• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
Let's not forget Warren never actually said what Bernie said! So we don't even know what to "believe" on her end.

Right. And if she thinks he said something more ambiguous and she's as baffled by these 4 anonymous leakers as anyone, she could've 1. Clarified that when it came up in the debate and 2. Not confronted Sanders about calling her a liar for denying something they both agree is not what he said.

Warren can clarify this at any time. All she's doing is doubling down on the initial leak.
 

kambaybolongo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,081
I'm a supporter of him, but he can be hard headed and vary vague. His initial response was the best, that he was talking about Trump mostly, but during the debate he didn't repeat that part.
Dude, this is completely insane take

In the debate he directly answered the moderators's question. He's done nothing to promote this story.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
you're right in seeing them cynically as profit-machines but wrong in thinking the higher-ups are myopic enough to understand their bottom-line only in the language of TV-ratings. Where there is the capacity to sway public opinion away from politics that challenge concentrations of wealth, of course the elites who own what you see will exert that influence. They don't need to sacrifice anything, short of the respect of randoms online like me, to do this.



The problem is somewhat negative framing of a question [to the candidate], right?

044891pfkd0.png
I mean, I think there's definitely reason to take issue with CNN, but it's because they're basically drama-central and drama biased to the point where they'll indulge and feed whatever gossip floats their way because that's what makes them money and gets eyes on. It's easier to ignore the punches they throw out to candidates that are not your favorite and focus on the ones that are. As for how they treat Biden? They ran stories left and right about how he seemed slow to answer, slurred stuff when those stories had weight, even mentioned how it seemed like he was slowing down mentally in an interview.
 

splash wave

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,547
Bay Area, CA
Providing a he said, she said response instead of defusing it. I refuse to believe he thought he'd respond as he did and that would be the end of it.

He has every right to categorically deny what he was claimed to have said in a private conversation, and to even give an inch would be incredibly stupid. If he "acknowledged" that he could have been misunderstood he'd be eaten alive.
 

Ziltoidia 9

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,146
Dude, this is completely insane take

In the debate he directly answered the moderators's question. He's done nothing to promote this story.

Didn't say he promoted it, just saying his first response at the debate could have been better.

Warren had already explicitly contradicted him.

To be fair I haven't really kept up with it all because most of the stuff involving it isn't Warren and Bernie actually talking. Just a bunch of bad social media memes and people acting like idiots.
 

Eidan

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
8,583
This approach to politics maybe feels good on the internet, but it literally does nothing in real life. Effectively engaging in politics means contending with people's actual ideas and building coalitions and organizations in order to realize shared political goals.

Sarcastically sidestepping a person's ideas just makes them dislike you, it doesn't persuade them to join you.
I have no intention of persuading anyone to join me, so rest easy.
 

J2C

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,399
Elizabeth Warren Is both a dork and a cornball for this and the DNA test fiasco. She was thinking too short-term on this one.

Yea feel similar. What did she just suddenly decide she was offended by something said behind closed doors? Then follows up with "How could you say I lied on national tv??" When it's like.... Bernie didn't bring it up. As well as, what does she expect him to say? It's so performative on her part. I still like her as a candidate, but both displays (this and dna test) there's something childish about it. She really calculates thinking she's "gonna have a moment" wrong
 
Last edited:

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,427
They feel similar. What did she just suddenly decide she was offended by something said behind closed doors?
she recounted this meeting to some people a year ago, shortly after it happened. ryan grim said rumors about this have been circulating in journalist circles for some time. there's every indication that warren was genuinely miffed by something said in the meeting and vented about it at the time to aides and the story got out from there. this idea it's a sudden change of heart simply because it hadn't been reported in the press previously is dumb.
 

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
They feel similar. What did she just suddenly decide she was offended by something said behind closed doors? Then follows up with "How could you say I lied on national tv??" When it's like.... Bernie didn't bring it up. As well as, what does she expect him to say? It's so performative on her part. I still like her as a candidate, but both displays there's something childish about it. She really calculates thinking she's "gonna have a moment" wrong
I really don't see how it's both sides. One is misconstruing the other to have said a sexist remark. Can you not defend yourself, especially given how heavy the implications are? I really don't know how else to best respond to it.
 

gaogaogao

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,679
The fucking "comic" is using the same logic people use to discredit journalistic reporting because "it's anonymous reporting"

Even though Warren has already outright verified the story and the anonymous sources were secondary sources... which back up the timeline and the fact that Warren has already verified what she told at least two of them directly. So the entire logic of the comic is fucking stupid to begin with.

The people posting this know how disingenuous they are being, but because they spent so much energy discrediting the story from the start and as time has gone on the reality seems to be that Warren is rightfully miffed and Sanders probably said something that pissed her off in a private dinner conversation.

But instead of just admitting that Sanders might have said something in private, we have this where people who dug from the start are in too deep.
did you miss the other 3 panels, and lifetime of evidence of who tf bernie is? vs who warren pretends to be?
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,625
Portland, OR
Didn't say he promoted it, just saying his first response at the debate could have been better.



To be fair I haven't really kept up with it all because most of the stuff involving it isn't Warren and Bernie actually talking. Just a bunch of bad social media memes and people acting like idiots.
From what I understand, the reason it was even asked as a question at the debate is because Warren confirmed the prior evening that she was claiming exactly what they asked him about.
Hmmmm...I wonder why they haven't de-escalated this behind the scenes. Is it because one of the people involved has clearly been attempting to escalate the issue the entire news cycle? No, no...it must be stubborn old Bernie's fault.
But why didn't Bernie just de-escalate it by saying "I can't remember whether I said something sexist *shrug*???"

/s
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
Pulitzer prize winning columnist Connie Shultz, Sen. Sherrod Brown's wife, has an interesting perspective on this situation.

We've seen a recent dust-up between Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over what he might or might not have said to her two years ago when they were discussing the 2020 presidential race. The early coverage had only allegations from their campaigns. Warren staff claimed Sanders told her a woman couldn't win in 2020. His campaign staff denounced that as a lie. Soon enough, Sanders was ardently denying it, and Warren was confirming it had happened.

My husband is their Democratic colleague, and so I know both Sanders and Warren, and respect both of them, which only makes this harder, it seems. Fortunately, after a brief exchange about this on Tuesday's debate stage, they seemed eager to move on. There's a man in the White House to defeat, you understand.

This does not seem to be true of many of Sanders' followers. Dare to express the slightest doubt about their candidate or, far worse, support someone else, and they will circle like vultures over roadkill. They can save their energy. We've been through this before, and their aggression is lost on women like me.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. There is a bigger discussion to have about why, in 2020, we're still talking about the electability of a woman. Yet, so many want to derail it.

Some dismiss Sanders' alleged comment as just an echo of the same conversations going on in Democratic circles around the country. Sure. Many feminists who've been my friends for decades have told me they worry a woman can't win in 2020. This is fear speaking, and it's laser-focused not on the candidates but on the history of the voting public. We talk it through and hash out the what-ifs. But a woman running for president surely hears this message differently. It feels personal because it is, and can we please not lose sight of this difference?

And, yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Yet, she isn't president, is she? Why do we have to keep explaining why this doesn't feel like a victory for women?

Some have wanted to know why Warren didn't mention the exchange with Sanders sooner. Where've we heard that before?

 

Meauxse

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,251
New Orleans, LA
Pulitzer prize winning columnist Connie Shultz, Sen. Sherrod Brown's wife, has an interesting perspective on this situation.




Had to re-quote this part because it is the crux of this but put exquisitely:

Many feminists who've been my friends for decades have told me they worry a woman can't win in 2020. This is fear speaking, and it's laser-focused not on the candidates but on the history of the voting public. We talk it through and hash out the what-ifs. But a woman running for president surely hears this message differently. It feels personal because it is, and can we please not lose sight of this difference?

And, yes, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Yet, she isn't president, is she? Why do we have to keep explaining why this doesn't feel like a victory for women?

Some have wanted to know why Warren didn't mention the exchange with Sanders sooner. Where've we heard that before?

Edit:

Last paragraph of my quote and this

If this happened 1year ago, why she didn't inform the media before? That's shady...
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
17,124
Montreal
Lesson 1; decline all invitations to Liz's house.... she will break friend to friend confidentiality two weeks before the Iowa Caucus
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
828
Sure. Many feminists who've been my friends for decades have told me they worry a woman can't win in 2020. This is fear speaking, and it's laser-focused not on the candidates but on the history of the voting public. We talk it through and hash out the what-ifs. But a woman running for president surely hears this message differently. It feels personal because it is, and can we please not lose sight of this difference?

The difference as presented:

Feminist friends can have nuanced discussion about the American electorate and its issues and that's a good thing.

Presidential candidate can't have nuanced discussion about the American electorate and its issues to a longtime personal friend because personal feelings will get in the way.


I'm not sure that's as good a look as the writer wants it to be.
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
Pulitzer prize winning columnist Connie Shultz, Sen. Sherrod Brown's wife, has an interesting perspective on this situation.




Just disgusting commentary. Surprise surprise there's 0 career risk to attacking the supporters of a candidate opposed by the entire party. The sooner we have a political vehicle to outright oppose these people the better.

Also this instinct to draw an analogy between dirty political attacks and sexual assault is absolutely despicable.
 

Dragonborn

Member
Oct 30, 2017
265
The whole thing just seems weird to me, and I don't like the resulting infighting. I'm gonna go full on the Bernie camp going forward. I know in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter but this really put me off of Warren
 

Snowy

Banned
Nov 11, 2017
1,399
Providing a he said, she said response instead of defusing it. I refuse to believe he thought he'd respond as he did and that would be the end of it.

Warren had the right of first refusal to deny the story! She chose to litigate this in the media, not Bernie! Once she made the accusation, he had nothing to do but deny it.
 

Meauxse

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,251
New Orleans, LA
Warren had the right of first refusal to deny the story! She chose to litigate this in the media, not Bernie! Once she made the accusation, he had nothing to do but deny it.

This is all inaccurate.

-Warren had the right of first refusal to deny the story
--There is no source for this

-She chose to litigate this in the media
--There is no source for this

-Once she made the accusation, he had nothing to do but deny it.
--Warren made no response until after Bernie denied it took place. Her first response was the press release issued hours after the leak and Bernie's response that stated that yes, the statement occurred.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
Just disgusting commentary. Surprise surprise there's 0 career risk to attacking the supporters of a candidate opposed by the entire party. The sooner we have a political vehicle to outright oppose these people the better.

Also this instinct to draw an analogy between dirty political attacks and sexual assault is absolutely despicable.
It's actually not disgusting at all. Rather, it's a nuanced, feminist take on the situation from the unique perspective of a Pulitzer prize winning columnist who knows both Warren and Sanders personally.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Oct 27, 2017
716
Could Warren actually have plausibly denied that she told people that Sanders said that? I mean, for all we know one of the sources has an email or something, but regardless it's still multiple sources saying Warren told them that.
 

Afrikan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,034


Since it's too late and the story is out there, I just wish Warren went alittle bit more into detail about how the conversation went. If for anything, do it for the 1000's of little girls Warren and Bernie have spoke to all these years....Clear the story up for them. Don't let it linger like you have been just for politics.

If it was someone who had an axe to grind who leaked this, and it wasn't Warren or her team, then Warren should have denied this story immediately. Like....

"That is a misrepresentation of our whole private conversation. People know me, and people know Bernie. We don't agree about everything, but we respect each other."

There would have been unintended benefits for Warren if Warren didn't let this story get anywhere. But since this story is coming out so late, it just seems there was nothing good that could have came out of rolling with it.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,625
Portland, OR
Providing a he said, she said response instead of defusing it. I refuse to believe he thought he'd respond as he did and that would be the end of it.
But he literally said that it was a story from people who weren't in the room.

And let's at least be clear that when Bernie gets asked whether he said something sexist, he gets to answer the question. Expecting him to do something that will come across as dodging the question is completely unreasonable.
 

papermoon

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,907
CNN reached out to her before publishing to get a comment. She went with "No comment."
The media's been asking her about this conversation since March, and her answer has always been "no comment."
In 2018, Bernie Sanders did not want Warren to run. He told her "women can't win". Why should she lie and pretend that he didn't say that? "No comment" is what she was already saying for months, why should that day have been different? And miss me with the bullshit this was a leak from Warren herself. She doesn't play like that. I wish she would. When she comes for other Dems, it's honest and out in the open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.