warren v sanders conflict

[YDB95]

None of the women left on the stage can beat Trump. They're also short on men who can do it. Maybe Gabbard could do it from the VP slot if the nominee is smart enough to pick her.

Right. If there's one thing we've learned from the fact that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the past seven elections, it's that we really need a me-too Republican on the ticket! </sarcasm>

 

[KeithD]

Right. If there's one thing we've learned from the fact that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the past seven elections, it's that we really need a me-too Republican on the ticket! </sarcasm>

And one of those Democrats who won the popular vote was a woman. Now if she'd just been a Russian woman . . .

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Right. If there's one thing we've learned from the fact that the Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the past seven elections, it's that we really need a me-too Republican on the ticket!

KeithD adds: "And one of those Democrats who won the popular vote was a woman. Now if she'd just been a Russian woman..."

The popular vote has NEVER been the determining factor in winning an American presidential election - not once.

Six of our last ten presidents have been Republicans, soon to be seven of our last eleven. Keith wants to vote for a Russian woman, but there won't be one on the ballot in 2020. The Democrats will almost certainly be nominating a man accused of sniffing women's hair (hardly a "Me, Too" movement kind of guy, YDB95!)

If past elections are any indication, Trump will win BOTH the popular & electoral votes this year, but only the electoral vote will keep him in the White House! Nancy Pelosi has already compared Trump with Bill Clinton, saying that they were both "impeached forever!" Bill Clinton just so happens to be the last Democrat re-elected president winning MORE popular votes than he won the first time around!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I think Bernie may have said it. He should have admitted it.

It did help Liz make the point that she and Klobuchar have beat Rethuglicans at the ballot box though.

Pete needs a bit more seasoning to be ready for the big chair though. Maybe Sec HUD?

In the case where Bernie never said such a thing, where does that leave him?

All he can do is speak the truth and call her out for being a liar.

Which he did.

 

[colddiesel]

In the case where Bernie never said such a thing, where does that leave him?

In the Dumpster along with the rest of the trash. Sanders has never paid his dues, never worked for the party never worked for his colleagues in the party. The old fraud claims loyalty every damn day from the absurd sycophants who listen to his unachievable ranting, but when in forty years has Sanders ever given loyalty to any individual or party? Never.

 

[KeithD]

In the case where Bernie never said such a thing, where does that leave him?

All he can do is speak the truth and call her out for being a liar.

Which he did.

Wonder how you know he didn't say it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Wonder how you know he didn't say it.

40 years of publicly advocating for a woman to be president vs Warren's campaign "said he said it" right before the final debate before Iowa.

Not difficult.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

In the Dumpster along with the rest of the trash. Sanders has never paid his dues, never worked for the party never worked for his colleagues in the party. The old fraud claims loyalty every damn day from the absurd sycophants who listen to his unachievable ranting, but when in forty years has Sanders ever given loyalty to any individual or party? Never.

Being on the right side of every major issue for his entire public life = Dues Paid.

 

[KeithD]

40 years of publicly advocating for a woman to be president vs Warren's campaign "said he said it" right before the final debate before Iowa.

Not difficult.

That's not "knowing." That's opinion based on assessment. Which is fine. But when you assert stuff like this as fact/knowing, you're mimicking the Republicans.

I think his actual stance is clear and that Warren is being a little silly to push that aside on a single statement, but that doesn't mean I "know" he didn't make such a statement at some time or that, if he did, he isn't being silly and revealing an inflexible character to stonewall it as her lie.

We don't need an inflexible person in the White House. I personally think Democrats have no obligation to promote someone doggedly refusing to be a Democrat while constantly using them for his own benefit into the White House either. If he wants to the Democratic Party presidential candidate he jolly well should stop using them and fully join them--and stop relying on and tacitly encouraging supporters who will, as many did in 2016, support only Bernie and will walk away from the Democrats and let Trump take the election again if the Democrats won't take Bernie.

What Warren might be pointing to that's more important than the statement is a silly self-righteous obduracy in both Bernie and his supporters that I don't want to see in the White House.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Warren’s campaign is going nowhere. Biden will effectively have the nomination wrapped up on a Super Tuesday.

 

[KeithD]

Warren’s campaign is going nowhere. Biden will effectively have the nomination wrapped up on a Super Tuesday.

You've established yourself as a Trumpette, so no one cares what propaganda you spew on the Democratic primary.

That said, I think the VP position will become a whole lot more important than the presidential one.

 

[KeithD]

This from a documentary done with Hillary Clinton that’s going to the Sundance Festival and then will be run on Hulu in March. This excerpt on her slamming of Bernie Sanders in the documentary:

(Not endorsing; just throwing it into the mix.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...e-nobody-likes-him/ar-BBZbdNK?ocid=spartanntp

With a team of Secret Service agents present, Clinton sat down on a mid-January afternoon in Pasadena to discuss her decision to open up her life to further examination, her damning assessments of both Sanders and Trump and her own thoughts on the electability of a woman.

Once you agreed to open yourself up for this docuseries, what was your biggest concern?

I don't know that I really understood what I was getting into. We ended up doing 35 hours of interviews, and it was both exhilarating and obviously painful at some points. It was probably made easier because of the rapport with [Burstein], and it gave me a chance to try to explain things and maybe to vent a bit.

In the doc, you're brutally honest on Sanders: "He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it." That assessment still hold?

Yes, it does.

If he gets the nomination, will you endorse and campaign for him?

I'm not going to go there yet. We're still in a very vigorous primary season. I will say, however, that it's not only him, it's the culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don't think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don't know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you're just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that's a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.

Speaking of, he allegedly told Sen. Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that he didn't think a woman could win, a statement he vigorously denies. How did you digest that?

Well, number one, I think [that sentiment] is untrue, which we should all say loudly. I mean, I did get more votes both in the primary, by about 4 million, and in the general election, by about 3 million. I think that both the press and the public have to really hold everybody running accountable for what they say and what their campaign says and does. That's particularly true with what's going on right now with the Bernie campaign having gone after Elizabeth with a very personal attack on her. Then this argument about whether or not or when he did or didn't say that a woman couldn't be elected, it's part of a pattern. If it were a one-off, you might say, "OK, fine." But he said I was unqualified. I had a lot more experience than he did, and got a lot more done than he had, but that was his attack on me. I just think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who's going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we've seen from this current administration.

 

[colddiesel]

Being on the right side of every major issue for his entire public life = Dues Paid.

Absolutely wrong. Being right never cuts it . Doing right, achieving things, is what is required. Sanders can rant and rave from here to eternity but he will never get anything done because he is incapable of working in a team or taking advice - exactly the same problem as Trump, but from the left rather than the right.

Sanders great betrayal of his own so called principles was in 2016 when he failed to get the nomination. He had a strong minority base and he should have made every possible effort to get that base to vote for the candidate. Instead he did nothing, he let them melt away and let Trump in the back door.

 

[KeithD]

Sanders great betrayal of his own so called principles was in 2016 when he failed to get the nomination. He had a strong minority base and he should have made every possible effort to get that base to vote for the candidate. Instead he did nothing, he let them melt away and let Trump in the back door.

And I have every reason to believe that he and his folks will do exactly the same thing in 2020 if the Democrats don't give the non-Democrat the nomination and then work their butts off to get him elected. His folks are already making "Bernie or no one" rumblings.

If he gets the Democratic nomination, I'll support him. Until then, I'm supporting Democrats for the Democratic nomination. There are several of them who aren't just pie-in-the-sky talk.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

That's not "knowing." That's opinion based on assessment. Which is fine. But when you assert stuff like this as fact/knowing, you're mimicking the Republicans.

I think his actual stance is clear and that Warren is being a little silly to push that aside on a single statement, but that doesn't mean I "know" he didn't make such a statement at some time or that, if he did, he isn't being silly and revealing an inflexible character to stonewall it as her lie.

We don't need an inflexible person in the White House. I personally think Democrats have no obligation to promote someone doggedly refusing to be a Democrat while constantly using them for his own benefit into the White House either. If he wants to the Democratic Party presidential candidate he jolly well should stop using them and fully join them--and stop relying on and tacitly encouraging supporters who will, as many did in 2016, support only Bernie and will walk away from the Democrats and let Trump take the election again if the Democrats won't take Bernie.

What Warren might be pointing to that's more important than the statement is a silly self-righteous obduracy in both Bernie and his supporters that I don't want to see in the White House.

Keith, I avoid party politics like the Trump supporters with the plague. Doesn't Tom Perez have the authority to publicly state the Bernie isn't a Dem?

 

[KeithD]

Keith, I avoid party politics like the Trump supporters with the plague. Doesn't Tom Perez have the authority to publicly state the Bernie isn't a Dem?

He said Bernie had to declare as a Democrat, which Bernie did vocally at the beginning of the campaign season. He has not changed his Independent registration either at home or in the U.S. Senate. That may tell you something about Bernie.

He also in the last debate said he'd support the Democratic candidate if it wasn't him. That support didn't mean much or extend to marshalling his supporters last time.

I have a sister who is a Bernie official in a Western state--now and in 2016. She acknowledges that what was said and what was done were two different animals in 2016 in the way of marshalling support for any Democrats in 2016. She's a hippy commune type, really rahrah Bernie, and refuses to tell me who she voted for in 2016 for president--which tells me who she didn't vote for. Her state went to Trump. This time she says Bernie or she's moving to another country (which she can afford to do. She wasn't even born in this country.)

 

[LincolnDuncan]

He said Bernie had to declare as a Democrat, which Bernie did vocally at the beginning of the campaign season. He has not changed his Independent registration either at home or in the U.S. Senate. That may tell you something about Bernie.

He also in the last debate said he'd support the Democratic candidate if it wasn't him. That support didn't mean much or extend to marshalling his supporters last time.

I have a sister who is a Bernie official in a Western state--now and in 2016. She acknowledges that what was said and what was done were two different animals in 2016 in the way of marshalling support for any Democrats in 2016. She's a hippy commune type, really rahrah Bernie, and refuses to tell me who she voted for in 2016 for president--which tells me who she didn't vote for. Her state went to Trump. This time she says Bernie or she's moving to another country (which she can afford to do. She wasn't even born in this country.)

Thanks

I think that I've mentioned to you before that I am an anyone but trumper who is trying to keep everyone inside the tent pissing out. There is nothing more important than diminishing his power.

 

[KeithD]

Thanks

I think that I've mentioned to you before that I am an anyone but trumper who is trying to keep everyone inside the tent pissing out. There is nothing more important than diminishing his power.

I don't know if the naïve and starry-eyed "Bernie or bust" folks could have made an electoral college difference by taking the long view in the 2016 election, but they didn't help by not doing so, and Bernie was subtly trashing Hillary there in the end of Democratic primary. He and his people seem to be starting that even before Iowa this time around. From how they post in social media, I don't see that they've learned the long view lesson.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That's not "knowing." That's opinion based on assessment. Which is fine. But when you assert stuff like this as fact/knowing, you're mimicking the Republicans.

I think his actual stance is clear and that Warren is being a little silly to push that aside on a single statement, but that doesn't mean I "know" he didn't make such a statement at some time or that, if he did, he isn't being silly and revealing an inflexible character to stonewall it as her lie.

We don't need an inflexible person in the White House. I personally think Democrats have no obligation to promote someone doggedly refusing to be a Democrat while constantly using them for his own benefit into the White House either. If he wants to the Democratic Party presidential candidate he jolly well should stop using them and fully join them--and stop relying on and tacitly encouraging supporters who will, as many did in 2016, support only Bernie and will walk away from the Democrats and let Trump take the election again if the Democrats won't take Bernie.

What Warren might be pointing to that's more important than the statement is a silly self-righteous obduracy in both Bernie and his supporters that I don't want to see in the White House.

Welcome to the new world where there is no truth.

It is not an "opinion". Based on the evidence, a 40 year career of publicly advocating for civil rights and the rights of women and specifically having a woman president, amounts to empirical evidence of the position of Bernie Sanders with respect to that specific issue. VS some hearsay, oft repeated or not about an isolated incident, with no other observers, before a debate before an election deadline. You need to do some reading about epistemology and knowledge.

Sanders is pretty much the furthest thing from inflexible. How anyone can make a conclusion about Sanderers being obdurate in this case, where he is simply declaring that you were fed a lie escapes me.

If you are referring in general to his passionately and doggedly pursuing wealth and income equality, civil rights and a system where hungry people are fed and the sick get care? Then yes 100%. Sanders is the most obdurate man you have ever met, as am I.

 

[KeithD]

You've probably actually done as much about it as he has too, and he's been in a national power position for, like, forever.

You can certainly believe what you like. Let me know when he declares himself as a Democrat in his Senate job. Let me know when the registration changes. That's when I'll consider him as a legitimate standard bearer for the Democratic Party (and a little secret--it also might be when he can get the network to do more than talk).

But even then, if he gets in the White House, I'll be watching to see if he sticks with the Democratic Party. He's run as a Democrat before and abandoned it when he got the job.

I've stated I'll support his bid for the White House if he gets the Democratic nomination. Will you state that you'll support the Democrat running as the party nominee for the presidency if Bernie doesn't get the nomination--and the Democrats up and down the line trying to displace Republicans in power? That's sort of the crux here.

The bottom line is you can think/do what you like. As has been posted by someone other than me, I think you're backing, essentially, the Trump of the left.

 

[KeithD]

Oh, and, no, all of that you put in your answer to the "you don't 'know' he didn't say it" thread doesn't change that, no, you don't know he didn't say it. It's just an assessment based on evidence and your belief--not your specific knowledge of what he has/has not ever said.

 

[Ziggins]

You can certainly believe what you like. Let me know when he declares himself as a Democrat in his Senate job. Let me know when the registration changes.

That's why I liked him 5 years ago, before he declared. I>D

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Oh, and, no, all of that you put in your answer to the "you don't 'know' he didn't say it" thread doesn't change that, no, you don't know he didn't say it. It's just an assessment based on evidence and your belief--not your specific knowledge of what he has/has not ever said.

Here is a fact for you that I "know":

30 years ago, while Bernie was beating Republicans in elections and championing the rights of women and minorities, Lying Lizzie Warren WAS a Republican, voting for Republicans who were championing trickle-down, and wars in the ME and overturning Roe v Wade.

 

[KeithD]

Here is a fact for you that I "know":

30 years ago, while Bernie was beating Republicans in elections and championing the rights of women and minorities, Lying Lizzie Warren WAS a Republican, voting for Republicans who were championing trickle-down, and wars in the ME and overturning Roe v Wade.

That doesn't mean you know that Bernie did or did not make a particular statement. You're being pigheaded about common sense (and trying to move the goalposts).

Also noted that I challenged you to say you'd support the Democrat against Trump if Bernie didn't get the nomination, and you failed to do so. So, with you it's Bernie or nothing to steal the nomination of a party he won't fully commit to, and if it's not Bernie you don't care if Trump takes it again. Got it. Bernie or bust for you. That defines you for me (and "flexibility" doesn't spring to mind for either you or Sanders).

 

[The_Trouvere]

If Bernie Sanders said the United States is not ready for a woman president, he is right. The irrational hatred directed at Hillary Clinton demonstrates that he is right. The irrational hatred directed at Barack Obama demonstrates that the United States is not ready for a black president either.

Acknowledging these facts does not mean that one approves of them.