-
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.
Warren Refuses to Shake Bernie’s Hand After Debate, Bernie Throws Up Hands After They Speak
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
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?
Last edited:
This is inaccurate. I'll give you the first two points.
Bernie's response was stating he said he thought a woman can't win. Unless you're referring to a different statement?
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.
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.
Right, so my post was about patterning and the big picture net effect of the lopsided asks of women :)
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.
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.
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.
User Banned (1 Month): Dismissive of Issues Concerning Sexism
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
You misunderstand completely. Warren has the right of first refusal by confirming what Bernie said. She could have said the reporting was inaccurate and called it a day, if indeed she "didn't want us to talk about this", as she claimed. The fact that she didn't indicates clear as day that either she DOES want this to be something we talked about, or that she is so clueless that she has no idea how the media and electorate function, which would be disqualifyingly stupid.
Even if this WERE a true account - and I stand by the claim that it is not - it's not actually a moral obligation that she confirm it. Choosing to do so is choosing to create a media shitstorm against your friend, and getting mad at him when he doesn't roll over and stands by the original statement he made before you put yours out is being a shitty friend.
Yeah and it's baffling that some refuse to see this. The whole framing of the story is extremely cagey and unnatural which is pretty much the mark of confirmation that this is a half truth.
"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!
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
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.
"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.
Yeah.
Of course, I hate this whole fake controversy, which is largely CNN promoting CNN.
... How does that make him look bad? That he didn't want to discuss it right then and there in front of cameras? What?
Let's compare who would want this issue resolved, compared to who wants it to keep going.
Are Democrats in the background scrambling to get a meeting together with Bernie and Warren? lol
Or is everyone outside of Bernie's and Warren's camp loving this and wants this to last as long as possible.
Republicans
Biden and Moderate Democrats (because they feel they'll get their votes anyway going against Trump)
Are Democrats in the background scrambling to get a meeting together with Bernie and Warren? lol
Or is everyone outside of Bernie's and Warren's camp loving this and wants this to last as long as possible.
Republicans
Biden and Moderate Democrats (because they feel they'll get their votes anyway going against Trump)
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.
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.
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.
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".
edit: and btw, of course she would confront him after that came up in the debate on live TV, if this is indeed a campaign thing.
Last edited:
Whats the difference between cannibals and democrats?
No its not my joke but it so fucking true it hurts.
Cannibals don't eat their own.
No its not my joke but it so fucking true it hurts.
I really deeply appreciate this post. Thank you for the sharp analysis.
Oh are we pushing this lie about Bernie supporters in 2016 again? Cool.
This is an amazing post.
I thought they made a good faith post. It's disappointing you are refusing to engage them by claiming its not.
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 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?
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?
Particularly the "well, Bernie *did* say it... but I don't want to talk about it!" angle.
Warren knows how politics works.
I mean, this poster said Bernie was technically a centrist on the night of the debate, so....
And then proceeding to confront him on stage after the debate while mic'd. Lmao
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:
Some have wanted to know why Warren didn't mention the exchange with Sanders sooner. Where've we heard that before?
Then we get the sexual harassment story.
There are power dynamics at play.. Trauma, shame, guilt, when you're a victim of sexual harassment or assault. Warren is not a victim here. This is based on a conversation and disagreement.
Conflating the two contexts is dangerous and irresponsible, and frankly fucking insulting to victims of sexual abuse.
Wait till you see CNN's latest bombshell. Bernie's done for now.
PS: Read the article. It's pretty good.
"Why would a politician leak an inflammatory story about her political rival she's falling further and further behind just before the election???? Makes no sense!"
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.
This is a fantastic post as a whole but I really want to credit you for this analysis of the media. It's absolutely on-point.
They explained quite clearly why that take was not nuanced and yet you ignore all of it because of two words you didn't like?
L m a o
It was actually a really thoughtful and competent post. 'Evil' can be used to express an unambiguous ill, appealing to that kind of evocative language 5/6ths in to a longer and more nuanced case being argued doesn't substantively negate anything.
To troll? Seriously?
I'm not going to bicker with someone who's characterizing that article as "actually evil." Nothing productive is going to come from that.
I'm happy to engage around these questions but not with sentiments that are that hyperbolic.
Also, if you're angling to police this thread for "trolling" but you're beginning with my post, you're glossing over an awful lot of egregious stuff that's been posted heretofore.
- Status