warren v sanders conflict

butters

High on a Hill
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Posts
85,727
it's possible one misheard the other or a reply was misconstrued

it's possible one is lying

it's possible they both believe they are telling the truth

it's possible warren is deliberately misconstruing a conversation because it will hurt sanders' votes


warren is no fool. i like a lot of what she has to say, same as i do bernie. do i think either of them are right to take on trump (if he's still there)? not really, but then i'm not a voter.

but she's savvy: sanders is hot in the polls in iowa; they're both running on similar 'tickets'. she's smart enough to know this will hurt him by making some people who may have voted for him wary now, and can win votes for herself over this 'women can be presidents, too' thing. of course they can; you only have to look around the world to see it.

she's smart enough to know the cameras were following here, that she and bernie were both mic'd up still. she's smart enough to realise this question (raised a little while before the last debate) would likely be brought up at the debate and people would be all over the two of them watching for something. she may have been rightfully pissed off (as would i if i believed what i'd said and he'd denied it happened) but she's not foolish enough to be utterly unaware of the optics and sounds-bites she's generated.

i think it's a sad state of affairs that some people will choose to vote for a nominee JUST because they are white, or black, or a man, or a woman, or gay, or mixed race, or trans... y'all should be voting for the person you feel best represents how you'd like to see your country move forward, the best person for the job; you might be uber-keen to see a woman as president, great, but don't dismiss a man who might be able to do the job better -- and vice-versa.

IF bernie really believes a woman can't be president as a general concept (and i don't believe he does but may feel this time around--given swing-voters and who she'd need to attract to her 'side'--a man stands a better chance of winning against trump, which is the ultimate goal right now), then he's deserving of losing votes. BUT this unprovable accusation (true OR not true) will serve more damage up to him than to her, and i'm positive she realises this completely.

she's a tough politician; i'd not personally choose her if i were voting because i find something about her a bit unsettling to watch. i'd not choose bernie, either, despite thinking they both have an awful lot to offer the chosen nominee in way of passion, knowledge, insight. Does anyone think that she has just deliberately politically assassinated bernie's chances in iowa?
 
She’s had more issues with the truth than he has so maybe she did manufacture something.
 
I saw in the report on this in my news feed that CNN had found multiple witnesses that affirmed Sanders said that in a meeting. Haven't checked that out, but if there are witnesses to him saying it, he should handle that some other way than to say she's lying by inference by flatly denying he said it. Regardless, the Democrats (and, in Bernie's case, the independents trying to steal a party network he isn't a member of) really should avoid eating their own in the primary campaign, giving the other party cheap ammunition.
 
She’s had more issues with the truth than he has so maybe she did manufacture something.
i'm loathe to believe she's lied deliberately over this but she may have found something he said (in his sometimes fractured way) to mean this when it wasn't intended. either way, it works for her benefit.

I saw in the report on this in my news feed that CNN had found multiple witnesses that affirmed Sanders said that in a meeting. Haven't checked that out, but if there are witnesses to him saying it, he should handle that some other way than to say she's lying by inference by flatly denying he said it. Regardless, the Democrats (and, in Bernie's case, the independents trying to steal a party network he isn't a member of) really should avoid eating their own in the primary campaign, giving the other party cheap ammunition.
i'm not sure these 'witnesses' were in the same room when this supposed conversation took place. not seen enough to confirm this one way or the other... perhaps they're recalling what she told them, or perhaps it went down exactly as she said and bernie's years and memory are telling.

i DO believe she's deliberately using this, regardless, to gain an advantage in the race between her and bernie. it's supposed to have happened in '18... why hasn't she brought this issue up to the potential voters before these recent, pre-iowa events? if she believed he had a real issue about a woman being incapable of winning an election for potus, isn't it something she'd have highlighted before now?

i'm NOT calling her a liar, nor am i saying bernie is. we don't know, but i can see where advantages and disadvantages lie and--if he's such a real friend as she claims--it's an issue she shouldn't have blindsided him with. imo. better it was sorted out earlier, before the debates, or addressed very early on.
 
i'm loathe to believe she's lied deliberately over this but she may have found something he said (in his sometimes fractured way) to mean this when it wasn't intended. either way, it works for her benefit.

i'm not sure these 'witnesses' were in the same room when this supposed conversation took place. not seen enough to confirm this one way or the other... perhaps they're recalling what she told them, or perhaps it went down exactly as she said and bernie's years and memory are telling.

i DO believe she's deliberately using this, regardless, to gain an advantage in the race between her and bernie. it's supposed to have happened in '18... why hasn't she brought this issue up to the potential voters before these recent, pre-iowa events? if she believed he had a real issue about a woman being incapable of winning an election for potus, isn't it something she'd have highlighted before now?

i'm NOT calling her a liar, nor am i saying bernie is. we don't know, but i can see where advantages and disadvantages lie and--if he's such a real friend as she claims--it's an issue she shouldn't have blindsided him with. imo. better it was sorted out earlier, before the debates, or addressed very early on.

I just saw the witnesses claim in a newsfeed report. I'd like to see what that is too.

Bernie's folks started the digs at the grass levels by suggesting she was two faced in where her support was coming from and although Bernie said it was his people doing this, not him, he didn't disavow it. Bernie's no saint in his relationships with Democrats running for office. He even glosses over himself that he's never changed his Senate affiliation from independent to the party he's trying to get a presidential nod from.

Jomar posted that she has [more--corrected from "no"] trouble with the truth than he does. Anything else other than the claims of Native American heritage, I wonder? I write that one off to having gone with family legend/rumor early in life and not just saying that more loudly (she did say it) when it first came up. Who among us don't have family legends we go with for a long time until some aunt laughs and admits to having made it all up?

That doesn't mean I'm rahrah Warren. I've had wishful thinking for Klobuchar. I think it's a calming centrist we need coming in after Trump to unruffle a whole lot of feathers before getting unusually progressive. I'd like the country to actually get to progressive programs again, not just yap about them to resisters.
 
Last edited:
I just saw the witnesses claim in a newsfeed report. I'd like to see what that is too.

Bernie's folks started the digs at the grass levels by suggesting she was two faced in where her support was coming from and although Bernie said it was his people doing this, not him, he didn't disavow it. Bernie's no saint in his relationships with Democrats running for office. He even glosses over himself that he's never changed his Senate affiliation from independent to the party he's trying to get a presidential nod from.

Jomar posted that she has no trouble with the truth than he does. Anything else other than the claims of Native American heritage, I wonder? I write that one off to having gone with family legend/rumor early in life and not just saying that more loudly (she did say it) when it first came up. Who among us don't have family legends we go with for a long time until some aunt laughs and admits to having made it all up?
none of them are angels, for sure.

personally, i like mostly what buttigieg has to say, though believe it's way past time america got its act together for a health-care system that didn't routinely bankrupt americans or cause millions to not visit their doctors for preventative reasons and early diagnosis and so suffer worse health conditions that they should.

what do you make of tom steyer? he's certainly educated and doesn't come across as a loud-mouthed boor like trump

Thomas Fahr Steyer is an American hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, liberal activist, and fundraiser. He is a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Wikipedia
Born: June 27, 1957 (age 62 years), New York, NY
Nationality: American
Net worth: 1.6 billion USD (2020)
Spouse: Kat Taylor (m. 1986)
Education: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Yale University, Buckley School, Ezra Stiles College, Phillips Exeter Academy
 
none of them are angels, for sure.

personally, i like mostly what buttigieg has to say, though believe it's way past time america got its act together for a health-care system that didn't routinely bankrupt americans or cause millions to not visit their doctors for preventative reasons and early diagnosis and so suffer worse health conditions that they should.

what do you make of tom steyer? he's certainly educated and doesn't come across as a loud-mouthed boor like trump

I like what Buttigieg has to say, and after a few more jobs more expansive than the one he's had, I think he'd be a good candidate. I didn't think Obama had enough experience when he went for it, and I saw evidence that he could have had more experience with the federal government system and would have done a better job in some areas.

Steyer is another billionaire businessman who has no experience with public sector work as far as I can see. I don't buy that experience inside the system isn't needed.

I'd support either one of them over Trump, though, if for no reason other than they probably wouldn't try to do a job alone that they had no knowledge of.
 
...

Jomar posted that she has no trouble with the truth than he does. Anything else other than the claims of Native American heritage, I wonder? I write that one off to having gone with family legend/rumor early in life and not just saying that more loudly (she did say it) when it first came up. Who among us don't have family legends we go with for a long time until some aunt laughs and admits to having made it all up?

...

Not so much. I was quoting someone who rattled off a few things, but I didn’t try to verify so it could be the heritage thing was the biggie. I don’t have any stake in their squabble.
 
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?
 
what do you make of tom steyer? he's certainly educated and doesn't come across as a loud-mouthed boor like trump

I like a lot of what he has to say, but I don't think America can take another president who arrives in DC with no governmental experience whatsoever. Politics and business are VERY different fields.
 
The socialist Democrats are now bitterly fighting amongst themselves - I LOVE IT - and Bernie Sanders discovered first-hand why so many Republicans refer to CNN as "fake news!"

CNN debate moderator Abby Phillip asked Bernie in the Des Moines debate: “Our network reported yesterday — and Senator Warren confirmed it — that, in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”

Not “DID you say that,” but “WHY did you say that?”

Sanders denied it before listing the many reasons why the story makes no sense: He said he urged Warren to run in 2016, and then campaigned for a female presidential candidate who won the popular vote. “There’s even a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States,” he argued.

Phillip asked him to clarify: He never said it? “That is correct,” Sanders responded. Phillip then turned to Liz Warren and deadpanned: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

That “when” was as transparent a media “fuck you” as has ever been witnesses in a presidential debate. In so transparently calling Bernie a liar, CNN bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical actor via a remarkable stretch of factually dubious reporting, bent commentary, and heavy-handed messaging. Trump is right - they're America's FAKE NEWS network!
 
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket is my very longshot prospect of voting for Democrats. A Sanders-Warren spat is a moot point if he dies, and Warren is likely the next dropout.
 
Who cares? Warren’s cratering in the polls. She’s out after Super Tuesday. It’s Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg bloodying each other after that.
 
Who cares? Warren’s cratering in the polls. She’s out after Super Tuesday. It’s Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg bloodying each other after that.

Don't confuse what you want to happen with what really will likely happen.
 
Who cares? Warren’s cratering in the polls. She’s out after Super Tuesday. It’s Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg bloodying each other after that.

We certainly don't care what a Trumpette like you is programed to post to the Internet. ;)

I didn't realize that the Russians were that concerned about Warren.
 
I don't know whether Sanders lied but he is on the record for deceit. On two occasions Sanders stood in the democrat primary for the Senate. He knew he could win that primary where only the more politically motivated vote. Winning the primary prevented any Democrat standing against him (party rules). He then promptly walked away from the party and stood as an independent.

This is a man who has not only never achieved anything substantive but also a man who has never paid his dues in terms of loyalty. So Sanders is deceitful - remind you of anybody!! :rolleyes:
 
I don't know whether Sanders lied but he is on the record for deceit. On two occasions Sanders stood in the democrat primary for the Senate. He knew he could win that primary where only the more politically motivated vote. Winning the primary prevented any Democrat standing against him (party rules). He then promptly walked away from the party and stood as an independent.

This is a man who has not only never achieved anything substantive but also a man who has never paid his dues in terms of loyalty. So Sanders is deceitful - remind you of anybody!! :rolleyes:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9i68jxF1qps/W8eQY7BHo3I/AAAAAAAAGhY/JoJOFcYlH2UdXsJxltVGJlpx7VXIxErZwCLcBGAs/s1600/warren.jpg
 
I like what Buttigieg has to say, and after a few more jobs more expansive than the one he's had, I think he'd be a good candidate. I didn't think Obama had enough experience when he went for it, and I saw evidence that he could have had more experience with the federal government system and would have done a better job in some areas.

Steyer is another billionaire businessman who has no experience with public sector work as far as I can see. I don't buy that experience inside the system isn't needed.

I'd support either one of them over Trump, though, if for no reason other than they probably wouldn't try to do a job alone that they had no knowledge of.
to me, he looks and sounds much more like other current liberal world-leaders than most the people on the platform who, to my non-american eyes, look really dated (and jaded). i'm not sure he's ready for a presidential position yet, either; but his calm demeanour and intelligence should get him a position somewhere high up. one thing i don't like in his policies is his idea that america should bring back a national service programme. i just can't ever see that floating.

steyer has business experience and obvious diplomatic skills (having had to broker business deals around the globe and has done so with far greater success than trump), philanthropy to his credit and is well-educated... now if he could partner up with someone who has those years of experience politically to be his v.p, he'd have a lot going for him.
 
The Democratic Party is destroying itself, so allegiance to it is worth nothing. It's convenient for some candidates to get on the ballot.
 
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?

this is the problem, isn't it? because we don't know and have no way to know for certain, we are all muddied by this and have to make assumptions... most of which will hurt bernie more than elizabeth vote-wise.

if he said it, and can't even recall saying it, then he has a problem already. i don't see him as the person who can unify the dems in enough strength to beat republicans, especially given his latest health issues recently.

HUD? dunno... maybe. i would say, though, that if one of the older candidates become the nominee, they need a more current-thinking, forward-looking running mate and he may fit that bill well.

if klobuchar gets the vote, i could also see those two working together well, combining their talents and outlook for a fairly mainstream 'face of the dems' that might appeal to voters who're undecided or reluctant to vote again for the republican party because of how trump's disgraced the office and dragged his party members down in the mud to roll with him.
 
as a brit here three years, i can't vote; i can voice my opinions and ask questions to try and understand the system a bit better of the country i live in.

a lot of american visuals down south, particularly, (like your politicians, their hairstyles especially, the heavy leaning on religion affecting a lot of decisions, the--to my eyes--hangovers-from-the-fifties/sixties appearance of tv presenters and billboarded ads for attorneys or insurance or bail-bonds) are like stepping back in time. when you put them side by side with the more modern politicians/news presenters/education/scientific bodies that exist and are not only current but the road forward, the contrast is dramatic. to me, trump, pence, biden, sanders... they're all dinosaurs whose day is done. i applaud bernie's drive to try and bring the kind of civilised healthcare system to america that so many other countries enjoy but i don't believe he can get the bulk of younger voters behind him. i could be wrong. time will tell.
 
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.
 
Ziggins writes: "The Democratic Party is destroying itself, so allegiance to it is worth nothing. It's convenient for some candidates to get on the ballot."

Joe Biden will edge out Bernie for the nomination.

But Creepy-Sleepy Joe has way too much baggage, what with his son making millions of dollars working in the Ukraine while Joe was the V.P. - to Biden's groping women and sniffing their hair! He's an embarrassment even to the Trump-haters frequenting this forum! But Biden's still got the inside track to win the nomination!

UNLESS... Hillary Clinton suddenly announces that SHE wants to run again! "Gropin' Joe's" delegates abandon him and rush to support Hillary, with Bernie once again getting screwed-over by the Democratic Party establishment! Only THIS TIME Bernie refuses to play ball, and runs as a third-party Socialist candidate!

The end result being TRUMP WINS IN A LANDSLIDE!
 
Back
Top