Looks like Bernie might have made the case that he doesn’t believe a woman can win in 2020. Hard to say if this is true, but apparently most of the sources were “in the room”, and agreed it happened.
Sanders already had an issue with Women voters. It’s only going to get worse after something like this...
I don't really buy this to be honest, at least not in the way it's being portrayed. This sounds like a hail mary with Iowa just a couple weeks away. He also may be correct, but that's a reflection of the country, not the person pointing it out.
I’m sure there is some opportunism in the timing of the release - but that doesn’t mean he didnt say it (it also doesn’t mean he did say it, either).
There are PLENTY of people who do genuinely believe that a woman cannot beat Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanders was one of them.
Bernie's never had anything but nice things to say about Warren. Yes, he's campaigning against her and running to win. He is winning. This whole thing gleefully and uncritically reported by the msm is fake as hell.
Bernie's never had anything but nice things to say about Warren. Yes, he's campaigning against her and running to win. He is winning. This whole thing gleefully and uncritically reported by the msm is fake as hell.
Saying "a woman can be president" in the 1980s doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Apparently just about everyone in that meeting, including Warren, says that Sanders made the sexist remark. Her campaign probably leaked it, but that doesnt absolve him of making a sexist remark. If he doesnt want to be painted as a sexist, he shouldnt say sexist things.
Saying a woman can't beat Trump is not necessarily 'sexist'. The only woman with any prayer is Warren and mark my words, she wouldn't be able to beat him. If not Warren, then no woman can beat Trump. It's just reality, not sexism. We may never know for sure though since, as sure as I am of it, there won't be any proof unless a long-shot Warren win happens...
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
The most likely outcome of that process seems to be that the matter will eventually be referred back to the UN Security Council, where there will be a vote to reimpose sanctions. If that does happen though that won't be anything to do with the agreed deal, but other countries bowing to pressure from the US.
I've given in the spoiler below the full text of the JCPOA in relation to the dispute process. Paragraph 36 states that a complaining party can treat a failure of the other party to meet its commitments as grounds to cease performing its own commitments. Paragraph 37 goes beyond that to state specifically that Iran would treat the reimposition of sanctions as grounds to cease performing its own commitments.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the
participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.
37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
It's impossible to see how the Joint Commission responsible for initially reviewing any dispute could reasonably come to any conclusion other than that the sanctions imposed by the US are a breach of the terms of the agreement. I also fail to see how Iran doing exactly what they said, in the Agreement, they would do can be reasonably regarded as a breach of the Agreement. However, I expect the Joint Commission to effectively duck the issue and say that both sides are in breach and the matter will need to be considered at a higher level (which will ultimately be the UN).
I'm disappointed, if not surprised, that the UK appears to be leading the move to fall in line with the US position. That marks a step away from attempts to resolve international tensions through agreements that have benefits to both sides - and back towards an earlier era where weaker countries were told to sign up or else. The UK in its empire days was a great believer in 'gunboat diplomacy', but I don't think that provides a helpful way forward in the modern world.
Edit: just seeing a bit more detail on what Boris Johnson has said - and it's a bit more nuanced than I might have suggested above. Effectively he's saying the need to replace the JCPOA is that it was negotiated by Obama - and we now need a Trump deal. While I have no doubt that Trump is entirely capable of signing up to a virtually identical deal and saying how brilliant it is, I also have no doubt that such a deal would take years of negotiations and that the patience and humbleness required to make Iran even half-believe the US would stick to another deal would be impossible for him. There's also the problem that others in his administration (with a strong push from Israel) want to add in extra elements to a deal relating to missiles and behavior within the Middle East.
While it may seem the easy option to fall in line with the US position and say that's the best chance of securing a deal, I can't see that. It may be the best way of keeping good relations with the US (and there are plenty of good reasons for doing that of course), but even in the unlikely event of regime change in Iran, I don't see any prospects for them wanting to do another deal with the US in the foreseeable future.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
Perhaps people should not accept at face value every story told about candidates especially if it doesn't fit a lifetime of counter examples.
This sounds like an excuse to ignore everything you don’t like about your preferred candidate because of other things he said 30 years ago.
I tend to accept stories when literally everyone in the room says he said it - including Warren. The decision to completely ignore it because you don’t like it is on you.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Straw man. I didn’t say he was a male chauvinist pig. I said he said something sexist. If he doesn’t want to be called a sexist, he should not say sexist things.
Incidentally - your response doesn’t even refute mine. You pose it as an either-or, when we could all do both.
So Pelosi is going to schedule a vote Wednesday to send the impeachment articles to the Senate.
No concessions on fairness were extracted from Moscow Mitch McConnell. Supposedly, Mitch doesn't have the voted to dismiss the articles outright. What's that mean? Does it mean anything good or are Republicans just confident they can rig a Senate trial to "exonerate" a guilty as hell Trump? Yeah they'd prefer a rigged trial they can point to then just dismissing the articles. That's not an improvement.
"Moderate" Senator Mitt Romney says he's open to Bolton testifying. Courageous? Or is he confident that Trump will prevent him, through executive privilege, from saying anything anything harmful.
But ultra-Conservative Justice Roberts will be presiding over the trial, he'll save us and ensure a fair trial! Except, he won't. Mitch can write whatever Senate rules for the impeachment trial that he wants and you can be damn sure he will make it so if any procedural questions arise, such as whether or not to allow executive privilege or allow witnesses, these questions will be deferred to a simple majority vote where Senate Republicans will continue to crap on the Constitution. Justice Roberts will ensure these (rigged) rules are followed and that's all he will do.
So what was the point of Pelosi sitting on the impeachment articles for a month and releasing them without concessions about two weeks before the Iowa Democratic primaries?
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who you definitely can't trust either but seems to be right about this one point, suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been withholding the articles of impeachment to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other White House hopefuls in the Senate from campaigning during the upcoming trial.
“If there's anyone who gained from this, it would be anybody who's running for president that's not in the U.S. Senate,” McCarthy said.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
Perhaps people should not accept at face value every story told about candidates especially if it doesn't fit a lifetime of counter examples.
This sounds like an excuse to ignore everything you don’t like about your preferred candidate because of other things he said 30 years ago.
I tend to accept stories when literally everyone in the room says he said it - including Warren. The decision to completely ignore it because you don’t like it is on you.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Straw man. I didn’t say he was a male chauvinist pig. I said he said something sexist. If he doesn’t want to be called a sexist, he should not say sexist things.
Incidentally - your response doesn’t even refute mine. You pose it as an either-or, when we could all do both.
I don't agree that the statement is sexist. If he said 'a woman will never become President', that's a sexist statement. Saying a woman can't beat Trump is not sexist. It's an opinion based on data or his intuition. I'd want to see the entire conversation from start to finish before I jumped to any conclusion.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who you definitely can't trust either but seems to be right about this one point, suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been withholding the articles of impeachment to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other White House hopefuls in the Senate from campaigning during the upcoming trial.
“If there's anyone who gained from this, it would be anybody who's running for president that's not in the U.S. Senate,” McCarthy said.
Well - it wouldn’t be primary season if Bernie Bro’s weren’t inventing conspiracy theories. This one is particularly thin. Pelosi was clear and on record about holding the articles of impeachment as an attempt at leverage over the senate trial.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
Perhaps people should not accept at face value every story told about candidates especially if it doesn't fit a lifetime of counter examples.
This sounds like an excuse to ignore everything you don’t like about your preferred candidate because of other things he said 30 years ago.
I tend to accept stories when literally everyone in the room says he said it - including Warren. The decision to completely ignore it because you don’t like it is on you.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Straw man. I didn’t say he was a male chauvinist pig. I said he said something sexist. If he doesn’t want to be called a sexist, he should not say sexist things.
Incidentally - your response doesn’t even refute mine. You pose it as an either-or, when we could all do both.
I don't agree that the statement is sexist. If he said 'a woman will never become President', that's a sexist statement. Saying a woman can't beat Trump is not sexist. It's an opinion based on data or his intuition. I'd want to see the entire conversation from start to finish before I jumped to any conclusion.
Whether it's sexist or not depends on the motives behind that statement, and also the data behind it.
It's not sexist if a man says that a woman won't ever run 100m faster than Usain Bolt, for example. It's a very likely assumption based on data.
It's also not sexist if someone says that the kind of people who fell for Trump's campaign probably won't be swayed by a woman (those that can be convinced to change sides), because of the way those people tick, not because women are incapable of being good politicians (oh if only it mattered more in elections whether the candidate is truly a good politician).
Whether it's sexist or not depends on the motives behind that statement, and also the data behind it.
It's not sexist if a man says that a woman won't ever run 100m faster than Usain Bolt, for example. It's a very likely assumption based on data.
It's also not sexist if someone says that the kind of people who fell for Trump's campaign probably won't be swayed by a woman (those that can be convinced to change sides), because of the way those people tick, not because women are incapable of being good politicians (oh if only it mattered more in elections whether the candidate is truly a good politician).
I agree with just about all of this. The difference is that Sanders doesn’t have specific data/evidence to support the idea that a woman cannot beat Trump(in fact - polling suggests it’s very possible. By advocating that Warren not run, the cynical view is he was hoping to gather her support. There is also no evidence of this, so I wouldn’t consider him a cynical politician) He is merely substituting his own intuition or belief in place of evidence that a woman cannot do that which he believes a man can do.
Does that make him a sexist? That’s up to each person, but I do believe it is a sexist argument.
Try this argument out for size: the quote has probably been known about for some time, it's probably taken entirely out of context, and the only reason we are hearing about it is because CNN has to sell the Iowa caucuses as Sanders vs. Warren in the same way the NFL would sell an AFC Championship of Brady vs. Manning. What you will notice on ALL television news coverage is that policy is almost NEVER discussed. Hell, even in sports media they talk about tangible strengths and weaknesses of each team. Political coverage in this country is 95% horserace. Meaning, it's entirely focused on a.) poll numbers b.) fundraising numbers and c.) perceived gaffes that the candidates (well, all of them except Trump, who is somehow immune) are required to "address", giving the networks 24-48 of a topic before moving onto the next one. The American people are generally pretty stupid, but even if they WANTED to be sufficiently informed, they probably couldn't be given the state of political coverage in this country.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
Perhaps people should not accept at face value every story told about candidates especially if it doesn't fit a lifetime of counter examples.
This sounds like an excuse to ignore everything you don’t like about your preferred candidate because of other things he said 30 years ago.
I tend to accept stories when literally everyone in the room says he said it - including Warren. The decision to completely ignore it because you don’t like it is on you.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Straw man. I didn’t say he was a male chauvinist pig. I said he said something sexist. If he doesn’t want to be called a sexist, he should not say sexist things.
Incidentally - your response doesn’t even refute mine. You pose it as an either-or, when we could all do both.
I don't agree that the statement is sexist. If he said 'a woman will never become President', that's a sexist statement. Saying a woman can't beat Trump is not sexist. It's an opinion based on data or his intuition. I'd want to see the entire conversation from start to finish before I jumped to any conclusion.
This. It is very easy to skew words from their intended meaning.
Like so many others have said, this conversation coming out now only has political motives, and should not be taken at face value.
It Warren is attempting to hurt Sanders, it is probably because another leading candidate has tapped her (or Warren is hoping moves like this will) to be VP. Sanders can't have Warren as VP as their ideologies align too much. I think the identity politics of the democratic party is going to make sure their is a woman Vice President. Warren can fill that as long as Sanders doesn't win, especially if a centralist like Biden or Bloomberg get the nod.
Winning an election is more about popular opinion than one's own abilities. I don't know how Bernie meant it, but saying voters are too prejudiced to vote a woman into office is not a knock on women. A knock on women would be saying a woman wouldn't be able to do the job; not saying she wouldn't get hired.
I mean, I'm trans, and if someone told me a transgender person wouldn't be able to beat Trump in the 2020 election, I wouldn't consider that a transphobic comment. Saying "bigotry is a powerful force in this country" is usually meant as a criticism of bigotry, not an endorsement.
At any rate we don't know what was said and how it was said. We just have this statement from anonymous Warren staffers that was fed to CNN and reposted on the rest of the MSM. This is nothing.
If Bernie said this in public or had a history of misogyny like Trump does and Biden flirts with then it might be a story.
Unfortunately, the reality of our situation is this: if the election were held tomorrow then *no one* would beat Trump, not even other Republicans (none of whom are even daring to run against him), and he is the *worst* they have to offer.
I have made this analogy before--political elections are like episodes of The Weakest Link, where the weakest candidate gets kicked out first, followed by the strongest candidate, and then all the middle-of-the-pack people fight among themsleves until the least objectionable person emerges victorious rather than the *best* candidate. The only difference is that in this game the winner gets a large box full of political powers as their prize.
Unfortunately, the reality of our situation is this: if the election were held tomorrow then *no one* would beat Trump, not even other Republicans (none of whom are even daring to run against him), and he is the *worst* they have to offer.
I have made this analogy before--political elections are like episodes of The Weakest Link, where the weakest candidate gets kicked out first, followed by the strongest candidate, and then all the middle-of-the-pack people fight among themsleves until the least objectionable person emerges victorious rather than the *best* candidate. The only difference is that in this game the winner gets a large box full of political powers as their prize.
wrong.
"The latest data, which was drawn from surveys of more than 40,000 registered voters from January 6 to 12, showed Sanders beating Trump by 4 percentage points, up from a previous 2 percent lead, at 46 percent compared to the president's 42 percent. Although Biden still performs slightly better—46 percent compared to 41 percent for Trump—Morning Consult noted that Sanders outperformed Biden among independents and young voters, or those 18 to 29 years old."
Warning signs for those who think we're going to get a fair Senate impeachment trial. John Roberts won't save America either by the way, he'll just enforce whatever rules Mitch McConnell writes.
Senate Republicans are the press from documenting the moment the House delivers articles of impeachment against Trump
Citing "security concerns", the Senate will force credentialed reporters to remain inside a single press pen and won't allow them to walk up to and interview senators in the hallways, as is custom. It will also require reporters to pass through an additional security check, which will make reporting from the events onerous, Roll Call reported on Tuesday.
Just one camera — and no photographers or audio recorders — will be permitted to document the historic delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
If anyone thought it couldn't get worse, it has gotten WAY worse. We now have text messages from Giuliani and his Ukranian associates that indicate at a BARE minimum the Ukrainian Ambassador was being physically stalked, and there are statements that can hardly be read in any other way than they were considering having her assassinated:
So yeah, if the Republican Senate would like to ignore the fact that Trump's goon squad was actively tracking the movements of his own ambassador and at a BARE MINIMUM contemplating something being done to her (which to me can only read as kidnapping or murder) then, you know, by all means, reveal yourself as that craven. This isn't a government, it's a crime family.
It's also not sexist if someone says that the kind of people who fell for Trump's campaign probably won't be swayed by a woman (those that can be convinced to change sides), because of the way those people tick.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
You couldn't come up with a more cartoonish stereotype if you tried, but most here basically agree with you, so there is that.
Anyway, this nonsense is coming out about Bernie because he is a political threat. The obvious implication they are hoping for is that he has some sort of anti women bias, but I think we all know better than that. The bad faith in politics and the media knows no bounds.
From the clips I am seeing the moderators are using it against him and basically assuming the worst even though he denies it, guilty until proven innocent. This only happens when someone is politically unpopular with the establishment.
The DNC can't sabatoge Bernie a second time, that would be too obvious. So they outsourced the job to CNN.
American politics in the 2020's is going to be a bunch of people pointing fingers at one another for harboring naughty opinions, with nobody involved actually harboring any.
Bernie's answer on Trump's trade deal (which is nothing but NAFTA with a Trump Tower sign on it) is why he can beat him in the Rust Belt. If Bernie can pull out Iowa, he then basically has a home game in New Hampshire. It's theoretically possible to not win the nomination after sweeping the first two states, but it's never happened. He's been leading in California and Nevada for months. If he takes Iowa in a few weeks, he becomes a HEAVY favorite for the nomination.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
And people who supported Clinton's 2016 campaign supported a woman who called black men super predators. We knew this about Clinton well before she ever ran. Nobody knew Trump's private statements until almost before the election. If you think your argument stands I can make all sorts of generalizations about you based on the same argument. Is this a game worth playing?
It's also not sexist if someone says that the kind of people who fell for Trump's campaign probably won't be swayed by a woman (those that can be convinced to change sides), because of the way those people tick.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
You couldn't come up with a more cartoonish stereotype if you tried, but most here basically agree with you, so there is that.
I didn't say any of those things, you're twisting my words *and* their meaning, and you know it. Stop using a neutral observation to polarize, please.
"because of the way those [voters who were just impressed by Trump's propaganda, not those with a genuine interest in politics] people tick" doesn't mean "because they hate women".
Many people fall for those who promise to bring back the "good old times", to make your country "great again", to promise to keep out immigrants so that your children/grandchildren will be safe and you won't have so much competition for jobs. Or, in European countries, promise to raise everybody's pension, because most voters are old folks.
They fall for the "strong man". Now, you can go and call that sexist, but it's an image more credibly used by male candidates.
That's why so many people voted for Putin, Erdogan, Orban, to name a few.
That part of the masses won't be swayed by logic, or complicated politics, and politicians know that. But that part of the masses can make all the difference about who wins and who doesn't.
Besides, the weird U.S. system with electors for the states really makes a difference in how many people you need to convince...
Comments
I’m sure there is some opportunism in the timing of the release - but that doesn’t mean he didnt say it (it also doesn’t mean he did say it, either).
There are PLENTY of people who do genuinely believe that a woman cannot beat Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanders was one of them.
Warrens response on this will be clarifying.
There's video of Bernie saying I think a woman could be President in the 1980s.
Bernie campaigned for Hillary and helped her win more votes than Trump. Why do that if he thought a woman could not win? Ridiculous.
There's this too:
Bernie's never had anything but nice things to say about Warren. Yes, he's campaigning against her and running to win. He is winning. This whole thing gleefully and uncritically reported by the msm is fake as hell.
Saying "a woman can be president" in the 1980s doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Tulsi Gabbard saying she had a nice conversation with Sanders doesnt preclude him from saying a woman cant win in 2020.
Frankly, I suspect if it was announced Biden had said this, the Bernie Bros would be all over twitter screaming about how out of touch he is. There's some amount of hypocrisy here when Sander's supporters throw stones at everyone else, but refuse to accept their candidate isnt perfect.
Apparently just about everyone in that meeting, including Warren, says that Sanders made the sexist remark. Her campaign probably leaked it, but that doesnt absolve him of making a sexist remark. If he doesnt want to be painted as a sexist, he shouldnt say sexist things.
Perhaps people should stop deifying candidates.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps the days when everybody's every word is scrutinized and either polished or trashed should be relegated to the scrap heap. Bernie should just say he meant that 'Warren' couldnt beat Trump and leave it at that. Trump says all kinds of bullshit every day and gets a pass from his base. Bernie says one, arguably defensible statement, and it's OMG he's a male chauvinist pig! Hilariously ridiculous...
Tulsi had a conversation with Bernie about her, a woman running for and being President, and he was supportive. If he felt a woman could not be President, he could have said so right then. That was a perfect opportunity to to discuss your reservations.
Well, it would be on brand for Biden to say this because he has not spent his life pushing for civil rights and saying things like "a woman could be President" like Bernie has. Biden has consistently been on the wrong side of progress so yeah it would be more believable. But, the allegations are not against Biden.
Perhaps people should not accept at face value every story told about candidates especially if it doesn't fit a lifetime of counter examples.
The most likely outcome of that process seems to be that the matter will eventually be referred back to the UN Security Council, where there will be a vote to reimpose sanctions. If that does happen though that won't be anything to do with the agreed deal, but other countries bowing to pressure from the US.
I've given in the spoiler below the full text of the JCPOA in relation to the dispute process. Paragraph 36 states that a complaining party can treat a failure of the other party to meet its commitments as grounds to cease performing its own commitments. Paragraph 37 goes beyond that to state specifically that Iran would treat the reimposition of sanctions as grounds to cease performing its own commitments.
36. If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the
participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant nonperformance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.
37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
It's impossible to see how the Joint Commission responsible for initially reviewing any dispute could reasonably come to any conclusion other than that the sanctions imposed by the US are a breach of the terms of the agreement. I also fail to see how Iran doing exactly what they said, in the Agreement, they would do can be reasonably regarded as a breach of the Agreement. However, I expect the Joint Commission to effectively duck the issue and say that both sides are in breach and the matter will need to be considered at a higher level (which will ultimately be the UN).
I'm disappointed, if not surprised, that the UK appears to be leading the move to fall in line with the US position. That marks a step away from attempts to resolve international tensions through agreements that have benefits to both sides - and back towards an earlier era where weaker countries were told to sign up or else. The UK in its empire days was a great believer in 'gunboat diplomacy', but I don't think that provides a helpful way forward in the modern world.
Edit: just seeing a bit more detail on what Boris Johnson has said - and it's a bit more nuanced than I might have suggested above. Effectively he's saying the need to replace the JCPOA is that it was negotiated by Obama - and we now need a Trump deal. While I have no doubt that Trump is entirely capable of signing up to a virtually identical deal and saying how brilliant it is, I also have no doubt that such a deal would take years of negotiations and that the patience and humbleness required to make Iran even half-believe the US would stick to another deal would be impossible for him. There's also the problem that others in his administration (with a strong push from Israel) want to add in extra elements to a deal relating to missiles and behavior within the Middle East.
While it may seem the easy option to fall in line with the US position and say that's the best chance of securing a deal, I can't see that. It may be the best way of keeping good relations with the US (and there are plenty of good reasons for doing that of course), but even in the unlikely event of regime change in Iran, I don't see any prospects for them wanting to do another deal with the US in the foreseeable future.
This sounds like an excuse to ignore everything you don’t like about your preferred candidate because of other things he said 30 years ago.
I tend to accept stories when literally everyone in the room says he said it - including Warren. The decision to completely ignore it because you don’t like it is on you.
Straw man. I didn’t say he was a male chauvinist pig. I said he said something sexist. If he doesn’t want to be called a sexist, he should not say sexist things.
Incidentally - your response doesn’t even refute mine. You pose it as an either-or, when we could all do both.
No concessions on fairness were extracted from Moscow Mitch McConnell. Supposedly, Mitch doesn't have the voted to dismiss the articles outright. What's that mean? Does it mean anything good or are Republicans just confident they can rig a Senate trial to "exonerate" a guilty as hell Trump? Yeah they'd prefer a rigged trial they can point to then just dismissing the articles. That's not an improvement.
"Moderate" Senator Mitt Romney says he's open to Bolton testifying. Courageous? Or is he confident that Trump will prevent him, through executive privilege, from saying anything anything harmful.
But ultra-Conservative Justice Roberts will be presiding over the trial, he'll save us and ensure a fair trial! Except, he won't. Mitch can write whatever Senate rules for the impeachment trial that he wants and you can be damn sure he will make it so if any procedural questions arise, such as whether or not to allow executive privilege or allow witnesses, these questions will be deferred to a simple majority vote where Senate Republicans will continue to crap on the Constitution. Justice Roberts will ensure these (rigged) rules are followed and that's all he will do.
So what was the point of Pelosi sitting on the impeachment articles for a month and releasing them without concessions about two weeks before the Iowa Democratic primaries?
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who you definitely can't trust either but seems to be right about this one point, suggested that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been withholding the articles of impeachment to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other White House hopefuls in the Senate from campaigning during the upcoming trial.
“If there's anyone who gained from this, it would be anybody who's running for president that's not in the U.S. Senate,” McCarthy said.
I don't agree that the statement is sexist. If he said 'a woman will never become President', that's a sexist statement. Saying a woman can't beat Trump is not sexist. It's an opinion based on data or his intuition. I'd want to see the entire conversation from start to finish before I jumped to any conclusion.
Well - it wouldn’t be primary season if Bernie Bro’s weren’t inventing conspiracy theories. This one is particularly thin. Pelosi was clear and on record about holding the articles of impeachment as an attempt at leverage over the senate trial.
We fundamentally disagree on what sexism is.
It's not sexist if a man says that a woman won't ever run 100m faster than Usain Bolt, for example. It's a very likely assumption based on data.
It's also not sexist if someone says that the kind of people who fell for Trump's campaign probably won't be swayed by a woman (those that can be convinced to change sides), because of the way those people tick, not because women are incapable of being good politicians (oh if only it mattered more in elections whether the candidate is truly a good politician).
I agree with just about all of this. The difference is that Sanders doesn’t have specific data/evidence to support the idea that a woman cannot beat Trump(in fact - polling suggests it’s very possible. By advocating that Warren not run, the cynical view is he was hoping to gather her support. There is also no evidence of this, so I wouldn’t consider him a cynical politician) He is merely substituting his own intuition or belief in place of evidence that a woman cannot do that which he believes a man can do.
Does that make him a sexist? That’s up to each person, but I do believe it is a sexist argument.
This. It is very easy to skew words from their intended meaning.
Like so many others have said, this conversation coming out now only has political motives, and should not be taken at face value.
It Warren is attempting to hurt Sanders, it is probably because another leading candidate has tapped her (or Warren is hoping moves like this will) to be VP. Sanders can't have Warren as VP as their ideologies align too much. I think the identity politics of the democratic party is going to make sure their is a woman Vice President. Warren can fill that as long as Sanders doesn't win, especially if a centralist like Biden or Bloomberg get the nod.
I mean, I'm trans, and if someone told me a transgender person wouldn't be able to beat Trump in the 2020 election, I wouldn't consider that a transphobic comment. Saying "bigotry is a powerful force in this country" is usually meant as a criticism of bigotry, not an endorsement.
If Bernie said this in public or had a history of misogyny like Trump does and Biden flirts with then it might be a story.
I have made this analogy before--political elections are like episodes of The Weakest Link, where the weakest candidate gets kicked out first, followed by the strongest candidate, and then all the middle-of-the-pack people fight among themsleves until the least objectionable person emerges victorious rather than the *best* candidate. The only difference is that in this game the winner gets a large box full of political powers as their prize.
wrong.
"The latest data, which was drawn from surveys of more than 40,000 registered voters from January 6 to 12, showed Sanders beating Trump by 4 percentage points, up from a previous 2 percent lead, at 46 percent compared to the president's 42 percent. Although Biden still performs slightly better—46 percent compared to 41 percent for Trump—Morning Consult noted that Sanders outperformed Biden among independents and young voters, or those 18 to 29 years old."
BERNIE SANDERS DOUBLES HIS LEAD OVER DONALD TRUMP IN HYPOTHETICAL GENERAL ELECTION POLL
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-doubles-his-lead-over-donald-trump-hypothetical-general-election-poll-1482075
Senate Republicans are the press from documenting the moment the House delivers articles of impeachment against Trump
Citing "security concerns", the Senate will force credentialed reporters to remain inside a single press pen and won't allow them to walk up to and interview senators in the hallways, as is custom. It will also require reporters to pass through an additional security check, which will make reporting from the events onerous, Roll Call reported on Tuesday.
Just one camera — and no photographers or audio recorders — will be permitted to document the historic delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-will-block-press-from-fully-covering-trump-impeachment-trial-2020-1
Here we go...
So yeah, if the Republican Senate would like to ignore the fact that Trump's goon squad was actively tracking the movements of his own ambassador and at a BARE MINIMUM contemplating something being done to her (which to me can only read as kidnapping or murder) then, you know, by all means, reveal yourself as that craven. This isn't a government, it's a crime family.
Why, yes, we who supported his 2016 campaign do indeed see women as inferior. We also like to tie women to train tracks while twirling our mustache, kick puppies, and more.
You couldn't come up with a more cartoonish stereotype if you tried, but most here basically agree with you, so there is that.
From the clips I am seeing the moderators are using it against him and basically assuming the worst even though he denies it, guilty until proven innocent. This only happens when someone is politically unpopular with the establishment.
The DNC can't sabatoge Bernie a second time, that would be too obvious. So they outsourced the job to CNN.
Well, people who supported his 2016 campaign supported a man who was caught bragging about sexual assault on camera, so it at the very least clearly indicated a lack of concern about that.
(He'd also been caught discriminating against black tenants for his properties, so there's also that!)
And people who supported Clinton's 2016 campaign supported a woman who called black men super predators. We knew this about Clinton well before she ever ran. Nobody knew Trump's private statements until almost before the election. If you think your argument stands I can make all sorts of generalizations about you based on the same argument. Is this a game worth playing?
I didn't say any of those things, you're twisting my words *and* their meaning, and you know it. Stop using a neutral observation to polarize, please.
"because of the way those [voters who were just impressed by Trump's propaganda, not those with a genuine interest in politics] people tick" doesn't mean "because they hate women".
Many people fall for those who promise to bring back the "good old times", to make your country "great again", to promise to keep out immigrants so that your children/grandchildren will be safe and you won't have so much competition for jobs. Or, in European countries, promise to raise everybody's pension, because most voters are old folks.
They fall for the "strong man". Now, you can go and call that sexist, but it's an image more credibly used by male candidates.
That's why so many people voted for Putin, Erdogan, Orban, to name a few.
That part of the masses won't be swayed by logic, or complicated politics, and politicians know that. But that part of the masses can make all the difference about who wins and who doesn't.
Besides, the weird U.S. system with electors for the states really makes a difference in how many people you need to convince...