US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2145

On February 25 2020 23:49 Elroi wrote:

I'd give you right on the history of sexism (which is as horrible as it is long), but it seems to me that what Warren tried to do was to "suppress and downplay" the other candidates because of their gender. That is dirty and stupid and no man would have gotten away with it in the same way that Warren has. She might have lost a lot of support but if the roles were reversed and a man said that, his career would be over.

On February 25 2020 23:47 NewSunshine wrote:

I think it can be a slip-up on her part whether it was in the moment or in preparation, so I don't disagree with you, but I think the lasting implications of any mistake on her part are being blown out of proportion. I also believe any extent to which "she should know better and drop out" applies is enjoyed equally or more so by the more centrist candidates. I think it's hostile to consistently say she should bend the knee and make way for Bernie to assume his rightful place, when one of the main reasons Bernie had legitimacy is because of folks like Warren echoing his feelings on many issues. She already has paved the way for someone like Bernie.

On February 26 2020 00:00 Wombat_NI wrote:

No the centrists should stay in, Warren should drop, perhaps not right now. Assuming one wants a progressive as the candidate, the way things are going is actually better than I’d expected. Almost miraculously so.

Biden’s VP karma seems to have expired and nobody is really grasping the centrist front runner mantle.

Now with Bloomberg being eviscerated on the debate stage, mostly by Warren tbf and his entry being so underwhelming thus far, so he seems less of a threat than I’d anticipated too.

I’d thought Bernie and Warren would be pretty close to each other going in, but it’s not proving that way at present, doesn’t look like it’s changing either.

They’re long-time colleagues with similarish views on much, I don’t feel either has paved the way for the other really. Does Warren even run on her platform this time around if Sanders didn’t perform so well last time out?

On February 26 2020 00:02 pmh wrote:
Well warren can do that,she is a women. I dont see why its such a big deal.
Hillary also played the womens card,trying to be the first women to become president,break the glass ceiling etcetera.
Women still have many disadvantages in the world and only very few "advantages" (which arent even real advantages,but more like disadvantages that they can use to their advantage to some extend in some situations).
I am not a fan of warren at all but to blame her for this i find just silly.

Yes if roles where reversed and man said it then he would be maybe done (not even sure about that since man get away with far more things then women). Its the way it is,give her a break lol.
I dont think its particulary smart for her to use the argument but i dont see it beeing horrible either.

On February 25 2020 23:49 Elroi wrote:

I'd give you right on the history of sexism (which is as horrible as it is long), but it seems to me that what Warren tried to do was to "suppress and downplay" the other candidates because of their gender. That is dirty and stupid and no man would have gotten away with it in the same way that Warren has. She might have lost a lot of support but if the roles were reversed and a man said that, his career would be over.

On February 26 2020 00:25 ChristianS wrote:

As an aside, the “what if the roles were reversed” argument is usually bad in cases of discrimination, because most such accusations would look kinda weird if roles were reversed. “They just wouldn’t hire me because they’re scared of white people!” “I think my professor gave me a bad grade just because I’m straight!” “As a man I have trouble being taken seriously in professional settings because of my gender.” Sounds silly, right? These subtext for discrimination is usually systemic power differential that makes the discrimination possible. Reverse the roles, and reverse the power differential, and it doesn’t work.

I also think you just misread Warren’s argument from that exchange. She was saying “people shouldn’t treat woman as electorally disadvantaged,” not “women are more electable than men.” The “only the women on stage have won every one of their elections” remark was meant to disprove the idea that a female candidate is simply less likely to win in the general.

Do I think it effectively proves that point? No, actually, and I’d guess all else being “equal” (whatever that would mean), a female candidate is somewhat less likely to win; I just think it sucks to base your vote on that, for reasons I enumerated with LL the other day. But, for instance, should a female candidate ignore the conversation people are having about whether a woman can win? Should she address it head on? Seems to me she tried both and got burned pretty badly either way. Maybe another female candidate will figure out a better way to navigate these waters someday, but it’s still an obstacle men don’t have to face in the first place.

Maybe I ought to clarify that this isn’t personal for me. Nobody in my life was particularly atrociously affected by sexism (though I’m sure all the women in my life have felt its effects); I was also never seriously considering voting for Warren. She always got a lot of cred for her well-thought-out policy proposals, but every time I actually looked into one I didn’t like it much. When she was briefly talked about as a frontrunner, I thought “yeah, I could live with that;” otherwise, not much traction with me.

I just hate to see a room full of progressive men shitting on the biggest female candidate for trying to talk about sexism. I think the Jussie Smollett comparison could maybe be apt (although if I’m not mistaken, his deception is proven where Warren’s in only suspected); but I don’t think I would react this way if Jussie Smollett wanted to talk about racism either.

On February 26 2020 00:46 Sent. wrote:
You know they're not trying to "shit on the biggest female candidate for trying to talk about sexism". They're criticising her poor attempt to instrumentalize sexism for personal gain.

On February 25 2020 23:24 GreenHorizons wrote:


What else would they do, vote for Trump? Just give up on voting altogether because some Bernie supporters were rude to them?

I think it's unnecessary, but ultimately only upsets them before they vote blue no matter who anyway.

On February 25 2020 15:57 ChristianS wrote:

From the way both Bernie and Warren talked about it, it felt to me like a “Bernie said something about Trump using sexism and Warren overinterpreted” situation. But admittedly that’s mostly a guess on my part, and that’s old drama at this point anyway, which is why I was willing to concede the point.

But no, we don’t agree on the conclusion of that assumption, because even if we think a woman made up an accusation of sexism, it still kinda sucks to wink and nudge every time she’s about to speak and mockingly ask your buddies “hey guys, do you think she’s gonna talk about sexism again?” Now you’ve decided that woman deserves only mockery, even if she’s not talking about sexism, or if she’s talking about the broader problem rather than against her specifically.

It might be unintentional, but I still think it legitimizes discrimination and delegitimizes calling it out. Other men will see that and feel like sexism isn’t such a big deal/not a “real problem;” other women will see that and feel less like speaking out will end well for them.

Again, the analogy in which a black person accuses a person you like and respect of racism, and you deride them for fraudulently “playing the race card,” feels pretty similar to me. In my experience, white people will acknowledge that racism exists, and might even be common, but they’re deeply skeptical of any particular accusation of it, and never go much further than shrug their shoulders like “yeah, what can you do?” But any possibility of a white person being falsely accused of racism? An outrage! Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere! They will not rest until the culprits are found and discredited!

Please understand, my goal isn’t to deride you, and I don’t think your a misogynist or anything. I just think there are better ways to talk about stuff like this. Isn’t that worth striving for?

On February 26 2020 01:28 ChristianS wrote:

I mean, it kinda seems like every time she opens her mouth you get some version of “I bet she’s gonna talk about sexism,” and if/when she does you get eye rolls and shitting on her. That it’s done as a response to a perceived injustice doesn’t fundamentally change the dynamic, to me at least.

On February 26 2020 02:22 Sent. wrote:


She gets those reactions because the way she talks about sexism appears very insincere to a lot of people. Nobody minds when she steps in to defend another woman like when she defended Klobuchar in a debate (no personal gain in that). Some people even liked her more because of it. The eye rolls happen when the context makes it very likely she's bringing up perceived sexism for her own benefit (e.g. the super PAC quote). Sanders would get the same reactions if he kept trying to score points by accusing his opponents of antisemitism.

I also disagree with your assessment that "every time she opens her mouth you get some version of “I bet she’s gonna talk about sexism”". She gets that from me, but the "room full of progressive men" you mentioned earlier seems to consider those controversial statements of hers as unexpected mistakes.

On February 26 2020 02:47 NewSunshine wrote:

This started with Mohdoo's preemptive comment taking bets on Warren playing the sexism card, a comment that is both cynical and uncalled for. If she makes the comment in fact, by all means criticize her for it, but she's being singled out for it, and lambasted, in advance. I could make similar derisive comments about the expected behavior of posters on these forums, and even if the person had a history of it, it would still be uncalled for. People have often been warned and banned for such behavior. I don't see then why it's acceptable to apply that behavior to a candidate just because they compete with Bernie as a progressive.

There are dynamics at play that inform what is probably in Warren's and our best interest as the vote progresses and Bernie accumulates a lead, but she is not merely a useful accessory to Bernie, and should not be treated as such. That is my objection.

But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”

“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

A super PAC backing Klobuchar, called Kitchen Table Conversations, filed paperwork with the FEC on Friday.

“So look, the first day I got in this race over a year ago, I said I hope every presidential candidate who comes in will agree – no super PACs for any of us. I renewed that call dozens of times,” Warren said. “And I couldn’t get a single Democrat to go along with it.”

“Finally, we reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were still in this race and on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires and could just rummage around their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign,” she said.

On February 26 2020 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:


You're right that I was being an ass, and I shouldn't be. I apologize. However, it is important to recognize that she said this:



All credibility and room to speak on sexism flew straight out a window, into the air, past the ozone layer, past the moon, and left our solar system.

On February 26 2020 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:


You're right that I was being an ass, and I shouldn't be. I apologize. However, it is important to recognize that she said this:



All credibility and room to speak on sexism flew straight out a window, into the air, past the ozone layer, past the moon, and left our solar system.

On February 26 2020 03:09 Nakajin wrote:


Did it?
She's pretty much saying that most men are better finance (or have their own bilions) and she need to take a super pack to compete with them. It's not insane, while statisticly women do about as well in the final election they consistenly are doing worst in primary. I can't say I have the exact reason why but we can probably assume money and connections are a big part of it, the grass root argument dosen't quite cover it either, I can't really think of a women lead political movement able to garner huge public mobilisation/donations inside or outside of the US.

Edit: I'm sure there's some, but it still usually seems to be men having success with those kind of mobilisation.

The Sanders accusation was I bit low, but taking a super pack bring some interesting conversation. And of course it's for personal gain, the whole point is that she's in a disadventage if she try to play fair game.

I don't really agree with her that it's the best way to go, but the argument is interesring.
(Obviously I get that she ignored Sanders in that declaration, but it dosen't make the argument go away)

On February 26 2020 00:02 pmh wrote:
Well warren can do that,she is a women. I dont see why its such a big deal.
Hillary also played the womens card,trying to be the first women to become president,break the glass ceiling etcetera.
Women still have many disadvantages in the world and only very few "advantages" (which arent even real advantages,but more like disadvantages that they can use to their advantage to some extend in some situations).
I am not a fan of warren at all but to blame her for this i find just silly.

Yes if roles where reversed and man said it then he would be maybe done (not even sure about that since man get away with far more things then women). Its the way it is,give her a break lol.
I dont think its particulary smart for her to use the argument but i dont see it beeing horrible either.

On February 26 2020 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:

I do acknowledge what she says. I have iterated repeatedly that she is not impervious to criticism. But I will also reiterate that she gets more flak for her mistakes, from you and others, than she deserves. You had to overlook a number of fairly awful candidates to jump to criticizing Warren, candidates that have all but cheated or bought their way in. They're competing with Bernie just like she is. And currently doing better.

On February 26 2020 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:
For what it's worth I think the unfair criticism Warren receives has as much to do with her status as a progressive as it does with being a woman. There's still a Bernie-or-Bust vibe to what's going on here, in my opinion. We're not entirely there in terms of redressing sexism in politics, but it's slowly being peeled back.