Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[Jack V Savage]

and no, it doesn't change anything. Warren could have publically and immediately shut down/denied this BS when it caught traction with something like, "...Bernie Sanders has been a trusted colleague for many years...he has never uttered such words to me. he has been an advocate for woman's rights since the day I've known him..."

instead, she doubled down on it.

Or she just responded to a question with her honest recollection. The level of hatred generated here is just wildly out of proportion with what happened.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's not a link to the exchange. Smart move on your part.

???

Click it. It's a link to the exchange. And it is smart of me to link to the exchange because it shows beyond any doubt that I'm right.

 

[TheGreatA]

???

Click it. It's a link to the exchange. And it is smart of me to link to the exchange because it shows beyond any doubt that I'm right.

I think he was referring to the exchange you had on the Lounge thread.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...ve-no-idea-how.4062043/page-27#post-157745371

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think he was referring to the exchange you had on the Lounge thread.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...ve-no-idea-how.4062043/page-27#post-157745371

That exchange came later, which you can easily verify. The argument is over what caused the conflict--that is, which came first. One can also note that Trotsky was lying about my positions going back to his previous account.

 

[glenwo2]

I think the door is still open for all the candidates that were on stage at the last debate except Steyer. I believe that both Pete and Amy would be decent candidates against Trump and would get a lot of support if they did become the candidate.

Keyword being "IF" and at this point, I'm just not feeling that Pete nor Amy will be the one. And I, for one, am grateful for that as a Trump-supporter.

If Trump doesnt get removed (which he wont) and he is able to completely end the "trade wars" before the election he has a great shot. I think he would be wise to avoid debates and just focus on rallies.

Which he has WISELY been doing. But man...if this Trade deal with China ends well, you can put a bow on his Re-election bid.

 

[franklinstower]

Or she just responded to a question with her honest recollection. The level of hatred generated here is just wildly out of proportion with what happened.

No it isn't even if your position is correct and I highly doubt it is.

Even if she did think she heard Bernie say something like that, being his friend and knowing his history fighting for women and remembering Bernie trying to talk herself into running, she more than owed it to Bernie to call him up and clarify his position on women being president.

Coming out with that statement nationally and/or not shooting it down when it came out without doing so is stabbing Bernie in the back and betraying their friendship for political gain. Its terrible. What Warren is doing is far worse than what you are doing now with Trotsky and far worse with what you think he is doing with you (notice my intentional CNN framing here).

You haven't seemed calm about this TINY insignificant problem you are having with Trotsky and yet you expect Bernie and his supporters to all calm down about something that is orders of magnitude more important and impactful.

Hypocrisy comes to mind here.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I would like to see the proof of this claim.

and no, it doesn't change anything. Warren could have publically and immediately shut down/denied this BS when it caught traction with something like, "...Bernie Sanders has been a trusted colleague for many years...he has never uttered such words to me. he has been an advocate for woman's rights since the day I've known him..."

instead, she doubled down on it.

I have believed from the beginning that Bernie and Warren were set up by CNN.

Warrens team is either compromised by someone who is ruining her campaign and that is why she chose to double down, or CNN made a guess about the personalities of the two people and set up a fight believing Warren couldn’t resist a potential bump in the polls and Bernie wouldn’t be able to equivocate.

And I expect this to happen again. Motive being to either run down Bernie or get Warrens people to choose someone else as their 2nd.

Maybe I’m being paranoid but the tone of the questions and the leak definitely set up a conflict neither side needed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

???

Click it. It's a link to the exchange. And it is smart of me to link to the exchange because it shows beyond any doubt that I'm right.

Your link took me to page 13. There is no exchange on page 13, 14 or 15 (which is where I stopped trying to find it).

 

[Jack V Savage]

No it isn't even if your position is correct and I highly doubt it is.

I don't understand this sentence. What do you doubt?

Even if she did think she heard Bernie say something like that, being his friend and knowing his history fighting for women and remembering Bernie trying to talk herself into running, she more than owed it to Bernie to call him up and clarify his position on women being president.

It's not that she thought she heard Bernie say something like that. They have both said that they had a meeting where a related issue was discussed. They are reporting slightly different things about what was said in the meeting.

You haven't seemed calm about this TINY insignificant problem you are having and yet you expect Bernie and his supporters to all calm down about something that is orders of magnitude more important and impactful.

What are you talking about? I've consistently said that it's nothing, likely a story being pushed by people who are trying to divide supporters of similar candidates.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your link took me to page 13. There is no exchange on page 13, 14 or 15 (which is where I stopped trying to find it).

Hmm. Are you set to view 30 posts per page? Should go to Post 389.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Hmm. Are you set to view 30 posts per page? Should go to Post 389.

The link takes you to page 13.

I will manually go to 389 and see what I find.

 

[Trotsky]

Where can I see the exchange?

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...ve-no-idea-how.4062043/page-40#post-157744289

 

[franklinstower]

I don't understand this sentence. What do you doubt?



It's not that she thought she heard Bernie say something like that. They have both said that they had a meeting where a related issue was discussed. They are reporting slightly different things about what was said in the meeting.



What are you talking about? I've consistently said that it's nothing, likely a story being pushed by people who are trying to divide supporters of similar candidates.

Im talking about your childish level of outrage with this TINY issue you are having with Trotsky who you think is misrepresenting you Jack.......


It is interesting how you can in one breath tell people to calm down over a misunderstanding of national importance while defending your childish feelings on a tiny little forum between two nobodies.

If you cant understand the rest of my post Ill leave it for others to appreciate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...ve-no-idea-how.4062043/page-40#post-157744289

Note that this goes to an exchange that took place *after* the one that I referred to. It was less than a month ago so you can't possibly claim that it was an honest mistake. You're just straight up lying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Im talking about your childish level of outrage with this TINY issue you are having with Trotsky who you think is misrepresenting you Jack.......

I'm correcting his lies. In this case, the whole thing is publicly available so I can provide indisputable evidence, and I am. If it had been a private discussion that we both remembered a little differently, I would not bother.

If you cant understand the rest of my post Ill leave it for others to appreciate.

Normally, when someone says something that is unclear, and they're asked to clarify, they simply clarify. That's how decent people interact with each other. It's fine if you have some kind of chip on your shoulder, but then don't be surprised when people call you hateful.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The link takes you to page 13.

I will manually go to 389 and see what I find.

Post 389 is on Page 13 if your settings are right.

 

[franklinstower]

I'm correcting his lies. In this case, the whole thing is publicly available so I can provide indisputable evidence, and I am. If it had been a private discussion that we both remembered a little differently, I would not bother.



Normally, when someone says something that is unclear, and they're asked to clarify, they simply clarify. That's how decent people interact with each other. It's fine if you have some kind of chip on your shoulder, but then don't be surprised when people call you hateful.

Go back and read it again or dont.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Go back and read it again or dont.

I read it again and I have questions, but I get that you are not interested in good-faith discussion and likely will refuse to answer.

 

[Trotsky]

Note that this goes to an exchange that took place *after* the one that I referred to. It was less than a month ago so you can't possibly claim that it was an honest mistake. You're just straight up lying.

Nothing came up when I clicked your link. If it's the exchange where I defend Hockey from you freaking out and calling him a moron because he said you were the biggest Hillary supporter on the board (rather than that you just....voted for her, openly preferred her to Sanders, and spoke in hysterical defense of her more than anyone here) then ok. First and foremost I was making a stand for decency, as I had nudged you on being bitchy and toxic to good faith posters before, but ok.

Anyways, your real meltdown occurred where I cited it. And i think it's funny that @Fawlty actually liked the post that set you off:

I also think it's important to note (for the peanut gallery) that the Hillary/Trump commentary in re Iran was reasonable and excusable leading up to the election. Clinton's rhetoric was markedly more hawkish than Trump's in the debates, for instance. So I don't at all blame casual voters for thinking Clinton was the more hawkish pick on this topic.

However, those days are long, long behind us. And it's no longer reasonable to think Trump is remotely preferable to Clinton in foreign policy or on Iran specifically. So the people that have said, after Trump ripped up the nuclear agreement and after Trump liberalized drone strikes and after Trump became publicly deferential to SA and Israel, that Clinton would have been more aggressive and hawkish are fucking hacks.

So even the lone guy who later jumped to your side by attacking me personally still agreed with my post and couldn't debase himself to actually cosign your embarrassing arguments against it.

Although I will admit that, in re the debates as an anecdote, "markedly more hawkish" was probably too critical and that I should have phrased it in less objective terms like "at times seemed more hawkish and was less critical of interventions."

 

[ultramanhyata]

Post 389 is on Page 13 if your settings are right.

I use social democrat settings in contrast to your neoliberal settings. Thus we arrive at very different destinations. Is normal.