DiscussMormonism.com

According to the nypost,

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has come to the defense of Sen. Bernie Sanders in his war of words with fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat, shared a personal anecdote about a meeting she had with Sanders before declaring her own 2020 candidacy, saying the Democratic socialist from Vermont was nothing but supportive.

“We had a nice one-on-one conversation and I informed him that I would be running for President,” Gabbard tweeted Monday. “In that meeting, he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always has.”

https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/tulsi-gab ... rren-feud/

CNN is just garbage. If the nypost report is accurate then it would only mean that CNN does't really care about objective journalism for not reporting it. CNN is destroying democracy. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination I will probably just stay home on election day.

Sounds very similar to you in 2016, minus the increasingly bizarre insistence that Sanders was winning long after it was clear that he had lost. That worked out great, though, didn't it?

Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was. It's entirely plausible that he shared honest opinions about the prospects of female candidates that would be mildly discouraging to the one that could harm his presidential ambitions.

I think CNN is kind of skewed. That said, here's a CNN thing about Warren confronting Sanders after the debate when a hot mic picked up the exchange. This when all we could originally see was that she dismissed his attempt at a post-debate handshake.

"I think you called me a liar on national TV." ~ Warren

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... -politics/

ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?

EAllusion wrote:Sounds very similar to you in 2016, minus the increasingly bizarre insistence that Sanders was winning long after it was clear that he had lost. That worked out great, though, didn't it?

I prefer Yang, but Sanders is the best candidate of the top 4. I do like his foreign policy views and I hopefully he wins. Kamala Harris was never the front runner, do you remember what you told me?

EAllusion wrote:Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was. It's entirely plausible that he shared honest opinions about the prospects of female candidates that would be mildly discouraging to the one that could harm his presidential ambitions.

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

It is also possible that she misunderstood, misheard, or is simply not remembering correctly.

Jersey Girl wrote:ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?

I don't agree.

DoubtingThomas wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?

I don't agree.

What don't you agree with?

DoubtingThomas wrote:I prefer Yang, but Sanders is the best candidate of the top 4. I do like his foreign policy and I hopefully he wins. Kamala Harris was never the front runner, do you remember what you told me?

What I told you was that she was a plausible front runner, which was the consensus view of both professional forecasters and betting markets for good reasons, but also that no one Democrat was likely to win in a crowded field, so she, like every other candidate, shouldn't be viewed as likely to win. You said this was nonsense, largely because you didn't want to believe it, and attacked honest reporters like Harry Enten as engaging in a conspiracy for sharing that view.

What was said then is still true. If I tell you now that the Chiefs are the team most likely to win the Superbowl and it ends up being the Titans, this doesn't mean I'm wrong. That's how probability works.

You let what you want to be the case determine what you think is likely the case. That is a theme that both explains your posts on Harris and why you aggressively shared Bernie bro propaganda in 2016 meant to paint a rosier picture for his campaign than what actually was happening.

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

Bernie Sanders has a history of making up stories for political points. But you really like Bernie Sanders, so you try to play up Warren as an essentially dishonest political actor even though she really isn't. Because of sexist stereotyping, it is pretty easy to paint female political candidates as dishonest snakes, though, and Sanders wouldn't be wrong if he thinks that it's a harder path for a liberal woman to win for reasons like that.

It is also possible that she misunderstood, misheard, or is simply not remembering correctly.

Weird that you don't allow that for Bernie Sanders. Maybe Bernie Sanders told her about roadblocks women face - real ones that played a significant role in why Clinton lost - and she reasonably interpreted that as Sanders telling her a woman can't win and/or discouraging her from running. And Sanders takes umbrage because he didn't literally say that, even if that would be the obvious subtext.

Jersey Girl wrote:What don't you agree with?

I don't think he effectively called her a liar. There are other possibilities, but I do suspect that she is lying.

DoubtingThomas wrote:This thing? This???

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

Let me pull out a couple or three excerpts:

The Massachusetts senator now says she lost the job because she was pregnant. She didn’t say that in the past. Is it possible to reconcile the two accounts?

Weeks after Warren’s resignation, one local newspaper reported that Warren resigned "to raise a family," and another said she "resigned for personal reasons."

And if Warren had been forced out of the job because she was pregnant, it’s not likely school officials would have said so publicly.

And finally this:

One thing that’s important to remember: At the time, it was common for women to be forced out of teaching jobs after they became pregnant.

You bet it was common. It was also common for women not to secure positions if during the interview they were asked if they already had or were planning to start a family. How do I know? Some years after Warren's experience I (a young newlywed) sat in an office with a Colonel who asked me the same questions during a job interview. I answered as honestly as I could. I didn't get the job.

Today those questions cannot be legally asked.

Back to the so-called lie.

Weeks after Warren’s resignation, one local newspaper reported that Warren resigned "to raise a family," and another said she "resigned for personal reasons."

Notice that these are the reports of local newspapers NOT reports from Warren herself, nor are either of these statements supported by a copy of the resignation itself.

Oh and by the way, "to raise a family" IS a personal reason.