Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination and the town hall took place in a heavily Democratic city. So he shouldn't talk to Democratic chairs and representatives?
Like...... he really can't win the nomination any other way.
-
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.
Young woman harassed to the point of police intervention for asking Bernie Sanders a tough question about sexual harassment.
- Thread starter Deleted member 5666
- Start date
- Status
Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination and the town hall took place in a heavily Democratic city. So he shouldn't talk to Democratic chairs and representatives?
Like...... he really can't win the nomination any other way.
Is the goal of the harassers to make CNN vet town halls and produce any evidence that they may be linked to the democratic establishment so that they can... dismiss their questions and harass them?
What even is the goal here?
Again I ask, what does it matter that she interns for a lobbying firm if the question is genuinely good and necessary?
Right, everyday average Americans are local party leadership that drive the policy discourse of a party. AGAIN. Not the college student.
And again before this goes in a circle I'm not saying they should be harassed either. They definitely should not be. Just that cnn should have been more transparent about their positions.
WHYYY should they be?
What difference does it maaaaaake
they asked good questionsssssss
Asking for disclosure of every person's political ties, no matter how minor, when that was what led to this student getting harassed strikes me as naive at best.
It's fucking strange how easily this thread brushed over the whole "harassment" part. We're focused more on who should disclose a person's information than what people in the Democratic base are willing to do with that information.
It's fucking strange how easily this thread brushed over the whole "harassment" part. We're focused more on who should disclose a person's information than what people in the Democratic base are willing to do with that information.
Jesus Christ. Of course he can, but the viewing audience should know that's who he is interacting with! That's all I'm saying.
The question can be good and necessary and her link to a lobbying firm can be problematic. Why can't it be both?
OP
OP
It is assumed most Democratic primary voters are you know, politically engaged Democrats.
What is problematic about her link to a lobbying firm? Nobody has yet explained what any of their political affiliations have to do with the content of their questions or what a viewer would do with that information.
Yes they did and I'm not debating that they were good questions, but CNN intentionally veiling their direct affiliations within the party puts the town hall's motives into question. It's just shady for unnecessary reasons. It's all just unnecessary complication.
They already knew who he was interacting with.
Why would it matter if no more info about them is leaked.
It's not something to give a shit about.
They're not minions of the DNC trying to find ways to sacrifice Bernie to the Jacksss God.
HOW? HOW IS IT SHADY?!
Kk i had feeling someone would have this response that misses the point. Do you think people might have different responses to the questions based on what they were described as? CNN sure does, thats why this isn't the first time they've mislabeled people. It makes for better T.V if they were something everyone could relate to like a mother it lets them play up this brand. However this is a townhall and about asking a politician questions and them being active in politics(not talking about the lady being harrassed) would be relevant, but CNN doesn't mention that because their trying to keep up this bs brand.
The only defense I've seen of people digging up and exposing this information is from TYT, who imply after every exposed questioner that they are somehow part of a larger conspiracy against Bernie Sanders.
Oh don't bring up the dastardly political agent who was a mother of two that asked about childcare. SHE WAS THE WORST! What's MORE relevant to the question asked, that she was a mother of two? Or that she was a political hatchet woman sent to destroy Bernie Sanders?
No it doesn't put their motives into question. The only thing that puts their motives into question is this kind of ridiculous conspiratorial thinking.
Oh don't bring up the dastardly political agent who was a mother of two that asked about childcare. SHE WAS THE WORST! What's MORE relevant to the question asked, that she was a mother of two? Or that she was a political hatchet woman sent to destroy Bernie Sanders?
No it doesn't put their motives into question. The only thing that puts their motives into question is this kind of ridiculous conspiratorial thinking.
Because as party leaders or influencers, they may have a vested interest in putting their thumb on the scale one way or another, and as the viewer I want to be able to evaluate that possibility.
You can't be this obtuse. Networks and the people that own them, and party leaders OF COURSE have favorites in a race. It's not conspiratorial. It's the nature of politics.
I'm going to clarify, her internship is not the problem, CNN not disclosing was the problem. Outside of that, that question has been answered several times over the last few pages and I'm not going to repeat it again. The conversation at this point is circular so I'm gonna just bail.
Please quote me someone in here who is saying the harassment is justified. I have yet to see that. We are all in agreement that no one should have been harassed.
You don't need to know she's a fucking intern, it means nothing.
How is it problematic? "can be" is a pretty piss poor excuse to attack CNN here if there isn't an actual problematic reason for a questioner to be linked to a lobbying group when she's a college student interning there in no executive position that furthers the interest of the lobby group. She asked a question about sexual harassment, as a woman. In what way is her lobby group benefited by this? Explain to me like I'm 5, please.
So the information is relevant because it may be part of a larger conspiracy...
So, lets imagine, that Debbie Wasserman Shultz showed up to the town hall in an ill-fitting wig and sunglasses and CNN described her as "Resident of Florida", but then went on to ask a very good and very insightful question of Bernie Sanders.
Does that invalidate the question or the answer? If Sanders flubs that answer, is he somehow exempted because the person who asked the question was Debbie Wasserman Shultz in an ill-fitting wig and sunglasses?
OP
OP
Local county dem party leaders aren't influencers lol.
My fucking grandpa was in a county chair role. Calling him a "influencer" or "party leader" is beyond laughable.
The issue with the conspiracy stuff (and also why it's nonsense) goes back to the 2016 primary and the ridiculous "us vs them" narrative that emerged where the "DNC" was trying to stop Sanders, where "DNC" meant the entire Democratic party as a whole, because the people pushing this narrative saw the two things as synonyms. The first issue is that the "DNC" is an organization which is primarily tasked with running national Presidential nominations and the convention every 4 years. The Dems are a very, very decentralized group of organizations in general, unlike the GOP. The second issue with this narrative is that when the Dems hold the white house, the DNC head serves at the pleasure of the President, and is not elected by party representatives. (I suspect we may want to change this- it's meant to avoid conflict between the two when the President is the party head but party management is not the same skill as governance.) And the third issue is that Barack Obama made it no secret who his preferred successor was among the potential 2020 candidates. There wasn't some grand conspiracy from the "Democratic Illuminati", it really was as simple as "Obama wanted Clinton to be his successor and was applying pressure/greasing the wheels behind the scenes for that to happen without an ugly fight like 2008." , in large part because he and Clinton nearly tied that year. Unfortunately for everyone, attempting to avoid any conflict probably made the resulting conflict worse.
Going back to the issue with the misconceptions about the DNC and how it's important here -The DNC generally doesn't have much influence on state/local parties, they're relatively independent once elections occur. Local parties vote for State party reps, states reps vote to see who reps their constituents in national DNC elections. And you can see the idea that this was some massive party-wide conspiracy theory blow up in the voting data - http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/
Clinton won almost 2/3rds of Dem-ID'd voters in the primaries. Sanders won almost 2/3rds of I-ID'd voters in the primaries. But in both those cases, they got a little over a third of the other chunk of voters. There were plenty of self-ID'd Dems who voted Sanders and vice versa. Someone being part of the Democratic Party didn't mean they were unwilling to vote for Sanders. It doesn't mean their questions are unfair just because of their party ID.
It was wrong of CNN to mislabel a county chair as a "mother of two." That's a legitimate problem with CNN's behavior we've seen before on a bipartisan basis. But it's not ok to try and claim people were being disingenous with their questions just because they're party-affiliated in any way when asking reasonable questions, because being a Dem didn't mean you were unwilling to vote for him.
Going back to the issue with the misconceptions about the DNC and how it's important here -The DNC generally doesn't have much influence on state/local parties, they're relatively independent once elections occur. Local parties vote for State party reps, states reps vote to see who reps their constituents in national DNC elections. And you can see the idea that this was some massive party-wide conspiracy theory blow up in the voting data - http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/
Clinton won almost 2/3rds of Dem-ID'd voters in the primaries. Sanders won almost 2/3rds of I-ID'd voters in the primaries. But in both those cases, they got a little over a third of the other chunk of voters. There were plenty of self-ID'd Dems who voted Sanders and vice versa. Someone being part of the Democratic Party didn't mean they were unwilling to vote for Sanders. It doesn't mean their questions are unfair just because of their party ID.
It was wrong of CNN to mislabel a county chair as a "mother of two." That's a legitimate problem with CNN's behavior we've seen before on a bipartisan basis. But it's not ok to try and claim people were being disingenous with their questions just because they're party-affiliated in any way when asking reasonable questions, because being a Dem didn't mean you were unwilling to vote for him.
What do you mean? Do you think people are impartial and objective? Transparency puts those things in the open.
Again I ask, assuming that CNN even knew the information that was doxxed, what does CNN gain from withholding that information?
Gamer Gate also paid lip service to being opposed to the harassment while simultaneously pushing conspiracy theories to make that harrassment seem closer to justified.
Not only Goober Gate, but lots of harassment campaigns come up with ridiculous justifications for their harassment.
I don't like the harassment BUT WE NEED TO KNOW, an extremely common refrain of conspiratorial actors.
No! Not a fucking conspiracy. ALL people have an agenda in politics. That's not bad. It's just true, but that agenda shouldn't be veiled when the network that's airing it is trying give off an air of impartiality.
So, if all people have an agenda, should you just assume that the questioner has some kind of agenda? What does the specifics of their political affiliations matter in this case?
If it's a democratic county chair does that somehow change how you process the question and the answer given? Are you more willing to accept the questions of a "mother of two" over the questions from "CEO of PR firm"?
Ok this just feels like some really lazy but really mean gaslighting tactic here.
Like even if she was a..operative or whatever the fuck. Her question was COMPLETELY legitimate. Y'all are attacking the fucking messenger and not the fact that Bernie has had harassment in his campaign and he needs to address it.
Would you people be more happy if the room was instead filled with independents, libertarians, and republicans? Or are the only people allowed to ask non biased questions of Bernie Sanders his die hard supporters because clearly, that's fair and balanced.
I think they would be more happy if they were just honest.
When did pointing out about the existence of possible interest and influence became associated with Infowars?
Like AOC does the same, is she Infowars now?
Yes I am more likely to view "mother of two" with less discernment than a CEO of a PR firm. Because the CEO likely has more clout and pull, so I may be more skeptical of their line of questioning and it's motives.
You're right. Claiming to be opposed to harrassment while signal boosting the conspiracy theory that sparked it is lazy, mean gaslighting. Glad you figured that out.
You make a post this stupid you're no better than most of the dummies at TyT except for Cenk obviously.
The problem in this thread is a lot of people are posting the vapid "of course harassment is bad" but they're being very coy to say that the shit this woman got is what they're condemning while they seem totally fine with TYT posting her info in the first place. You don't get to go online as a famous person or entity, post someone's address (even if it's public!), and then shrug when people do what is, quite frankly, obviously what they were going to do because that was obviously the intent of it. Phone numbers don't get posted on 4chan so people can send them cool memes or nice messages.
I don't think any of this reflects on Sanders or the majority of his voters. Rather, I think it reflects incredibly strongly on the TYT and the people that watch them. There's no reason to post that woman's FB account unless you want people to go to it. Any real journalist would tell you that. I'd hope she could sue them for inciting the harassment in the first place, but digital harassment never sees any punishment.
I don't think any of this reflects on Sanders or the majority of his voters. Rather, I think it reflects incredibly strongly on the TYT and the people that watch them. There's no reason to post that woman's FB account unless you want people to go to it. Any real journalist would tell you that. I'd hope she could sue them for inciting the harassment in the first place, but digital harassment never sees any punishment.
I guess we are just supposed to be undiscerning and accept everything at face value?
Don't you think people who showed up to a Bernie Sanders town hall might actually be interested in voting for him already? Or is everyone there asking questions of him that are uncomfortable to answer possibly paid DNC operatives all because CNN didn't disclose the fact that people in the audience were active Democrat party participants.
User Banned (1 Week): Dismissing Concerns Surrounding Harassment; Ignoring Mod Post
But but but we need to demonize anyone who likes Bernie because they're all like this. Clearly.
Using a disgusting incident like this as a weapon just reeks of not caring about the victim and more about trying to smear others.
o no pls don't harass me
So, if the question is genuine and necessary, but the person asking the question has "clout and pull" that somehow means their motivation for asking is... malicious?
And that somehow practically changes the question and answer?
i admit i'm pretty dumb but doxxing people and denying genocide is pretty bad, enough to make me not respect a news outlet
This really should be the takeaway. It's not the first time TYT have shown their asses in this manner and it won't be the last. And it wouldn't be so bad if they did this if their fanbase didn't play along.
- Status