If she can’t theorize about Russian bots, you can’t theorize about HRC’s campaign.
I haven't in the least suggested Hillary's campaign played a role in it! But yes, she can theorize about it. I was told that my position on what took place is a conspiracy theory. I responded by saying the idea of Russian bots being involved was *also* a conspiracy theory. That's it. And I'm being mocked and told I have no regard for facts.
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
I haven't in the least suggested Hillary's campaign played a role in it! But yes, she can theorize about it. I was told that my position on what took place is a conspiracy theory. I responded by saying the idea of Russian bots being involved was *also* a conspiracy theory. That's it. And I'm being mocked and told I have no regard for facts.
I mentioned it upthread. The night before an important primary in 2016, Hillary supporters shut down several of the big Bernie groups on Facebook by posting child porn in them.
Are you suggesting that the Hillary campaign had control of all of her supporters? I certainly don't think that, nor ever believed that Hillary's campaign had any hand in directing anything that took place in that.
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
Like you said, it was speculated. Therefore I said it is not fake. Since that’s what was speculated.
And you know damn well that talking point is not being used in good faith. It is to imply elite with a *wink*.
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
Come on. You’re arguing that sanders staffers sent out a script with this commentary included to...tell potential supporters that warren’s supporters are people they should strive to be?
We all know it’s meant to “other” or disparage Warren and supporters as rich people who don’t care about working class interests.
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
Like you said, it was speculated. Therefore I said it is not fake. Since that’s what was speculated.
And you know damn well that talking point is not being used in good faith. It is to imply elite with a *wink*.
You did and that's fair. I was more reacting to the gaslighting remark. I haven't personally engaged with the is it fake/not fake argument because I had no idea one way or another.
As far as your "wink" point, I mean, sure, but it's not inaccurate, and it's not an attack. I believe it was designed to draw a policy comparison. An attack would be accusing an opponent of sexism, I think.
Like you said, it was speculated. Therefore I said it is not fake. Since that’s what was speculated.
And you know damn well that talking point is not being used in good faith. It is to imply elite with a *wink*.
You did and that's fair. I was more reacting to the gaslighting remark. I haven't personally engaged with the is it fake/not fake argument because I had no idea one way or another.
As far as your "wink" point, I mean, sure, but it's not inaccurate, and it's not an attack. I believe it was designed to draw a policy comparison. An attack would be accusing an opponent of sexism, I think.
See, I feel the real attack would be exhibiting sexism towards an opponent.
Why is an "accusation" of sexism/racism/msyogyny/harassment/assault treated as as bad or worse than the underlying act? Women always pay the price for sexism - whether they speak up or not.
Also the issue is whether a woman can win, right? Show me where she’s wrong that the only people on that stage who have never lost an election were the women. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
It was repeatedly claimed that the script was posted online by a volunteer and wasn’t an official campaign material. That has been the position for the past few days until this news came out confirming that the script was indeed distributed by the canpaign.
I actually don’t particularly care if a candidate uses a negative script. When I run campaigns I’m happy to go negative if it’s going to help my candidate. But pretending you’re squeaky clean and above negative messaging while putting out classic negative messaging documents is bullshit. Own your strategy. The Sanders campaign fired shots and then tried to act all butthurt when Warren went negative in return.
Honest question...where was it claimed that the script was fake? I know it was speculated, but was it reported anywhere? I legit don't know and am not pushing back if it was.
The thing about the script, though, is that I don't understand how it's an attack. It's a statement of fact based on polling, and are people really that upset about being called educated and financially secure? I thought that's something people strive for.
It was repeatedly claimed that the script was posted online by a volunteer and wasn’t an official campaign material. That has been the position for the past few days until this news came out confirming that the script was indeed distributed by the canpaign.
I actually don’t particularly care if a candidate uses a negative script. When I run campaigns I’m happy to go negative if it’s going to help my candidate. But pretending you’re squeaky clean and above negative messaging while putting out classic negative messaging documents is bullshit. Own your strategy. The Sanders campaign fired shots and then tried to act all butthurt when Warren went negative in return.
That's the most maddening part for me. "Oh, why oh why would Warren come out with this more than a year after it happened? What could possibly be her motive for going negative on Bernie?"
The entire Sanders campaign operates in bad faith and has from the beginning.
For all this quibbling over whether 29 years and 2 months is the same as 30 years, here’s a fun fact: Bernie’s toxic speechwriter,* David Sirota, tweeted that when Bernie won his senate seat, he flipped a seat that had been in GOP hands for over 100 years. Except that Bernie won the seat vacated when Jim Jeffords retires. Jim Jeffords ran as a Republican and won re-election in 2000. He then left the GOP in May 2001 - so four months into his term - to be an independent caucusing with the Dems. And his move to that actually helped the Dems get control of the Senate. Jeffords’ record on gun control was also more liberal than Bernie’s.
Sirota recently tweeted the same information but did change it to saying that Bernie won a senate seat that had been WON by Republicans for 100 years. Because he knew he’d been caught in a lie.
The entire Sanders campaign operates in bad faith and has from the beginning.
For all this quibbling over whether 29 years and 2 months is the same as 30 years, here’s a fun fact: Bernie’s toxic speechwriter,* David Sirota, tweeted that when Bernie won his senate seat, he flipped a seat that had been in GOP hands for over 100 years. Except that Bernie won the seat vacated when Jim Jeffords retires. Jim Jeffords ran as a Republican and won re-election in 2000. He then left the GOP in May 2001 - so four months into his term - to be an independent caucusing with the Dems. And his move to that actually helped the Dems get control of the Senate. Jeffords’ record on gun control was also more liberal than Bernie’s.
Sirota recently tweeted the same information but did change it to saying that Bernie won a senate seat that had been WON by Republicans for 100 years. Because he knew he’d been caught in a lie.
can you help me understand this a little more? Basically, 30 years ago in 1990, Bernie beat out Peter Smith, who had filled Jeffords' seat when he vacated (in 88). Then when he ran for Senate in 2006, after Jeffords said he would not seek another term, he was not running against an incumbent, but won.
I am not playing devils advocate, I just want to be informed and correct when I start fighting back with the fucking bros. I guess I literally do not understand what the issue was last night.
Warren said "no one up here has beat an incumbent republican in the last 30 years." Bernie says "um, hello, I did..." and it was exactly 30 years ago. So is the fight really about does it count or not if it was 30 years ago? Sure, who fucking cares, 30 years ago he beat an incumbent. BUT WHO CARES, it was 30 YEARS AGO! I feel like I am missing something major with the way these nasty hashtags are trending...
For all this quibbling over whether 29 years and 2 months is the same as 30 years, here’s a fun fact: Bernie’s toxic speechwriter,* David Sirota, tweeted that when Bernie won his senate seat, he flipped a seat that had been in GOP hands for over 100 years. Except that Bernie won the seat vacated when Jim Jeffords retires. Jim Jeffords ran as a Republican and won re-election in 2000. He then left the GOP in May 2001 - so four months into his term - to be an independent caucusing with the Dems. And his move to that actually helped the Dems get control of the Senate. Jeffords’ record on gun control was also more liberal than Bernie’s.
Sirota recently tweeted the same information but did change it to saying that Bernie won a senate seat that had been WON by Republicans for 100 years. Because he knew he’d been caught in a lie.
can you help me understand this a little more? Basically, 30 years ago in 1990, Bernie beat out Peter Smith, who had filled Jeffords' seat when he vacated (in 88). Then when he ran for Senate in 2006, after Jeffords said he would not seek another term, he was not running against an incumbent, but won.
I am not playing devils advocate, I just want to be informed and correct when I start fighting back with the fucking bros. I guess I literally do not understand what the issue was last night.
Warren said "no one up here has beat an incumbent republican in the last 30 years." Bernie says "um, hello, I did..." and it was exactly 30 years ago. So is the fight really about does it count or not if it was 30 years ago? Sure, who fucking cares, 30 years ago he beat an incumbent. BUT WHO CARES, it was 30 YEARS AGO! I feel like I am missing something major with the way these nasty hashtags are trending...
Nope you've got that right. The Berner position is that Warren lied because technically Bernie beat an incumbent Republican 29 years and some months ago... which is not 30 years. Except it is a completely meaningless distinction and also an appropriate way to classify time. I don't think you're missing anything, just rightfully confused about how in the world this became a big deal when it... isn't.
Shaun King’s overwrought tweets on this topic have me alternatively laughing my ass off and wanting to stroke out with rage. This dude is so melodramatic and always inserting himself in any drama.
MY KIDS CALL HIM GRANDPA BERNIE!!!!!!!!!!! ::wails::
Post by turnipthebeet on Jan 15, 2020 16:32:27 GMT -5
As someone who is not attached to either candidate (particularly unattached to Bernie, as in I wish that that wagging finger would unattach from his body), I still feel like this is what you're in for when you make a friendship pact with a known problematic candidate. She watched him gaslight HRC last time around. She should have been gloves off towards him from day 1. I get why she wasn't, but it was shady and it's backfired on her. I mean, of course he said and wholeheartedly believes that a woman can't win this. It was probably thrilling to him to do so. And OF FREAKING COURSE his team used negative talking points and rendered their agreement void - what did they have to lose? They got to smear her and then call her crazy for being offended by it, and then question her integrity when she retaliated. Tale as old as freaking time with that old fart.
For all this quibbling over whether 29 years and 2 months is the same as 30 years, here’s a fun fact: Bernie’s toxic speechwriter,* David Sirota, tweeted that when Bernie won his senate seat, he flipped a seat that had been in GOP hands for over 100 years. Except that Bernie won the seat vacated when Jim Jeffords retires. Jim Jeffords ran as a Republican and won re-election in 2000. He then left the GOP in May 2001 - so four months into his term - to be an independent caucusing with the Dems. And his move to that actually helped the Dems get control of the Senate. Jeffords’ record on gun control was also more liberal than Bernie’s.
Sirota recently tweeted the same information but did change it to saying that Bernie won a senate seat that had been WON by Republicans for 100 years. Because he knew he’d been caught in a lie.
can you help me understand this a little more? Basically, 30 years ago in 1990, Bernie beat out Peter Smith, who had filled Jeffords' seat when he vacated (in 88). Then when he ran for Senate in 2006, after Jeffords said he would not seek another term, he was not running against an incumbent, but won.
I am not playing devils advocate, I just want to be informed and correct when I start fighting back with the fucking bros. I guess I literally do not understand what the issue was last night.
Warren said "no one up here has beat an incumbent republican in the last 30 years." Bernie says "um, hello, I did..." and it was exactly 30 years ago. So is the fight really about does it count or not if it was 30 years ago? Sure, who fucking cares, 30 years ago he beat an incumbent. BUT WHO CARES, it was 30 YEARS AGO! I feel like I am missing something major with the way these nasty hashtags are trending...
I think these people are more interested in being right and smug about it than anything else. They think it’s some kind of “gotcha” that invalidates the point, because they seem to have missed the point entirely.
Also, I strongly suspect that this argument was fueled by trolls, because it hurts them both.
It was repeatedly claimed that the script was posted online by a
That's the most maddening part for me. "Oh, why oh why would Warren come out with this more than a year after it happened? What could possibly be her motive for going negative on Bernie?"
Post by One Girl In All The World on Jan 15, 2020 20:27:04 GMT -5
Anyone watching cnn? They’ve got the audio of the exchange between warren and sanders after the debate. She basically called him out on calling her a liar on national tv.
Anyone watching cnn? They’ve got the audio of the exchange between warren and sanders after the debate. She basically called him out on calling her a liar on national tv.
I literally love her. And I’m fucking livid that he put her in this situation.
You know I’m normally ok with that phrase. except I’m so mad for her that hell no! She will discuss it when she wants to discuss it!!
You get to choose to discuss it some other time when you DIDN’T just trash me in the media calling me a liar. Under those circumstances we talk about it right fucking now.