Sources: Sanders believes a woman can’t win

[HorusRa2 5,005]

8 hours ago, Florin said:

Stop with this nonsense. It is disgusting how you treat Warren. 

Warren only wanted to not let Trump win and endorsed Hillary after Bernie couldn't win. Sometimes it is important to look at a bigger picture. Warren wanted to make a democrat president. 

You keep ignoring the fact that nearly 500 of the 700 superdelegates endorsed Clinton before a single vote was cast. Warren sat on the sidelines and didn’t endorse either one when she knew it could have helped her ideological ally. She chose not to. And the fact is if she wanted to make a democrat president she would have endorsed Bernie because he’s the more electable candidate between the two. End of. Just because you keep repeating the same things over and over don’t make you right and you clearly didn’t follow the election as closely as I did. 

[PoshLife 17,019]

6 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

This whole recent debate just tells me that despite the so-called "wokeness" of the Democratic party, they actually don't know ANYTHING about why they have lost any elections ever, why some people dislike the Democrats, why over a hundred million people in this country NEVER vote or rarely vote, etc.

It is actually *quite* simple:

They have seen decades of examples of the incompetence of both parties of actually doing what they say they will do, and they have seen lifetimes worth of evidence that indicates that Politicians do not have consistent values or track records, and will actively lie to them in order to get power, wealth, acclaim, etc. and will constantly betray their voters.

There's no way you don't know that "politician" is a negatively charged label, or that the most common stereotypes about politicians are "self-serving" "duplicitous" "pandering" "lying" "flip-flopping" etc. We all live in somewhat the same culture in America here, and there aren't really bubble cities and states where everyone loves politics  

So, why the hell do you think brow-beating these people who are often times poor, uneducated, and lacking resources because of our political system and bullying them into voting is going to work? That makes 0 sense  We don't have to look back far in our electoral history to know that the main reason people support any candidate for any office is because of a vision they believe in, representation for ideas they believe in, a positive message, etc. They appeal to their constituency. "The opposition is worse" has always, always been a weak, losing argument in terms of getting excitement into politics. It's not 0% effective, but its not enough. 

So, the way to get people to vote is similarly simple. Let's appeal to those people, and lets spend massive amounts of money increasing voter registration, combating gerrymandering and voter suppression, and spreading awareness of politics, getting young people to vote while they are still in school, and make it a cultural norm.

If you aren't going to support politicians who believe in what I've just said, then you must accept that nothing is going to *change* - We're going to keep having this happen, FOREVER unless we just take a step back, say Look this system is broken, and we should stop talking about fixing it, and actually fix it.

That's why I support Bernie Sanders, because he isn't just making vapid promises he'll change his mind on next year when it doesn't poll so well, he has values and integrity and willpower. He isn't perfect, but on this issue, there is no one else running who compares.

Sorry for my rant. This has been a DAY  I skipped my phone calling shift but I'm picking up extras to compensate. We're going to make 5,000,000 phone calls in Iowa about caucusing, lets ****ing go  

I appreciated reading this even though I disagree with the conclusion you came to.

Yes, people feel completely disillusioned with both parties because they haven't been able to act on many of the promises they've made, or what they are able to enact doesn't live up to what they promised. But that's why so many older people, particularly older people of color, will support someone like Biden over someone like Sanders every time: because they know that when they hear things like free healthcare and free college, it's not only unrealistic - it's unattainable. When Biden talks about building on the success of Obamacare, that's something people can understand and can see happening in the real world.

I'm not saying Biden's right and Sanders is wrong - though I think people know where I stand by now - but what I'm saying is there's an entire universe of Democrats that GGD users never really consider who WANT a candidate whose platform is achievable and that will improve their lives because it can actually get done. Sanders has been remarkably consistent on his valueset - I don't doubt at all that he truly believes in those causes, because he's been championing them for a long time -but his promises are still empty because he has no way of achieving them.

[PoshLife 17,019]

8 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

You keep ignoring the fact that nearly 500 of the 700 superdelegates endorsed Clinton before a single vote was cast. Warren sat on the sidelines and didn’t endorse either one when she knew it could have helped her ideological ally. She chose not to. And the fact is if she wanted to make a democrat president she would have endorsed Bernie because he’s the more electable candidate between the two. End of. Just because you keep repeating the same things over and over don’t make you right and you clearly didn’t follow the election as closely as I did. 

Warren did the smartest thing she could do - she withheld her endorsement so she could push the eventual nominee further to the left. And it worked, as far as getting Hillary to adopt her positions goes. Warren played the game and she played it right. Are you going to be a sore loser about it? Is this really the bitterness that drives the Sanders flock?

I'm also never impressed by people who think Sanders was more electable when he got fewer votes in the primary - superdelegates be damned, he just didn't get as many votes. But go on relitigating 2016.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Just now, PoshLife said:

Warren did the smartest thing she could do - she withheld her endorsement so she could push the eventual nominee further to the left. And it worked, as far as getting Hillary to adopt her positions goes. Warren played the game and she played it right. Are you going to be a sore loser about it? Is this really the bitterness that drives the Sanders flock?

I'm also never impressed by people who think Sanders was more electable when he got fewer votes in the primary - superdelegates be damned, he just didn't get as many votes. But go on relitigating 2016.

1. Bernie always overperformed in open primary states and caucuses that requires energy and excitement among the base and also independents. 

2. Bernie lost the democratic primary because the narrative from the get-go was that it was a Hillary coronation and he had less than 10% name ID nationally at the time of the primary. Bernie lost the democratic primary because he hadn't won over democrats. The fact that he got more votes from under 30 than both Trump and Clinton combined and won so many open primary states because of his strength with independents (the largest voting block) show that he would be a much better general election candidate. His favorables were better than both Trump and Clinton at the time of the general election and all of the polling had Bernie overperforming compared to Clinton by a country mile. You can sit here and debate 2016 with me all day but you cannot deny the facts. 

3. She made a political calculation. Sure. It worked to get Clinton further left but did she win? No. Because Clinton was despised. Because she let Trump go to Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan TWICE as much by rally count and let him lie to the people of the midwest about how he would fix their problems and slammed Clinton for her poor stance on trade and economy (which I might add that Joe Biden has the same record but even MORE ISSUES). 

The fact is that Warren did not stand by principle. She did not stand up for her friend of more than 2 decades because of political pressure by the Clinton machine. IDK what else to call that except that she isn't a friend of Bernie. She isn't a friend to the grassroots movement he created. Warren is not a friend of the working class. Warren's purpose of the democratic primary is to ensure Bernie doesn't win so that Biden gets the nomination. Pure and simple. 

[PoshLife 17,019]

7 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Also, I don't spend my time trying to tell people their feelings aren't valid or don't matter re: individuals saying Joe Biden is a Republican, Republican Lite.

But, to be frank, I'm too informed to pretend that I don't understand why they say that. It's not Not true, and if someone would like to point out to me some facts that show that Joe Biden by his own voting record + political stances would NOT be considered a Republican in ideology in many places in the world including the U.S. at some point, I would be glad to hear those facts, but this has never, ever, ever been the response to this point.

And I'm too informed to pretend to believe that pointing out what makes 2 people different in a Primary politically is the same thing as saying "X is a racist, transphobe, sexist liar who doesn't care about people and is only running to make themselves more powerful"

I just can't dumb myself down to make this point because it actually is NOT a good point.

The answer is so obvious that you overlook it.

Joe Biden outwardly supported marriage equality before even Barack Obama did. How many Congressional Republicans support it (now or in 2012)?

Joe Biden fought tooth and nail for the Affordable Care Act. How many Republicans voted for it?

Joe Biden was a lead sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act. How many Congressional Republicans voted to reauthorize it last year?

We don't have to have thought experiments on policy platforms to know Joe Biden is a Democrat. In word and in deed, he has been one. The real problem here is that you think someone has to be a socialist in order to be a Democrat. Regardless of what your twitter feed or your friends on GGD may tell you, the Democratic Party is a large party that includes a lot of people who happen to disagree with Bernie Sanders on things like Medicare for All, free college for everybody including the wealthy, and opposing all trade deals.

And that's why you feel like you've never gotten a "good response" - because it's not really a debate worth having. It's just that you cast everyone who might be to the right of the most extreme left-wing presidential candidate in American history as a Republican. It's intellectually dishonest.

By the way, a word to the wise: constantly telling people you're "too smart" and "won't dumb yourself down" usually doesn't convince people of those facts. Let your words speak for themselves.

[PoshLife 17,019]

1 minute ago, HorusRa2 said:

1. Bernie always overperformed in open primary states and caucuses that requires energy and excitement among the base and also independents. 

2. Bernie lost the democratic primary because the narrative from the get-go was that it was a Hillary coronation and he had less than 10% name ID nationally at the time of the primary. Bernie lost the democratic primary because he hadn't won over democrats. The fact that he got more votes from under 30 than both Trump and Clinton combined and won so many open primary states because of his strength with independents (the largest voting block) show that he would be a much better general election candidate. His favorables were better than both Trump and Clinton at the time of the general election and all of the polling had Bernie overperforming compared to Clinton by a country mile. You can sit here and debate 2016 with me all day but you cannot deny the facts. 

3. She made a political calculation. Sure. It worked to get Clinton further left but did she win? No. Because Clinton was despised. Because she let Trump go to Wisconsin, PA, and Michigan TWICE as much by rally count and let him lie to the people of the midwest about how he would fix their problems and slammed Clinton for her poor stance on trade and economy (which I might add that Joe Biden has the same record but even MORE ISSUES). 

The fact is that Warren did not stand by principle. She did not stand up for her friend of more than 2 decades because of political pressure by the Clinton machine. IDK what else to call that except that she isn't a friend of Bernie. She isn't a friend to the grassroots movement he created. Warren is not a friend of the working class. Warren's purpose of the democratic primary is to ensure Bernie doesn't win so that Biden gets the nomination. Pure and simple. 

1. I agree. Factually speaking, Sanders did better where independents could participate in the Democratic primary, and Clinton did better where only Democrats could participate. In the Democratic primary.

2. 2008 had most of those same factors at play (in terms of Clinton being the presumptive nominee before voting began), but Barack Obama was able to overcome those same obstacles. The DNC does not dictate who becomes the nominee - the voters do.

3. I agree with you that Hillary made some gross miscalculations re: where to spend her time on the campaign trail. I'll also remind you that there were other factors at play in those same Midwestern states, including a lot of angry rural voters who were taken in by Trump's empty promises of bringing back manufacturing to Middle America, and an actual propaganda campaign coming from outside of the United States aimed at Sanders supporters designed to depress turnout among disaffected young liberals. 

There's no proof that Warren didn't endorse Bernie because she was pressured by the Clinton machine. She made her own calculation that she could do the most good by ensuring the Democratic platform was as far to the left as possible on things like consumer protection and going after the big banks. In my mind, it made sense for her to do that. I understand you disagree. But you won't convince me that Warren is some kind of sinister villain who's "no friend of the working class" because she didn't endorse your preferred candidate. And if you really think she's intentionally playing spoiler - that's the ONLY reason she's been running for president for like a year - then that is really unfortunate and I can't imagine where you got that impression. But I'll remind you that Warren's and Sanders' base of support don't exactly overlap, so everyone on here making the case that Sanders would be miles ahead of Biden if Warren dropped out are really being unrealistic.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

4 minutes ago, PoshLife said:

1. I agree. Factually speaking, Sanders did better where independents could participate in the Democratic primary, and Clinton did better where only Democrats could participate. In the Democratic primary.

2. 2008 had most of those same factors at play (in terms of Clinton being the presumptive nominee before voting began), but Barack Obama was able to overcome those same obstacles. The DNC does not dictate who becomes the nominee - the voters do.

3. I agree with you that Hillary made some gross miscalculations re: where to spend her time on the campaign trail. I'll also remind you that there were other factors at play in those same Midwestern states, including a lot of angry rural voters who were taken in by Trump's empty promises of bringing back manufacturing to Middle America, and an actual propaganda campaign coming from outside of the United States aimed at Sanders supporters designed to depress turnout among disaffected young liberals. 

There's no proof that Warren didn't endorse Bernie because she was pressured by the Clinton machine. She made her own calculation that she could do the most good by ensuring the Democratic platform was as far to the left as possible on things like consumer protection and going after the big banks. In my mind, it made sense for her to do that. I understand you disagree. But you won't convince me that Warren is some kind of sinister villain who's "no friend of the working class" because she didn't endorse your preferred candidate. And if you really think she's intentionally playing spoiler - that's the ONLY reason she's been running for president for like a year - then that is really unfortunate and I can't imagine where you got that impression. But I'll remind you that Warren's and Sanders' base of support don't exactly overlap, so everyone on here making the case that Sanders would be miles ahead of Biden if Warren dropped out are really being unrealistic.

The things I agree with you on: 

1. Factually speaking, Sanders did better where independents could participate in the Democratic primary, and Clinton did better where only Democrats could participate. In the Democratic primary.

2.  I agree with you that Hillary made some gross miscalculations re: where to spend her time on the campaign trail. 

3 I'll also remind you that there were other factors at play in those same Midwestern states, including a lot of angry rural voters who were taken in by Trump's empty promises of bringing back manufacturing to Middle America

4.  But I'll remind you that Warren's and Sanders' base of support don't exactly overlap, so everyone on here making the case that Sanders would be miles ahead of Biden if Warren dropped out are really being unrealistic. 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

You keep ignoring the fact that nearly 500 of the 700 superdelegates endorsed Clinton before a single vote was cast. Warren sat on the sidelines and didn’t endorse either one when she knew it could have helped her ideological ally. She chose not to. And the fact is if she wanted to make a democrat president she would have endorsed Bernie because he’s the more electable candidate between the two. End of. Just because you keep repeating the same things over and over don’t make you right and you clearly didn’t follow the election as closely as I did. 

Funny how you are one of the people that are going crazy when people point out about Bernie influence on last elections and yet when it is not about Bernie, you go for the Warren jugular because she endorsed Hillary when Bernie couldn't win anymore and make her somehow guilty that Bernie lost. Not to mention that the possibility that Bernie is a mysogin has nothing to do with Warren did or not in 2016.  

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

26 minutes ago, Florin said:

Funny how you are one of the people that are going crazy when people point out about Bernie influence on last elections and yet when it is not about Bernie, you go for the Warren jugular because she endorsed Hillary when Bernie couldn't win anymore and make her somehow guilty that Bernie lost. Not to mention that the possibility that Bernie is a mysogin has nothing to do with Warren did or not in 2016.  

 

almost every response you have with regard to bernie is always incoherent so I'm going to say upfront that I don't know 100% what you're trying to say broadly but I'm going to do my best. 

 

1. Everytime I discuss 2016 with regard to Clinton vs Bernie, my argument is always that Bernie would have won in the general election and the democrats who voted for Hillary got it wrong. We nominated a similar centrist in John Kerry and Al Gore and all 3 of these people were the so-called "electable" candidate according to democrats and the media. All 3 of them won the nomination and then went on to lose in the general election. It isn't more complicated than that. Additionally, when people want to complain that some Bernie voters defected to Trump and how that's the reason Hillary lost, they always seem to forget that more Hillary voters decided to vote for a republican over Obama. People always seem to justify that because Obama won and Clinton lost but the fact of the matter is this shows that people who like and voted for Clinton were either racist or were more moderate. Now, we have to ask why they decided not to show up in 2016. Probably because Clinton's favorability was much higher in 08 compared to 2016.

2. Fact of the matter is I am going for Warren's jugular because the entire primary both Bernie and Warren have been going on and on all primary about how they are friends and that they do not attack each other. The fact that Warren didn't stand up to her friend of DECADES because he is the person who was closest to the policies she supported in 2016 is a sign of political calculation. You can argue that she did what's best for her but the fact remains that she didn't stand up for her friend then. Now, when a supporter posted a potential script that got leaked to the media while also condemned and then deleted by the moderator team in the private Bernie campaign chat room, instead of saying that despite the fact the script came to the surface, that Warren has known Bernie for over 20 years and that she doesn't believe Bernie would authorize that kind of nasty attack on her, what she did say was that she was disappointed that Bernie instructed people to trash her. If a friend is willing to throw you under the bus so quickly and so consistently, they are not your friend. 

3. If you think Bernie actually said to her face she couldn't win, you don't know Bernie. But let me ask you this, if Bernie was a misogynist, why is it that Warren has been his friend for over 25 years? Do you think he only slipped that one comment throughout that entire time? So, either she was friends with him anyway or she fabricated the story. Combine that with the fact that both the story about the script and the story about the 2018 conversation was broke by the 2 reporters that have been assigned to the WARREN campaign is also suspect. Warren and her campaign planted and leaked both stories to the media because they aren't winning and they saw this as an opportunity to spring back up in the polls. Warren, is playing dangerous politics here, because this is likely to backfire on her and could also hurt Bernie. What does that do? It helps Biden who is someone she is supposed to be diametrically opposed to. Now we have to ask ourselves why she would do that and why she would be more aggressive with the person who agrees with her most on the issues compared to Joe Biden who she hasn't even attacked most of the primary. Considering how much she fought Joe Biden over the bankruptcy bill way back when and she has yet to call him out on it in this primary in a meaningful way suggests that she is willing to be less aggressive with her opponents than someone who was supposed to be her friend.  

 

The simple truth is that Warren is willing to do whatever it takes to win even if it means dragging her "friend" in the dirt when Bernie has done everything and I mean everything not to criticize her on the many, many issues he could call her out on and chooses not to do in an aggressive way. 

[Bt1 5,213]

6 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

almost every response you have with regard to bernie is always incoherent so I'm going to say upfront that I don't know 100% what you're trying to say broadly but I'm going to do my best. 

 

1. Everytime I discuss 2016 with regard to Clinton vs Bernie, my argument is always that Bernie would have won in the general election and the democrats who voted for Hillary got it wrong. We nominated a similar centrist in John Kerry and Al Gore and all 3 of these people were the so-called "electable" candidate according to democrats and the media. All 3 of them won the nomination and then went on to lose in the general election. It isn't more complicated than that. Additionally, when people want to complain that some Bernie voters defected to Trump and how that's the reason Hillary lost, they always seem to forget that more Hillary voters decided to vote for a republican over Obama. People always seem to justify that because Obama won and Clinton lost but the fact of the matter is this shows that people who like and voted for Clinton were either racist or were more moderate. Now, we have to ask why they decided not to show up in 2016. Probably because Clinton's favorability was much higher in 08 compared to 2016.

2. Fact of the matter is I am going for Warren's jugular because the entire primary both Bernie and Warren have been going on and on all primary about how they are friends and that they do not attack each other. The fact that Warren didn't stand up to her friend of DECADES because he is the person who was closest to the policies she supported in 2016 is a sign of political calculation. You can argue that she did what's best for her but the fact remains that she didn't stand up for her friend then. Now, when a supporter posted a potential script that got leaked to the media while also condemned and then deleted by the moderator team in the private Bernie campaign chat room, instead of saying that despite the fact the script came to the surface, that Warren has known Bernie for over 20 years and that she doesn't believe Bernie would authorize that kind of nasty attack on her, what she did say was that she was disappointed that Bernie instructed people to trash her. If a friend is willing to throw you under the bus so quickly and so consistently, they are not your friend. 

3. If you think Bernie actually said to her face she couldn't win, you don't know Bernie. But let me ask you this, if Bernie was a misogynist, why is it that Warren has been his friend for over 25 years? Do you think he only slipped that one comment throughout that entire time? So, either she was friends with him anyway or she fabricated the story. Combine that with the fact that both the story about the script and the story about the 2018 conversation was broke by the 2 reporters that have been assigned to the WARREN campaign is also suspect. Warren and her campaign planted and leaked both stories to the media because they aren't winning and they saw this as an opportunity to spring back up in the polls. Warren, is playing dangerous politics here, because this is likely to backfire on her and could also hurt Bernie. What does that do? It helps Biden who is someone she is supposed to be diametrically opposed to. Now we have to ask ourselves why she would do that and why she would be more aggressive with the person who agrees with her most on the issues compared to Joe Biden who she hasn't even attacked most of the primary. Considering how much she fought Joe Biden over the bankruptcy bill way back when and she has yet to call him out on it in this primary in a meaningful way suggests that she is willing to be less aggressive with her opponents than someone who was supposed to be her friend.  

 

The simple truth is that Warren is willing to do whatever it takes to win even if it means dragging her "friend" in the dirt when Bernie has done everything and I mean everything not to criticize her on the many, many issues he could call her out on and chooses not to do in an aggressive way. 

2. Funny how 2016 Warren ( which was the right thing to do as a friend and as a senator who wanted a democrat president) was not a problem until this scandal. It just shows what political loyalty does with some people. 

3.  No one knows. That's my point. I dont know him. U dont know him. Only they know what happened there. And that's the problem with the reactions to this scandal from progressives. No proof from Warren or Bernie, but Warren is the only target of progressive media. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,564]

I’m just here to say Bernie Rights!!
 

goodbye  👋 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

2. Funny how 2016 Warren ( which was the right thing to do as a friend and as a senator who wanted a democrat president) was not a problem until this scandal. It just shows what political loyalty does with some people. 

3.  No one knows. That's my point. I dont know him. U dont know him. Only they know what happened there. And that's the problem with the reactions to this scandal from progressives. No proof from Warren or Bernie, but Warren is the only target of progressive media. 

1. You're wrong with regard to your statement here with regard to me. Warren's lack of endorsement in 2016 has been something that I've been frustrated with since 2016. This recent issue with Warren has only brought the frustration back to the forefront. 

2. I take Bernie's side in this because he immediately went on record and denied it. He didn't mince words. He denounced it strongly and immediately. Whereas Warren let the news cycle run with it all day before finally making a statement on twitter only. 

Warren has other incidents that have occurred that also make me question her integrity (her native american heritage, the fact she embellished about the principle firing her for being pregnant, the fact she plagiarized a recipe in a native american cookbook, the fact she lied about her kids being taught in public school, etc, etc). Warren has a history of embellishing details to fit the narrative necessary for her at the time. So I don't believe her. 

[Bt1 5,213]

14 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

1. You're wrong with regard to your statement here with regard to me. Warren's lack of endorsement in 2016 has been something that I've been frustrated with since 2016. This recent issue with Warren has only brought the frustration back to the forefront. 

2. I take Bernie's side in this because he immediately went on record and denied it. He didn't mince words. He denounced it strongly and immediately. Whereas Warren let the news cycle run with it all day before finally making a statement on twitter only. 

Warren has other incidents that have occurred that also make me question her integrity (her native american heritage, the fact she embellished about the principle firing her for being pregnant, the fact she plagiarized a recipe in a native american cookbook, the fact she lied about her kids being taught in public school, etc, etc). Warren has a history of embellishing details to fit the narrative necessary for her at the time. So I don't believe her. 

Good for you. Other people believe her. 

For me, it is crazy to believe anyone with no proof, but that's just me. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 minute ago, Florin said:

Good for you. Other people believe her. 

For me, it is crazy to believe anyone with no proof, but that's just me. 

If that is your stance, then you should be of the opinion that the warren campaign should not have leaked this to the press considering it is a he said she said argument. 

And at the very least you should be skeptical as to the timing of the story breaking to the press by the same outlet that is hosting the debate. What a nice coincidence that this broke out to the same network moderating the debate 2 days before the last debate before voting begins and a week before both bernie and warren are stuck in the impeachment trial 6 days a week. 

[Bt1 5,213]

37 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

If that is your stance, then you should be of the opinion that the warren campaign should not have leaked this to the press considering it is a he said she said argument. 

And at the very least you should be skeptical as to the timing of the story breaking to the press by the same outlet that is hosting the debate. What a nice coincidence that this broke out to the same network moderating the debate 2 days before the last debate before voting begins and a week before both bernie and warren are stuck in the impeachment trial 6 days a week. 

I've said that I believe there are political motivations behind every campaign move. 

I've mostly discussed about who violated the pact first and the fact that without any proof the progressive group choosed to go after Warren based on feelings.