Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Warren vs Sanders
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by whag View PostI don’t think she’s freezing so much as assessing what’s happening and maybe even, I don’t know, letting them be heard? Comedians are expected to respond to hecklers right away. Trump would have said something impulsive and stupid, like calling them fat or encouraging the crowd to beat them up.
Interesting that you as a Christian expected a quick and thoughtless response.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DivineOb View PostGlass houses bro.
Yup. Any minute now. smiley waiting2.gif
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)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostJust so you have your facts straight:
In audio of the post-debate exchange between 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released by CNN on Wednesday, both candidates accused each other of throwing around accusations of dishonesty on national TV.
Warren said, “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”
Right, and Sanders, if he was being honest, should have responded right away, "that's because you did lie, I never said what you accused me of." He didn't do that, and that's not like Sanders. I think he was concerned about upsetting the women voters so, though he didn't admit to saying it in that face to face exchange, he didn't deny it either.
Sanders responded, “You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”
Exactly, and that's not like Sanders, he wasn't able to tell her to her face that she lied about what he said.
Warren then stated, “Anytime.”
Again, Warren was the aggressive one, Bernie the passive one, not wanting to discuss it, which suggest to me that Warren was most likely the truth teller here.
Sanders then countered, “You called me a liar. You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”
True, she affirmed her original accussation when asked by the moderator, just as Bernie denied it when asked.
This entire controversy was manufactured by CNN with an unconfirmed "sources say" hit piece. And remember, it's in Warren's character to lie.Last edited by JimL; 01-17-2020, 04:14 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, and Sanders, if he was being honest, should have responded right away, "that's because you did lie, I never said what you accused me of." He didn't do that, and that's not like Sanders. I think he was concerned about upsetting the women voters so, though he didn't admit to saying it in that face to face exchange, he didn't deny it either.
Exactly, and that's not like Sanders, he wasn't able to tell her to her face that she lied about what he said.
Again, Warren was the aggressive one, Bernie the passive one, not wanting to discuss it, which suggest to me that Warren was most likely the truth teller here.
True, she affirmed her original accussation when asked by the moderator, just as Bernie denied it when asked.
No CNN didn't manurfacture it, Warren obviously said it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe suspicion I've heard from the left (at least what Tim Pool reported) is that it was coordinated between Warren and CNN. IOW, CNN purposely left the mic on, Warren knew this and seized the opportunity to bolster her accusation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View PostThe suspicion I've heard from the left (at least what Tim Pool reported) is that it was coordinated between Warren and CNN. IOW, CNN purposely left the mic on, Warren knew this and seized the opportunity to bolster her accusation.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
Comment
-
I want to apologize to the Sanders supporters on this thread for not being polite in my postings. I've been ashamed of my behavior from 2016 and I'm holding things against Bernie that he is not responsible for.
Back in 2016 I was a hard core Sanders supporter. I did want to stick it to the rich*, so the choice was obvious. Then the DNC scheduled the debates to Clinton's advantage and I started to resent the DNC. Then I started reading /r/politics/ a lot and got sucked into the whole conspiracy stuff about the server and I started down that trail of ignoring mainstream news sources and uncritically accepting anything that ended in a .com. I never got anywhere near as deep into things as the fine folks on this board but enough that I lost a fair amount of money (I don't blame Bernie for that) betting that Sanders would win the nomination because obviously Clinton was going down.
Now I learn that I was caught up in some foreign intelligence operation and I've also got that guilt you feel when you got tricked by someone. I'm going to let go of those things and stop holding it against myself and Bernie. Thanks for listening.
* Quiet Trumpers, this is me in 2020.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostI doubt it, the mics are usually left on anyway which often catches people off guard. Warren may have realized that, but that doesn't change Bernies reaction. A person being honest would have simply said "I denied what you accused me of because it was a lie' or something to that effect. It's the fact that Bernie didn't do that, that he rushed away, that makes me suspect that Warren was telling the truth. But again, I don't think it's a big deal anyway.
But as long as we're parsing language, why did Warren say, "You called me a liar," instead of "You lied"? It's curious that Warren's statement doesn't necessarily imply that Sanders was wrong.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
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostPersonally, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostPersonally, 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 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."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI 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.
Comment
-
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...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
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)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
89 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
293 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
357 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
361 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
![]()
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment