Reason Roundup

Warren Accuses Sanders of Saying a Woman Couldn't Win in 2020

Plus: Belief in vaccines down 10 percent since 2001, states with low taxes see population boosts, and more...

|

CNN kicked off some shit yesterday between Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), just ahead of the Democratic presidential debate on CNN tonight. By the end of the day, the alleged disagreement between the two 2020 candidates over whether a woman could win against Donald Trump had spawned conflicting comments from the two campaigns and a huge outpouring of animosity from their respective fans.

The CNN story, from political correspondent MJ Lee, described a meeting between Sanders and Warren in December 2018. "The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement," writes Lee. More:

They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.

Cue the outrage about Sanders' supposed misogyny, despite the fact that there was no indication that Sanders relished this idea. And for Sanders' part, he denies that any such conversation ever happened.

"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders in a statement to CNN. He chalked up the story to "staff who weren't in the room…lying about what happened."

"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could," Sanders added. "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!"

A few hours later, the Warren campaign effectively called Sanders a liar. In a statement about the meeting with Sanders, Warren said: "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."

The most charitable reading here says that Warren and Sanders came out of the same conversation with different reads on what had been discussed. It's not hard to imagine one person in an already somewhat awkward situation (hey, so, we're both running for president…) discussing hypothetical hardships a woman candidate would face against Trump, and the other person construing that as saying a woman couldn't win.

It's also possible that Sanders is lying to save face, of course, and the same goes for Warren. A popular theory has been that Warren embellished her opponents' words when telling staffers about the meeting (without meaning for it to go further) and was backed into publicly confirming a tall tale when the story got leaked to media.

Other suggest a more active sabotage attempt by Warren. For instance, here's Jacobin staff writer Meagan Day:

Still others suggest the whole melodrama was cooked up (or is being egged on) by Republicans to divide Democrats and get their top candidates to attack one another.

The Washington Post reported that "two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner [said] that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn't win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee."

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) also weighed in with support of Sanders:


FREE MARKETS


FREE MINDS


QUICK HITS

  • In recent polling from Gallup, only 84 percent of respondents said that vaccinations are important for children, a drop from 94 percent who said so in 2001.
  • "Politicians across the country have declared a war on human trafficking, but the tactics police departments are deploying aren't catching the real criminals. Instead, they're tearing apart families, terrorizing communities and ruining lives," writes Kaytlin Bailey at the The Orange County Register.
  • Twitter vs. Real America.
  • Protecting and serving:

Advertisement

NEXT: President Trump Rejects Premise of Justice Department Briefs in ACA Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. CNN kicked off some shit yesterday between Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)…

    Bernie Bros, attack!

    1. Please dont. When they start stabbing people the media blames the tea party.

    2. Hello.

      I like when two lefties eat other.

      Porn tape! Now!

      1. I just threw up.

  2. Woke twitter drives another to suicide, this time a gay man. His offense? Asking to keep trannies to adult type establishments.

      1. “Left Blames ‘Internalized Homophobia'”

        And, ultimately, internalized homophobia is conservatives’ fault.

    1. This is why you shouldn’t define your self worth by what these people think.

      1. Or be on Twitter.

      2. The guy had been a conservative attack dog for years. I don’t think it was the poor esteem of liberals that upset him.

        1. A gay Conservative supporter?

          You might want to inform the Lefty MSM that those people exist.

  3. The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement…

    Should have guaranteed one of them all the superdelegates to avoid this unpleasantness.

  4. Whole liberal media, and reason, continue to figure out ways to blame trump while ignoring iranian protests…. europe begins to ratchet up sanctions again.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/left-with-no-choice-european-countries-move-to-hold-iran-accountable-for-violating-nuclear-deal

    1. It is pretty amazing that World War Three was inevitable 2 days ago and everyone was eager to explain to me exactly how Trump was worse than Hitler and always starting wars without a plan….

      …. and then this morning there was suddenly not a peep on the morning news shows about Iran. Impeachment is back on the front burner, and Trump is the worstest ever because of that.

      1. Where’s Ken to explain how the world war III people weren’t wrong, even though they were wrong?

        1. Be nice, Nardz. 🙂

          1. I like Ken.
            But he’s demonstrating bad process.
            It’s a blindspot he has, a symptom of which is describing all risk-taking as analogous to blackjack (a game almost entirely dependent on luck, played against one opponent, with almost no way to influence the course of a hand during play) when poker is the apt comparison (played against one or multiple opponents, with success or failure determined more by how one’s play through rounds of betting influences the action and other players than mere luck of the draw, and where things like the amount of chips one doesn’t have in the pot influences how any hand is played).
            It’s a fundamental misconception about the role of agency in competitive dynamics.
            I get Ken’s argument about the US approach to Iran, and I’m pretty Machiavellian in regards to foreign policy (I don’t care much about abstract morals, just American interests). And I agree with Ken when Iran seizes tankers, downs a drone, strikes a Saudi refinery, even inflicts superficial damage on US bases.
            But a line has to be drawn, and Ken’s refusal to see that the line is American deaths and the storming of a US embassy is wrong.
            America will not be best served by losing the respect of both allies and opponents. Europeans aren’t going to be persuaded by US passivity at all costs. Iran is not going to be dissuaded by US buddhism.
            One provocation/aggression not responded to leading to another and another and another. When does it stop?
            Ken’s strategy is the US sitting around with its thumb up its ass begging the Euros to act for us and hoping the Iranian regime changes its mind or collapses from with in.
            Hope’s and prayers.
            We’ve now accumulated a good bit of evidence.
            All of that evidence indicates Trump’s process was correct, and was based on assessments to yield predictable results.
            Hand waving that away as “luck” and “hindsight bias” is ignorant and foolish.
            It’s going to be a lot harder to respect Ken if he can’t admit that in the face of new information he needs to reassess.
            It’s ok to be wrong now and then.
            It’s not ok to refuse to admit it and learn, because then you go from being wrong “now and then” to “consistently”.
            Ken’s pride is destroying his analytical ability

            1. Good summation

      2. “The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column.”

        Pravda and Izvestiya would be surprised at how well Western media conglomerates can stay on message one second, then pivot on a dime to new ones the next.

        1. The only thing Orwell got wrong is in not recognizing the conversion to a political propaganda machine would be voluntary.

          1. Alexa, please open audiobook, “1984.”

            Alexa, why are you laughing?

      3. Everyone is FULL. OF. SHIT.

        1. This is becoming the new center of my political philosophy. No one has a fucking clue what’s going on either.

      4. NPR has a piece this morning on a Model UN session that was done in San Antonio about two days after Soleimani was killed. The session was organized by the International School of the Americas, which is notable for its globalist academic agenda.

        Not surprisingly, the piece had a bunch of supposedly educated high schoolers parroting worries about a draft being reinstated and the outbreak of total war. There were some unintentionally hilarious moments that revealed why lowering the voting age to 18 was a mistake–one of them talked about a friend who joined the Air Force in order to get the GI Bill, and that this friend was starting to regret the decision because he might go into a combat zone (I guess this kid wasn’t aware that the Air Force has been doing for close to 30 straight years now). Another talked about how the attack “made the possibility of war more real” despite the fact that we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for pretty much their whole life, not to mention recent operations against ISIS.

        One of the things I like about listening to NPR is how it’s a great clearinghouse for the political narratives that the DNC is pushing to its media allies, and this one was no exception.

  5. “Democratic candidates propose bigger Supreme Court to counter ‘theft of judiciary’”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Democratic-candidates-propose-bigger-Supreme-14972607.php

    And if they don’t get a majority with 15 justices, they’ll keep on adding them!
    Court-packing! A winning strategy!

    1. It is working for Maduro in Venezuela

    2. No shit. That’s a surprise.

      They’ll also claim that the lower federal judiciary needs to be expanded, citing case backlogs, population growth since the last formation of a new circuit, etc… The net result will be to try and undo McConnell’s work over the last three years, appointing judges to all of the vacancies Obama lazily left to the next administration.

      The modern Left does not intend to lose another significant election in this country, nor be thwarted in the smallest way in their quest to establish a new global hegemony and relationship between ruling class and ruled.

      1. I guess they must have believed those articles claiming that republicans would never win another presidential election after 2012.

        1. A wag would say they haven’t. Trump is sui generis: an America-First populist and brawler the Republican Party hasn’t had since Reagan, and didn’t want in 2016. I don’t see a replacement for him, nor an indication that the Republican Party will amend its ideas and get behind new candidates that espouse his views.

          And again, he very nearly didn’t win. Only by his opponents nominating possibly the most hated political candidate of the last fifty years did Trump come close, and if that arrogant ass Hillary Clinton had bothered to try and solicit Sanders voters, Trump would have lost.

          1. “nor an indication that the Republican Party will amend its ideas and get behind new candidates that espouse his views”

            A lot of that might be because it is hard to suss out what his views actually are. He doesn’t seem to be an ideologue. He seems to be more of a pragmatist with a few more strongly held beliefs… aversion to foreign wars, aversion to illegal immigration, aversion to misuse of police power, regulation and taxation…..

            Which is why libertarians can’t get behind him. There’s no room for pragmatists in our little tent. Probably neocons feel the same way.

            1. His views are easy to determine:
              America First
              How to get there is the pragmatic and hard to define part.
              And no, I don’t expect the Rs will be able to even espouse simply America first

      2. Trump shows that boring parties are ripe for takeover by outsiders who can put on a good show.

        That’s why they all hate him: they’re boring and they know it.

        1. They’re also incompetent.
          The trend of “populism” worldwide is a reaction to the general incompetence of the “elite”/ruling caste that has been hidden and fostered by an over-civilized society that protects incompetence and requires an increasingly deluded skill set, exposed now near and far by the internet.
          They hate Trump because he proves that they aren’t good at anything but playing their own fantasy, and more and more people aren’t buying it anymore.

        2. “they’re boring and they know it”

          Oh, I could only wish they were boring. But I don’t think they can claim that honorable title when they’re risking the country with their policies. Nothing boring about that.

    3. Trump should agree and send half a dozen nominations to McConnell.

  6. Iran has made several arrests to hold those responsible for the downing of the plane accountable.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iran-makes-first-arrests-downing-ukrainian-plane

    Odd there’s no mention.
    Too local, eh?

    1. Iran only did that to counter the 100 protestors they also arrested.

      1. 4 straight days of rage.
        “Death to the ayatollah” chants.
        “It’s all because some chick defected!”-Reason

        1. Several news anchors on state TV also quit in protest over the lies they have been forced to tell.

          Seems like a pretty big deal.

      2. And the tens of protesters they shot.

        The shootdown is looking to be much more damaging for Iran’s internal order than any of the strike/counterstrike nonsense.

        1. Reason is on a pickle. They’ve already blamed trump for the shoot down… but if they credit it for kicking off the new arab spring it means he gets credit.

          1. Clearly, you haven’t boned up on your TDS etiology. Trump is at fault for the deaths while the Iranian people are responsible for the uprising and any self-liberation that comes from it. Trump’s at fault for not finding a way to cause arab spring 2.0 without sacrificing Ukranian civilians the way Obama allowed a single vegetable cart vendor to light himself on fire.

            1. “…the way Obama allowed a single vegetable cart vendor to light himself on fire…”

              By fucking with US monetary and agricultural policy such that MENA farmers were simultaneously driven out of business by previous shipments of US agricultural aid, and by MENA populations suffering high food prices.

              I forget where I read it—Foreign Policy sounds about right—but someone around the time of the Arab Spring did the math, and showed the riots weren’t caused because the public wanted “Freedom!(TM)”. They were started because food costs had skyrocketed, the regimes largely couldn’t or wouldn’t fix it, and the people were pissed.

              1. Yep.
                Also, we flew a bunch of the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptians over here to train them on online activism/organizing so they could take over Egypt.
                Obama is still pissed Al-Sisi fucked all his hard work up

              2. By fucking with US monetary and agricultural policy such that MENA farmers were simultaneously driven out of business by previous shipments of US agricultural aid, and by MENA populations suffering high food prices.

                Careful! I was merely describing/typifying the progression or symptoms of TDS from a neutral clinical perspective.

                I don’t disagree with your assertion but it’s more important that you don’t lock eyes with TDS sufferers and don’t mention anything about C.A.K.E.

        2. It’s a combination.
          Suleimani was a domestic force as well.
          His elimination almost certainly emboldens the protesters, who are nonetheless extremely courageous.
          But yea, downing that plane was a timely spark

          1. Plus, Iranian protesters think (as did Hong Kongers) that America will do a bunch of stuff to help them.

            It’s painful to oust tyrannies but you have to mostly do it on your own.

  7. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could…

    With children going hungry in this country voters don’t need a choice of 14 different misogynists.

    1. I see what you did there

    2. Which is why Trump isn’t facing a meaningful primary this year.

    1. That’s a given. unreason really outed themselves as unprincipled years ago when Orange man elected.

      1. Reason has one principle, per Nick: Open Borders Uber Alles.

        In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

        https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

    2. No Suderman, Welch and the B gang at HuffPo, so even though they’re raving lefties they still have more integrity by default.

  8. A popular theory has been that Warren embellished her opponents’ words when telling staffers about the meeting (without meaning for it to go further) and was backed into publicly confirming a tall tale when the story got leaked to media.

    Gotta love campaign staff during primary season.

  9. Always with the Russkis!

    “Russian hackers reportedly hit Ukrainian gas firm at heart of Trump impeachment
    The attacks had the earmarks of the 2016 hack on the DNC.”
    https://www.cnet.com/news/russian-hackers-reportedly-hit-ukrainian-gas-firm-at-heart-of-trump-impeachment/

    Great. Many more months of fake news.

    1. Why is the CIA hacking Gazprom?

      1. *Burisma

        (Dumb!
        CIA probably is hacking Gazprom, but maybe not using UMBRAGE techniques)

    2. So you’re just a full on GOP-Russian shill? Let us in on this secret intel that you, and only you, seem to possess.

      1. Maybe if these morons didn’t fall prey to simple phishing emails, like that dumbfuck Podesta did, they wouldn’t have had to worry about it.

      2. This guy would turn Ann Frank in.

      3. Jeff is broken now.

      4. De Oppresso Liber
        January.14.2020 at 10:27 am
        “So you’re just a full on GOP-Russian shill?…”

        DOL, here to prove how fucking stupid lefties can be!

      5. “GOP-Russian shill”

        Chemjeff McCarthy here seems to think that “Russian bogeyman” scare tactics make for a viable argument.

    3. The attacks had the earmarks of the 2016 hack on the DNC.

      “Had the earmarks” is a dead metaphor, right?

      As someone who’s both notched the ears of livestock and set up and maintains network systems professionally, I have no idea what this means or even the intent. It reads like they were able to tell the hackers were driving late-model white Ford vans and were, therefor, Russians.

      1. It means:
        ‘We ain’t got jack-shit, so we’ll try some innuendo and see if there’s more fucking idiots like DOL’.

        1. It plainly means Burisma has some dirt on Biden (and/or other Democrats) and the DNC knows it so they’re going to claim the dirt was planted by the Russians. It’s like before you kill your wife, you call the cops and report that your wife has been getting some scary phone calls from somebody threatening to kill her. It’s just laying the groundwork for an alibi when you know there’s about to be a body turning up.

      2. Is everyone here really unaware of UMBRAGE???
        Take all cyber attributions with a giant grain of salt

    4. Seth Rich downloaded Burisma’s servers to a thumb drive?

  10. “Migration to Low‐​Tax States Continues”

    Yet reason continues to harp on the tax cuts as bad when discussing the debt…

    1. If you want to ridiculously oversimplify it, sure.

      Taxes should be cut. Deficit spending and running up debt is bad. I think both of those are true, but there’s a little tension in there, no?

  11. Idc who the nominee is… stfu & unify & vote when the time comes.

    — Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) January 13, 2020

    “FALL INTO LINE, DEMOCRATS, OR I WILL STOP HAVING SEX WITH YOU.”

    1. Good way to drive them to the gop

      1. Word.
        That chick is gross

  12. “Twitter vs. Real America”

    Now do Journalists vs Real America

  13. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.

    The kind of nefarious tactics that the Warren campaign is using against Sanders? Maybe a woman can beat Trump.

    1. She could at least pee on the…..

      You know what… I’m not making that joke, even if they earned it.

    2. I’m sure some woman could beat Trump. Just not Warren or Clinton.

      1. But I’ve heard he likes to be spanked.

        1. Misstress Matisse 2020

  14. In that meeting, he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always has.

    Of course that commie would conspire with a Russian asset.

  15. The “Womens’ March” is coming up soon; what it they gave a march and nobody came?

    “‘Nobody needs another pink hat’: Why the Women’s March is struggling for relevance”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-womens-march-sparked-a-resistance-three-years-later-its-a-movement-struggling-to-find-relevance/2020/01/11/344ccf22-3323-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html

    1. I thought it was struggling because of its racist and antisemitic views.

      1. Struggling because white women are not allowed. Fully expect next year’s march to disallow all cis-females to give their trans sisters a chance a the microphone.

  16. It’s easy to imagine that Bernie listed all the challenges a woman would face, and that Warren took this as an effort to discourage her.

    It’s not like politicians routinely speak indirectly about things.

    1. More likely Warren is lying like being an indian, not using public schools, plan to pay for medicare for all, etc.

      1. Look, she heard the dog whistles loud and clear…

    2. That was my assumption – that Bernie suggested people are going to be reluctant to vote for a woman based on the premise that a woman can’t win and this was interpreted as Bernie endorsing the idea that you should vote for the candidate you think is going to win rather than the candidate you like the most. It’s a familiar argument that the LP and every other third party hears all the time, and exactly what we’re hearing from the Dems themselves when they’re urging everybody to vote for who they think is most likely to beat Trump rather than who they like the most. With a Democratic electorate so bigoted and biased that they wouldn’t even support Kamala Harris, it’s a fair argument, isn’t it?

      Well, either that or you’d have to admit that women and even POC are just as capable of lying as a white man.

  17. In recent polling from Gallup, only 84 percent of respondents said that vaccinations are important for children, a drop from 94 percent who said so in 2001.

    Who said Jenny McCarthy’s celebrity is gone?

  18. Politicians across the country have declared a war on human trafficking, but the tactics police departments are deploying aren’t catching the real criminals. Instead, they’re tearing apart families, terrorizing communities and ruining lives…

    Standard war.

  19. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch is already down $148,000,000 this year.

    Sanders and Warren may be feuding now. But I guarantee either of them would be better for the economy than Drumpf has been.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

  20. Did Sanders say that a woman could not win or that Warren could not win? Because progressive female candidates megalomania seem to get themselves confused with women as a whole.

    1. “When a man does something foolish, people say ‘What a fool that man is.’ When a woman does something foolish, people say ‘What fools women are.'”

    2. The whole progressive left seems to get confused about that a lot.

  21. Here and can confirm. Hearing that the couple was walking the dog and that agent, off duty, was frightened of dog *on leash* and shot him.

    The other agents were teasing about a lack of canine body count.

  22. Migration to Low‐​Tax States Continues

    Voting in low-tax states to increase taxes begins to rise?

  23. Check out #expose2020 on Twitter. Bernie campaign staffer saying Stalin’s gulags weren’t as bad as the CIA said, and would help break billionaires.

    1. And cities will burn and cops will be beaten if Trump wins.

      1. Bernie campaign staffer saying Stalin’s gulags weren’t as bad as the CIA said, and would help break billionaires…And cities will burn and cops will be beaten if Trump wins.

        If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect this was a mole trying to get people to actually vote for Trump by saying shit like this.

        I can’t think of a better example of peak, “It’s The Current Year!” lunacy than ultra-woke white liberals burning their own neighborhoods to the ground.

        1. One of these guys has been arrested.

          1. Arrested? Or … disappeared?

  24. Ultra-liberal attitudes to race and gender are indeed not held by the masses, including racial minorities. But, crucially, they are held by the peers of the journalists writing those pieces, with whom these journalists hang out on Twitter. Once again, the cloistered world of Twitter is creating a false sense of consensus.

    I doubt it’s a coincidence that there’s a reporting trend on this “what’s the matter with coastal/urban liberal elites?” storyline lately–Vanity Fair wrote a similar piece, and NPR did a bit yesterday on Democrat voters in flyover country. Dave Chappelle mocks the “alphabet people” and promotes fathers not having to pay child support in exchange for all-access abortion on his latest special, while Ricky Gervais slams celebrities at the Golden Globes lecturing the country on social issues while being a bunch of corrupt assholes themselves.

    Perhaps some of these people are starting to realize that the rest of the country hates their guts, because these pieces all sound like the self-help statements of an addict knowing he has a problem, but is reluctant to go to rehab to fix the problem.

    1. But they make millions and are so popular. How can they hate their guts?

      I’m presuming that’s how the calculus goes.

  25. This Sanders Warren brou-haha with others tweeting in support or against is on par with high-school gossip circles. People follow this shit seriously? WTF.

  26. “BRUSSELS—Britain, France and Germany took a first step toward reimposing international sanctions on Iran, seeking to pressure Tehran into returning to compliance with the 2015 pact that has limited the country’s nuclear activities.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-powers-put-iran-nuclear-deal-on-notice-11578996295?

    Bullet points from the article:

    –France, Germany, and the UK triggered a dispute-settlement mechanism in the Obama agreement, to which both Iran and the Europeans are still signatories, which puts them on the road to the UN Security Council reimposing sanctions.

    –Trump has pressured the Europeans to exit the deal, but by triggering a dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement, they are effectively reaffirming their commitment to the Obama deal.

    –Direct quote: “Iran has been gradually scaling back its commitments to the nuclear deal since last May. Iranian officials say their moves were in response to Europe’s failure to protect them from the impact of withering sanctions the U.S. imposed after President Trump withdrew from the nuclear accord in 2018.”

    A few observations

    1) The intent of the Europeans is to bring the U.S. back into the Obama deal. Even ignoring the fact that the Obama deal can’t be constitutional because two-thirds of the Republican controlled Senate will not ratify it, the Obama deal is unacceptable because it allows Iran to enrich their own uranium in the future. They forfeited the right to enrich their own uranium when they were caught enriching their own uranium in secret in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If the Iranians need to procure uranium that has been sufficiently enriched for civilian use, both China and Russia will be happy to oblige.

    2) For the UN Security Council to agree to reimpose sanctions on Iran, it will require the assent of both China and Russia. One might be tempted to think obtaining that assent is impossible, but keep in mind a) Both the Chinese and the Russians assented to impose sanctions on the Iranians the last time (they don’t want the Mullahs to have nukes either) and 2) Both China and Russia have pulled out of Iranian energy development deals in recent months amid Iran’s provocations in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere.

    3) Iran seized oil tankers in the shipping routes that supply China with oil because as bad as the downsides of angering China were, it was one of the only moves they had left. Iran’s objective is to drive a wedge between President Trump and the Europeans in order to ease the pressure of sanctions. Expect more thinking from Iran along the same lines that brought them to seize Chinese bound oil. Their lashings out at the United States are attempts to make Donald Trump overreact–and break European resolve on sanctions. Nothing that’s happened over the past two weeks has changed that calculation in the least. The Iranian economy shrank by 9.5% over the course of 2019, and the pace of the slowdown is accelerating. Demonstrably, the Iranians would rather suffer that than come back into compliance with the original NPT, and whatever downsides they have to fear from Donald Trump’s retaliations are practically insignificant by way of comparison to the sanctions.

    1. Thank you for this, Ken. I didn’t have anything to add, other than maybe on your point 2 about the nukes, that Russia might not mind terribly if Iran and KSA blew each other to Hell.

      Nice post. It was appreciated.

      Oh, and I don’t think Euro wobbliness on sanctions has much to do with what Trump does. More rather with how badly the Iranians act, and how much money their companies are losing.

  27. So…. people who write for a living and are worried about accusations of sexism and racism being used as weapons in your industry…

    Remember gamergate? This isn’t exactly the first lap around this pool.

    1. Believe me, a lot of the Blue Checkmark Brigade remember Gamergate. They remember it so clearly that it’s become something of a go-to scapegoat for any time a political or cultural development doesn’t go their way.

    2. It was fascinating how journalists managed to portray a grassroots protest against cronyism and conflicts of interest in gaming journalism, as a misogynistic attack on women.
      Goebbels would be proud.

  28. By the end of the day, the alleged disagreement between the two 2020 candidates over whether a woman could win against Donald Trump had spawned conflicting comments from the two campaigns and a huge outpouring of animosity from their respective fans.

    What a stupid-assed question to even ask, let alone debate.

  29. >>had spawned conflicting comments from the two campaigns and a huge outpouring of animosity from their respective fans.

    so fake news still works.

  30. Easy to imagine him making this misogyny point, which got telephone-gamed into “a woman can’t win

    Since they were speaking to each other “telephone” doesn’t seem possible. It’s more likely the point was “activisted” whereby the statement is purposefully misstated into something representable as sexist or racist allowing the activist to invoke victim status.

    Ex:

    Bernie: You can’t win this race.
    Warren: He said a woman “can’t win this race”.

    It’s also possible Weigel’s example is correct, that the comment was about how women face discrimination, but it’s not the only option. The reasons behind this example could have nothing to do with Warren’s sex but can still be represented as such.

    It’s revealing she says up front she won’t discuss it again. Is that a preemptive justification in case this statement proves to conflict with other statements?

    1. It’s revealing she says up front she won’t discuss it again.

      Pretty typical passive-aggressive behavior–she throws a grenade on the table to make Sanders look bad, then says “this issue has gotten enough attention, time to move on.”

      1. +100

        I think it’s hilarious that women in my circles would never vote for women just because they’re women and certainly not despicable women like Hillary, Warren, and Kamala Rouge.

  31. Who dares suggest that Fauxahontas Lieawatha might not be telling the truth about this?

  32. God damn that trio in the picture looks fucking old…

    1. My thought was that Warren looks like she knows something just happened but she’s not sure what and Joe is clearly reacting to Bernie’s deliberately loud and stinky shart.

  33. So that “Reason in Guatemala” thing doesn’t allow comments. But to anyone actually interested, may I suggest you check the State Department’s advisory on the country?

    It’s… not great.

    1. If unreason cannot get Lefties into the USA, then unreason will send Lefties to Guatemala.

  34. Feminists: Everything’s harder for women to do because the world is sooo sexists!
    Bernie Sanders: Inorite? Like winning the presidential election, for example..
    Feminists: YOU ARE THE SEXIST FOR POINTING OUT WHAT WE ALSO JUST POINTED OUT!!!!!1

  35. What’s with the photo, looks like Biden is enjoying that shart.

  36. Bernie Sanders had a HEART ATTACK on the campaign trail.

    Anyone who votes for him does not have good judgment.

    Which can play right into the DNC hands of having Sanders run with a VP that the DNC wants. This way when Bernie croaks, the VP choice becomes President.

    Unfortunately for them, any Democrat will lose to Trump.

  37. I presume medicine and treatment has advanced somewhat since the late 1800s, no? Seems reasonable to assume then that at least some vaccines may be less beneficial now than they were when invented.

  38. First time Bernie has ever told the truth in his life, and Warren attacks him for it!

  39. You both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working together to defeat your corporate custom patches — not attack each other,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.