17 votes

Seventh Democratic Debate Live Stream (Starts at 9pm ET)

67 comments

  1. [16]
    Litmus2336
    Link
    If you're all up for some pre-debate discussion: I think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently, and I personally find it a bit silly. However, we are...

    If you're all up for some pre-debate discussion:

    I think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently, and I personally find it a bit silly. However, we are coming to the realization that the candidates will butt heads, as in lots of states they (and Biden) are polling ~25%/25%/25%. Personally, I've decided that, despite being a Warren fan, I'm going to vote for Sanders assuming he keeps above a 2% lead in my state. But what are other peoples plans considering the FTP system? All my friends are worried about what might happen if neither Sanders or Warren drop out and/or this goes into a brokered convention.

    10 votes
    1. [12]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      If either Warren or Sanders drop out, the other gets most of their voters and beats out Biden easily. And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump. Gotta tell you, it's pretty depressing looking...

      If either Warren or Sanders drop out, the other gets most of their voters and beats out Biden easily. And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.

      Gotta tell you, it's pretty depressing looking at your voting system right now...

      10 votes
      1. moonbathers
        Link Parent
        It's depressing from the inside too, considering how much would be different if Gore had won in 2000, let alone Clinton four years ago.

        It's depressing from the inside too, considering how much would be different if Gore had won in 2000, let alone Clinton four years ago.

        12 votes
      2. envy
        Link Parent
        Not true. It's way too soon to make any absolutist statements. Trump clearly fears Biden more than the other contenders, and is privy to more info than we are In the swing states, Biden polls...

        And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.

        Not true.

        1. It's way too soon to make any absolutist statements.

        2. Trump clearly fears Biden more than the other contenders, and is privy to more info than we are

        3. In the swing states, Biden polls better against Trump than anyone else

        7 votes
      3. [9]
        KapteinB
        Link Parent
        Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but...

        And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.

        Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but Trump was barely able to beat her, and now he's had four years of mismanagement that can be used against him.

        3 votes
        1. [5]
          vegai
          Link Parent
          Extremely poorly? Can you explain?

          extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016

          Extremely poorly? Can you explain?

          2 votes
          1. [4]
            KapteinB
            Link Parent
            He lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and won a fairly slim electoral college victory. The political pendulum swings. Two periods of Republican president, two periods of Democrat president,...

            He lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and won a fairly slim electoral college victory.

            The political pendulum swings. Two periods of Republican president, two periods of Democrat president, repeat, that's the pattern. It would have taken a miracle for the Republicans to lose the 2016 election, and Trump nearly did.

            3 votes
            1. [3]
              vegai
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Oh damn, you're right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin -- I didn't realize the popular vote margin was that large in 2016.

              Oh damn, you're right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin -- I didn't realize the popular vote margin was that large in 2016.

              1. [2]
                NaraVara
                Link Parent
                If I’m not mistaken it’s the largest margin in modern history. Also the first time we’ve had a judiciary that was predominantly stacked by Presidents who came to power with a minority of the vote....

                If I’m not mistaken it’s the largest margin in modern history.

                Also the first time we’ve had a judiciary that was predominantly stacked by Presidents who came to power with a minority of the vote. You can bet this is going to have consequences that will haunt us for, literally, the rest of our lives.

                6 votes
                1. vegai
                  Link Parent
                  According to that wikipedia page, in absolute numbers, it is easily the largest margin. -2,868,686 votes for the winner. Next up is -543,816 to George W. Bush in 2000. In relative terms, it was...

                  According to that wikipedia page, in absolute numbers, it is easily the largest margin. -2,868,686 votes for the winner. Next up is -543,816 to George W. Bush in 2000.

                  In relative terms, it was 3rd highest.

                  2 votes
        2. NaraVara
          Link Parent
          It’s hard to assert that for sure. It’s possible the Trumpy base might have stayed home. You don’t need that many defectors to flake out, just 2% is enough to swing a state.

          Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her

          It’s hard to assert that for sure. It’s possible the Trumpy base might have stayed home. You don’t need that many defectors to flake out, just 2% is enough to swing a state.

          1 vote
        3. Kuromantis
          Link Parent
          What?

          Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but Trump was barely able to beat her.

          What?

        4. Grzmot
          Link Parent
          Bruh, he won.

          and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016

          Bruh, he won.

          2 votes
    2. MimicSquid
      Link Parent
      Honestly, while I prefer Warren I'll vote for whichever of her or Sanders who can show that they'll be able to beat out Biden. I think either one would do good as President, but I'd prefer Warren...

      Honestly, while I prefer Warren I'll vote for whichever of her or Sanders who can show that they'll be able to beat out Biden. I think either one would do good as President, but I'd prefer Warren in the top seat and Sanders continuing to raise hell in the Senate.

      8 votes
    3. NaraVara
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Biden is a heavy favorite on a second ballot at a convention due to superdelegate involvement, but if he fails to consolidate there Warren is a shoe in since she’s a heavy favorite among the...

      All my friends are worried about what might happen if neither Sanders or Warren drop out and/or this goes into a brokered convention.

      Biden is a heavy favorite on a second ballot at a convention due to superdelegate involvement, but if he fails to consolidate there Warren is a shoe in since she’s a heavy favorite among the activist base within the party. (In other words, the policy people who do the actual work rather than the leadership).

      But there is not likely to be a brokered convention. If Sanders or Warren don’t get a decisive lead in the primary process Biden will end up winning.

      But neither of them dropping out will help the other. If Sanders drops a big chunk of his people go Biden instead of Warren. If Warren drops a big chunk of her people go Biden or Buttigieg (who isn’t that far off) and it just becomes a 3 way fight with Pete instead.

      If you want someone out and a progressive to win, you should want Pete out. His voters are likely to split between Biden and Warren, but much more heavily to Warren.

      think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently

      “Gloves off” haha. This is the mildest spat I’ve ever heard of. The “outrage” is entirely manufactured by extremely online Rose Twitter dorks who want to disingenuously feign umbrage because the only emotion they know how to express is being pissy on the internet. If they react this way to Warren not even directly attacking him they’re gonna be in for a bad time once conservatives actually gun for Sanders instead of trying to boost him as part of a “Pied Piper” strategy.

      8 votes
    4. hamstergeddon
      Link Parent
      I hadn't really thought about it, but I may make my Sanders v Warren decision based off polling closer to voting day. I live in a state where I'll have a few months and candidates will have been...

      I hadn't really thought about it, but I may make my Sanders v Warren decision based off polling closer to voting day. I live in a state where I'll have a few months and candidates will have been weeded out by then, so that seems like a sound way to do things. Sanders is my preferred candidate, but I won't lose sleep voting for Warren if it makes sense to.

      1 vote
  2. [12]
    Amarok
    Link
    An absolute nothingburger of a debate. I felt like I was listening to tape recorded messages from twenty years ago. Heard it, not buying it, no real solutions just more platitudes and heavy handed...

    An absolute nothingburger of a debate. I felt like I was listening to tape recorded messages from twenty years ago. Heard it, not buying it, no real solutions just more platitudes and heavy handed words. Talk is cheap.

    I can hold my nose and still vote for Bernie but I'm sick of the rest of them at this point.

    Yang raised two million despite not being on the stage, he just landed the Chappelle endorsement and he's on Bill Maher tomorrow. At least someone on the campaign trail is still interesting. Without him that debate stage was a wasteland.

    9 votes
    1. [10]
      Loire
      Link Parent
      I'm sorry but it just sounds like you are so emotionally dedicated to Yang at this point that you are unable to consider any other candidate despite the inevitability he would eventually fall off....

      I'm sorry but it just sounds like you are so emotionally dedicated to Yang at this point that you are unable to consider any other candidate despite the inevitability he would eventually fall off. The debate was no different than any of the previous except for, thankfully, having a reasonable number of candidates on the stage. The few replies Yang has gotten at the debates in the past didn't fundamentally change them so much so that this one was a "wasteland"

      17 votes
      1. [9]
        Amarok
        Link Parent
        Respectfully, if that's the only reason you can think of why someone would be sour on these candidates, you need to think harder. The difference was that this time, all I heard were empty...

        Respectfully, if that's the only reason you can think of why someone would be sour on these candidates, you need to think harder.

        The difference was that this time, all I heard were empty platitudes. Democrats love to talk about what we 'must do' rather than how we do it. I'm almost always on board with where progressives want to go, but seldom how they want to get there. They have a stunning lack of practicality in their plans - Bernie's jobs guarantee and Warren's wealth tax are both typical of that mindset.

        I saw nothing on that stage tonight worth voting for which leaves me with voting against Trump as my only motivation. I still like Bernie, even though it's crystal clear at this point that he's not a uniter. The field is pretty tepid. Warren's painting Bernie as sexist was such a wonderful high point of the debate, I'm sure it'll make the democrats proud.

        At least when Yang talks, I hear practical solutions. That puts him at the front of the pack for me and a hell of a lot of other libertarian-minded voters. If the democrats want to pass on that support in favor of circlejerking their base, that's on them.

        6 votes
        1. [8]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          1.) 90 seconds of stage time isn’t really the place to get into the weeds of “how” we do anything. 2.) Most “how” questions are so dependent on the legislative sausage making process that it’s...

          Democrats love to talk about what we 'must do' rather than how we do it

          1.) 90 seconds of stage time isn’t really the place to get into the weeds of “how” we do anything.

          2.) Most “how” questions are so dependent on the legislative sausage making process that it’s dishonest and pointless to talk about it before you actually know what the composition of the House and Senate are going to be.

          3.) If they actually talked about how they’re going to do anything at any meaningful level of granularity you would kill yourself from boredom. These things are extremely complicated and even most of the experts on the topics don’t fully understand what they’re getting into until they start work on it.

          4 votes
          1. [7]
            Amarok
            Link Parent
            Funny, Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined. Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions...

            Funny, Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined. Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things. Just the changes he gets to make by fiat to regulatory agencies alone is enough to fix many issues. Yet, he didn't make me want to kill myself from boredom. Instead, he made me do research into the solutions, and I even enjoyed it.

            I'm done making excuses like these for a broken process.

            5 votes
            1. [3]
              NaraVara
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate? In the words of the great philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Making changes to...

              Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined

              That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate?

              Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things. Just the changes he gets to make by fiat to regulatory agencies alone is enough to fix many issues. Yet, he didn't make me want to kill myself from boredom. Instead, he made me do research into the solutions, and I even enjoyed it.

              In the words of the great philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Making changes to regulatory authorities by executive fiat is actually a lot more complicated than people who have never been in government like to pretend. It takes months to a year of building a legal case for the order than can stand up to oppositional litigation. Yang’s are the kinds of plans you get to have when you don’t actually understand the brass tacks of how government works, and they dissolve into nothing upon first contact with reality.

              4 votes
              1. [2]
                Amarok
                Link Parent
                I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that. He'll be at the next three debates in feb. since his polling is holding at 6%+ now everywhere, even in...

                That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate?

                I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that. He'll be at the next three debates in feb. since his polling is holding at 6%+ now everywhere, even in Florida - so we'll get more answers from him next month, assuming the impeachment trial doesn't end up canceling the next debates. They won't be holding them if all of the senators are in session for the trial. I don't like impeachment interfering with the election like this, it's peak stupidity from the democrats.

                It's not complicated at all to, for example, direct the NRC to relax regulations on Thorium, or change the measurements of the country from GDP to his american report card. Those things can be done with a simple phone call. Considering most of our agencies are understaffed and missing their leaders/directors after this Trump mess that seems like it's pretty easy to put a new team in place, though they'll surely have an epic mess to clean up.

                There's no 'legal' case to be made giving new marching orders to the executive branch offices. Congress creates those agencies, it does not get involved at all in running them. It's part of the separation of powers. That's the president's job. He's the boss, that's how it works.

                To be fair I'm sure Bernie would do the same. Not so sure about the rest of them.

                5 votes
                1. NaraVara
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Not really. Because based on those debates I have no idea how you could listen to his anodyne statements and come away thinking he had so much more pragmatism or detail than anyone else on the...

                  I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that.

                  Not really. Because based on those debates I have no idea how you could listen to his anodyne statements and come away thinking he had so much more pragmatism or detail than anyone else on the stage. Especially compared to Warren or even (shudder) Buttigieg.

                  I don't like impeachment interfering with the election like this, it's peak stupidity from the democrats.

                  It's literally a Constitutional obligation to impeach a President who is committing crimes.

                  It's not complicated at all to, for example, direct the NRC to relax regulations on Thorium, or change the measurements of the country from GDP to his american report card.

                  A statement like "relax regulations on Thorium" counts as "not complicated at all" to you? It's literally a body of policy relating to enforcement and safety regulations around a nuclear reactor. You don't think there will be legal challenges, Environmental Impact Statements, and a bevy of other things you need to address to make that happen?

                  You think just arbitrarily changing a major economic indicator that is used for calculating metrics for everything from BLS to Census to UN HDI data all across private industry, non-profits, international institutions, and state and local governments would be easy and have no major push-back from anyone? These things are not easy in the slightest dude.

                  Considering most of our agencies are understaffed and missing their leaders/directors after this Trump mess that seems like it's pretty easy to put a new team in place

                  It takes anywhere from 3 to 6 months for a new hire to clear a background check and be deemed ready to enter duty as a federal employee (career, non-political). And that's assuming you can find a qualified person at the rate they're hiring for and who is capable of clearing a background check-requirements which, depending on the job, can include needing to be a US citizen, needing to be drug free (including weed, so good luck hiring any entry-level software devs who are worth a damn), and needing to have a debt/income ratio that isn't too high. There is absolutely nothing "easy" about putting a team in place, especially with an obstructionist Senate committed to not letting you have a team at all.

                  Hell, it's not even easy to hire talent good enough to tackle problems of this scale even without all the Federal Government hiring and procurement restrictions and requirements.

                  There's no 'legal' case to be made giving new marching orders to the executive branch offices.

                  It took the Obama administration more than a year of research and legal work before they were able to push DACA through to make sure it actually worked. One of the main reason it's taken Trump so long to actually put things like the Muslim Ban in action was largely because his team of chucklekfucks didn't do that kind of background work and had the policy tied up in court challenges for years.

                  The government is big and has to be accountable to a lot of different stakeholders in lines of work and with levels of expertise that you wouldn't believe. Pretending any of this is easy or simple to unwind or understand the long term consequences of is the sort of naiveté only senior executives can have because they never have to do any of the actual work to make these sorts of things happen.

                  4 votes
            2. [2]
              Hidegger
              Link Parent
              I really wish Bernie could incorporate Yang's Freedom Dividend instead of pushing minimum wage to $15/hour. I'd rather have more money and see the cost of things stay the same than see both rise....

              I really wish Bernie could incorporate Yang's Freedom Dividend instead of pushing minimum wage to $15/hour. I'd rather have more money and see the cost of things stay the same than see both rise.

              As for health reform, idk why Bernie doesn't release a handful of projected numbers, removing insurance agency costs, health administration price gouging and negotiating drug prices will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the 3.5 trillion/year americans spend on healthcare. 4% tax will end up costing the the people who get insurance through work slightly more, but same the businesses they work for from paying any of the money they already are. For people privately paying for insurance it would flat out reduce their yearly costs. Not only does it then cost less, there would be no insurance claim bullshit and people would be able get the health services they need when they need it.

              The only unpredictable factor is how many people would actually start going and using the health care system once it doesn't make you go bankrupt for doing so and how much of an adjustment to that 4% needs to be made to account for that.

              2 votes
              1. Amarok
                Link Parent
                Honestly I'd like to see Bernie adopt the dividend and keep the $15 minimum wage. There's no reason we can't do both, and getting the dividend in place first softens the blow of the wage hike...

                Honestly I'd like to see Bernie adopt the dividend and keep the $15 minimum wage. There's no reason we can't do both, and getting the dividend in place first softens the blow of the wage hike considerably for small business. He should change his jobs 'guarantee' into a jobs program that finds people work and helps pay moving expenses and retraining when it's appropriate. It's the 'guarantee' part that sticks in my craw since that is not a realistic promise, but the idea of having the fed help find people work and create what jobs it can is a good one.

                6 votes
            3. Parliament
              Link Parent
              Warren isn't my top choice, but I know that her plans articulate when something could be accomplished through executive order.

              each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things

              Warren isn't my top choice, but I know that her plans articulate when something could be accomplished through executive order.

    2. Velrei
      Link Parent
      Neither of those endorsements are serious people though. They're certainly not going to expand his base.

      Neither of those endorsements are serious people though. They're certainly not going to expand his base.

  3. [6]
    no_exit
    Link
    The past couple days have been embarrassing for Warren's campaign imo, I'm not watching but am interested to see if any of that is addressed.

    The past couple days have been embarrassing for Warren's campaign imo, I'm not watching but am interested to see if any of that is addressed.

    7 votes
    1. [4]
      muh_tilde
      Link Parent
      Really disappointed in her for resorting to what I consider to be underhanded tactics once she fell behind in the polls. Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform. And...

      Really disappointed in her for resorting to what I consider to be underhanded tactics once she fell behind in the polls. Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform. And the bias against Bernie coming from the moderators was palpable and shameful.

      11 votes
      1. [3]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        You realize Warren literally wrote the book on bankruptcy and the causes behind high income inequality way back in the 90s right? Just because Sanders was the first person you heard talking about...

        Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform.

        You realize Warren literally wrote the book on bankruptcy and the causes behind high income inequality way back in the 90s right?

        Just because Sanders was the first person you heard talking about this stuff doesn’t mean he invented progressive policy. In fact, it’s been Warren who has a more accomplished record of actually putting words into action.

        5 votes
        1. [2]
          jwr
          Link Parent
          Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy" and its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.

          Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy" and its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.

          1. NaraVara
            Link Parent
            Saying Warren "ripped off Bernie's entire platform" is basically that. It's nonsense. Warren's been advocating and writing about income inequality and corporate malfeasance for decades. This is...

            Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy"

            Saying Warren "ripped off Bernie's entire platform" is basically that. It's nonsense. Warren's been advocating and writing about income inequality and corporate malfeasance for decades.

            its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.

            This is just getting too wrapped up in labels and ignoring the underlying facts. Many of the policy recommendations Sanders and others have been making are based on things Warren highlighted in her writing ages ago. "The Two Income Trap" had more influence on progressive policy than all the dusty old YouTube clips of Sanders you can dredge up combined. Compelling speeches on the House floor that nobody listened to make for nice campaign material, but that's not what actually affected policy.

            She had more impact on the progressive lean of the government as a private citizen through her advocacy than most actual legislators. This includes Sanders, who has been too bought into his "I'm a quirky independent" shtick to actually twist the arms it takes to get stuff done.

            2 votes
    2. patience_limited
      Link Parent
      I am so, so very tired of the endless media spin on this, and the number of people leaping to outraged conclusions over it. Someone leaks a document purporting that Sanders' volunteers were...

      I am so, so very tired of the endless media spin on this, and the number of people leaping to outraged conclusions over it.

      Someone leaks a document purporting that Sanders' volunteers were advised to slam Warren as appealing only to the educated and affluent.

      Someone claims Sanders argued that Warren couldn't win because she's a woman.

      When confronted, Warren remembers that's what happened, Bernie doesn't, and all hell breaks loose over a great heap of "he said, she said" that doesn't actually mean anything except enemy action.

      At this point, I'm still rooting for either, but this dumb partisanship means neither will win.

      4 votes
  4. [5]
    reese
    Link
    CNN is hosting the January 2020 debate in Des Moines. Again, as noted in the topic title, this starts at 9pm ET. This is the final debate before the first nominating contest begins with the Iowa...

    CNN is hosting the January 2020 debate in Des Moines. Again, as noted in the topic title, this starts at 9pm ET. This is the final debate before the first nominating contest begins with the Iowa caucuses, taking place on February 3rd.

    Debaters:

    • Joe Biden
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Tom Steyer
    • Elizabeth Warren

    Moderators:

    • Wolf Blitzer (of CNN)
    • Brianne Pfannenstiel (of The Des Moines Register)
    • Abby Phillip (of CNN)

    There is more info here.

    5 votes
    1. [4]
      Keegan
      Link Parent
      Did I miss something? I thought Yang still was qualifying for this debate.

      Did I miss something? I thought Yang still was qualifying for this debate.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        reese
        Link Parent
        According to NPR: Also:

        According to NPR:

        Entrepreneur Andrew Yang was on the last Democratic debate stage, last month, but missed out this time around after failing to meet the qualifying polling requirement.

        Also:

        For the polling criteria, candidates needed to receive 5% in at least four DNC-approved national or early state (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) polls, or receive 7% in two early state polls.

        9 votes
      2. Omnicrola
        Link Parent
        He didn't get enough qualifying polls. However there's some criticism to be had about the lack of polling between the last debate and the deadline for this one (due to holidays). In the last week...

        He didn't get enough qualifying polls. However there's some criticism to be had about the lack of polling between the last debate and the deadline for this one (due to holidays). In the last week he's gotten a few that put him at the 5% threshold, but they came too late.

        5 votes
  5. [29]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [28]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      They’re not. It’s perfectly possible for Sanders to think he said one thing that came across differently to the listener because he’s tactless and doesn’t choose his words carefully. It’s...

      They’re not.

      It’s perfectly possible for Sanders to think he said one thing that came across differently to the listener because he’s tactless and doesn’t choose his words carefully. It’s perfectly possible that Warren heard a message that Sanders didn’t intend to deliver because she’s been hearing one person after another tell her she’s unelectable for one dumb reason or another, and then vented about it to her confidants. Neither of this means “lying,” just that they walked away from a talk with different ideas about what transpired.

      Jeez it’s like nobody on the Internet has ever been married before.

      25 votes
      1. [12]
        Icarus
        Link Parent
        I think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues. This is a he-said she-said situation where there wasn't a victim. They should have...

        Jeez it’s like nobody on the Internet has ever been married before.

        I think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues.

        This is a he-said she-said situation where there wasn't a victim. They should have discussed this between each other instead of pitting their supporters against each other.

        This is how you get political apathy.

        10 votes
        1. [6]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          There’s always a “more important issue.” Usually stating that is just a way to tell people to not talk about the thing they want to do and talk about what you prioritize instead. For a lot of...

          think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues.

          There’s always a “more important issue.” Usually stating that is just a way to tell people to not talk about the thing they want to do and talk about what you prioritize instead. For a lot of people, the orientation of a politician towards the role and centrality of women in public life is a big thing. It’s not helpful to minimize or discard their concerns as invalid.

          They should have discussed this between each other instead of pitting their supporters against each other.

          They didn’t “pit their supporters against each other.” The Warren campaign distributed guidance about deescalating on this issue as soon as it broke. The acrimony is entirely manufactured by extremely online twitter dorks who default to flipping out and throwing tantrums any time anyone offends their delicate sensibilities.

          14 votes
          1. [5]
            Icarus
            Link Parent
            Right. And Warren needed to have more evidence than he-said she-said. Bernie has said that a woman can win. He said it a long time ago. There has to be much more evidence to sway me. Hard...

            For a lot of people, the orientation of a politician towards the role and centrality of women in public life is a big thing. It’s not helpful to minimize or discard their concerns as invalid.

            Right. And Warren needed to have more evidence than he-said she-said. Bernie has said that a woman can win. He said it a long time ago. There has to be much more evidence to sway me.

            They didn’t “pit their supporters against each other.” The Warren campaign distributed guidance about deescalating on this issue as soon as it broke. The acrimony is entirely manufactured by extremely online twitter dorks who default to flipping out and throwing tantrums any time anyone offends their delicate sensibilities.

            Hard disagree. Don't bring it up if it isn't a campaign issue. Warren did not handle it in a satisfying way in my opinion. And CNN is fanning the flames, Twitter is just the fire.

            5 votes
            1. [3]
              NaraVara
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I’m interpreting this as an admission that you don’t want to be swayed. Sanders’ supporters have been carping on DNA test shit since last year man. Where is this sudden umbrage against cheap shots...

              There has to be much more evidence to sway me.

              I’m interpreting this as an admission that you don’t want to be swayed.

              Don't bring it up if it isn't a campaign issue.

              Sanders’ supporters have been carping on DNA test shit since last year man. Where is this sudden umbrage against cheap shots coming from now?

              And even the assumption that it was a cheap shot that was intentionally leaked is just an assumption of malice. You’re not engaged in a dispassionate reading of evidence here.

              Edit: it’s really worth checking out Contrapoints’ cancel culture video. You can plainly see the pattern of assumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism here. Both in what’s being done to Warren and what’s being assumed as the intention towards Sanders. It both makes people more hostile than is appropriate and more defensive.

              7 votes
              1. [2]
                Icarus
                Link Parent
                Has Sanders ever brought up the DNA test thing?

                Has Sanders ever brought up the DNA test thing?

                4 votes
                1. [2]
                  Comment removed by site admin
                  Link Parent
                  1. [2]
                    Comment removed by site admin
                    Link Parent
                    1. [2]
                      Comment removed by site admin
                      Link Parent
                      1. Deimos
                        Link Parent
                        Alright, I don't see any forward momentum in this conversation any more, and it's just drifting into taking shots at each other, so I'm going to stop it here.

                        Alright, I don't see any forward momentum in this conversation any more, and it's just drifting into taking shots at each other, so I'm going to stop it here.

                        13 votes
            2. hamstergeddon
              Link Parent
              I don't think it's a coincidence that the "story" was broke by CNN just a day or two before they hosted the debate.

              I don't think it's a coincidence that the "story" was broke by CNN just a day or two before they hosted the debate.

              5 votes
        2. [5]
          Loire
          Link Parent
          This is an American political race. Shit like this is little leagues compared to what both of them are going to face in the general. Bernie especially is going to get absolutely lambasted once the...

          This is an American political race. Shit like this is little leagues compared to what both of them are going to face in the general. Bernie especially is going to get absolutely lambasted once the Republican propaganda machine stops tacitly supporting him and turns their guns around.

          And lets be frank, Sander's supporters have been absolutely rabid this cycle, tearing down every candidate that comes close to Bernie (except Biden strangely enough). Warren's don't even register. The Sanders4Prez types have been going hard since March. It's disingenuous to get up in arms when Warren's camp takes one piddly shot.

          9 votes
          1. [4]
            Icarus
            Link Parent
            This is a primary between allies. They are prepared to take on Trump and his lies/exaggerations. Every candidate is going to be lambasted this election so that point is completely moot. This is...

            This is an American political race. Shit like this is little leagues compared to what both of them are going to face in the general

            This is a primary between allies. They are prepared to take on Trump and his lies/exaggerations. Every candidate is going to be lambasted this election so that point is completely moot.

            And lets be frank, Sander's supporters have been absolutely rabid this cycle, tearing down every candidate that comes close to Bernie (except Biden strangely enough). Warren's don't even register. The Sanders4Prez types have been going hard since March. It's disingenuous to get up in arms when Warren's camp takes one piddly shot.

            This is just patently false. I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals. But now we have to stop and evaluate words, meanings, histories, to get context and feeling over whether someone is lying or not.

            I can cherry pick 100s of comments from all political campaigns that lie and tear down candidates on false narratives. Like I have specifically told you once before, if you base your perception of a campaign or a politician on online comments, on Reddit of all places, you are going to be left with a shitty view of everyone. Go meet some real people who work hard on campaigns, donate to campaigns, and struggle with the issues that these candidates are speaking to.

            9 votes
            1. [3]
              BuckeyeSundae
              Link Parent
              Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle...

              I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals.

              Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle than in 2016. I don't think there are no rabid supporters--the nature of politics more generally at this point seems to lift up extreme voices regardless of how many actually share the view--but I think many of the more anti-establishment Democratic-leaning voters that supported Sanders against Hillary in 2016 are currently lining up behind Gabbard. And Gabbard's supporters do tend, in my experience, to be a little bit more hard edged about their support, and a lot less likely to say they'll support a democratic candidate.

              I'm not a huge fan of Sanders. But I don't see anything disproportionately annoying about his supporters.

              8 votes
              1. [2]
                Icarus
                Link Parent
                Thank you. I will add, I have met supporters of most candidates and they are are good people who have a deep amount of compassion for the poor. We disagree on how to get to where we need to go,...

                Thank you.

                I will add, I have met supporters of most candidates and they are are good people who have a deep amount of compassion for the poor. We disagree on how to get to where we need to go, but 100% are in agreement to do whatever it takes to defeat Trump.

                I haven't met a Tulsi or Biden supporter though.

                5 votes
                1. BuckeyeSundae
                  Link Parent
                  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged....

                  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged. And a fair number of Biden supporters that I have met and talked to are the type that would prefer another candidate but value beating Trump more (and believe that a more moderate candidate that appears to that large chunk of whites without a college degree that went so hard for Trump this last cycle is the way to get to 50%+1 electoral votes).

                  The two (2!) Gabbard supporters I've talked to weren't impolite, but made no secret about their hatred of the Democratic party generally, and their deep distrust in everyone else's foreign policy views.

                  4 votes
      2. [16]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [5]
          reese
          Link Parent
          What worries me about the interaction is that, in spite of Warren knowing Sanders would never think "a woman couldn't be President," she took the low road and misrepresented a private exchange for...

          What worries me about the interaction is that, in spite of Warren knowing Sanders would never think "a woman couldn't be President," she took the low road and misrepresented a private exchange for her own personal gain. What's asinine about the reported exchange is, well, we all know that Sanders doesn't think that. It's just obvious.

          And personally, I don't find the manipulation endearing on Warren's part or that of CNN.

          What's more, the burden of proof is on Warren, not Sanders. If she claims he said some terrible thing to her in a private conversation, then she needs evidence. CNN immediately shifted the burden of proof to Sanders, and this was after compelling all the other candidates to dogpile him on the subject of USMCA, a replacement of NAFTA which he does not support, but all of the other candidates do (and Donald Trump).

          The reality of the situation is that everyone is threatened af by Sanders, and it's showing.

          14 votes
          1. [4]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            You only know this if you’re in the tank for him. Jesus, I’m a Warren supporter and even I’m privately unsure if her being a woman will be an Achilles heel in a general election. It is not at all...

            What's asinine about the reported exchange is, well, we all know that Sanders doesn't think that.

            You only know this if you’re in the tank for him. Jesus, I’m a Warren supporter and even I’m privately unsure if her being a woman will be an Achilles heel in a general election. It is not at all implausible that Bernie would think so too.

            7 votes
            1. [3]
              reese
              Link Parent
              There's a distinction you're not addressing: it's one thing to present Bernie like he thinks "a woman couldn't be President," and another to say that a woman might have disproportionate difficulty...

              There's a distinction you're not addressing: it's one thing to present Bernie like he thinks "a woman couldn't be President," and another to say that a woman might have disproportionate difficulty becoming President because of prejudice. CNN and Warren chose the former narrative, not the latter, despite the extensive public record showing that Sanders is entirely supportive of a woman becoming President.

              You're expressing that you think the latter narrative is quite plausible, being sympathetic to Bernie, but at the same time you have yet to admit that, if this is the case, then Warren and CNN must have then acted in bad faith.

              Nobody would care if Bernie thought a woman might face discrimination on the campaign trail. That's assumed because Bernie has always fought tooth and nail for underrepresented groups. It's something we all have to be aware of to contend with bigots, not information we use to disqualify women or others.

              All of this blew up precisely because it is not a miscommunication nothingburger, it's a concerted effort to smear Sanders.

              11 votes
              1. [2]
                NaraVara
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                It's really fascinating to see the presumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism process unfolding in action here. You've just decided that CNN and Warren are in cahoots, that Warren is...

                CNN and Warren chose the former narrative

                It's really fascinating to see the presumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism process unfolding in action here. You've just decided that CNN and Warren are in cahoots, that Warren is deliberately lying about what he said rather than interpreted his words differently from what he intended, that Sanders didn't actually say something ill advised because he's tactless and brusque (even though we know the man to be tactless and brusque), and on and on. It's so plain to see the bandwagoning pile-on logic at play here based on scant evidence and reflexive assumptions of bad faith.

                Just to start, when did Warren say anything about prejudice on his part? And why do you think CNN and the Warren campaign are coordinating on messaging here? These are all assumptions you're making because you lean Bernie so you're inclined to buy the narrative that lets him be the victim. From there it's a quick hop to essentializing everyone who isn't him as a villain, and then getting pickled in an echo chamber that just consistently reinforces that story.

                despite the extensive public record showing that Sanders is entirely supportive of a woman becoming President.

                There's no shortage of people who will theoretically say women could be President while shooting down any woman who actually tries on flimsy pretenses. A few anodyne public statements are hardly the "bulletproof" bits of evidence you're pretending. It's like the "here's a picture of him from nearly a half century ago protesting Jim Crow" thing all over again.

                but at the same time you have yet to admit that, if this is the case, then Warren and CNN must have then acted in bad faith.

                There's that conflation of Warren and CNN again. You've basically separated the world into Bernie people and "the rest" who are all in cahoots to foil Bernie, the one true hope for progress. It's a tiresome and reductive narrative that the Sanders camp leans way too heavily on. In reality, there are lots people with varying drives and incentives here and pretending everyone is part of a big conspiracy to bring your guy down just is not productive.

                All of this blew up precisely because it is not a miscommunication nothingburger, it's a concerted effort to smear Sanders.

                This is the mildest possible smear ever concocted if it is. And the fact that the Sanders camp is going mask off and letting it get this ugly just reinforces the misgivings so many people have about the guy. Even people who like Sanders are terrified of the people he surrounds himself with and who will surely ride his coattails in power.

                3 votes
                1. reese
                  Link Parent
                  I won't be baited down a labyrinth of twisted words. Otherwise I would spend the next hour quoting each sentence of your response to clarify what I did not say and do not believe. I'm not...

                  I won't be baited down a labyrinth of twisted words. Otherwise I would spend the next hour quoting each sentence of your response to clarify what I did not say and do not believe. I'm not interested in the endless back and forth. I feel that my existing responses amply sum up my view just fine.

                  Let's take a step back. I'm not anti-Warren. She's my second choice even though I'm not happy with her at the moment. Also, just as a personal note, I would ask you to consider that my group membership may not be as straightforward as you think, nor that of others. If you haven't noticed based on my comments on Tildes, I'm not in the business of participating in a popularity contest.

                  11 votes
        2. [10]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          Just listen to yourself carefully. You just said yourself that Warren has personal experience with Sanders, but then you claim you have a better idea of where his “true heart is” than she does...

          That makes it clear to me this is more than a miscommunication.

          Just listen to yourself carefully. You just said yourself that Warren has personal experience with Sanders, but then you claim you have a better idea of where his “true heart is” than she does based on picking out a few select public statements and positions he had in the past.

          Don’t you think Warren might have a better read on what’s “in scope” for him to say and do in private than you might?

          And honestly Bernie wasn’t even wrong. She does have an uphill climb due to being a woman. So is not even really implausible that he would think so since it’s a plausible statement about how someone sees the world. The statement wasn’t about whether women “shouldn’t” but “couldn’t” when against Trump.

          5 votes
          1. [10]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [9]
              NaraVara
              Link Parent
              Like I said. It’s like nobody on the internet has ever been married before.

              don't have to know either of them to think that they've told straight from their mouths mutually exclusive stories.

              Like I said. It’s like nobody on the internet has ever been married before.

              3 votes
              1. [8]
                Icarus
                Link Parent
                They aren't married.

                They aren't married.

                4 votes
                1. [7]
                  NaraVara
                  Link Parent
                  whoosh

                  whoosh

                  3 votes
                  1. [6]
                    Keegan
                    Link Parent
                    Please don't make this a thing here. I hate that aspect of Reddit.

                    Please don't make this a thing here. I hate that aspect of Reddit.

                    12 votes
                    1. [5]
                      wervenyt
                      Link Parent
                      First impressions would lead me to agree with you, but what in particular about that phrase/type of comment do you hate?

                      First impressions would lead me to agree with you, but what in particular about that phrase/type of comment do you hate?

                      1 vote
                      1. [4]
                        Keegan
                        Link Parent
                        People use it instead of taking 4 seconds to explain their point. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and no good can possibly come from it. It's also mocking and on reddit led to whole...

                        People use it instead of taking 4 seconds to explain their point. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and no good can possibly come from it.

                        It's also mocking and on reddit led to whole subreddits dedicated to making fun of people for not understanding something.

                        3 votes
                        1. [3]
                          SantalBlush
                          Link Parent
                          To be fair, I think it's often meant to shame people who appear to intentionally misinterpret a comment, or don't seem to take a moment to try and understand what is meant before responding....

                          To be fair, I think it's often meant to shame people who appear to intentionally misinterpret a comment, or don't seem to take a moment to try and understand what is meant before responding. Responding with "That's not what I meant" can make one feel like one has been unfairly put on the defensive.

                          1 vote
                          1. [2]
                            Keegan
                            Link Parent
                            I can understand that. It makes sense. I haven't seen it lately so I'm no expert, so I'll take your word for it.

                            I can understand that. It makes sense. I haven't seen it lately so I'm no expert, so I'll take your word for it.

                            1 vote
                            1. SantalBlush
                              Link Parent
                              I'll give you a topical example. Sanders: "It will be hard for a woman to become President because of Trump." Warren: "Are you saying a woman can't become President?" Sanders: "whoosh"

                              I'll give you a topical example.

                              Sanders: "It will be hard for a woman to become President because of Trump."

                              Warren: "Are you saying a woman can't become President?"

                              Sanders: "whoosh"

                              1 vote