|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Running Democratic candidate talks to former Democratic candidate, more hot news at 11.
its a complete non-story unless there is some actual substance of what they talked about and that substance being any different from 'hey you got some tips?'.
Its 'news' because people want to find a conspiracy theory.
|
On September 08 2019 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Running Democratic candidate talks to former Democratic candidate, more hot news at 11.
its a complete non-story unless there is some actual substance of what they talked about and that substance being any different from 'hey you got some tips?'.
Its 'news' because people want to find a conspiracy theory.
Which is why it mentions she's been talking with the other 2 leading candidates too right? It's enough to make clear Warren is her pick. With only 3 candidates with a shot (and a potential none of them clinches the nomination outright), the one Clinton picks matters. This isn't much, but in context it's pretty clear she's not in Biden or Sanders corner.
|
On September 08 2019 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Running Democratic candidate talks to former Democratic candidate, more hot news at 11.
its a complete non-story unless there is some actual substance of what they talked about and that substance being any different from 'hey you got some tips?'.
Its 'news' because people want to find a conspiracy theory. Which is why it mentions she's been talking with the other 2 leading candidates too right? It's enough to make clear Warren is her pick. With only 3 candidates with a shot (and a potential none of them clinches the nomination outright), the one Clinton picks matters. This isn't much, but in context it's pretty clear she's not in Biden or Sanders corner. Entirely possible but I love the jump to immediate assuming that she hasn't talked to Biden or Sanders. You say it doesn't mention she talked to the other 2 leading candidates, I say it doesn't mention she didn't talk to the other 2 leading candidates.
|
On September 08 2019 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Running Democratic candidate talks to former Democratic candidate, more hot news at 11.
its a complete non-story unless there is some actual substance of what they talked about and that substance being any different from 'hey you got some tips?'.
Its 'news' because people want to find a conspiracy theory. Precisely.
I read the article. There's a pretty key paragraph that perhaps should have been included in the excerpt but wasn't for whatever reason:
One source was aware of just one additional call between Warren and Clinton since then. But a person who is close to Clinton said the contact has been substantial enough to merit attention, describing a conversation between the two as seemingly recent because it was "front of mind" for her.
The way the article is worded, this claim of them having substantial contact is based on one source while another source says the opposite. They mention multiple sources for an initial contact between Warren and Clinton, but for the more recent contacts it appears to just be the single source claiming this frequent contact. That's pretty shaky.
I'd take the article with a pretty big grain of salt until there is better confirmation, especially given NBC recently had a to retract a story that was based a single source that was unable to be confirmed by anyone else.
|
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders.
|
On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate.
Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden.
My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary.
As always anything must be dialled up to 11.
|
On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11.
So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp).
Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes?
|
On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source.
I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating.
Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out.
|
On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder?
My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it?
|
On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out.
Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance?
I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance.
What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support.
On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it?
It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be.
|
On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this.
Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes?
|
On September 08 2019 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this. Show nested quote +Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes?
Here:
your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary.
Presumably the hilarious part is that it's unreasonable to see Warren as Hillary's surrogate, so I used a synonym to see if it was the word or the point you were disagreeing with.
|
Why again is this article a strategic move from Clinton's camp? To me it reads like an overly ambitious journalist found some random staffer who said "oh yeah they called each other a couple times" and then decided that was an easy extra article for the day.
We're talking about two people who've known each other for a long time and have found themselves in relatively similar positions calling each other on their private numbers. Who knows, they might even be friends, or what goes for that in that world.
|
On September 08 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this. Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? Here: Presumably the hilarious part is that it's unreasonable to see Warren as Hillary's surrogate, so I used a synonym to see if it was the word or the point you were disagreeing with. Sight, the hilarious part is that you make that jump from 2 people talking once, maybe a few more times in an article utterly devoid of any substance.
If you want to find a conspiracy to keep talking about how evil Clinton is then go look somewhere else.
|
On September 08 2019 08:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this. Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? Here: your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. Presumably the hilarious part is that it's unreasonable to see Warren as Hillary's surrogate, so I used a synonym to see if it was the word or the point you were disagreeing with. Sight, the hilarious part is that you make that jump from 2 people talking once, maybe a few more times in an article utterly devoid of any substance. If you want to find a conspiracy to keep talking about how evil Clinton is then go look somewhere else.
It's not based solely on the article, hence the part where I said "in context" and nothing to do with whatever evil Clinton Conspiracy you've imagined.
|
On September 08 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this. Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? Here: your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. Presumably the hilarious part is that it's unreasonable to see Warren as Hillary's surrogate, so I used a synonym to see if it was the word or the point you were disagreeing with. Sight, the hilarious part is that you make that jump from 2 people talking once, maybe a few more times in an article utterly devoid of any substance. If you want to find a conspiracy to keep talking about how evil Clinton is then go look somewhere else. It's not based solely on the article, hence the part where I said "in context" and nothing to do with whatever evil Clinton Conspiracy you've imagined. She won't support Biden or Sanders, therefor Warren is her surrogate!
wonderful deductive skills there.
Wait, there are 3 front runners? Halflife 3 confirmed!.
There is no context and certainly not any that you've mentioned.
|
On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I don't know. I already said I don't see a point to speculating since she has yet to give any public hints as to her preference. To speculate on who Clinton would endorse would at this point be purely based on my perception of her and my knowledge of her past history, both of which are imperfect. The stereotypical answer would be that as an establishment centrist, Clinton would endorse Biden since his policy tends to align most with what she has previously put forth, but she's been removed from day-to-day politics for years and her views on policy may have evolved. That's why I think it is completely pointless to speculate. Maybe she realized that more progressive platforms are gaining steam or that Biden's strategy of campaigning purely against Trump and trying to appeal to everyone could backfire, but there's no way to know.
edit: I think speculating without even a hint of concrete evidence is a rather dangerous thing to do. This is partly why I am so hostile toward articles like that previous one. The big modern news media organizations have started engaging in a lot more speculation and made a lot of dangerous assumptions when reporting which have tarnished their reputations. Given that they are already under near-constant attack from the right, the last thing they should be doing is engaging in activities that could further harm the public's trust of them. Though really, the behaviour of modern news media is an entirely different can of worms that probably isn't suited for this thread.
On September 08 2019 08:15 Fildun wrote:
Why again is this article a strategic move from Clinton's camp? To me it reads like an overly ambitious journalist found some random staffer who said "oh yeah they called each other a couple times" and then decided that was an easy extra article for the day.
We're talking about two people who've known each other for a long time and have found themselves in relatively similar positions calling each other on their private numbers. Who knows, they might even be friends, or what goes for that in that world. Yes, I agree with what you are saying completely.
|
On September 08 2019 08:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 08:29 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 08:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:54 Ben... wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. I think you are over-analyzing what amounts a puff piece article. There is barely any substance to that article. The piece is almost entirely general speculation with a single claim based on a single source. I have seen no evidence outside of this article indicating one way or another that Clinton has a stated preference for any of the top 3 candidates. She has been relatively neutral from what I've seen. Does she probably have a preference? Yes. Do I know who that is? No. Does anyone outside of people who can't say know who it is? No. There's no point speculating. Like what are you expecting us to say about the analysis in that article? Is it supposed to be some crazy revelation that Bernie bros might not favour someone endorsed by Clinton? Warren's weakness is that she's been portrayed as an evil socialist and radical (neither of which are actually true) by news media (not just Fox, but MSNBC and CNN also) for years now. Having someone popular with centrists who can communicate to them that Warren isn't as scary as they think is probably a good thing for Warren. The only time I would be concerned about Clinton or other centrist endorsement of Warren is if it somehow forces her policy to change to be more in line with centrist values. Warren's policy is what makes her stand out. Really? If not Warren, who are you seriously supposing of the three with a chance? I'll grant you the article is a puff piece pushed by Clinton's camp to tout her relevance. What I would hope is that Warren supporters realize they're already getting signs (and will continue to) that Warren is increasingly not seen as a threat to the establishment or their corporate support. On September 08 2019 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2019 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is a human being, she is allowed to have opinions and support a candidate. Yes she probably supports Warren over Sanders or Biden. My issue isn't with her support of a particular candidate, my issue is that them talking is a complete non-story and your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. As always anything must be dialled up to 11. So your issue was with the choice of the word "surrogate" and the article's existence (which was probably pushed by Clinton's camp). Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? can you strawman any harder? My issue is what I said my issue was in my post. Seriously, how hard is it? It's not a strawman, it's about as literal of an interpretation as could be. Please point to the exact point where i say this. Presumably your issue is that Warren isn't a substitute for Clinton in Clinton's (and the corporate interests she represents) eyes? Here: your hilarious jump into proclaiming Warren as the surrogate of Hillary. Presumably the hilarious part is that it's unreasonable to see Warren as Hillary's surrogate, so I used a synonym to see if it was the word or the point you were disagreeing with. Sight, the hilarious part is that you make that jump from 2 people talking once, maybe a few more times in an article utterly devoid of any substance. If you want to find a conspiracy to keep talking about how evil Clinton is then go look somewhere else. It's not based solely on the article, hence the part where I said "in context" and nothing to do with whatever evil Clinton Conspiracy you've imagined. She won't support Biden or Sanders, therefor Warren is her surrogate! wonderful deductive skills there. Wait, there are 3 front runners? Halflife 3 confirmed!. There is no context and certainly not any that you've mentioned.
That seemed to devolve pretty quickly into some nonsense about halflife 3?
As to the context I provided already (from the article)
When Clinton was developing policies for her own campaign in 2015, her aides kept in close contact with Warren to give her an opportunity to raise concerns before they were rolled out... By that point, Warren already had opted out of mounting her own campaign — disappointing many progressives — when she signed a letter, along with other Democratic women in the Senate encouraging Clinton to run.
But I meant "in context" historically and politically including things like Warren not backing Sanders in 16 despite them allegedly being policy kin. Her failure to speak up on DAPL when it was happening and so on.
Your main hangup seems to be that you're against the assertiveness with which I posit the position (and the word choice of surrogate over substitute) rather than having an argument for an alternative position other than waiting for more overt signals before you agree.
|
On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders.
Clinton is an extremely experienced former government official and incredibly seasoned politician; the fact that she support or give advice someone is rather a good sign for that person.
And ya, she probably doesn’t support Sanders, and I don’t think anyone in her shoes would.
|
On September 08 2019 16:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2019 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Rather than play coy, lets just be out with it. Are either of you under the impression/taking the position that Clinton supports (or will) Biden or Sanders over Warren?
Or is this simply playing dumb about the implications on the technicality that she could still pick Biden (I don't think anyone actually thinks she prefers Bernie to the other two)?
Because as the article mentions Warren (and her supporters) knows Clinton's support isn't a good thing in the eyes of people split between her and Sanders. Clinton is an extremely experienced former government official and incredibly seasoned politician; the fact that she support or give advice someone is rather a good sign for that person. And ya, she probably doesn’t support Sanders, and I don’t think anyone in her shoes would.
I obviously disagree that it's good or that her experience is the kind I desire (Libya for example), but Warren just recently stepped in it for me with this nonsense.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Warren was asked about her vote in favor of yet another military budget increase and responded by talking about the defense industry/corruption of the revolving door between being a lobbyist and a government official.
The two major problems for me in her response are:
1. She doesn't answer the question
2. She lies or "misleads" people who don't check her
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
