2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Warren simply taking instructions from the DNC is what this is all about.
The DNC is still out to get Bernie despite eliminating superdelegates and maintaining caucuses, which is to his almost exclusive benefit, despite the fact that they're undemocratic and reduce participation.
If you think the DNC and party establishment broadly is not anti-Bernie you either arrived here from Mars yesterday or have a baby brain.
Also -
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/6417...rdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process
And finally
The Democratic National Committee said Friday it would recommend exemptions to Iowa and Nevada that would allow them to avoid new guidelines requiring caucus states to allow remote participation without attending a caucus event. The waivers avert, for now, a showdown over voting rules between the committee and early caucus states.
The proposed waivers, which are expected to be approved by the party’s powerful rules and bylaws committee, come after D.N.C. leadership signaled it would block plans to allow some caucusgoers in Iowa and Nevada to vote by phone next year, bowing to security concerns about the process being hacked, according to four people with knowledge of the decision.
The committee’s announcement serves as a major setback to Democrats who have long hoped to expand the caucus-state electorate beyond those voters able to attend a winter-night gathering for several hours.
“People who believe in democracy and believe that people who are working or physically challenged should be able to participate are screwed by this decision,” said Larry Cohen, a D.N.C. member from Maryland who has long advocated allowing absentee participation in caucuses.
Mr. Cohen, who was a senior official on the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, said Friday that Iowa and Nevada still have time to create a system to participate in caucuses by mail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/us/politics/dnc-iowa-virtual-caucus.html
The Democratic National Committee said Friday it would recommend exemptions to Iowa and Nevada that would allow them to avoid new guidelines requiring caucus states to allow remote participation without attending a caucus event. The waivers avert, for now, a showdown over voting rules between the committee and early caucus states.
The proposed waivers, which are expected to be approved by the party’s powerful rules and bylaws committee, come after D.N.C. leadership signaled it would block plans to allow some caucusgoers in Iowa and Nevada to vote by phone next year, bowing to security concerns about the process being hacked, according to four people with knowledge of the decision.
The committee’s announcement serves as a major setback to Democrats who have long hoped to expand the caucus-state electorate beyond those voters able to attend a winter-night gathering for several hours.
“People who believe in democracy and believe that people who are working or physically challenged should be able to participate are screwed by this decision,” said Larry Cohen, a D.N.C. member from Maryland who has long advocated allowing absentee participation in caucuses.
Mr. Cohen, who was a senior official on the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, said Friday that Iowa and Nevada still have time to create a system to participate in caucuses by mail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/us/politics/dnc-iowa-virtual-caucus.html
I should really stop watching anything CNN. Fecking Cuomo with a stupendous interview with Bernie s campaign manager a bit ago. The manager is trying to take the high ground in what seems like a very respectable fashion and Cuomo kept trying to bait him. Almost seemed like he felt halfway thru he was pushing too much.
Edit: this whole thing smells off - either its just CNN trying to boost its ratings ahead of the next debate (Cuomo kept asking the campaign manager about what that's gonna be like.. Like the man is going to respond for Bernie at this pt) - or someone else is trying to sow divisiveness in the progressive wing. The campaign manager was very on point by not smearing Warren in return. Quite the opposite in fact.
Edit: this whole thing smells off - either its just CNN trying to boost its ratings ahead of the next debate (Cuomo kept asking the campaign manager about what that's gonna be like.. Like the man is going to respond for Bernie at this pt) - or someone else is trying to sow divisiveness in the progressive wing. The campaign manager was very on point by not smearing Warren in return. Quite the opposite in fact.
Last edited:
Feels early for Warren to go for broke. Is her polling really that bad or has she just sent the keeper up in some needless panic?
The thing though is I don't see what she gains by smearing Bernie. Don't see his base turning on him and voting for her instead on this issue. The only people who truly care about a story like this are probably already voting for her.
A “woman can’t win” even if true is so so taken out of context. What does it mean? That a woman can’t win in this current political climate because of the right wing narratives influencing voting habits? Or is it because women are incapable of winning anything? Or is it something else?
CNN are enablers, I’ve come to realize. I used to watch Cuomo a lot but I got to a point where I see that he’s so full of himself and takes himself too seriously. And what makes it worse is that he keeps bringing on shitty guests like the Trump sycophants under the veil of “balance” even though they add nothing to the conversation and gives them a platform to spew bullshit. And he acts like he’s being a hero of a journalist in doing so. Oh and that whole Fredo ordeal was a bad look. Like seriously sit the feck down, no one gives a feck about Fredo.
There is a Trumpism with Bernie fans. He is unquestionably always right and whoever criticized him for anything is evil.No one shall question the dear leader.
Maybe we’re just tired of watching people try and smear the guy. Hell it’s one thing not agreeing with his politics and that’s fair enough, but for 5 years now it’s been endless attempts to try and paint the guy as sexist and racist, and that’s fecking low considering he’s spent most of his life fighting for women and minorities.
Tbf, the thing started with Bernie campaigners depicting her as a fraud.
If she makes an idiot of herself just because people from an opposing campaign depicted her as a fraud she's got an issue there.
It doesn't make a great case that she's suited to a general election.
The one against the man who called her an offensive name so she did a DNA test and made herself look like an idiot.
I wouldn't group them all in such a fashion, however there is one in particular here that borders on personality cultist.
The personal attacks are catching. Warren's poisoning the discourse.
Whether you think it was justified or not, is irrelevant. Bernie's campaign decided to take pot shots first, so there's little reason to complain or start spinning tin foilstories about her now getting programmed by the DNC.
I think you're replying to the wrong person here.
Time for centrists to read their own memo about stopping whatever the cost to bring Trump down. If they start saying that voting for a socialist jew is one bridge too far, then what's the matter crying about Bernie bros
People who are saying that are idiots. Similar to 'Bernie or bust' brigade.
I doubt many will throw in the 'jew' qualification out there.
I see the usual shit for brains centrists brigade are out. 
Bernie is the only one among the candidates that seem willing to initiate the radical changes to the society and environment needed (subjective). The average citizen in the world and especially in the US should hope he gets the nomination and subsequently the office. Biden is mentally not there anymore and will be a punching bag for Trump's simplistic outburst.
That was me trying to be sarcastic but if anything is fine in bringing down Trump, so must be voting for Sanders. The guy is genuine, he seems to be surging in the polls and hopefully, he'll win the early states and then the others can feck off quickly. Democratic party needs to put an united front behind Sanders against Trump.
Onwards and upwards
I see the usual shit for brains centrists brigade are out.
Hey RD, did you really protest vote for Brexit when supporting Remain?
Intriguing. The DNC is in cahoots with everyone against Bernie I see.
Funny way to spell 'Joe Biden'.
The good thing (or bad thing depending on the perspective I guess)-is that at least Bernie won't go rogue like Trump, because of rabid supporters.
People see what they want to see
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-latest-in-her-nauseating-fake-victim-script
Elizabeth Warren’s nauseating fake victim script
Elizabeth Warren’s nauseating fake victim script
They know he's a threat to their corporate donors so they will do anything to derail him. But we won't let that happen.
Now THIS is podracing
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap
First: Would Bernie say this? Well, here’s Bernie in 1987 lamenting that there aren’t more women in office and encouraging young girls to run. And here’s Bernie in 1988, saying: “In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is ‘whose side are you on?’” In fact, Bernie encouraged Warren herself to run in 2016, and only entered the race because she declined to do it. This would be a strange thing to do if he thought a woman could not be president.
...
But when I say there is reason not to trust that Warren always tells the truth, I mean this because she does not always tell the truth. I have documented these at length in a video and in previous articles for this website. Many of them are small, but they are also shameless and show a willingness to bend the truth for political convenience. They include:
We cannot know what transpired between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. What we do know is that Bernie Sanders encouraged Warren to run in 2016 and that he has never thought it impossible for a woman to be president. We also know that Warren does not always represent things accurately. I think it should be clear who is more credible here, and Warren’s candidacy should be discredited.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap
First: Would Bernie say this? Well, here’s Bernie in 1987 lamenting that there aren’t more women in office and encouraging young girls to run. And here’s Bernie in 1988, saying: “In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States. The real issue is ‘whose side are you on?’” In fact, Bernie encouraged Warren herself to run in 2016, and only entered the race because she declined to do it. This would be a strange thing to do if he thought a woman could not be president.
...
But when I say there is reason not to trust that Warren always tells the truth, I mean this because she does not always tell the truth. I have documented these at length in a video and in previous articles for this website. Many of them are small, but they are also shameless and show a willingness to bend the truth for political convenience. They include:
- Saying she opposed fancy wine fundraisers even though she held them herself
- Raising money using exactly the methods she now denounces as corrupting, and falsely claiming her presidential campaign was “100% grassroots funded” when it carried over millions from a Senate campaign funded by the wealthy
- Claiming her father was a janitor when her brother insists he wasn’t
- Pretending to have been representing the interests of consumers when she was in fact working for corporations who were contesting the legal claims of retired coal miners, women sickened by faulty breast implants, rural cooperatives, and dead NASCAR drivers. (The New York Times and Washington Post both investigated her claims and documented ways in which her campaign had manipulated the truth.)
- Claiming for years on government forms that her race was “American Indian”
- When a mother accused her of having sent her children to private schools, insisting her children “went to public schools” when one of them actually did go to private school
- Claiming to support Medicare For All but then, when criticized for it, backing off it completely and promising to pass something else
- Claiming that only billionaires would pay more under her Medicare For All plan, when that wasn’t true
- Allowing Harvard Law School to claim her as its first “woman of color”
- Claiming that a DNA test supported the contention that she was an American Indian, then deleting the evidence she had done this
- Claiming to have been the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey bar, then when asked for evidence, saying that she “was making a point about the very serious challenges she faced.”
- Telling a dubious story about her grandparents having to elope because of discrimination
- Saying she was “not political” in her younger years when she was in fact a “diehard conservative” Republican
- Claiming recipes she copied word for word from the New York Times were ancient Cherokee family dishes
- Pretending that she was releasing a health-care plan that did not raise middle class taxes
- Claiming to have “created the intellectual foundation” for Occupy Wall Street
- Criticizing the revolving door between the banking sector and government despite personally putting bankers in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
We cannot know what transpired between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. What we do know is that Bernie Sanders encouraged Warren to run in 2016 and that he has never thought it impossible for a woman to be president. We also know that Warren does not always represent things accurately. I think it should be clear who is more credible here, and Warren’s candidacy should be discredited.
berbatrick said:
i'm wondering what exactly was said. he might have said something like a woman will have a tougher time, but that is pretty standard liberal analysis on 2016 and i wont be surprised if warren herself or other candidates have said the same. im pretty sure hillary has. i'm repeating myself on this, but bernie wanted her to run a while before he was known outside vermont. the other alternative is that he has done a 180 on long-held views, decided to tell this to the face of someone he considers an ally, and she sat on this dynamite for 1 year till 3 weeks before the first vote was cast.
Warren should have claimed that Sanders told her a Cherokee couldn’t be President.
- Status