Is there a thread about the Sanders campaign researching whether Warren could be both vice president and treasury secretary at once? Because that's the most important information in this thread, I think.
Op didn't add Warrens name to avoid drama
Is there a thread about the Sanders campaign researching whether Warren could be both vice president and treasury secretary at once? Because that's the most important information in this thread, I think.
Then they should've immediately threw water on it. Regardless of who the source was, they were ultimately responsible.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.
There is still so much about this that is headshakingly yikes.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.
Can you even imagine 2 republican candidates having this issue?
and called his dad a serial killerremember when trump tweeted out that ted cruz's wife was ugly and it worked
lol oh. i thought he called him the zodiac killer and that's where the meme came from.fact check: he actually called cruz's dad the assassin of John F Kennedy
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.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.
Why would anyone get back on topic when they get banned for a post like this? Honest question.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.
It's really not as confusing, the problem is that there's 2 variables we just can't 100% truthfully solve for and a lot of people arguing like that isn't the case.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Holy shit, of all the people to try to capitalize on it, if your bingo card said Klobs, my hat is off to you
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.
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.
wow, there is an adult in the room
I'm not a Klobb fan. But this is the most grown up response of the week
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.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.
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.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.
🤔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.
i cant believe this is still a thing this has got to be the russians
nah, Russians are anti-Bideni cant believe this is still a thing this has got to be the russians
that's an incredibly unexpected choice of running mate for sanders, lolSanders/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.
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.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.
Russians are pro-chaos. They stoked racial strife in 2016 from every angle, for instance. The point is for there to be infighting, as much as possible, by everyone.nah, Russians are anti-Biden
Sanders and Warren have the most Laissez-Faire Foreign Policy out of the Dems
Impeachment Trial right now. (TRUMP to Ukraine: "Investigate Biden or else we cut off military aid to you".Russians are pro-chaos. They stoked racial strife in 2016 from every angle, for instance. The point is for there to be infighting, as much as possible, by everyone.
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.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.
Was this post in response to me? I'm (earnestly) not sure what you're trying to say.Impeachment Trial right now. (TRUMP to Ukraine: "Investigate Biden or else we cut off military aid to you".
I wanted this situation to not spiral downwards into this very stupid circus that is hurting the progressive movement. If Warren wanted the same, she did a poor job with her response.I mean she did.
She said it happened
If it did, did you want her to lie or something?
I wanted this situation to not spiral downwards into this very stupid circus that is hurting the progressive movement. If Warren wanted the same, she did a poor job with her response.
I'm a giving a PRIME example of the Foreign Policy Trump is engaged in after being installed with the help from Russia.Was this post in response to me? I'm (earnestly) not sure what you're trying to say.