Are Bernie and Warren finally going to clash?

[TSwizzle]

Warren’s face registered shock at Bernie’s denial and I don’t think that was faked.

Why not ? She faked she was native American for years with ease.

Bullshit.

Bullshit yourself, women fake it all the time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Bullshit.

Bullshit yourself, women fake it all the time.

^personal experience?

 

[Toni]

Bullshit.

Bullshit yourself, women fake it all the time.

I’m sure that is your experience.

 

[PyramidHead]

With Warren's vote for Trump's military budget, his Iran sanctions, and now his trade deal so awful that Chuck Schumer didn't even vote for it, can we all stop pretending she and Bernie share political agenda just because they want to raise your taxes? It's about damn time the rift between them became visible, even though it shouldn't have happened like this. Bernie is a liberal, but one with socialist leanings and a genuine lifelong dedication to improving people's lives (even though he has sometimes sought to improve them at the expense of innocent people elsewhere in the world, like all liberals). At this point, Warren has revealed herself to be a shrewd, triangulating opportunist with unreliable instincts and thin skin, even as she pushes her consumer-focused brand of regulatory capitalism upon irritated bankers.

I don't think she belongs in the same category as Bernie, and if I were him, I would use this as an opportunity to pre-emptively select Rashida Tlaib as his eventual running mate if he gets the nomination. The first Jewish president, with a Palestinian woman with actual progressive ideals as VP. Wouldn't that be something?

The primary election is a winner-take-all race, and politics is about wielding power. Every candidate who still thinks the problem with our country is how divisive everything has gotten is not going to fight for you when push comes to shove, because they abhor fighting. They won't stake a firm ideological territory and rally a popular movement to push it through, because to them, having ideological convictions is what must be avoided at all costs. Bernie is playing a game on two fronts: the campaign for office and the rousing of a mass movement. If Bernie wins, his supporters celebrate for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. If Bernie loses, his supporters cry for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. It's just a lot easier to do that when the POTUS is on your side rather than the side of the rich, the warmongers, the financiers, and the policy wonks. Either way, we aren't going anywhere.

The left in America needs to realize this, and come to terms with the very real possibility that Bernie gets the most votes in the primary and is kneecapped at the convention. He was never the one who was going to get everything done anyway, and the sooner we acknowledge that and start forging real political power at the grassroots level, the better. AOC came under fire recently for saying, rightly, that in any other country she and Joe Biden would not be in the same political party. She's absolutely correct, and the 2020's are going to be the decade where those contradictions get hashed out, as a resurgent socialist sentiment rises to prominence and the next generation lines up to take part in it. But it won't happen because of a presidential election. The election going Bernie's way will just be a sign that it has already happened to a significant degree, and will carry on whether he's president or not.

 

[TSwizzle]

Bullshit.

Bullshit yourself, women fake it all the time.

I’m sure that is your experience.

You are sure of lots of things and yet you have been proven to be not just wrong but spectacularly wrong on just about everything.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Toni]

I’m sure that is your experience.

You are sure of lots of things and yet you have been proven to be not just wrong but spectacularly wrong on just about everything.

Enjoy your delusions. Hope they keep you warm at night.

 

[Derec]

With Warren's vote for Trump's military budget, his Iran sanctions, and now his trade deal so awful that Chuck Schumer didn't even vote for it, can we all stop pretending she and Bernie share political agenda just because they want to raise your taxes?

They are both on the left wing of the Demcratic Party, but yes, they are quite different.
Bernie is more left economically and more opposed to US foreign policy, preferring to side with the likes of Iran.
Warren in turn is more into gender/race identity politics.

It's about damn time the rift between them became visible, even though it shouldn't have happened like this. Bernie is a liberal, but one with socialist leanings and a genuine lifelong dedication to improving people's lives (even though he has sometimes sought to improve them at the expense of innocent people elsewhere in the world, like all liberals).

What are you referring to here?

I don't think she belongs in the same category as Bernie, and if I were him, I would use this as an opportunity to pre-emptively select Rashida Tlaib as his eventual running mate if he gets the nomination. The first Jewish president, with a Palestinian woman with actual progressive ideals as VP. Wouldn't that be something?

Selecting a running mate during the primaries is a sure sign of a struggling campaign.

And Rashida Tlaib would be a horrible choice anyway. She is a Palestinian extremist who wants to destroy Israel.
Otherwise, she is also quite left-wing, being part of the "squad" and the DSA. Thus she would not provide any meaningful contrast to Bernie, nor would she make any independents more likely to vote for the ticket.

Bernie is playing a game on two fronts: the campaign for office and the rousing of a mass movement. If Bernie wins, his supporters celebrate for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. If Bernie loses, his supporters cry for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. It's just a lot easier to do that when the POTUS is on your side rather than the side of the rich, the warmongers, the financiers, and the policy wonks. Either way, we aren't going anywhere.

It will probably fizzle out once Bernie himself leaves the stage.

The left in America needs to realize this, and come to terms with the very real possibility that Bernie gets the most votes in the primary and is kneecapped at the convention.

Well, plurality is not the same as majority. Imagine the situation where Bernie gets 35%, Biden 30%, Warren 20% and the rest share the remaining 15% of the delegates. Does that mean Bernie must be given the nod? No, because 65% of delegates, a majority, are pledged to somebody else. Now, if the left-wing block were to hold together, they would have 55% combined and thus the majority. But I would say that most of the "rest" delegates and a significant enough number of Bernie and Warren delegates pick Biden to put him in the majority. And then you have the superdelegates.
So yes, a contested convention would favor Biden. I would not call it kneecapping though.

He was never the one who was going to get everything done anyway, and the sooner we acknowledge that and start forging real political power at the grassroots level, the better.

Yeah, good luck with that.

AOC came under fire recently for saying, rightly, that in any other country she and Joe Biden would not be in the same political party. She's absolutely correct, and the 2020's are going to be the decade where those contradictions get hashed out, as a resurgent socialist sentiment rises to prominence and the next generation lines up to take part in it.

Hopefully not. Socialism is a disaster. And yes, in a multiparty system AOC would be in a different party than Biden. But Biden would be in the major party while AOC would be in one of the fringe parties.

But it won't happen because of a presidential election. The election going Bernie's way will just be a sign that it has already happened to a significant degree, and will carry on whether he's president or not.

I think this Millennial infatuation with socialism is a fad.

 

[Toni]

They are both on the left wing of the Demcratic Party, but yes, they are quite different.
Bernie is more left economically and more opposed to US foreign policy, preferring to side with the likes of Iran.
Warren in turn is more into gender/race identity politics.


What are you referring to here?

I don't think she belongs in the same category as Bernie, and if I were him, I would use this as an opportunity to pre-emptively select Rashida Tlaib as his eventual running mate if he gets the nomination. The first Jewish president, with a Palestinian woman with actual progressive ideals as VP. Wouldn't that be something?

Selecting a running mate during the primaries is a sure sign of a struggling campaign.
View attachment 25723
And Rashida Tlaib would be a horrible choice anyway. She is a Palestinian extremist who wants to destroy Israel.
Otherwise, she is also quite left-wing, being part of the "squad" and the DSA. Thus she would not provide any meaningful contrast to Bernie, nor would she make any independents more likely to vote for the ticket.

Bernie is playing a game on two fronts: the campaign for office and the rousing of a mass movement. If Bernie wins, his supporters celebrate for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. If Bernie loses, his supporters cry for a night and then dramatically escalate their ongoing efforts. It's just a lot easier to do that when the POTUS is on your side rather than the side of the rich, the warmongers, the financiers, and the policy wonks. Either way, we aren't going anywhere.

It will probably fizzle out once Bernie himself leaves the stage.

The left in America needs to realize this, and come to terms with the very real possibility that Bernie gets the most votes in the primary and is kneecapped at the convention.

Well, plurality is not the same as majority. Imagine the situation where Bernie gets 35%, Biden 30%, Warren 20% and the rest share the remaining 15% of the delegates. Does that mean Bernie must be given the nod? No, because 65% of delegates, a majority, are pledged to somebody else. Now, if the left-wing block were to hold together, they would have 55% combined and thus the majority. But I would say that most of the "rest" delegates and a significant enough number of Bernie and Warren delegates pick Biden to put him in the majority. And then you have the superdelegates.
So yes, a contested convention would favor Biden. I would not call it kneecapping though.

He was never the one who was going to get everything done anyway, and the sooner we acknowledge that and start forging real political power at the grassroots level, the better.

Yeah, good luck with that.

AOC came under fire recently for saying, rightly, that in any other country she and Joe Biden would not be in the same political party. She's absolutely correct, and the 2020's are going to be the decade where those contradictions get hashed out, as a resurgent socialist sentiment rises to prominence and the next generation lines up to take part in it.

Hopefully not. Socialism is a disaster. And yes, in a multiparty system AOC would be in a different party than Biden. But Biden would be in the major party while AOC would be in one of the fringe parties.

But it won't happen because of a presidential election. The election going Bernie's way will just be a sign that it has already happened to a significant degree, and will carry on whether he's president or not.

I think this Millennial infatuation with socialism is a fad.

Warren isn’t ‘more into identity politics.’ She’s a woman. Get over it.

 

[Derec]

Warren isn’t ‘more into identity politics.’ She’s a woman. Get over it.

She is definitely very much into identity politics. It's not that she is a woman, as she is also heavily into racial identity politics. Examples: she supports "reparations" for blacks and giving Indians veto power over infrastructure projects.

Also, it is good practice that when responding to a particular point to only quote that part and not the entire post. Especially when there are images and/or the post is long. You should have deleted everything past the first three lines.

 

[Toni]

Warren isn’t ‘more into identity politics.’ She’s a woman. Get over it.

She is definitely very much into identity politics. It's not that she is a woman, as she is also heavily into racial identity politics. Examples: she supports "reparations" for blacks and giving Indians veto power over infrastructure projects.

Also, it is good practice that when responding to a particular point to only quote that part and not the entire post. Especially when there are images and/or the post is long. You should have deleted everything past the first three lines.

Warren is not the only person or candidate who supports reparations.

I’m sorry if my posting style/manners are not up to your high standards. I am traveling right now for a family situation and don’t have access to anything other than my phone a few minutes at a time. It’s time consuming for me to try splitting off sections to reply to. Feel free to ignore any of my posts that don’t meet your standards.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The conflict has taken another entertaining twist.

Bernie Supporters: Look at the exchange between Warren and Sanders! The DNC is rigging the primary against Bernie again!

Trump: Yeah, they are rigging the primary against Bernie.

Bernie: No! They are not rigging the campaign against me! Trump is trying to rig the campaign by saying that!

 

[repoman]

Joy Reid has a body language expert discuss if Bernie is lying

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Lmao at them trying to say Bernie is lying. Such desperation.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Joy Reid has a body language expert discuss if Bernie is lying

While I do have some doubt as to Bernie’s sincerity, in that he didn’t give a hard “no” when asked, body language lady is wrong. This is not something you want to own and think it will fade away. Bernie would be hit over the head with it repeatedly. He likely said it but without us being able to fully appreciate the context of the conversation, Warren was able to screw him with it. Bernie was likely thinking of Trump’s abrasiveness when he said it and how Warren might not hold up against it. And I agree to a point. She strikes me as a person who does not handle such crudeness well.
Now Klobuchar is another matter. I can see her kicking Trump’s ass for being a potty mouth.

 

[repoman]

Catch-22

It sexist to deny that society is sexist. Also it is sexist to acknowledge that society is sexist.

 

[repoman]

So Bernie applauded the $77 million decision for the union camera men etc that CNN fired. I can't find much news about and am getting paranoid about it being neoliberal establishment memoryholed.

Does anyone have direct evidence or video of Sanders talking CNN Union decision?

Like the Dean Scream that got media traction right after he talked about media monopolies.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3607157/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/howard-dean/#.XiVEOOF7luQ

MATTHEWS: Travel, the Democrats’ Ted Kennedy was part of that deregulation, the deregulation of radio. There are so many things that have been deregulated. Is that wrong trend and would you reverse it?

DEAN: I would reverse in some areas.

First of all, 11 companies in this country control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That’s wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions in every community. We don’t have that because of Michael Powell and what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.

MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I’m serious.

Advertise
DEAN: I’m keeping a...

MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got “The New York Post.” Would you break it up?

DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?

DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not,

because, obviously

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?

DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...

(LAUGHTER)

Advertise
DEAN: The answer to that is yes.

I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.

MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?

DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.

MATTHEWS: Well, would you break up GE?

(APPLAUSE)

DEAN: I can’t-you...

MATTHEWS: GE just buys Universal. Would you do something there about that? Would you stop that from happening?

DEAN: You can’t say-you can’t ask me right now and get an answer, would I break up X corp...

MATTHEWS: We’ve got to do it now, because now is the only chance we can ask you, because, once you are in, we have got to live with you.

(LAUGHTER)

Advertise
DEAN: No.

MATTHEWS: So, if you are going to do it, you have got to tell us now.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?

DEAN: Yes, we’re going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn’t mean we’re going to break up all of GE.

What we’re going to do is say that media enterprises can’t be as big as they are today. I don’t think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.

DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.

MATTHEWS: How-how far would you go in terms of public policy?

(APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: This is not-what you describe is not laissez-faire.

It’s not capitalism.

DEAN: It is capitalism.

MATTHEWS: How would you-what would you call it?

DEAN: I am absolutely a capitalist. Capitalism is the greatest system that people have ever invented, because it takes advantage of bad traits, as well as our good traits, and turns them into productivity.

But the essence of capitalism, which the right-wing never understands

” it always baffles me-is, you got to have some rules. Imagine a hockey game with no rules.

Don't talk about media monopolies or they will hogtie you, slit your throat, piss on you and then set you on fire.

 

[lpetrich]

What The Sanders vs. Warren Battle Is Really About | FiveThirtyEight

Just under a week later, the Warren campaign would be at war with Sen. Bernie Sanders over Warren’s claim that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that he didn’t think a woman could win the 2020 presidential election. This salvo from Warren’s camp was seen as a response to reports that talking points for Sanders volunteers characterized Warren as the choice of “highly educated, more affluent people,” a demographic both key to Democratic electoral success and associated with Hillary Clinton’s supposed out-of-touch elitism. Within a few hours, what had been a cold-war battle to define the left wing of the Democratic Party had gone hot. The handshake-that-wasn’t between Sanders and Warren at Tuesday night’s debate seemed to inflame tensions even more.

BS and EW aren't far off in policy details. So it's more stylistic:

Should progressive populism be wonky and detail-oriented and appeal to college-educated former Clinton voters? Or a more contentious outsider assault on the powers-that-be from the overlooked millions of the middle and lower-middle class?

EW gets about 1/3 more college-educated voters than BS, and also somewhat more higher--income voters than BS.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She is definitely very much into identity politics. It's not that she is a woman, as she is also heavily into racial identity politics. Examples: she supports "reparations" for blacks and giving Indians veto power over infrastructure projects.

Also, it is good practice that when responding to a particular point to only quote that part and not the entire post. Especially when there are images and/or the post is long. You should have deleted everything past the first three lines.

Warren is not the only person or candidate who supports reparations.

I’m sorry if my posting style/manners are not up to your high standards. I am traveling right now for a family situation and don’t have access to anything other than my phone a few minutes at a time. It’s time consuming for me to try splitting off sections to reply to. Feel free to ignore any of my posts that don’t meet your standards.

Why is it okay to talk about Cuban reparations, but black reparations is "identity politics"? Heck, the whole US v Cuba issue is centered almost exclusively on reparations.

I am so sick of people who are obsessed with women or blacks... complaining about "identity politics", because their positions are almost exclusively based on people's identities and their stereotypes of those people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She is definitely very much into identity politics. It's not that she is a woman, as she is also heavily into racial identity politics. Examples: she supports "reparations" for blacks and giving Indians veto power over infrastructure projects.

Also, it is good practice that when responding to a particular point to only quote that part and not the entire post. Especially when there are images and/or the post is long. You should have deleted everything past the first three lines.

Warren is not the only person or candidate who supports reparations.

I’m sorry if my posting style/manners are not up to your high standards. I am traveling right now for a family situation and don’t have access to anything other than my phone a few minutes at a time. It’s time consuming for me to try splitting off sections to reply to. Feel free to ignore any of my posts that don’t meet your standards.

Why is it okay to talk about Cuban reparations, but black reparations is "identity politics"? Heck, the whole US v Cuba issue is centered almost exclusively on reparations.

I am so sick of people who are obsessed with women or blacks... complaining about "identity politics", because their positions are almost exclusively based on people's identities and their stereotypes of those people.

It is identity politics to attach "reparations" to anybody based solely on their race. If somebody has themselves personally been wronged, the a case for reparations may be made. But if it is being made for an entire race of people simply because of their race, regardless of their personal history or circumstance.... that's politics of identity and is proxy politics and it is fundamentally wrong.