At this point, with independent corroboration and common sense, you're not being savvy, man. It's just being cynical, or maybe willfully blind.
-
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.
Warren campaign might not be source of CNN story about Bernie Sanders saying a woman can't win [SEE STAFF POST]
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
yeah no, to both points
imagine that, politics being cynical
I don't know why you'd bother making such an unquantifiable distinction for no reason and inexplicably assume no progressives were contributing posts. It's nonsense trying to disassociate from a problem that people should own up to.
They were right about it being gross to use the framing of MeToo to try and win a political spat based on an unrelated issue. It trivializes the trauma and pain of sexual abuse victims. To be clear, Warren did not do that, but these pundits did and it's disgusting.
I didn't assume there weren't any progressives contributing to the conversation, you didn't read what I said properly. I'm calling out the idea that because era has hundreds of pages arguing over this that this is somehow representative of what progressives think.
No surprise here. The whole situation was blown out of proportion.
Which mod?
let me be clear because maybe i'm not communicating my issue. The warren campaign, independently of whether or not they wanted the story released calculated their response to put sanders on the defensive in the debate without being seen as out for blood.
I honestly don't care if they leaked it because the response and everything since then reeks of the fly by night schemes of political apparatchiks who think they can pull a house of cards in real life.
I'm not some neophite, irony poisoned Bernie bro. I'm number one Canadian. Number two a wild apologist for the LPC compared to most 'lefties'. Also for whatever its worth to you i'm a graduate student working in the field of political communications and I've worked on multiple campaigns. You can disagree on the conclusion but trying to tell me that my instincts for sniffing out bullshit are just some overly cynical bias against liberals is not gonna work.
User Banned (2 weeks): Bad faith misrepresentation, thread derailment
yep, I know who you're talking about. Clown shoes indeed. Not sure why they are still a mod.
Question for you...did you actually read the intercept article?
There is no independent corroboration in the way you are framing it...the article just states two things: that the Warren campaign denies it and that she told some journalists so it is theoretically within the realm of possibility that she's telling the truth.
Direct quote from the article itself..."The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source, but it opens up other possibilities, as well."
This isn't some slam dunk proving her innocence. A few journalists were told the story off the record, if her campaign didn't leak it and these journalists didn't get the green light from then and 'burned' her then why isn't she throwing those journalists under the bus?
Always love it when "Hillary's fp could have been destructive as well because her mentor was the man who orchestrated the destruction of latin american democracies" actually means "trump good"
Honestly, cynicism is the dumb man's idea of what it means to be smart. Punditbrain shit. Sometimes the public explanation *is* the actual explanation.
I don't think you have some anti-liberal bias - as far as I know this is the first time we've spoken, lol. But it reads like you, like a lot of people, sorta picked up the idea that the least generous, most cynical interpretation is the savviest and most accurate, and it's just not. The Warren camp didn't weigh in until after Bernie already made a definitive "this didn't happen" statement, which, judging by how angry Warren was after the debate, they seemed to take personally. So the campaign issues a statement saying "no, it did happen, but let's move on." That's not really a good way to put Sanders on the defensive considering it didn't come until after he had already set out to defend himself.
is that what happened? because that sounds a lot different than the original accusation
You can judge for yourself there, but it certainly seems far different from "Trump's foreign policy is good."
This was one of the dumbest fucking disputes in campaign history. More than 30 pages on this shit good grief
As I say again and again, if Warren didn't want this to be talked about, all she had to do was confirm Bernie's denial. That she contradicted him necessarily created the conditions to have it litigated in the media. The only possible interpretations of this are that she deliberately saw an opening to reopen some of the 2016 wounds associated with Bernie, or that she has absolutely zero media savvy if she is telling the truth.
Neither of these scenarios paint her in a very flattering light, but at least if it's intentional, you can give her some credit for ruthlessness and gusto.
Yeah sorry folks there's an argument to be made there. Competence and decisiveness are not necessarily positive qualities in american foreign policy. Maybe if you want to argue that the international damage from tariffs and the fact that the Iran tensions haven't resolved but in terms of interventions it's entirely reasonable to assert that there is a non-zero chance Hillary would have been worse SPECIFICALLY in terms of interventions.
Ryan Grim is The Intercept's resident Warren apologist, the actual reporter DOES play a factor here, yo.
This only makes Warren's reaction even more sloppy and disappointing.Why take the bait? Why keep giving fire to the story?
Unfortunately the damage is done and she is further slipping in the polls.
Unfortunately the damage is done and she is further slipping in the polls.
Crazy that people tried to spin this post to be something it wasn't.
It feels weird to start a separate thread for the same article, but the more I think about it the more taken aback I am that no one's talking about the point of the article: that Sanders was/is considering an unprecedented position for Warren (VP & Treasury Secretary at the same time) should he win. Like yeah the divisiveness thing attracts more attention but this is a huge deal.
I feel like lambasting South American users for being distrustful of the US political establishment, when that same establishment had a role in destroying multiple countries in that region, is getting really close to victim blaming. I don't agree with what Brazil said, but he and other Central and South American users have plenty of legitimate reasons to feel the way they do about US politics and politicians.
this is not factual.
they were independently asked for comment and the warren camp gave their no comment.
The "Clinton foreign policy would have been potentially worse than Trump's" is ridiculous. Between that and lauding (then deleting) a post that supports a take dismissing concerns of issues around sexism... 👀
Whether or not Bernie said a woman can't be president, Warren shouldn't have taken the bait from CNN. This meeting was before Bernie and Warren announcement to run for president.
She should have just said that she disagreed and say they're both running to get rid of the special interest in Washington.
She should have just said that she disagreed and say they're both running to get rid of the special interest in Washington.
'No comment' is by its very definition...not weighing in.
Reminder that the initial headlines were that Bernie doesn't think "a woman can be President." And that's what was being spread.
Bernie had no choice but to vehemently deny it because that's truly not what he believes. Even Bernie skeptical people would not claim he said that.
Bernie had no choice but to vehemently deny it because that's truly not what he believes. Even Bernie skeptical people would not claim he said that.
Don't forget the 50 pager!
3 threads combined pretty sure we're over 100
Maybe next time quote the post youre talking about rather than trying to distort what happened to push a narrative.
Didn't do that either and I'll say the same thing I said to midnight jon too. Quote the actual posts youre referring to so as not to spin the conversation to fit a narrative you want. This would be particularly helpful to you since so often have people accusing you of being a bad faith poster. (Especially so when the post in question comes from a mod).
Liz isn't street smart, she ALWAYS takes the bait
She accepted Donald Trump's DNA Challenge for crying out loud.
Who does that? Accept Trump's DNA Challenge?
and now this? failling for CNN's trap?
Warren is bad at this
Trump would tear her apart in the general election
also I feel like people are forgetting (or maybe intentionally being obtuse) that Bernie's initial response was that the people who leaked the story were lying. Warren had not commented at that point and there was no reason to think he was calling her a liar.
There's no way to know who deleted what post unless you're on the staff, so it's not really a thing we can discuss.
The post he had supported was an effort post that went out of its way to emphasize the nuance of fighting sexual abuse vs. using the language of sexual abuse in other contexts to score points. It was a bad call to begin with and nothing about the post dismissed anything until it was given that label.
Yeah this is yet another indication that she and her campaign don't know how to properly fight back. They would get anhilitated in the generals. They ALWAYS.TAKE.THE.BAIT.
They took the bait with the DNA thing.
They took the bait with Pete/Amy/Joe's Medicare For All attack.
And now this with CNN.
Please don't let her win.
Omg I can't believe I am agreeing with you lmao.
That's not how it works. Given the incendiary nature of the original leak no comment is absolutely a comment. "This is the first we've heard of this, we're looking into it", that is a no comment in this case
? It did exactly that: https://www.resetera.com/threads/hi...r-first-interview.157162/page-2#post-27075221
And regardless of opinions, deleting your own posts as a mod without reason is a bad look.
yeah I agree. the original post I quoted seems kind of reckless in its mischaracterization tbh
Huh?
With regard to the post in the Stern thread, I'm paraphrasing and using almost exactly that user's own words. With regard to post regarding issues around sexism, that was certainly my interpretation of it and it was also the moderation team's interpretation of it per their note in the ban message. Trying to infer that I'm "spinning" the conversation is inaccurate. All you need to do is look at both of the posts in question to know that's true.
You can reference the other posts on the matter in here, like Otisa's for a response to that assertion. Not to mention that post DOES NOT say Trump's FP is good (and like crazy you even quoted it and still tried to suggest it did).
Quote. The. Post. Your paraphrasing means less than nothing to me in these threads.
that's because the opposite intended affect happened.
CNN wants to wreck the chances of both progressive candidates so an Insurance Company darling wins the nomination.
so if Sanders and Warren get into a feud, then both divide... Biden (or Pete or Bloomberg) slips through, Insurance Companies are saved.
But, the results is that Warren in now tanking while Bernie is up there in direct competition with Biden now
--
CNN has been in the tank for Insurance Companies all year long during this Primary Season.
If you think "potentially worse than Trump in matters like foreign affairs." means Trump is good you're either posting in bad faith or you have incredibly awful reading comprehension.
Lmao I can't wait for Bernie to win the nomination and Obama going full cockblock. Has a scenario like that happened before in a primary?