Red Mosquito

Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

The broad consensus is that if they redirect the narrative to blame a mysterious “them”, then they dont have to keep discussing whether or he said it and then lied about at the debate.

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

so glad you're back, Jordan.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

so glad you're back, Jordan.

Eat shit

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

so glad you're back, Jordan.

Eat shit

There he is.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

so glad you're back, Jordan.

Eat shit

There he is.

Glad to see you’re still the same gaslighting piece of shit, keep acting like you had no part in starting this

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Bernie Bros are literally the worst.

By the way RM brilliant decision modding this asshole so I’m forced to see dumbfuck posts like this one

so glad you're back, Jordan.

Eat shit

There he is.

Glad to see you’re still the same gaslighting piece of shit, keep acting like you had no part in starting this

Part of what? I support Warren and I don't hate Sanders. I certainly didn't leak any of this shit!

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

I think you’re badly misreading how a female candidate weaponizing white-feminist social justice issues against a male candidate is being received by many democratic voters.

McParadigm wrote:
Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty..

Why do you think this is so unlikely? This is the same person who thought that releasing her 23andMe results was a good idea.

This is entirely within her wheelhouse even if you think its a bad idea.

Her adding fuel to the fire like she did after the debate only confirms this.

It's not the Russians!

Can we all just agree that he said it and then lied in front of the nation?

how dare you

Yeah, good, OK

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

I think you’re badly misreading how a female candidate weaponizing white-feminist social justice issues against a male candidate is being received by many democratic voters.

theplatypus wrote:Yeah, good, OK

this is my favorite bit. It will live with me forever

Britney Cooper, writing in Time:

“ But as we watch – and I with growing dread – the winnowing down of the Democratic field potentially to three white men, Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg, we are faced again with the problem of gender. I have, thus far, been disappointed watching progressive white feminists and feminists of color alike continue to argue for a socialist revolution on the grounds that gender would be covered. They make this same case about race, and that, too, is dubious.

Sanders is the most progressive and revolutionary candidate on the merits, these folks argue, so the fact that Warren is a woman – and similarly progressive – can’t matter. The insistence that an elderly white man’s socialist revolution will better address my 21st-century black feminist gender concerns is textbook white liberal paternalism. How will Sanders white masculinity affect and inform how he governs? This is a question that we should get to ask. Being progressive doesn’t mean that one’s race or gender ceases to matter in one’s leadership style and prerogatives, especially not in a world where gender and race are always presumed to matter for how women and people of color will govern.

For these voters, class — and Bernie’s strident advocacy for working-class folks and socialist values — trumps more menial concerns of women’s equality. The language of “women’s equality” seems to be from a 20th–century playbook, and of course, our gender analysis is far too sophisticated now to attend to such concerns. Meanwhile, we have not managed to elect a woman to the presidency in 244 years of being a nation-state. To claim now that Warren’s gender is incidental is also to make the claim that the gender of the 45 men who have been president is also incidental. Of course that’s absurd.”



Yes, yes it is.