engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:31 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Imagine what would happen if in primaries, candidates would go after each other's negatives...

That's what's been happening for months. The candidates and their surrogates pounded on Biden as the frontrunner and Buttigieg when he showed momentum, now Sanders has guns out for Warren and she will certainly return fire. I don't understand the hand wringing. I think you are quick to dismiss the attacks as not coming from the candidates. I think it very likely that Sanders directly approved the talking points against Warren and that Warren directly approved the "leak" of Sanders's comments about women running.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:33 am
Vox has a good piece out explaining the latest tension between Bernie's camp and Warren.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/13/21063656/bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-tension-explained

As for Warren hitting back at Bernie about the woman president thing, the can of worms has been opened. Those kinds of tactics might come from Biden and Buttigieg as well since they were also trashed in the memo.

What I wonder about is; who leaked the memo to Politico in the first place?
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:38 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I think, even if it were true, that there's likely less there than meets the eye. It's a statement taken out of context. We don't know any of the details of the conversation. It could have been an offhand comment concerning the tactics of the Trump campaign and the mood of the electorate. I'm not a Sanders-worshiper by any means, but I respect him and I find it very hard to believe that he meant this as blanket statement to apply for all time.

You seem to be bending over backwards to excuse the comment. Sanders has said it's an outright lie: “staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened.” Warren has confirmed the account. "Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed." One of the two of them is telling an outright lie for political gain. I don't know which one it is, but I have no reason to excuse Sanders over Warren or visa versa.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:40 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I think you are quick to dismiss the attacks as not coming from the candidates.

I don't dismiss it but I don't assume it as the default either. **** happens in campaigns, including disinformation. I'm just being prudent. And I think it's wise to keep our heads cool and not get all outraged at the slightest suspicion of impropriety. Trump deserves our outrage alright; but Sanders, Warren, Biden and Buttiewhatever, not so much.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:42 am
@engineer,
It probably boiled down to something like:

Warren: "Being a female candidate is an advantage."
Sanders: "Against Trump, maybe it's a disadvantage."
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:46 am
After yesterday's discussion of Pelosi withholding the impeachment papers just to make it harder on Sanders I have been thinking about it and I just listened to a smart guy on MSNBC explain about what all has happened in the time since the impeachment was voted on and Trump was impeached. There has been a spotlight put on McConnel's plans for the senate trial. A few republicans have indicated they want witnesses. Apparently, Mitch would have to have 51 votes not to have witnesses. (unless I heard that wrong) Mitch has indicated he won't dismiss the case. New information has come to light since the impeachment vote took place. Bolton has indicated he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed. Once again, I think Pelosi knew what she was doing and she wasn't out to get Bernie Sanders by making him be stuck in the senate trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:47 am
@engineer,
Quote:

You seem to be bending over backwards to excuse the comment.

You could be right. My comment was based on one account. Honestly, I don't intend to get sucked into this rabbit hole.

I'll be voting against Trump in November.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 08:56 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

**** happens in campaigns, including disinformation. I'm just being prudent. And I think it's wise to keep our heads cool and not get all outraged at the slightest suspicion of impropriety.

I'm not outraged at all. It is a bit humorous how Sanders quickly threw his staffers under the bus, but really, that is par for the course. Concerning your comment, disinformation doesn't just happen, it is planned and executed. Sanders attack line against Warren as being part of the intellectual elite is no more random than Warren's wine cave line. Warren's release of Sanders's dismissal of her candidacy is also not random down to the exact words used.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 09:00 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Honestly, I don't intend to get sucked into this rabbit hole....I'll be voting against Trump in November.

The proper focus.

On one hand, there's Warren, Sanders, Biden, Pete, Klobuchar.
On the other hand, there's a sociopath leading a party that welcomes a sociopath.
revelette3
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 09:11 am
@blatham,
Well, I thought it was tacky of the Sander's campaign to trash those candidates and to date I haven't seen too much of the Trump style characterizing people to divide and conquer among the democrat candidates except with the wine cave and that can be excused because of the whole objection the progressives have against billionaire donors. But if Sander's is hit back after the memo, imo, he deserves it.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 09:33 am
@engineer,
It's also planned and executed by the Russian bots, corporate media to a degree, and many others including on the right. They want you and other left-leaning voters to get all sceptical, judgemental and cynical about Sanders, Warren and co. and what they could achieve.

Don't be a tool. Keep an open mind. Don't rush to judgment at the slightest headline.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 10:00 am
@Olivier5,
The flip side is don't rush to excuse bad behavior because you like the person or because they aren't Trump.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 10:11 am
@engineer,
I'm absolutely out of the business of judging other people's behavior from a moral standpoint. I think results often justify the means, and making progress is much more important than maintaining moral purity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 12:37 pm
Well, a clear front runner or just two needs to be made clear sooner rather than later, having so many candidates is just too much, makes it hard to focus on any one of them. Probably why the Sanders camp broke out with that memo.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 12:57 pm
@revelette3,
There will only be two viable Democratic candidates after New Hampshire.

Three if Bloomberg manages to rewrite the rules, but I wouldn't count on that happening.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 01:15 pm
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Warren's retort to Sanders when he said a woman couldn't be elected. Without skipping a beat she responded, "Well, neither can someone who'll serve as an octogenarian."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:14 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
The flip side is don't rush to excuse bad behavior because you like the person or because they aren't Trump.
That's certainly a morally legitimate stance.

On the other hand though, if you are a a teacher who looks in one classroom and sees a child sneaking a box of school chalk into his pocket and then notice in another classroom an elderly teacher raping a child, which will be worthy of your attention?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:21 pm
Quote:
There is a certain type of Extremely Online supporter of Bernie Sanders who tends to dismiss the importance of Russian interference in our elections. But just now, Sanders himself strongly condemned the latest news that Russia is already sabotaging the 2020 election, and in so doing, illustrated why this matters with a rarely articulated argument that deserves more debate.
...Sanders responded sharply to this news, pronouncing himself “alarmed” by Russia’s effort to hack Burisma and interfere again, and ripping Russia for disinformation campaigns designed to divide the U.S. along racial and social lines:
Quote:
Let me be clear: we must not live in denial while allowing Russia and other state actors to undermine our democracy or divide us. Russia targets the divisions in our society; we will work to heal those divisions. We must do everything we can to strengthen our democracy and build a society based on social, economic, and environmental justice, and equality and dignity for all.

To understand the argument Sanders is making here, read his 2018 foreign policy speech, which is all about what he terms a “struggle of enormous consequence” taking place “throughout the world”:
Quote:
On one hand, we see a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy, and kleptocracy. On the other side, we see a movement toward strengthening democracy, egalitarianism, and economic, social, racial, and environmental justice.

Sanders cites Russian interference in our elections on Trump’s behalf as an important front in this struggle, noting that Trump is “ultimately more sympathetic to Russia’s strongman form of government” and to this kind of authoritarianism and kleptocracy “than he is to American democracy.” This must be countered with “a strong global progressive movement.”

In other words, Sanders speaks to the threat of Russian interference not through the sort of neo-Cold War frame often derided by some of his online supporters, but through a frame that pits liberal democracies that share a common, if sometimes wobbly and ineffective, commitment to international institutions against a global movement of “oligarchic authoritarianism.”...
Greg Sargent
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:38 pm
The fundamental propaganda strategy Trump is using (with full-blown support/assistance from his party and right wing media allies) is control of media and its content.

Given that, we can expect that while the Senate trial is an on-going focus of media attention, Trump and allies will try to do two things:

1) delegitimize any/all information reported which casts Trump and the trial in a negative light

2) do whatever might serve to distract media attention to other matters. More military actions (or the threat of such with trumpeted justifications of those evil threats lurking) could fit the bill.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jan, 2020 03:44 pm
@blatham,
Both. It's not either/or.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 11/25/2020 at 05:02:09