Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 116

Thread: Warren vs Sanders

  1. #71
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,921
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Personally, in my own speculative opinion, my guess is that Sanders made a remark that could be interpreted as meaning a woman couldn't be elected president (despite this not being at all his intention or his interpretation of the remark he made) and Warren interpreted it as such and got upset. Since Sanders wasn't trying to say anything like that he has no belief he said anything of the sort, whereas Warren believes he did say it based on her interpretation. And since this was a while ago and the specific words are forgotten, so it's not possible to try to sort it out by seeing how it could be interpreted.
    That's a good point and a possibility, the only problem with that explanation in my opinion is the absence of an explanation to that effect by Sanders. I still think he probably said it, probably believed it at the time, but is afraid that admitting to it now in the midst of a campaign might effect his bid for the nomination. I think he goofed, and should just have admitted that's what he thought at the time, not that he liked it, but that he believed it at the time. Honesty, and straight talk is one of the characteritics admired of by Sanders supporters, but this time I think he strayed. I could be completely wrong of course, it's all just opinion, but I don't think it's anything that will effect either of their campaigns.

  2. #72
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,221
    Amen (Given)
    2795
    Amen (Received)
    1769
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Personally, in my own speculative opinion, my guess is that Sanders made a remark that could be interpreted as meaning a woman couldn't be elected president (despite this not being at all his intention or his interpretation of the remark he made) and Warren interpreted it as such and got upset. Since Sanders wasn't trying to say anything like that he has no belief he said anything of the sort, whereas Warren believes he did say it based on her interpretation. And since this was a while ago and the specific words are forgotten, so it's not possible to try to sort it out by seeing how it could be interpreted.
    I think they are both being sincere.

    I tend to presume the discussion was along the lines of whether it would be easier for a man or a woman to beat Trump in 2020. They were both considering running, and would have been talking through which one of them they thought would have a greater chance of winning. Hillary's camp has popularized the notion that sexism was a factor in her loss in 2016 - i.e. that she lost due to being a woman. So it's received wisdom among many pundits that there is a certain level of anti-female bias among US voters and thus that it's harder for a woman to get elected than a man. However, in 2018 a lot of female candidates were elected, with a lot of women voters deliberately voting for women, so some people think the pendulum has swung and perhaps now there's momentum toward electing women. I think reasonable pundits might now reasonably disagree on which effect is stronger. I tend to think that when Warren and Bernie were discussing which of them had better prospects for victory in 2020, that Warren would have suggested that she thought being a woman would play in her favor, and Sanders replied that he thought being a woman would work against her if she was up against Trump in 2020. That is quite a reasonable conversation for them to have been having, and both their positions there are rationally and empirically defensible.

    I think over time Warren has gradually misremembered that conversation, and wrongly generalized Bernie's view from the specific and mundane "I don't think being a woman will play to your political advantage against Trump in 2020 in terms of helping you win" to the generalized and abstracted view that borders on the irrational and nonsensical of "I don't think a woman can ever win the US Presidency under any circumstances". What the Warren camp is claiming Bernie said isn't really something that it makes sense for anyone to say. Hillary won the majority of votes in 2016 and it was a fluke they were distributed in such a way that Trump could slip through with the electoral college system. The question of whether a women can win is stupid. Even the worst misogynist in the country knows a woman can win. The only interesting question is whether, right now in 2020, it is easier or harder for a female or a male candidate to win against Trump, and that will have been what they were discussing.

  3. #73
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,921
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I think they are both being sincere.

    I tend to presume the discussion was along the lines of whether it would be easier for a man or a woman to beat Trump in 2020. They were both considering running, and would have been talking through which one of them they thought would have a greater chance of winning. Hillary's camp has popularized the notion that sexism was a factor in her loss in 2016 - i.e. that she lost due to being a woman. So it's received wisdom among many pundits that there is a certain level of anti-female bias among US voters and thus that it's harder for a woman to get elected than a man. However, in 2018 a lot of female candidates were elected, with a lot of women voters deliberately voting for women, so some people think the pendulum has swung and perhaps now there's momentum toward electing women. I think reasonable pundits might now reasonably disagree on which effect is stronger. I tend to think that when Warren and Bernie were discussing which of them had better prospects for victory in 2020, that Warren would have suggested that she thought being a woman would play in her favor, and Sanders replied that he thought being a woman would work against her if she was up against Trump in 2020. That is quite a reasonable conversation for them to have been having, and both their positions there are rationally and empirically defensible.

    I think over time Warren has gradually misremembered that conversation, and wrongly generalized Bernie's view from the specific and mundane "I don't think being a woman will play to your political advantage against Trump in 2020 in terms of helping you win" to the generalized and abstracted view that borders on the irrational and nonsensical of "I don't think a woman can ever win the US Presidency under any circumstances". What the Warren camp is claiming Bernie said isn't really something that it makes sense for anyone to say. Hillary won the majority of votes in 2016 and it was a fluke they were distributed in such a way that Trump could slip through with the electoral college system. The question of whether a women can win is stupid. Even the worst misogynist in the country knows a woman can win. The only interesting question is whether, right now in 2020, it is easier or harder for a female or a male candidate to win against Trump, and that will have been what they were discussing.
    That's certainly a plausable possibility, and a thoughtful opinion. Perhaps we should have them supoenaed to testify under oath.

  4. #74
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,311
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    5467
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  5. Amen demi-conservative amen'd this post.
  6. #75
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,142
    Amen (Given)
    1177
    Amen (Received)
    20624

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  7. #76
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,896
    Amen (Given)
    1031
    Amen (Received)
    3137
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    progressives dreamed of a Warren/Sanders ticket.
    I personally dreamed of an Andrew Yang ticket. But that's probably first relevant in 2024.

  8. #77
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,142
    Amen (Given)
    1177
    Amen (Received)
    20624
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I think they are both being sincere.

    I tend to presume the discussion was along the lines of whether it would be easier for a man or a woman to beat Trump in 2020. They were both considering running, and would have been talking through which one of them they thought would have a greater chance of winning. Hillary's camp has popularized the notion that sexism was a factor in her loss in 2016 - i.e. that she lost due to being a woman. So it's received wisdom among many pundits that there is a certain level of anti-female bias among US voters and thus that it's harder for a woman to get elected than a man. However, in 2018 a lot of female candidates were elected, with a lot of women voters deliberately voting for women, so some people think the pendulum has swung and perhaps now there's momentum toward electing women. I think reasonable pundits might now reasonably disagree on which effect is stronger. I tend to think that when Warren and Bernie were discussing which of them had better prospects for victory in 2020, that Warren would have suggested that she thought being a woman would play in her favor, and Sanders replied that he thought being a woman would work against her if she was up against Trump in 2020. That is quite a reasonable conversation for them to have been having, and both their positions there are rationally and empirically defensible.

    I think over time Warren has gradually misremembered that conversation, and wrongly generalized Bernie's view from the specific and mundane "I don't think being a woman will play to your political advantage against Trump in 2020 in terms of helping you win" to the generalized and abstracted view that borders on the irrational and nonsensical of "I don't think a woman can ever win the US Presidency under any circumstances". What the Warren camp is claiming Bernie said isn't really something that it makes sense for anyone to say. Hillary won the majority of votes in 2016 and it was a fluke they were distributed in such a way that Trump could slip through with the electoral college system. The question of whether a women can win is stupid. Even the worst misogynist in the country knows a woman can win. The only interesting question is whether, right now in 2020, it is easier or harder for a female or a male candidate to win against Trump, and that will have been what they were discussing.
    A much better case could have been made that America wasn't ready for a black president than could be made that we still aren't ready for a woman president but Obama had no trouble winning in both 2008 and 2012.

    As Obama once told Hillary, "you're likeable enough." But then politicians are notorious liars.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

  9. #78
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,677
    Amen (Given)
    271
    Amen (Received)
    1088
    If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the liberal media is intentionally trying to lose 2020.

    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  10. #79
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,010
    Amen (Given)
    6101
    Amen (Received)
    7467
    Do these people understand the difference between analyzing "body language" and straight up mind-reading?
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  11. #80
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,010
    Amen (Given)
    6101
    Amen (Received)
    7467
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. Amen seer amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •