Bernie Sanders didn’t think a woman could be president, Elizabeth Warren says

[Dashinka 23,313]

Hmm, gloves coming off?

 

Bernie Sanders didn’t think a woman could be president, Elizabeth Warren says

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-nw-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-woman-president-20200114-ehgx7yb3bnaddaey3uqp72znum-story.html

[90DayFinancier 910]

I am not defending Bernie saying that to her, but there is a clear bias against female candidates even more than against people of color in executive offices in the US. Poll numbers bear this out.

 

It is not politically correct to acknowledge this persistent fact, but it's true.

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Quote

Elizabeth Warren said Monday that fellow Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders told her he didn’t think a woman could win the White House when they met privately in 2018.

Sanders has denied telling Warren that a woman couldn't win. But the Massachusetts senator said in a statement that during their two-hour meeting to discuss the 2020 election, “among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”

A. She is a not-nice person for publicly talking about a private meeting she had with him.  

 

2. If they were talking about the current women running, I would tend to agree with him.  Except Tulsi.  But I think we all know she won't be allowed to win.

Edited January 14, 2020 by ALFKAD

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It's gonna get worse for Bernie.. 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So why are the republican debates not highly publicized and televised?

[mandsophia 160]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's gonna get worse for Bernie.. 

 

 

 

Obviously, what this guy is saying is very very wrong. But I just don't think its fair to choose one extreme, crazy opinion from any political side and say it reflects the views of everyone. I mean, there are a few extremist individuals from any supporter (trump, clinton, warren, whoever). Dont think its fair to judge an entire candidate on that. The same way the far left says that all trump supporters are racist, just because they met one racist supporter once and we know that is not true at all

Edited January 14, 2020 by mandsophia

[laylalex 7,252]

1 minute ago, mandsophia said:

Obviously, what this guy is saying is very very wrong. But I just don't think its fair to choose one extreme, crazy opinion from any political side and say it reflects the views of everyone. I mean, there are a few extremist individuals from any supporter (trump, clinton, warren, whoever). Dont think its fair to judge an entire candidate on that. The same way the far left says that all trump supporters are racist, just because they met one racist supporter once. 

Also James O'Keefe isn't exactly a reputable source.

 

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

So why are the republican debates not highly publicized and televised?

You're very silly today, ALFKAD.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

20 minutes ago, mandsophia said:

Obviously, what this guy is saying is very very wrong. But I just don't think its fair to choose one extreme, crazy opinion from any political side and say it reflects the views of everyone. I mean, there are a few extremist individuals from any supporter (trump, clinton, warren, whoever). Dont think its fair to judge an entire candidate on that. The same way the far left says that all trump supporters are racist, just because they met one racist supporter once. 

I think that's something to explain to Democrat voters.

 

18 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Also James O'Keefe isn't exactly a reputable source.

Depends on what you call reputable. He's reputable in that the facts in his video can't be disputed. But if it's a question of character and methods, sounds like a problem for people who have a problem with facts, particularly ones that disagree with their views. Not my problem to fix though.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 23,313]

It as all he said she said now and we all know Elizabeth Warren does have a problem with truthfulness.

[laylalex 7,252]

Facts are always open to interpretation. They're much like puppets -- you can get them to perform in all sorts of pretty ways, make them strut about the screen or the stage and tell whatever story seems plausible. What they need to make sense is a scene -- that is, context. 

 

O'Keefe has wildly misrepresented events that were "caught on tape" in the past, and been called out for it again and again. He's not an honest broker. Does that mean what happened in the video didn't happen? No. But context really matters a lot.

 

As another person said above, these are the words of one person. One person -- particularly a foot soldier like a field organizer -- does not a movement make. This guy sounds like a nut. I don't like Trump but I would never want him to die of anything but natural causes, in his own time. I am more representative of Democrats in general than this ridiculous person.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

23 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Facts are always open to interpretation. They're much like puppets -- you can get them to perform in all sorts of pretty ways, make them strut about the screen or the stage and tell whatever story seems plausible. What they need to make sense is a scene -- that is, context. 

 

O'Keefe has wildly misrepresented events that were "caught on tape" in the past, and been called out for it again and again. He's not an honest broker. Does that mean what happened in the video didn't happen? No. But context really matters a lot.

 

As another person said above, these are the words of one person. One person -- particularly a foot soldier like a field organizer -- does not a movement make. This guy sounds like a nut. I don't like Trump but I would never want him to die of anything but natural causes, in his own time. I am more representative of Democrats in general than this ridiculous person.

Again, his methods. You're conflating methods and personality (partial and far less important descriptors of "reputable") with truth (the far more meaningful descriptor/portion of reputability). Either his videos are true or they're false. Are they false? No. They're true. If he were publishing defaming video, he'd be sued for defamation, along with libel and slander for the rest. So, even in the context of what he's posting, it's true. 

 

For example, social media censorship, he hired women to go to parties with drunk tech workers and get them to admit not only to social media censorship, but methods of social media censorship. This was later verified by websites like shadowban.eu using their own methodology to test shadow bans, which Twitter later changed as a result. Twitter admitted to what they did, under oath, demonstrating the veracity of PJ video, just called it another name ("downranking" or some other nonsense). 

 

Either true or not. When the main problem with journalism today is truth, methods and personal biases are secondary. When journalism gets back its reputation and demonstrates its reliability to tell the truth, if ever, then the nuance will matter more. Those more affixed with narrative, clearly just want to be told what conforms to their beliefs irrespective of the truth, e.g. "her truth", "his truth", etc.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Again, his methods. You're conflating methods and personality (partial and far less important descriptors of "reputable") with truth (the far more meaningful descriptor/portion of reputability). Either his videos are true or they're false. Are they false? No. They're true. If he were publishing defaming video, he'd be sued for defamation, along with libel and slander for the rest. So, even in the context of what he's posting, it's true. 

 

For example, social media censorship, he hired women to go to parties with drunk tech workers and get them to admit not only to social media censorship, but methods of social media censorship. This was later verified by websites like shadowban.eu using their own methodology to test shadow bans, which Twitter later changed as a result. Twitter admitted to what they did, under oath, demonstrating the veracity of PJ video, just called it another name ("downranking" or some other nonsense). 

 

Either true or not. When the main problem with journalism today is truth, methods and personal biases are secondary. When journalism gets back its reputation and demonstrates its reliability to tell the truth, if ever, then the nuance will matter more. Those more affixed with narrative, clearly just want to be told what conforms to their beliefs irrespective of the truth, e.g. "her truth", "his truth", etc.

 

More often than not, his videos have been edited (even mid-stream) to contort the context of actual convery.

 

The fact that this fake journalist, with fake bona fides, appearing under false pretenses making fake audio visuals to push a fake narrative is held up as a model of virtue and truthfulness, tells us everything people need to know about how right wing values have fallen on hard times.

Like the President's personal lawyer proclaimed, "the Truth is not the Truth"

 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Blah blah virtues, blah blah journalist, blah blah bona fides.. videos are true or they aren't, and yet, no assertion of which videos are false and where, all comically irrelevant character attacks on O'Keefe, while we get to hear confessions straight from the people's mouths in his videos. 

 

Best of luck.

[Dashinka 23,313]

9 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

More often than not, his videos have been edited (even mid-stream) to contort the context of actual convery.

 

The fact that this fake journalist, with fake bona fides, appearing under false pretenses making fake audio visuals to push a fake narrative is held up as a model of virtue and truthfulness, tells us everything people need to know about how right wing values have fallen on hard times.

Like the President's personal lawyer proclaimed, "the Truth is not the Truth"

 

 

 

Fake narrative?  That is rich considering what has been going on in Washington the past three years.

 

13 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It as all he said she said now and we all know Elizabeth Warren does have a problem with truthfulness.

On the other hand, using the "logic" of the Democrats, the woman always must be believed.