dinner happened it's pretty unlikely it's some "fake news" as a lot of posters seem to want to be labeling this as. Like, the fact she talked about this after it happened (you know kinda like how the serious shit goes down) gives credence that this wasn't just some misunderstood conversation and Sanders probably said this in a way that was hurtful to her.
Other people have talked about the obvious parallels, talking about how quick people are to dive into the usual discrediting of stuff against women isn't "coopting" MeToo, it's making comment of the fact that this shit happens a lot and with various topics/subjects and people really are quick to fall into such similar talking points when threatened.
Food for thought, if Warren leaked this about Biden nobody would be up in arms about "the timing". Nobody would give a shit if it was someone else.
Is there conversation about the sexist aspects of the American electorate and the shitty fact that women politicians in many places are dealing with a barrier to voters based around the simple fact of engraved sexism? Yea, of course. Outright spewing "women can't win" is just that, spewing the same sexist propaganda shit heads have been repeating for years. You're not being some insightful commentator on the state of politics, you're just spewing sexist defeatism because that's all you heard growing up from the same sexist people who go "I mean I wouldn't mind if a women won but there is just no way that women..."
*that women being any women who runs for POTUS at any given point in time
This can be a lot of things happening at once as well
a) Warren is slipping in the polls and either authorized this story to be leaked or a staffer had loose lips and leaked it
b) The story is true and the event pissed Warren off when it happened to where she told people it happened right after the dinner
c) Whoever leaked it intended to hurt Sanders, just like anytime you talk about damning events that... make someone not look good after they say something that hurts you.
Like so many things, the easiest outcome would be to just... say it happened and that Sanders kinda said a shitty thing, at least shitty enough to make Warren annoyed to talk about it with her closest aids. But instead of like, admitting that someone in a private dinner conversation (who is an old white dude) could have dabbled in casual sexism, everyone is grabbing a sword and saying that it's impossible?
Is Sanders a "bad person", I mean I don't even like him but I don't honestly think "less" of him in terms of being some secret misogynist, which I don't think he is. If anything this just reinforces how engraved sexism is in politics, especially in terms of the Executive Branch. I think from a general "look around" of the situation the overall conversation is strikingly parallel to other topics regarding private events between people of the opposing sex.
Last edited:
Let's be real: if Sanders gets the nom there will be no debates because Trump knows Sanders would show up to Fox News.
Yep, and he's probably the most equipped to handle that environment. Sanders turned the audience against the network for a bit.
What more details do you need then what her statement said? They held a private meeting about what it takes to beat trump in 2020. There's your details. Do you want their full itinerary and meals for the day too?
Exactly.
Come on, we've all been there. Like when we tell a friend we like their gift in front of everyone and then tell your close friend that you don't even know what it is.
a non-equivocation on exactly how sexist she thinks his comments were would be cool :)
anywho I guess I need to take a hiatus just like the discourse in the previous thread on this topic did for the ostensible reason of """reports""" so I hope that this gets resolved in a way that isn't embarrassingly one-sided soon!
looking forward to seeing the Warren campaign smolder in the aftermath of this absolute dogshit smear :)
Last edited:
This just means that Bernie has a chance of winning the nomination, these attacks were always going to happen if there was a chance.
Keep it coming.
Keep it coming.
I'd rather know what the fuck he actually said than what their meals were. Telling me "he disagreed" leaves a lot of fucking wiggle room.
Maybe she just doesn't want this to be a focus of the campaign? Her statement comes off as someone who is annoyed and pissed off.
this is also saying that a statement "woman can't win" isn't sexist. like, if Iknow I live in sexist society that will not let a woman be a president, then I can say what I think even if I personally would vote for a woman. right?
I just don't understand this. Maybe i cannot into english quite well, I don't know.
See. So now you are essentializing a trait to Bernie and claiming you aren't. Especially when he has given context and his record has shown otherwise. Literally in 2015 he pushed her to run.
What makes more sense?
That he said Trump would try to exploit sexism in the general election, or a guy with a 40 year record of promoting women as being capable and deserving of positions of power, suddenly deciding that he thinks women can't and shouldn't be president?
seriously, the answer is fucking obvious. It's the first option. 100%
This exactly. Main issue i have with sander's die-hards. Nobody's opinion but his can possibly be reality.
We have the term "Milk-shake duck" to describe exactly this kind of situation, where someone appears to be more of an ally then they are. And i am not saying he was definitely being sexist. but the willingness to move the goal post for bernie is annoying.