(01-15-2020, 10:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Warren and Bernie...

Bernie has a history of ignoring sexism and harassment in his bro-led campaign.

Warren has a history of lying.

Tough to say who is being truthful, but given Warren's actions and the way she used it in the debate, it's hard not to think she leaked a fake story right before the debate...

(01-15-2020, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree.  And I'm not an ardent supporter of either of them, but I think what we have is a conversation where Bernie did indeed say he couldn't see a women winning (maybe only against Trump) without it being "sexist" but rather just as his opinion based on the situation.  Bernie either doesn't remember saying exactly that or thinks he didn't "mean it" the way Warren took it.  Warren took it as either a woman can "never" win or she literally just repeated what was said. 

I'd tend to believe he actually said  but that the content matters.  If Bernie's people never "go after" Warren it probably never comes back up.

What's most important though is how many times we have to flush the toilet. 

(01-15-2020, 11:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And now #NeverWarren is trending on social media with "progressives"--I put quotes there because you never know with some of them--are saying they wouldn't vote for Warren even if she was the nominee. People are so ***** dumb.

(01-15-2020, 10:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pete is by far the most presidential when it comes to the debates.

(01-15-2020, 11:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And now #NeverWarren is trending on social media with "progressives"--I put quotes there because you never know with some of them--are saying they wouldn't vote for Warren even if she was the nominee. People are so ***** dumb.

(01-15-2020, 12:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed.

But. I don't think he'd beat Trump.

Trump has turned off a lot of evangelicals, but he's still a straight white male. Sure, a SWM on his fourthish marriage, paid off pron stars, defrauded charities, lies constantly, advocates violence, cuts social safety nets for the poor and hungry, cheats on his taxes, abuses women, mocks the handicap... but he's a SWM. And that's... sorta... closer to Jesus than a guy who didn't do all those other things, but is, well, ya know... not straight.



Seriously, that was the conversation I had with someone the other day on why he wouldn't vote for Pete over Trump. To him, Pete was a bigger sinner. 

A large chunk of Trump voters voted for Trump just because his opposition was a woman. If Pete gets the nomination, a large chunk of Trump voters will be voting for him just because his opposition is gay. 

(01-15-2020, 12:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Trump gets the evangelical vote not because he's closer to Jesus as a SWM, but because he'll put in judges that align with the evangelical vote's priorities.

(01-15-2020, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree.  And I'm not an ardent supporter of either of them, but I think what we have is a conversation where Bernie did indeed say he couldn't see a women winning (maybe only against Trump) without it being "sexist" but rather just as his opinion based on the situation.  Bernie either doesn't remember saying exactly that or thinks he didn't "mean it" the way Warren took it.  Warren took it as either a woman can "never" win or she literally just repeated what was said. 

I'd tend to believe he actually said  but that the content matters.  If Bernie's people never "go after" Warren it probably never comes back up.

What's most important though is how many times we have to flush the toilet. 

Quote:“So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here,” Phillip followed up, “you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?”

“That is correct,” Sanders said.

Phillip then turned to Warren, who on Monday night released a statement that corroborated with CNN’s account of the meeting. In the statement, Warren said she had disagreed with Sanders on the subject of whether a woman could win the presidency.

“Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Phillip asked Warren.

(01-15-2020, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't get to watch the whole circus last night, just enough to know if I'm a black/brown voter I better vote for one of them.

I see a snippit of Warren and Bernie having a back and forth about "30 years" what was that?

Also did Bernie get to say "I wrote the damn bill"?

(01-15-2020, 02:56 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Haha, the 30 years thing was actually pretty funny.

Warren said she was the only person on the stage who had beaten a Republican incumbent in the last 30 years.

Then Sanders said he did beat a Republican incumbent in 1990 (which is true).

She kind of made this thinking face and said "so 30 years ago."

Basically, she crafted her statement specifically to exclude Bernie's win in 1990 and was called out on it.

Bernie's only other election win in which he wasn't the incumbent was his 2006 run for Senate, in which he was running in place of a retired Senator, so there was no incumbent. The incumbent was an independent, was previously a Republican but was caucusing with the Democrats at the time of retiring, so he was basically a more centrist version of Bernie (independent that caucuses with the Democrats).

The joke's on Warren though because November 1990 (when Bernie was elected) was 29 years and 2 months ago, so it was within 30 years.

Making her statement false

(01-15-2020, 03:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: His campaign was quick to note today that 30 years ago she was a Republican 

(01-15-2020, 12:19 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: People on social media are so ***** dumb. 

:andy:

Still convinced that social media is more of a concern for the downfall of human civilization than nukes. Lol


Trump gets the evangelical vote not because he's closer to Jesus as a SWM, but because he'll put in judges that align with the evangelical vote's priorities.

Lets say you believe abortion is murder...

Guy A: Is personally a shithead, but will make moves towards ending the murder of 600,000-800,000 per year. (Or more depending on your view of birth control.)

Guy B: Is a decent guy, but will make it easier than ever to murder 600,000-800,000 per year. (Or more depending on your view on birth control.)

...you would clearly ignore that Guy A is a trash human being if it meant saving ~3 million lives over a 4 year period.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ehhhhh... that doesn't seem true. You're going identity politics to try to find a hot take rather than accept the way more simple explanation that:

A large chunk of Trump voters voted for Trump just because he was running under the Republican ticket.

It's that simple. Just like how a large chunk of Clinton voters voted for Clinton because she was running under the Democrat ticket. Has nothing to do with women, gays, white, or anything else. There's a large contingent of people who just won't vote outside party lines. They walk into an election booth and vote straight down their party line on their ballot.

(01-16-2020, 04:49 AM)Benton Wrote: Six of the seven who approved roe v Wade were republican appointees.

I get what you're saying, but no, no hot take. Some people just didn't want to vote for a woman. How that lines up with how many people voted for trump because he was a republican, no idea.

Likewise, some people won't vote for mayor Pete because he's gay, not because he's a democrat. Hell, he's more of what the good professes to be than trump is.

Edit to add: I'm not saying that's why she lost. Hell, she won the popular vote. No candidate loses or wins for one line reason.

(01-16-2020, 06:06 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Oh by all means, I agree with you that "some" people didn't vote for her because she is a woman, and "some" people won't vote for Mayor Pete because he is gay.

I guess I was having issues with your original "large chunk" descriptor, which makes it seem like they are a majority, or at least a very very significant minority.

(01-16-2020, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Nay, if I meant majority, I'd of said majority. Large chunk works, cause I don't think it was like four people out in Idaho that said "woah, were not ready for a POTUS with boobs." 

Significant minority? Yeah, I think maybe that would quantify those voters. But a significant minority would also sum up people who voted for/against on a slew of issues, outside of most things. Insignificant minority (the only thing left after a significant one) would be those who voted for/against based on less common traits, like HRC being a lizard person able to absorb memories through touch and shoot plasma from her nostrils. 

That's just how elections work, though. You look for big chunks of people you can bring together. Statistically, SWM candidates with any type of military service bring together the biggest chunks. 

(01-16-2020, 11:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Nay, if I meant majority, I'd of said majority. Large chunk works, cause I don't think it was like four people out in Idaho that said "woah, were not ready for a POTUS with boobs." 

Significant minority? Yeah, I think maybe that would quantify those voters. But a significant minority would also sum up people who voted for/against on a slew of issues, outside of most things. Insignificant minority (the only thing left after a significant one) would be those who voted for/against based on less common traits, like HRC being a lizard person able to absorb memories through touch and shoot plasma from her nostrils. 

That's just how elections work, though. You look for big chunks of people you can bring together. Statistically, SWM candidates with any type of military service bring together the biggest chunks.