The very first cnn article?
The very first cnn article?
I'm not sure how to access an older version of the CNN article (here), they seem to have updated it with the response Warren gave hours later and removed the 'no comment' part.
This is inaccurate. I'll give you the first two points.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.
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.
This is where I insert the "not all" statement in an attempt to thin the herd avalanching toward me. Of course, not all of Sanders' supporters behave like this. I know a lot of his supporters who are thoughtful and respectful. If you're one of them, this isn't about you. Past experience compels me to add this: I struggle to understand how people can read something they swear doesn't describe them and yet react as if it did.
Or it could be considered in a big picture pattern of the lopsided asks of women and how the onus of proof always falls on them and the way in which they are frequently just not believed, no matter what. Of course it's more complicated than that, as all genders are victims of sexual harassment and assault and their experiences should never be erased nor trivialized.It's infuriating. The comparison does a disservice to victims of sexual harassment and assault.
Conflating believing victims of sexual harassment and assault with the context of whether Sanders believes (Warren's account that) a woman can win the presidency is both damaging and irresponsible. The example in the article is off base, and frankly, I don't care if it was written by a Pulitzer winner or an alt right shithead.Or it could be considered in a big picture pattern of the lopsided asks of women and how the onus of proof always falls on them and the way in which they are frequently just not believed, no matter what. Of course it's more complicated than that, as all genders are victims of sexual harassment and assault and their experiences should never be erased nor trivialized.
Right, so my post was about patterning and the big picture net effect of the lopsided asks of women :)Conflating believing victims of sexual harassment and assault with the context of whether Sanders believes (Warren's account that) a woman can win the presidency is both damaging and irresponsible. The example in the article is off base, and frankly, I don't care if it was written by a Pulitzer winner or an alt right shithead.
You can make a general argument about this without making a shitty conflation between those two things. Which is what the author did. It's bad, and it should be called out.Right, so my post was about patterning and the big picture net effect of the lopsided asks of women :)
Looking at a pattern of how women are treated in the culture isn't "a shitty conflation." That's an oversimplified characterization imo that shuts any possibility of discussing how sexist patterning works out of the discussion.You can make a general argument about this without making a shitty conflation between those two things. Which is what the author did. It's bad, and it should be called out.
The ridiculous part is that Warren hasn't even made any claims about what Bernie believes, nor were any of the questions asked to him about what he believes. Warren made a statement exclusively on what Bernie *said* at a meeting with her. She knows it would be a losing battle for her to actually assert any kind of meaningful conclusion about Sanders based on this.Conflating believing victims of sexual harassment and assault with the context of whether Sanders believes (Warren's account that) a woman can win the presidency is both damaging and irresponsible. The example in the article is off base, and frankly, I don't care if it was written by a Pulitzer winner or an alt right shithead.
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.
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.
Some have wanted to know why Warren didn't mention the exchange with Sanders sooner. Where've we heard that before?
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.
The ridiculous part is that Warren hasn't even made any claims about what Bernie believes, nor were any of the questions asked to him about what he believes. Warren made a statement exclusively on what Bernie *said* at a meeting with her. She knows it would be a losing battle for her to actually assert any kind of meaningful conclusion about Sanders based on this.
Gimmie a break.
Her "nuanced" piece opens with John Legend attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for their "nastiness". There's neither a political disagreement raised nor any example of the alleged nastiness. When you have hegemonic power over mass culture as elite liberals do, it's easy to convince yourself you are the only legitimate arbiter of acceptable discourse. But your opponents also have opinions, and guess what, we think you're nasty too. We just don't have 100 television channels to broadcast our views.
This piece is a mild example, but still contains many of the gross fingerprints which can be readily found in grosser forms elsewhere.
Examples include:
- Equating left wing movement politics with borderline fascist white nationalism
- Weaponizing identity politics to avoid serious political discourse
- Selective calls for "unity" against the GOP
The real donut brain part of this piece is right in the center:
Virtually no Bernie Sanders supporter believes this. It's foundational to a leftist that women can and should be successful in politics. I have personally volunteered for 3 female candidates for political office. It's liberals who I frequently hear doubting that a woman can win. Liberals want to believe US politics is hopelessly racist and sexist because they refuse to question any other aspects of their politics. They don't have a good answer for why the country which recently elected its first black president is 8 years later circling the drain of Nazism. They're unwilling to see the material conditions in which working people live and connect it to their own corporate-friendly policies (and those of the GOP). In a word, Liberals are unable to question capitalism. It doesn't help that many of them (in places of power) are rich assholes who only talk to other rich assholes.
Where Schultz goes from merely disingenuous to actually evil is right here:
Is there any doubt what she's talking about? My reading is that she is equating the Warren camp waiting weeks before the Iowa caucus to launch this attack with women such as Christine Blasey Ford waiting years to report their sexual assault. It's hard to imagine a more disgusting comparison. But Schultz is not the first to do it. The first instance I saw was from Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:
I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with this. "Believe women" is a progressive maxim with regard to many instances of oppression faced by women where the (*cough* bourgeois) legal system constantly fails. Sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault virtually anywhere, etc. The law rarely holds men accountable for their sexist crimes, so the least we can do is believe women who come forward with their story. It doesn't mean that women are above lying in all aspects of life. This is an essentialist perspective, which would be analytically problematic if it wasn't so transparently cynical. Misusing progressive slogans like this risks souring broad swaths of the public, jeopardizing significant social progress which has been achieved, most recently by the MeToo movement. To have it misused for cheap political expediency is appalling.
"This is not a good look, and it's a tired rerun from 2016." - indeed
There's also other articles about it, and CNN at the bottom noting it was updated to include Warrens statement.I'm not sure how to access an older version of the CNN article (here), they seem to have updated it with the response Warren gave hours later and removed the 'no comment' part.
But they had reached out to both Warren and Bernie for comment. Bernie's initial denial was the comment he provided.
Anyone here know how to pull up an older version of an article, or is it gone forever?
CNN's reporting was later confirmed by The New York Times and BuzzFeed News, with the Warren campaign initially declining to comment on all three outlets' stories.
Really hating how tribal and polarised it's getting between Bernie and Warren supporters here. It's going to be 2016 again with turnout isn't it?
Which audio? from the handshake?
... How does that make him look bad? That he didn't want to discuss it right then and there in front of cameras? What?
... How does that make him look bad? That he didn't want to discuss it right then and there in front of cameras? What?
"actually evil"
Whoo, ok. And with that I don't see a good faith engagement around the obviously important and nuanced take from Schultz here. We're not going to get anywhere, but thanks for your post!
Biden will be the nominee, so it won't matter if Bernie and Warren supporters don't like each other. But if this dispute goes on until summer that's only good news for Trump.Really hating how tribal and polarised it's getting between Bernie and Warren supporters here. It's going to be 2016 again with turnout isn't it?
Or they remember the conversation differently. There's a thin line between "a woman can't win" and "it will be hard for a woman to win because of trump shenanigans".Why would Warren confront him like that if she was lying about what he said? She wouldn't.
It seemed like clear conflict avoidance and deflection on Bernie's part. NAGL.
That being said, of course I'd vote for either.
OK!I believe I have justified my perspective in good faith. I explained what I don't like and why I don't like it. If you don't want to actually address that, it's par for the course from this brand of politics honestly.
Gimmie a break.
Her "nuanced" piece opens with John Legend attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for their "nastiness". There's neither a political disagreement raised nor any example of the alleged nastiness. When you have hegemonic power over mass culture as elite liberals do, it's easy to convince yourself you are the only legitimate arbiter of acceptable discourse. But your opponents also have opinions, and guess what, we think you're nasty too. We just don't have 100 television channels to broadcast our views.
This piece is a mild example, but still contains many of the gross fingerprints which can be readily found in grosser forms elsewhere.
Examples include:
- Equating left wing movement politics with borderline fascist white nationalism
- Weaponizing identity politics to avoid serious political discourse
- Selective calls for "unity" against the GOP
The real donut brain part of this piece is right in the center:
Virtually no Bernie Sanders supporter believes this. It's foundational to a leftist that women can and should be successful in politics. I have personally volunteered for 3 female candidates for political office. It's liberals who I frequently hear doubting that a woman can win. Liberals want to believe US politics is hopelessly racist and sexist because they refuse to question any other aspects of their politics. They don't have a good answer for why the country which recently elected its first black president is 8 years later circling the drain of Nazism. They're unwilling to see the material conditions in which working people live and connect it to their own corporate-friendly policies (and those of the GOP). In a word, Liberals are unable to question capitalism. It doesn't help that many of them (in places of power) are rich assholes who only talk to other rich assholes.
Where Schultz goes from merely disingenuous to actually evil is right here:
Is there any doubt what she's talking about? My reading is that she is equating the Warren camp waiting weeks before the Iowa caucus to launch this attack with women such as Christine Blasey Ford waiting years to report their sexual assault. It's hard to imagine a more disgusting comparison. But Schultz is not the first to do it. The first instance I saw was from Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:
I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with this. "Believe women" is a progressive maxim with regard to many instances of oppression faced by women where the (*cough* bourgeois) legal system constantly fails. Sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault virtually anywhere, etc. The law rarely holds men accountable for their sexist crimes, so the least we can do is believe women who come forward with their story. It doesn't mean that women are above lying in all aspects of life. This is an essentialist perspective, which would be analytically problematic if it wasn't so transparently cynical. Misusing progressive slogans like this risks souring broad swaths of the public, jeopardizing significant social progress which has been achieved, most recently by the MeToo movement. To have it misused for cheap political expediency is appalling.
"This is not a good look, and it's a tired rerun from 2016." - indeed
Much appreciated, thanks.There's also other articles about it, and CNN at the bottom noting it was updated to include Warrens statement.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-told-warren-woman-cant-be-president-report-2020-1
Oh are we pushing this lie about Bernie supporters in 2016 again? Cool.We surely had to realize from the start of this cycle after 2016 that a lot of Bernie bros would never have voted for Warren had she gotten the nomination.
Gimmie a break.
Her "nuanced" piece opens with John Legend attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for their "nastiness". There's neither a political disagreement raised nor any example of the alleged nastiness. When you have hegemonic power over mass culture as elite liberals do, it's easy to convince yourself you are the only legitimate arbiter of acceptable discourse. But your opponents also have opinions, and guess what, we think you're nasty too. We just don't have 100 television channels to broadcast our views.
This piece is a mild example, but still contains many of the gross fingerprints which can be readily found in grosser forms elsewhere.
Examples include:
- Equating left wing movement politics with borderline fascist white nationalism
- Weaponizing identity politics to avoid serious political discourse
- Selective calls for "unity" against the GOP
The real donut brain part of this piece is right in the center:
Virtually no Bernie Sanders supporter believes this. It's foundational to a leftist that women can and should be successful in politics. I have personally volunteered for 3 female candidates for political office. It's liberals who I frequently hear doubting that a woman can win. Liberals want to believe US politics is hopelessly racist and sexist because they refuse to question any other aspects of their politics. They don't have a good answer for why the country which recently elected its first black president is 8 years later circling the drain of Nazism. They're unwilling to see the material conditions in which working people live and connect it to their own corporate-friendly policies (and those of the GOP). In a word, Liberals are unable to question capitalism. It doesn't help that many of them (in places of power) are rich assholes who only talk to other rich assholes.
Where Schultz goes from merely disingenuous to actually evil is right here:
Is there any doubt what she's talking about? My reading is that she is equating the Warren camp waiting weeks before the Iowa caucus to launch this attack with women such as Christine Blasey Ford waiting years to report their sexual assault. It's hard to imagine a more disgusting comparison. But Schultz is not the first to do it. The first instance I saw was from Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:
I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with this. "Believe women" is a progressive maxim with regard to many instances of oppression faced by women where the (*cough* bourgeois) legal system constantly fails. Sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault virtually anywhere, etc. The law rarely holds men accountable for their sexist crimes, so the least we can do is believe women who come forward with their story. It doesn't mean that women are above lying in all aspects of life. This is an essentialist perspective, which would be analytically problematic if it wasn't so transparently cynical. Misusing progressive slogans like this risks souring broad swaths of the public, jeopardizing significant social progress which has been achieved, most recently by the MeToo movement. To have it misused for cheap political expediency is appalling.
"This is not a good look, and it's a tired rerun from 2016." - indeed
Gimmie a break.
Her "nuanced" piece opens with John Legend attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for their "nastiness". There's neither a political disagreement raised nor any example of the alleged nastiness. When you have hegemonic power over mass culture as elite liberals do, it's easy to convince yourself you are the only legitimate arbiter of acceptable discourse. But your opponents also have opinions, and guess what, we think you're nasty too. We just don't have 100 television channels to broadcast our views.
This piece is a mild example, but still contains many of the gross fingerprints which can be readily found in grosser forms elsewhere.
Examples include:
- Equating left wing movement politics with borderline fascist white nationalism
- Weaponizing identity politics to avoid serious political discourse
- Selective calls for "unity" against the GOP
The real donut brain part of this piece is right in the center:
Virtually no Bernie Sanders supporter believes this. It's foundational to a leftist that women can and should be successful in politics. I have personally volunteered for 3 female candidates for political office. It's liberals who I frequently hear doubting that a woman can win. Liberals want to believe US politics is hopelessly racist and sexist because they refuse to question any other aspects of their politics. They don't have a good answer for why the country which recently elected its first black president is 8 years later circling the drain of Nazism. They're unwilling to see the material conditions in which working people live and connect it to their own corporate-friendly policies (and those of the GOP). In a word, Liberals are unable to question capitalism. It doesn't help that many of them (in places of power) are rich assholes who only talk to other rich assholes.
Where Schultz goes from merely disingenuous to actually evil is right here:
Is there any doubt what she's talking about? My reading is that she is equating the Warren camp waiting weeks before the Iowa caucus to launch this attack with women such as Christine Blasey Ford waiting years to report their sexual assault. It's hard to imagine a more disgusting comparison. But Schultz is not the first to do it. The first instance I saw was from Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:
I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with this. "Believe women" is a progressive maxim with regard to many instances of oppression faced by women where the (*cough* bourgeois) legal system constantly fails. Sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault virtually anywhere, etc. The law rarely holds men accountable for their sexist crimes, so the least we can do is believe women who come forward with their story. It doesn't mean that women are above lying in all aspects of life. This is an essentialist perspective, which would be analytically problematic if it wasn't so transparently cynical. Misusing progressive slogans like this risks souring broad swaths of the public, jeopardizing significant social progress which has been achieved, most recently by the MeToo movement. To have it misused for cheap political expediency is appalling.
"This is not a good look, and it's a tired rerun from 2016." - indeed
"actually evil"
Whoo, ok. And with that I don't see a good faith engagement around the obviously important and nuanced take from Schultz here. We're not going to get anywhere, but thanks for your post!
I agree. Warren's camp knows that making this about Bernie's beliefs is a losing battle so instead they are focusing his exact words while also refusing to quote them. It's so blatantly underhanded.The ridiculous part is that Warren hasn't even made any claims about what Bernie believes, nor were any of the questions asked to him about what he believes. Warren made a statement exclusively on what Bernie *said* at a meeting with her. She knows it would be a losing battle for her to actually assert any kind of meaningful conclusion about Sanders based on this.
Oh are we pushing this lie about Bernie supporters in 2016 again? Cool.
You realized bishop was making good points so you used a mildly inflammatory bit of the post to write the whole thing off. Did you come here for discourse or to troll?"actually evil"
Whoo, ok. And with that I don't see a good faith engagement around the obviously important and nuanced take from Schultz here. We're not going to get anywhere, but thanks for your post!
Particularly the "well, Bernie *did* say it... but I don't want to talk about it!" angle.I agree. Warren's camp knows that making this about Bernie's beliefs is a losing battle so instead they are focusing his exact words while also refusing to quote them. It's so blatantly underhanded.
I mean, this poster said Bernie was technically a centrist on the night of the debate, so....You realized bishop was making good points so you used a mildly inflammatory bit of the post to write the whole thing off. Did you come here for discourse or to troll?
And then proceeding to confront him on stage after the debate while mic'd. LmaoParticularly the "well, Bernie *did* say it... but I don't want to talk about it!" angle.
This context has nothing to do with me too/believing women. It has nothing to do with a reporter being sexually harassed. Yet, here is the framing:Looking at a pattern of how women are treated in the culture isn't "a shitty conflation." That's an oversimplified characterization imo that shuts any possibility of discussing how sexist patterning works out of the discussion.
It's almost like satire.And then proceeding to confront him on stage after the debate while mic'd. Lmao
"This is clearly an escalation and a great story—- We've got the audio behind the biggest moment after the debate "
-Senior Broadcast Producer, The Lead with Jake Tapper on CNN
CNN, the network that also gave Trump a lot of free airtime, should be fired into the sun.
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.
Why would Warren confront him like that if she was lying about what he said? She wouldn't.
It seemed like clear conflict avoidance and deflection on Bernie's part. NAGL.
That being said, of course I'd vote for either.
You can be pissed that someone called you a liar on television even if you actually are one, y'know, especially if there exists an informal truce between your campaigns and you expected he'd get more diplomatic or conciliatory in front of the cameras.
You're comparing anecdotes to actual data. Bernie supporters voted for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary supporters voted for Obama. It's normal for some supporters of a failed candidate not to vote or change their vote.I 100% know actual Bernie Bros who have said as much, but sure, call me a liar.
Did you miss #neverWarren as the #1 trending topic the other day?
Her "nuanced" piece opens with John Legend attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for their "nastiness". There's neither a political disagreement raised nor any example of the alleged nastiness. When you have hegemonic power over mass culture as elite liberals do, it's easy to convince yourself you are the only legitimate arbiter of acceptable discourse. But your opponents also have opinions, and guess what, we think you're nasty too. We just don't have 100 television channels to broadcast our views.
This piece is a mild example, but still contains many of the gross fingerprints which can be readily found in grosser forms elsewhere.
Examples include:
- Equating left wing movement politics with borderline fascist white nationalism
- Weaponizing identity politics to avoid serious political discourse
- Selective calls for "unity" against the GOP
"actually evil"
Whoo, ok. And with that I don't see a good faith engagement around the obviously important and nuanced take from Schultz here. We're not going to get anywhere, but thanks for your post!
To troll? Seriously?You realized bishop was making good points so you used a mildly inflammatory bit of the post to write the whole thing off. Did you come here for discourse or to troll?