|
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 |
On January 14 2020 10:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 10:25 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.) Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself I don't think you have the right of it. The policies of the two are wildly different. Not even close on a domestic or foreign affairs front.
I disagree. Whether it's drone striking the middle east, assassinating "terrorist" leaders abroad, harmful immigrant detention centers, using sanctions to get what they want, or passing domestic policies that extend complacency when it comes to redistributing wealth I don't see much of a difference.
|
On January 14 2020 10:47 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 10:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 10:25 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.) Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself I don't think you have the right of it. The policies of the two are wildly different. Not even close on a domestic or foreign affairs front. I disagree. Whether it's drone striking the middle east, assassinating "terrorist" leaders abroad, harmful immigrant detention centers, using sanctions to get what they want, or passing domestic policies that extend complacency when it comes to redistributing wealth I don't see much of a difference.
What "terrorist" did Obama order taken out? What harmful immigrant detention centers are you referring to? What sanctions? Domestic policies?
If I'm not mistaken, he got a few high profile true terrorist leaders, deported more immigrants without detaining them like cattle at a ranch, and got Iran to agree to a no nuclear deal that ended/lifted sanctions against them. And if you're referring to the 2008 recession then you should revisit the facts behind that.
|
|
|
On January 14 2020 11:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
The smears from Warren staffers are pretty laughable imo. Seems to me to just be the last throws of a dying campaign.
The sooner Warren drops out the better. Why believe that it was a Warren staffer and not what they said. Wouldn't it be more consistent to believe the whole story or none of it?
Wasn't it an ex-Warren staffer? In which case it makes even more sense lol
|
This desperate Warren shit is a deal breaker. If she isn't actively fighting this smear, this is unforgivable.
|
|
|
On January 14 2020 11:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 10:47 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 10:25 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.) Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself I don't think you have the right of it. The policies of the two are wildly different. Not even close on a domestic or foreign affairs front. I disagree. Whether it's drone striking the middle east, assassinating "terrorist" leaders abroad, harmful immigrant detention centers, using sanctions to get what they want, or passing domestic policies that extend complacency when it comes to redistributing wealth I don't see much of a difference. What "terrorist" did Obama order taken out? What harmful immigrant detention centers are you referring to? What sanctions? Domestic policies? If I'm not mistaken, he got a few high profile true terrorist leaders, deported more immigrants without detaining them like cattle at a ranch, and got Iran to agree to a no nuclear deal that ended/lifted sanctions against them. And if you're referring to the 2008 recession then you should revisit the facts behind that.
One I mentioned before was Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (or the people they alleged were the targets that turned Abdulrahman into collateral damage) many of the detention centers Trump's using were literally created by the Obama administration and he let the banksters off scot-free and they all got richer while low-wage workers fell further behind.
I think which of the two is worse (Trump) matters less than denoting them both as unacceptable going forward though.
On January 14 2020 11:18 Mohdoo wrote:
This desperate Warren shit is a deal breaker. If she isn't actively fighting this smear, this is unforgivable.
Of course she isn't, it's a last gasp attempt to stay viable.
|
Warren seems craven even by politician standards and tries to pander better than Harris did (a very low bar that she hasn't exceeded wildly). My favorite comment about this little story was something like "it's funny because it sounds like something Sanders would say; but it also sounds like something Warren would lie about."
That being said, I thought one of the many excuses for Hillary's loss was that she was a woman. Isn't Bernie's supposed statement (or maybe a more tame version) viewed as obviously true within Democrat circles?
|
On January 14 2020 14:25 Introvert wrote:
Warren seems craven even by politician standards and tries to pander better than Harris did (a very low bar that she hasn't exceeded wildly). My favorite comment about this little story was something like "it's funny because it sounds like something Sanders would say; but it also sounds like something Warren would lie about."
That being said, I thought one of the many excuses for Hillary's loss was that she was a woman. Isn't Bernie's supposed statement (or maybe a more tame version) viewed as obviously true within Democrat circles?
If we really wanted to parse it we could read into Warren's lawyerly response that they were talking about a specific woman (not Warren whom he implored to run in 2016 and), not women generally.
|
United States41988 Posts
On January 14 2020 14:25 Introvert wrote:
Warren seems craven even by politician standards and tries to pander better than Harris did (a very low bar that she hasn't exceeded wildly). My favorite comment about this little story was something like "it's funny because it sounds like something Sanders would say; but it also sounds like something Warren would lie about."
That being said, I thought one of the many excuses for Hillary's loss was that she was a woman. Isn't Bernie's supposed statement (or maybe a more tame version) viewed as obviously true within Democrat circles?
Hillary’s margin of loss was certainly within the range that a number of factors including sexism can solely explain the loss. That is not to discount that a better candidate would have been able to win by a sufficient margin to overcome those factors.
|
So am i the only one expecting this Warren-Sanders woman thing to be an attempt at turning their respective bases hostile to each other? When Warrens-supporters hate Bernie and visa versa, the result is less votes for the eventual candidate whoever it ends up being. Only Trump wins when democrat voters stay home rather than voting for the second best their team could field.
Warrens, Sanders, whatever. Get Trump out of the white house, take control of the Senate, and have him answer for his life of crime.
Edit: autocovfefe
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 14 2020 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 11:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 10:47 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 10:25 TentativePanda wrote:On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.) Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself I don't think you have the right of it. The policies of the two are wildly different. Not even close on a domestic or foreign affairs front. I disagree. Whether it's drone striking the middle east, assassinating "terrorist" leaders abroad, harmful immigrant detention centers, using sanctions to get what they want, or passing domestic policies that extend complacency when it comes to redistributing wealth I don't see much of a difference. What "terrorist" did Obama order taken out? What harmful immigrant detention centers are you referring to? What sanctions? Domestic policies? If I'm not mistaken, he got a few high profile true terrorist leaders, deported more immigrants without detaining them like cattle at a ranch, and got Iran to agree to a no nuclear deal that ended/lifted sanctions against them. And if you're referring to the 2008 recession then you should revisit the facts behind that. One I mentioned before was Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (or the people they alleged were the targets that turned Abdulrahman into collateral damage) many of the detention centers Trump's using were literally created by the Obama administration and he let the banksters off scot-free and they all got richer while low-wage workers fell further behind. I think which of the two is worse (Trump) matters less than denoting them both as unacceptable going forward though. Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 11:18 Mohdoo wrote:
This desperate Warren shit is a deal breaker. If she isn't actively fighting this smear, this is unforgivable. Of course she isn't, it's a last gasp attempt to stay viable.
While Obama did things I didn’t like, and kind of dropped the ball in pushing harder for more radical healthcare reform when the Dems had the numbers, amongst many other things, he’s still nothing like Trump.
Trump’s modus operandi of mudslinging to destroy the credibility of those keeping him in check, be it structural, political opponents, the Fourth Estate etc is nothing like Obama’s behaviour while in office. Obama tried to do the whole unifier thing, perhaps sometimes he pulled too many punches if anything.
Trump courting Brexit figures in contrast to Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ quotes, amongst other things are clear snapshots of their respective attachment to nationalist sentiment and multilateral cooperation.
Trump likes his conspiracy theories, hell he even participated in one himself. Most damaging there is his beliefs on climate change that do impact on his policies.
I think what could be Trump’s most damaging legacy is running this minority coalition and actively spouting bullshit and attacking dissent. Not because one shouldn’t defend oneself but it’s throwing accelerant on fires of division.
|
The issue here is that even bad media like CNN was going to check with Sanders and Warren. If it was coming from outside, Sanders would just say it's not true and Warren would confirm it's not true. CNN might still run with it I don't know but you kind of need Warren's silence into vague confirmation to create a political story.
Warren has hired some terrible advisors and now they're making bad choices. I really doubt she's going to manage to turn this into a win at the debate, this ought to backfire.
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 14 2020 17:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 14:25 Introvert wrote:
Warren seems craven even by politician standards and tries to pander better than Harris did (a very low bar that she hasn't exceeded wildly). My favorite comment about this little story was something like "it's funny because it sounds like something Sanders would say; but it also sounds like something Warren would lie about."
That being said, I thought one of the many excuses for Hillary's loss was that she was a woman. Isn't Bernie's supposed statement (or maybe a more tame version) viewed as obviously true within Democrat circles? Hillary’s margin of loss was certainly within the range that a number of factors including sexism can solely explain the loss. That is not to discount that a better candidate would have been able to win by a sufficient margin to overcome those factors.
Aye both these things can be true. It’s rather difficult to find people who’ll outright say her sex swayed their vote.
Hell unconscious sexism comes into it too. The classic ‘authoritative’ and positive when a man does something, ‘bossy’ and thus negative when a woman does it. Rather tricky to unpick such phenomena on such a macro level.
As for this current controversy I really can’t see it do anything but help Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t seem like he’s at all the type to have a negative view on the capabilities of women. If he merely said it in a ‘I don’t think America is ready to elect a woman as President’ he’s saying nothing the media and Clinton on her book tour did after 2016. Then the third possibility that he said nothing of the sort seems also plausible.
I imagine a ‘the Dems are trying to screw Bernie again’ rallying call will come up and it’ll benefit his campaign, given the whole platform is basically that of the plucky rebellious underdog.
|
On January 14 2020 21:55 Nebuchad wrote:
The issue here is that even bad media like CNN was going to check with Sanders and Warren. If it was coming from outside, Sanders would just say it's not true and Warren would confirm it's not true. CNN might still run with it I don't know but you kind of need Warren's silence into vague confirmation to create a political story.
Warren has hired some terrible advisors and now they're making bad choices. I really doubt she's going to manage to turn this into a win at the debate, this ought to backfire.
Quite probably she picked up some fmr Clinton people from Kamala's campaign and they worked the same magic they did for Kamala.
Looking at who spread the story, and how Warren supporters are trying to make this out as "Bernie's sexism is disqualifying" it's hard to see how this is isn't born out of fmr Clinton folks. They don't care if it implodes what remains of Warren's campaign because their purpose was to drag down Bernie however they could.
Even if this was some attempt by Biden or Pete's campaign, Warren botched handling it all on her own.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23839 Posts
On January 15 2020 00:23 JimmiC wrote:
So it has been decided that the story is not true, but that warrens ex Clinton staff did plant it. And we know this because????
Choosing what to believe based on ones own predetermined narrative is never a good idea. Presumptions are not facts.
What facts are you expecting on something Sanders denies, comes from anonymous sources and that Warren has declined to comment on?
I don’t think It’s necessarily true, but it does seem plausible.
Clinton did play the ‘woe is to be a woman’ card way too much, which I felt was politically stupid and did fuck all for her. Harris did employ a decent chunk of folks from the Clinton campaign. Not sure about Warren but presumably some have migrated to her camp since Harris withdrew. Perhaps what I consider to be tactical blunders have migrated via them.
Would make sense anyway, although it’s not necessarily true as I have already said.
|
This supposed scandal is a huge nothing because even if Bernie came out and said "having a woman on a ticket puts us at a disadvantage", everyone would know it was true. We'll never get direct quotes, Warren knows burning Bernie like that would be suicide, so it's all a mess.
|
Bernie can really put the screws to Warren at the debate regarding this non-story, let’s see if he chooses that route.
|
On January 15 2020 00:44 farvacola wrote:
Bernie can really put the screws to Warren at the debate regarding this non-story, let’s see if he chooses that route.
You know Bernie's not that kinda politician. CNN is going to force the issue up front though and if Warren's staff gets her to lean into it, it could get messy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
