Warren campaign might not be source of CNN story about Bernie Sanders saying a woman can't win [SEE STAFF POST]

Staff Post

Poodlestrike

It's salt.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
6,484
Official Staff Communication

Okay, let's try this again. We've had to lock a few threads on this issue because of the way they have turned out, and we'd rather not have to lock this one too. Derailing threads with issues and posts from other threads is not acceptable. Neither is attacking and egregiously misrepresenting posts from said threads. Users who have engaged in such behavior, particularly after the previous staff post, have been banned.

To clarify a few issues, Brazil removed his post on his own accord, with no input or discussion with other staff. He was not present or involved in the discussion to ban thebishop for that post, and deleted his post long before that discussion took place. That post was discussed by a number of female staff (including both mods and admins), who felt it was shouting down and dismissive of sexism within politics, particularly as the author of the article was also a woman, and was speaking from the point of view of a woman. Whether or not you believe Warren, being aggressively dismissive is unwarranted and not what this forum stands for. The post was, however, long and detailed, and presented a number of issues. That is why the people who agreed with the post were not banned, as there was no way to say what they were agreeing with.

Generally staff will only delete posts for very specific reasons, and this was not a case that warranted that. We have a process and policy for this, and have issued a reminder to all staff to simply edit their posts if they change their mind about a post.

Whether or not you agree with the ban, this thread is not the place to argue about it. We have an appeals process which the user themselves can use, and general complaints about specific bans from other users can be taken to the Moderator Captains. Continued efforts to derail this thread with that will be treated as thread derailment. Now let's get back on topic.
 

Odrion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
904
This was blatantly obvious from the moment the story came out. Warren's campaign had absolutely nothing to gain from this as it would just turn into mutually assured destruction.
Then they should've immediately threw water on it. Regardless of who the source was, they were ultimately responsible.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,897
Official Staff Communication

Okay, let's try this again. We've had to lock a few threads on this issue because of the way they have turned out, and we'd rather not have to lock this one too. Derailing threads with issues and posts from other threads is not acceptable. Neither is attacking and egregiously misrepresenting posts from said threads. Users who have engaged in such behavior, particularly after the previous staff post, have been banned.

To clarify a few issues, Brazil removed his post on his own accord, with no input or discussion with other staff. He was not present or involved in the discussion to ban thebishop for that post, and deleted his post long before that discussion took place. That post was discussed by a number of female staff (including both mods and admins), who felt it was shouting down and dismissive of sexism within politics, particularly as the author of the article was also a woman, and was speaking from the point of view of a woman. Whether or not you believe Warren, being aggressively dismissive is unwarranted and not what this forum stands for. The post was, however, long and detailed, and presented a number of issues. That is why the people who agreed with the post were not banned, as there was no way to say what they were agreeing with.

Generally staff will only delete posts for very specific reasons, and this was not a case that warranted that. We have a process and policy for this, and have issued a reminder to all staff to simply edit their posts if they change their mind about a post.

Whether or not you agree with the ban, this thread is not the place to argue about it. We have an appeals process which the user themselves can use, and general complaints about specific bans from other users can be taken to the Moderator Captains. Continued efforts to derail this thread with that will be treated as thread derailment. Now let's get back on topic.
There is still so much about this that is headshakingly yikes.
 

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,888
Official Staff Communication

Okay, let's try this again. We've had to lock a few threads on this issue because of the way they have turned out, and we'd rather not have to lock this one too. Derailing threads with issues and posts from other threads is not acceptable. Neither is attacking and egregiously misrepresenting posts from said threads. Users who have engaged in such behavior, particularly after the previous staff post, have been banned.

To clarify a few issues, Brazil removed his post on his own accord, with no input or discussion with other staff. He was not present or involved in the discussion to ban thebishop for that post, and deleted his post long before that discussion took place. That post was discussed by a number of female staff (including both mods and admins), who felt it was shouting down and dismissive of sexism within politics, particularly as the author of the article was also a woman, and was speaking from the point of view of a woman. Whether or not you believe Warren, being aggressively dismissive is unwarranted and not what this forum stands for. The post was, however, long and detailed, and presented a number of issues. That is why the people who agreed with the post were not banned, as there was no way to say what they were agreeing with.

Generally staff will only delete posts for very specific reasons, and this was not a case that warranted that. We have a process and policy for this, and have issued a reminder to all staff to simply edit their posts if they change their mind about a post.

Whether or not you agree with the ban, this thread is not the place to argue about it. We have an appeals process which the user themselves can use, and general complaints about specific bans from other users can be taken to the Moderator Captains. Continued efforts to derail this thread with that will be treated as thread derailment. Now let's get back on topic.
I honestly have no idea what is going on with this forum anymore, it's not getting any better only worse.
I'm checking out for the foreseeable future.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
User Banned (Permanent): Trolling, Ignoring the Staff Post; Numerous Prior Bans for Inflammatory Behavior
Official Staff Communication

Okay, let's try this again. We've had to lock a few threads on this issue because of the way they have turned out, and we'd rather not have to lock this one too. Derailing threads with issues and posts from other threads is not acceptable. Neither is attacking and egregiously misrepresenting posts from said threads. Users who have engaged in such behavior, particularly after the previous staff post, have been banned.

To clarify a few issues, Brazil removed his post on his own accord, with no input or discussion with other staff. He was not present or involved in the discussion to ban thebishop for that post, and deleted his post long before that discussion took place. That post was discussed by a number of female staff (including both mods and admins), who felt it was shouting down and dismissive of sexism within politics, particularly as the author of the article was also a woman, and was speaking from the point of view of a woman. Whether or not you believe Warren, being aggressively dismissive is unwarranted and not what this forum stands for. The post was, however, long and detailed, and presented a number of issues. That is why the people who agreed with the post were not banned, as there was no way to say what they were agreeing with.

Generally staff will only delete posts for very specific reasons, and this was not a case that warranted that. We have a process and policy for this, and have issued a reminder to all staff to simply edit their posts if they change their mind about a post.

Whether or not you agree with the ban, this thread is not the place to argue about it. We have an appeals process which the user themselves can use, and general complaints about specific bans from other users can be taken to the Moderator Captains. Continued efforts to derail this thread with that will be treated as thread derailment. Now let's get back on topic.
i agree with every word in that post. if that was bannable you should ban me too i guess.
 

ProfessorLobo

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,188
Official Staff Communication

Okay, let's try this again. We've had to lock a few threads on this issue because of the way they have turned out, and we'd rather not have to lock this one too. Derailing threads with issues and posts from other threads is not acceptable. Neither is attacking and egregiously misrepresenting posts from said threads. Users who have engaged in such behavior, particularly after the previous staff post, have been banned.

To clarify a few issues, Brazil removed his post on his own accord, with no input or discussion with other staff. He was not present or involved in the discussion to ban thebishop for that post, and deleted his post long before that discussion took place. That post was discussed by a number of female staff (including both mods and admins), who felt it was shouting down and dismissive of sexism within politics, particularly as the author of the article was also a woman, and was speaking from the point of view of a woman. Whether or not you believe Warren, being aggressively dismissive is unwarranted and not what this forum stands for. The post was, however, long and detailed, and presented a number of issues. That is why the people who agreed with the post were not banned, as there was no way to say what they were agreeing with.

Generally staff will only delete posts for very specific reasons, and this was not a case that warranted that. We have a process and policy for this, and have issued a reminder to all staff to simply edit their posts if they change their mind about a post.

Whether or not you agree with the ban, this thread is not the place to argue about it. We have an appeals process which the user themselves can use, and general complaints about specific bans from other users can be taken to the Moderator Captains. Continued efforts to derail this thread with that will be treated as thread derailment. Now let's get back on topic.
Why would anyone get back on topic when they get banned for a post like this? Honest question.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/warren-refuses-to-shake-bernie’s-hand-after-debate-bernie-throws-up-hands-after-they-speak.164834/page-47#post-28320172
 

roflwaffles

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,548
I like both candidates and I haven’t kept up with this story. I’m assuming it would be better for me to just ignore this because it all sounds confusing as fuck
 

Ryuuroden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
263
In the attempt to not seem like I am singling anyone out I will just point out that "both sides" (hate that phrase) should stop this and realize that both Warrens and Bernie's policy goals are essentially the same and that either one of them is better than the rest of the field so perhaps we should stop knifing each other like everyone else in the field and the news, and on the right wants us to do? Acting like this will not win over undecided primary voters but instead is going to turn them off. The only thing that seems to be happening here is that everyone is getting bitter about the other candidate and the only winner from that is everyone but the progressive candidates.
 

Agar25

Member
Apr 12, 2018
6,580
This whole topic is so volatile I don’t even know where to begin trying to come in on it. It’s such a sad state of affairs as I really believe they are both good people
 

mugwhump

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,252
So basically the MSM may have manufactured a bigass controversy that neither the Warren or Sanders camps were interested in, which is getting lots of clicks but doing nothing good for either campaign?

Sasuga CNN.
 

Odrion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
904
So basically the MSM may have manufactured a bigass controversy that neither the Warren or Sanders camps were interested in, which is getting lots of clicks but doing nothing good for either campaign?

Sasuga CNN.
Regardless of the source, whether it was a MSM conspiracy or whatever, the Warren campaign could've stopped it if they wanted to. Instead they waited to see how it would play out and now the damage is done.
 

loquaciousJenny

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,383
Regardless of the source, whether it was a MSM conspiracy or whatever, the Warren campaign could've stopped it if they wanted to. Instead they waited to see how it would play out and now the damage is done.
Why is it Warren who needed to stop it, if it happened as she says you're saying she should have lied and said it didn't. Why didn't Bernie apologize for saying it even if his intent was misconstrued? He could have stopped this and came out looking fine but instead they're calling her a liar.
 

Byakuya769

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
2,284
Regardless of the source, whether it was a MSM conspiracy or whatever, the Warren campaign could've stopped it if they wanted to. Instead they waited to see how it would play out and now the damage is done.
Only obligation she has to stop it is if it’s untrue. Otherwise, nothing short of a lie from her would have short-circuited the whole thing.
 

Somnid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,059
There's still a lot of subtle sexism going on here. Mainly that the woman is being told to keep quiet because it'll ruin everyone. Bernie gets a chance to defend his honor but Warren doesn't? I noted in the last thread how amazing of a precision strike this was, I'm not really surprised with how it turned out, but I am disappointed with how many people didn't immediately catch on that this was mostly manufactured and that it is in fact a catch-22 for the candidates involved. Furthermore, gender bias is real folks, it's in this thread, take a long hard reflection instead of reflexively circling the wagons. You can disagree with Warren, but please understand that the lenses for the candidates are different, that is typical of the society we live in and a continual problem.
 

Ortix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,341
Regardless of the source, whether it was a MSM conspiracy or whatever, the Warren campaign could've stopped it if they wanted to. Instead they waited to see how it would play out and now the damage is done.
I mean, if we for an instance stop to imagine ourselves in Warren's shoes... Suddenly there's a story out, with Sanders claiming it's false, while she believes Sanders did say that thing. She doesn't want to get into a media fight with someone she considers an ally and friend, so she declines to comment. This doesn't stop the media outrage however, as tons of Sanders fans and surrogates are now blaming and attacking Warren for a horrible response, saying that she should have either made it clear the story was bogus, or confirmed it. So she relents and puts out a short statement saying that it did happen, but that she does not consider it a big deal. The same Sanders people who earlier said she had to make a statement now shout her down, call her a snake and a liar. Clearly, they did not want Warren's pov, they wanted her to say Sanders didn't do it.

As I see it, Warren tried very hard not to make it into a big thing - but Bernie made that hard by (as she sees it) immediately wrongly asserting it didn't happen, effectively calling her a liar.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
43,288
Regardless of the source, whether it was a MSM conspiracy or whatever, the Warren campaign could've stopped it if they wanted to. Instead they waited to see how it would play out and now the damage is done.
What if Sanders actually probably did say something to the effect that a woman couldn't beat Trump. Say maybe due to electorate sexism? Or something like that.

I'd believe it. Shit some have interpreted it that way and then defended Sanders for just sharing his political opinion... lol.
 
Last edited:

mescalineeyes

Member
May 12, 2018
4,414
Vienna
Sanders/Klobuchar 2020

mods please threadmark this

if this doesn't happen, I'll change my avatar to a picture of Amy Klobuchar until the next dem primary in 2024 or 8.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,426
There's still a lot of subtle sexism going on here. Mainly that the woman is being told to keep quiet because it'll ruin everyone. Bernie gets a chance to defend his honor but Warren doesn't? I noted in the last thread how amazing of a precision strike this was, I'm not really surprised with how it turned out, but I am disappointed with how many people didn't immediately catch on that this was mostly manufactured and that it is in fact a catch-22 for the candidates involved. Furthermore, gender bias is real folks, it's in this thread, take a long hard reflection instead of reflexively circling the wagons. You can disagree with Warren, but please understand that the lenses for the candidates are different, that is typical of the society we live in and a continual problem.
I couldn't agree more. This is not a black and white issue, but sexism is certainly in the mix especially when thinking about the special demands put on female candidates. I want to say that I don't think it's correct to directly correlate #metoo with what Warren is going through with this. However, both situations do connect back to systematic sexism in the culture that stacks the deck against women and both run along a continuum of women being expected to prove their trustworthiness and believability to a much higher degree than men are expected to.

I don't believe anyone here wants to minimize the experience of sexual harassment or sexual assault victims. Yet it helps us all, imo, to look at the bigger picture and look at how sexist patterns and sexist expectations of women function in a multiplicity of situations, this one included.

And again, I kind of regret giving this any oxygen whatsoever, but if there's one thing I completely agree with from Warren's debate performance it's that we do need to have conversations around sexism and around women candidates and the unique circumstances they face.
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,806
She should have gave a quote or something of what he said, they both seem to be on a different page. It sounds like he didn't say the thing exactly especially with Warren saying he disagreed or she disagreed instead of what he said.
 

mescalineeyes

Member
May 12, 2018
4,414
Vienna
She should have gave a quote or something of what he said, they both seem to be on a different page. It sounds like he didn't say the thing exactly especially with Warren saying he disagreed or she disagreed instead of what he said.
it's not like we have fairly accurate reports from a few years ago detailing exactly what sanders said (you know back when it wasn't prudent to use up your ammo for the primaries yet). it's not like it can't be taken the way Warren did it, but it's also a very bad faith reading of what was said.
 

Odrion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
904
Why is it Warren who needed to stop it, if it happened as she says you're saying she should have lied and said it didn't. Why didn't Bernie apologize for saying it even if his intent was misconstrued? He could have stopped this and came out looking fine but instead they're calling her a liar.
She had the responsibility to respond to the rumor whether or not she wanted the rumor to exist. And unless Bernie said the exact words "A woman can't run for President", her saying "No, he never said that." wouldn't be a lie and would've ended the situation right then and there.
 

loquaciousJenny

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,383
She had the responsibility to respond to the rumor whether or not she wanted the rumor to exist. And unless Bernie said the exact words "A woman can't run for President", her saying "No, he never said that." wouldn't be a lie and would've ended the situation right then and there.
Again she says it happened, why doesn't Bernie add to his women cred by being the better man here and apologize for saying something that, if he is to be believed, was misinterpreted. He should put his money where his mouth is and support Warren and her story, he'll come out looking fine, it's not like Warren has called him sexist, she knows he isn't, we know he isn't, just apologize.