15th January 2020, 11:51 AM
Yes indeed, believe women... unless they challenge Saint Bernie, patron saint of leftists. Believe most women, but a woman who challenges Bernie, such as Hillary in '16 or Warren now? They're obviously lying, why would he ever do anything sexist?
Really, he probably should have admitted to saying something (unless it really was "you can't win" because that's clearly not true), because yeah, sexism IS a big problem in this world, and it does hold back female candidates. Those "but Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump, women can win!" defenses you heard from Bernie, Buttigieg, and such leave out how sexism surely provided the key edge that allowed Trump to win. Women can win, absolutely, but they have a tougher road, particularly when facing off against Donald Trump in specific. This does concern me, and it's one reason I'm still a bit hesitant about supporting Warren. But "tougher" doesn't mean "can't".
Warren's line after that was pretty good, though -- she pointed out how the four male candidates on stage have lost ten races between them, while the two female ones (her and Amy Klobuchar) have won every race they've ever been in. Good point there!
Sure, though, it could be true that she brings it up now in order to try to gain some support, at a time when her numbers are flat and are well under Bernie's. They are politicians, they make political calculations about things. But that doesn't mean it's not true or something worth discussing.
(15th January 2020, 10:02 AM)Sacred Jellybean Wrote: It's a non-controversy. Warren stated Sanders told her a woman couldn't win the presidency. Sanders contradicted this, clarifying that he said that Trump would use Warren being a woman as a weapon against her. He's not wrong, I'm sure. But the point is, this is a subtle enough distinction that it's not unreasonable that both people would remember a conversation from what, a year and a half ago? In a different way. And that Warren could easily draw the inference from Sanders' words that she would have more trouble as a female candidate, enough such that it would cost her the election.She says he said it. He says he didn't. There is no reason to believe his version of events over hers, I don't think.
Really, he probably should have admitted to saying something (unless it really was "you can't win" because that's clearly not true), because yeah, sexism IS a big problem in this world, and it does hold back female candidates. Those "but Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump, women can win!" defenses you heard from Bernie, Buttigieg, and such leave out how sexism surely provided the key edge that allowed Trump to win. Women can win, absolutely, but they have a tougher road, particularly when facing off against Donald Trump in specific. This does concern me, and it's one reason I'm still a bit hesitant about supporting Warren. But "tougher" doesn't mean "can't".
Warren's line after that was pretty good, though -- she pointed out how the four male candidates on stage have lost ten races between them, while the two female ones (her and Amy Klobuchar) have won every race they've ever been in. Good point there!
Quote:It's all silly drama. I'm more disillusioned by Warren coming out and saying this now, acting combative towards Sanders. Right before the debate. Where she used the opportunity to say how a woman could win, exploiting the news story. NOTE: I didn't see the actual debate and maybe context/prompting of the moderators could change this, but it strikes me as cynical that Warren would use this as a cudgel against her rival, who is clearly very progressive in supporting women.Bernie actually supports people who support him, not women (or men) in general. This is why he was so loath to say anything about Tulsi, etc. But challenge him and Bernie's cult-like internet following will tear you apart, like they are doing right now to Warren. It's sad stuff.
Sure, though, it could be true that she brings it up now in order to try to gain some support, at a time when her numbers are flat and are well under Bernie's. They are politicians, they make political calculations about things. But that doesn't mean it's not true or something worth discussing.