Warren fires back at Sanders denial

[Petie Estie 5,736]

48 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

As a former Warren supporter, this whole mess has me disappointed in who I thought was a really kind and geniune candidate. It was very obvious that she used this talking point in order to get a really good soundbite. And look, I can't deny that her response wasn't well planned, but at the same time, I just can't get over the fact that she would twist Bernie's words into something it's not.

Ultimately I still do support her. I don't support her over Bernie Sanders, but on the fundamentals of her plans and policies, I support her. That said, I'm just upset that she had to stoop this low to try and attack Bernie for something that is so obviously out of character for him. 

I'm not convinced Bernie couldn't have said something like what is being described. Bernie is a good man that has helped advance women's rights, but it's not out of character for him to have blunders with gender issues & to appear sexist. In the end that's all this is. A small-stakes issue that doesn't matter to most people....I think most people have had the thought that a woman is too risky or can't win, especially after watching the extreme sexist environment hillary operated in in 2016. 

Warren isn't a liar. The things people bring up to "prove" what a liar she is are all twisting reality & ignoring nuance to fit a narrative that makes them feel more secure in their chosen candidate. I will note that every time she brings up sexism in her life, she is called a liar. I think many women can identify with that. 

[JevyDuty 2,961]

4 hours ago, TioBernie said:

Look at all the dislikes on that video but she “DESTROYED” Sanders lmao. Delusional centrists will lose big this time around. We’re coming for you.

"Centrists" 

I just jumped ship from Warren to Sanders. Am I suddenly a liberal now? Don't lose sight that we need each other.

[Morphine Prince 109,896]

How is this thread worthy? We have a thread about the debate already where this moment was discussed.’

This is a troll thread with biased commentary in the OP designed to rile up people. 

[Ziggy 14,246]

Question for everyone: Why is this question even being asked in the democratic primaries? The party is basically in consensus that a women can be president judging by how hard they all rigged the ish for Hillary 4 years ago. Just ask yourself who has something to gain by starting ish that has absolutely nothing to do with policy.

Centrists and corporatists. Notice how CNN showed coverage and questions during the debate. Many were framed as “Bernie what are your answers??” and that was not done to anyone else. It’s a subtle but effective way to operate opposite a specific candidate. Warren used to have to do this but corporatists think she is more malleable than Sanders and could appease progressives so attacks on her have lightened a bit.

Personally, I’m incredibly disappointed in Warren for doing this. It was tacky, tactless and incredibly cheap. If you want to differentiate yourself from Sanders, make it a policy distinction. If you’re the woman with a plan for everything that should be easy as differences do absolutely exist. What that would do is still bolster the progressive momentum of the party. This identity politics attack is regressive and served only to help Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Yes, I meant what I said. This does not help Warren in the least.

Biden must have the biggest s*** eating grin right now.

[REALITY 80,241]

29 minutes ago, SEANGT said:

I'm not convinced Bernie couldn't have said something like what is being described. Bernie is a good man that has helped advance women's rights, but it's not out of character for him to have blunders with gender issues & to appear sexist. In the end that's all this is. A small-stakes issue that doesn't matter to most people....I think most people have had the thought that a woman is too risky or can't win, especially after watching the extreme sexist environment hillary operated in in 2016. 

Warren isn't a liar. The things people bring up to "prove" what a liar she is are all twisting reality & ignoring nuance to fit a narrative that makes them feel more secure in their chosen candidate. I will note that every time she brings up sexism in her life, she is called a liar. I think many women can identify with that. 

I could use your same argument against Warren, though.

Listen, I have nothing personally against Warren. I've been a supporter of hers for months, but what I believe she's done is twist and turn something that was said between her and Bernie into something it's not. Look, at the end of the day, we are never going to fully know what they said to each other. That's between them only. And look, at the end of the day, this ultimately will not matter. However, it reveals someone's true character whenever they do something like this.

Warren said that Bernie told her that a woman couldn't be president. Now, I believe that maybe in the correct context, she's right. He most likely told her that because of Trump's divisive rhetoric, it'd be harder for a woman to beat Trump. Of course we'll never know since none of us were there, but in that instance, I could see him saying that. However, I have a very, very, very difficult time believing that he said that as bluntly as she put it. You cannot argue with Bernie's consistency and his willingness to stand up for women, POC, LGBTQ people, etc. He's been with them since the beginning. 

[David Ward 9,613]

Ae you blind? The video has over 10,000 dislikes. 

[LibraLove 1,282]

5 hours ago, Florin said:

 

Warren destroyed Bernie. Cant believe he wanted to make it all about himself with an 30 years old victory against a republican. 

Lol. She did not destroy him. He never said this. This is a blatant lie that has even been refuted (by the Washington Post of all sources) from a campaign that is getting desperate because its support is collapsing. Also, she incorrectly stated she was the only candidate to defeat a Republican incumbent in 30 years. That was false, as he pointed out, because he defeated a Republican incumbent in 1990 and went on to form the Progressive Caucus in the House at a time when Warren was still a Republican. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,589]

User Florin making 20,000 Warren defense threads and getting Warren and themselves canceled each time sksks we love to see it

[LibraLove 1,282]

2 hours ago, adterp said:

Warren's communications team is either stupidly desperate or secretly supports Trump's guideline : divide and rule. 

She hired a bunch of bitter former Hillary hacks who can't accept that they and their candidate are the only ones responsible for losing to Trump early on in the campaign and it's definitely showing now.

[Bt1 5,213]

3 hours ago, LibraLove said:

Also, she incorrectly stated she was the only candidate to defeat a Republican incumbent in 30 years. That was false, as he pointed out, because he defeated a Republican incumbent in 1990 and went on to form the Progressive Caucus in the House at a time when Warren was still a Republican. 

Basically that was the part where she destroyed him, in my opinion. What you dont understand about the 30 years? She and him are saying the same thing and yet again she is the only one who is liar? The double standard is more alive than ever.  

[LibraLove 1,282]

4 hours ago, Florin said:

Basically that was the part where she destroyed him, in my opinion. What you dont understand about the 30 years? She and him are saying the same thing and yet again she is the only one who is liar? The double standard is more alive than ever.  

What do you not understand about her saying "I am the only one on this stage who has defeated a Republican incumbent in the last 30 years." That is categorically false. Bernie ran for US House in 1990 and defeated the Republican incumbent of Vermont's at-large district that year. She may not have been intentionally lying, but she should definitely do better research.

[Bt1 5,213]

12 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

What do you not understand about her saying "I am the only one on this stage who has defeated a Republican incumbent in the last 30 years." That is categorically false. Bernie ran for US House in 1990 and defeated the Republican incumbent of Vermont's at-large district that year. She may not have been intentionally lying, but she should definitely do better research.

So the big lie is that she should have said 29 years instead of 30? This is and was a pointless correction from Bernie. The message she was trying to send remains intact if we talk about 29 years and n months or 30 years. It's the same thing.

[LibraLove 1,282]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

So the big lie is that she should have said 29 years instead of 30? This is and was a pointless correction from Bernie. The message she was trying to send remains intact if we talk about 29 years and n months or 30 years. It's the same thing.

She was wrong. Period. You're on a national debate stage. Don't get up there with provably wrong information and not expect someone to say something. She won her seat in 2012. She could've easily said "in the last ten years." Instead, she said thirty, pointing back to a time when she was a Republican, and when Bernie defeated a Republican incumbent. It's that easy. 

[Bt1 5,213]

50 minutes ago, LibraLove said:

She was wrong. Period. You're on a national debate stage. Don't get up there with provably wrong information and not expect someone to say something. She won her seat in 2012. She could've easily said "in the last ten years." Instead, she said thirty, pointing back to a time when she was a Republican, and when Bernie defeated a Republican incumbent. It's that easy. 

A : 2020 is the start of the new decade.

B : No. 2021 is.

This is the kind of discussion we are having. 

 

 

2020-1990 = 30. At best an honest mistake. Her message remains intact and was understood by many people. If you dont want to get it, that's your choice. 

[Ziggy 14,246]

11 hours ago, LibraLove said:

Lol. She did not destroy him. He never said this. This is a blatant lie that has even been refuted (by the Washington Post of all sources) from a campaign that is getting desperate because its support is collapsing. Also, she incorrectly stated she was the only candidate to defeat a Republican incumbent in 30 years. That was false, as he pointed out, because he defeated a Republican incumbent in 1990 and went on to form the Progressive Caucus in the House at a time when Warren was still a Republican. 

Also worth noting that he didn’t have to beat republican incumbents because he’s held office for awhile lolol *he* was the incumbent many times lolol it’s such an odd argument to make because it just shines a light on the fact that he’s been here for ages