Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
achilles return

us politics and elections thread

1,993 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Reports citing an anonymous source. No evidence that was true.

I am talking about the delegates who were discussing 2020. 

And this was an INTERNAL letter about 2016 that wasn't supposed to get out.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/bernie-sanders-campaign-harassment-1077014

 

A lot of this story was internal stuff PRIOR to the news reports, so even if you accept the "source", it doesn't mean the harassment/abuse/sexism was not a reason for his demotion. Even the CNN article says they have no clue who will be Campaign Manager, while claiming to be in advance stages of starting a run. You would think CM would be first before already starting a strategy. 

 

Konst also said it was a political weapon used against Sanders because it may feed into the Bernie Bro narrative. And she isn't the only one. I have seen stuff from TYT and Kyle Kulinski claiming these are attacks against Bernie.  

Also pretty funny now trying to bring up the fact that other campaigns faced this issue when I was the first to do so and also posted tweets from Di Lauro saying the same thing.  First, it was deny and claim hit piece. 

1. Again, don't know why they came to that decision. Just pointing out what was reported and pointing out that if he was viewed as a problem, as you keep trying to say, then he wouldn't be back at all.

2. Funny you bring up Di Lauro:

Is she throwing women under the bus like Konst apparently was? Is she also being blindly loyal to Sanders like TYT, Kulinski, and others for recognizing how her story is being used to not call for necessary reforms but to smear Sanders?

Billy Ocean likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

1. Again, don't know why they came to that decision. Just pointing out what was reported and pointing out that if he was viewed as a problem, as you keep trying to say, then he wouldn't be back at all.

2. Funny you bring up Di Lauro:

Is she throwing women under the bus like Konst apparently was? Is she also being blindly loyal to Sanders like TYT, Kulinski, and others for recognizing how her story is being used to not call for necessary reforms but to smear Sanders?

I didn't say weaver was a problem. I am speculating that he knew about the issues and didn't take the proper steps quickly enough. There was a 30k settlement. You don't think Weaver knew about it? You can pretend the timing is normal, but it definitely isn't adding up to their claim and being an adviser means nothing. DWS was an adviser after the email scandal broke. Giving someone an adviser role allows both parties to save face. 

 

At the same time, I was deeply disappointed by the feedback I received from some on the left. Both myself and other women who spoke on the record about our experiences on Sanders’s campaign received messages and tweets from Sanders supporters accusing us of lying and wanting to purposefully attack the Vermont senator. I was told to “enjoy my 15 minutes of fame” and was mocked while the sexual harassment I endured was normalized. Neoliberals and corporate media are unfair to Sanders and his supporters because our movement threatens their supremacy. But to dismiss our claims as mere bias is at best disingenuous and at worst cruel.

 

Remember when I said something similar to this thing to Optimus. B) 

 

It should also be worth noting that in her piece, she never actually shows an example of Corporate Media and Neoliberals actually treating Sanders' sexism as unique to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

I didn't say weaver was a problem. I am speculating that he knew about the issues and didn't take the proper steps quickly enough. There was a 30k settlement. You don't think Weaver knew about it? You can pretend the timing is normal, but it definitely isn't adding up to their claim and being an adviser means nothing. DWS was an adviser after the email scandal broke. Giving someone an adviser role allows both parties to save face. 

 

At the same time, I was deeply disappointed by the feedback I received from some on the left. Both myself and other women who spoke on the record about our experiences on Sanders’s campaign received messages and tweets from Sanders supporters accusing us of lying and wanting to purposefully attack the Vermont senator. I was told to “enjoy my 15 minutes of fame” and was mocked while the sexual harassment I endured was normalized. Neoliberals and corporate media are unfair to Sanders and his supporters because our movement threatens their supremacy. But to dismiss our claims as mere bias is at best disingenuous and at worst cruel.

 

Remember when I said something similar to this thing to Optimus. B) 

 

It should also be worth noting that in her piece, she never actually shows an example of Corporate Media and Neoliberals actually treating Sanders' sexism as unique to him. 

Not saying he didn't know. Clearly the higher ups needed to know in order to deal with the complaints, including the settlement. Your argument, however, seems to be that he was demoted since he was viewed as part of the problem, but if that was the case then I seriously doubt he'd be back in any role.

I don't recall who it was, maybe it was Optimus, but someone in the other thread tried to assert that they were lying, or something to that extent, and tried to dismiss the story out of hand. That was disgusting and needs to stop and I said as much. So, we're still in agreement there. That said, using them as a weapon to smear Sanders is also disgusting and needs to stop.

That's a huge stretch, especially if you read the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:
Looks like Sanders is gearing up to not run.
 

If he is running, then why is Tulsi running? It really makes no sense. She cannot possibly think Bernie's group will back her over Bernie. And she is going to expose how centrist her voting record is and the fact that she supports torture and bombing brown people( just no regime change). 

Maybe she is like Kasich and thinks the presidency is her god given right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is honestly one of the worst articles I have read in a long while.

Booker doesn't have support from Hispanics or Asians because... there aren't many Hispanics or Asians in New Jersey.

Sanders doesn't have non-white support... even though all recent polling data shows his problems are with white Dems, not non-white Dems.

Harris has the black vote in the bag because... a survey of donors said they liked her.

etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

If he is running, then why is Tulsi running? It really makes no sense. She cannot possibly think Bernie's group will back her over Bernie. And she is going to expose how centrist her voting record is and the fact that she supports torture and bombing brown people( just no regime change). 

Maybe she is like Kasich and thinks the presidency is her god given right. 

Why would he bow out because someone with a conservative voting record and super questionable foreign ties is running? Because she tried to ride his coattails in 2016 and joined his wife's organization? That doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

Why would he bow out because someone with a conservative voting record and super questionable foreign ties is running? Because she tried to ride his coattails in 2016 and joined his wife's organization? That doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't saying he bowed out because of her. I was implying that maybe she heard that he wasn't running and decided to run for it. Otherwise, her decision doesn't make much sense. She is just going to expose her record to progressives and possibly give a real progressive a chance at beating her in 2020. 

 

9 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:
This is honestly one of the worst articles I have read in a long while.

Booker doesn't have support from Hispanics or Asians because... there aren't many Hispanics or Asians in New Jersey.

Sanders doesn't have non-white support... even though all recent polling data shows his problems are with white Dems, not non-white Dems.

Harris has the black vote in the bag because... a survey of donors said they liked her.

etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

It isn't the strongest, but I do think the charts are largely accurate if you are basing it on past performance, which is what Nate said in his second tweet.  I think current favorability is more important, but I think you need to look at both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

I wasn't saying he bowed out because of her. I was implying that maybe she heard that he wasn't running and decided to run for it. Otherwise, her decision doesn't make much sense. She is just going to expose her record to progressives and possibly give a real progressive a chance at beating her in 2020. 

 

 

 

 

It isn't the strongest, but I do think the charts are largely accurate if you are basing it on past performance, which is what Nate said in his second tweet.  I think current favorability is more important, but I think you need to look at both. 

Makes sense if you're aiming for a cabinet spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Makes sense if you're aiming for a cabinet spot.

Meh. Maybe it is just me, but I'd rather be a safe seat backbencher than a cabinet secretary. Especially if I had as crappy of a record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0