Washington Post: Warren lied about conversation with Sanders

Link:

Bern, OP, bern!

Her statement doesn't necessarily contradict this, though. She simply says: "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."

We don't know what his disagreement really was. He could have easily said "I don't think a woman could win because of Trump's nefarious tactics."

Nice try though.

I predict the moderators will want to make this into a thing today, but they'll both pivot away. However, if Amy doesn't bring it up after hounding the only gay guy on double standards, she's dead to me.

Why are the Democrats doing this to themselves with this petty bickering? At this point, my only hope is that the Democrats can win the majority in the Senate and hold on to the majority in the House because with nonsense like this, Trump will surely win again.

[quote]Why are the Democrats doing this to themselves with this petty bickering?

This is nothing new. 2008 was even nastier.

Who cares? It's just futile. Neither one of them stands a chance against Trump.

And I say this as a Liberal Democrat.

If you don't attack, you get no cookies (polling numbers, fundraising...). Voters like seeing a feisty person who'll be able to take on Trump. Yang has barely engaged any other candidate and look at where he is in the polls now.

Unified, to get rid of Trump and fix his damage. Not going to happen is it ?

Yang is where he is in the polls because his platform is bonkers

There's only one candidate we can settle on; we can't send the whole field of them against Trump. That's what a primary is for. "Unified" is not a possibility just yet, though I do wish they stuck to discussing policy issues instead. We can unify once we get the nominee.

So he doesn't think a woman can win against Trump? Not exactly a lie.

Yang's inexperience is why he's polling so low. He comes across as a somewhat likeable, very smart, privileged rich kid who has never even washed a dish or taken out the trash.

The "Asian and atheist" part has something to do with it as well, I'm sure.

This woman has horrible political instincts.

This incident isn't going to "make Trump win again." Cut the melodramatics.

This is an almost entirely online incident and most people don't know about it, and if they do know about it, they don't care.

When confronted with something like this, stop sobbing like babies and shrieking about Trump. Calmly point out that OP is wrong and briefly state why. Then move on.

Remember, you're not talking to the trolls, you're talking to the real, sane people who might stumble across this later.

I honestly do not trust either of them. This is coming off as sad on both their parts.

Over half a million of dark money being funnelled into attack ads. This is what infighting actually looks like.

[quote]A campaign spending group affiliated with Justice Democrats, an influential left-wing outfit, plans to spend over half a million dollars on digital advertisements educating the public about elements of former Vice President Joe Biden’s and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s records that progressives consider disqualifying. The ads will target Democrats in Iowa and South Carolina, appearing on social media and other internet platforms until voters head to the polls in each state.

Getting my popcorn as Sanders and Warren destroy each other.

It's not just an online incident R16. I first heard about it on one of the afternoon shows on MSNBC. It was also on CNN and the google newsfeed. And The Washington Post isn't exactly nothing.

It is widely known that Sanders encouraged Warren to run for President in 2016. Now, Gabbard is saying Sanders encouraged her, too:

A 2018 conversation brought up on the eve of the first primary by the candidate who is slipping in the polls. coincidence?

Who tipped off the Washington Post? John Barron?

The Post does not say she lied. OP must be a Bernbro.

If Sanders did say that, presumably he meant that some voters would be prejudiced, not that a woman didn't deserve to win.

But how do we KNOW that he said that? "People with knowledge of the conversation"--what on earth does that mean? It sounds like a euphemism for "I'm making this up."

I don't favor Sanders myself, so I'm not defending him per se. I just find this whole thing meaningless and possibly unbelievable. The weirdest aspect is that I distinctly recall reading this a few months ago on one of the many news sites I frequent, and nobody said anything about it then.

Man this must be the first time in history ever where two people had a conversation and they each went away with a different take on the conversation. Glad we are covering this important topic and not talking about less important things like healthcare, taxes, spending, war.

I have always liked Warren; lots of people do. I believe Hillary would have pulled it out if she had named Elizabeth Warren as her running mate, instead of that guy with the crazy eyebrows. Enough women would have turned away from Trump because of Liz. But lately she stumbles her way through by backpedaling. People want consistency.

This whole kerfuffle is being stoked by the right wing on social media and online to pit the two progressive dem candidates against each other and split the blue vote. Don't fall for it dems!!

Neither Warren nor Sanders have much of a chance, let's be real. Sanders has a better chance, which is why Project Veritas went after him with one of their dopey videos this morning, but he's still significantly behind Biden in polls. But unless this topic turns into a brawl at the debate, no one is going to even remember it by Friday.

Bernie is a lunatic and warren is a pathological liar who lies about the smallest things (where she sent her kids to school). Shame because they have the best policies of the bunch but they’re allowing Biden to run away with the nom.

This blew up in Warren's face.

[quote]This incident isn't going to "make Trump win again." Cut the melodramatics.

According to some people on Datalounge the act of simply breathing will "make Trump win again" or give us "Four more years of Trump!"

[quote]Neither Warren nor Sanders have much of a chance, let's be real. Sanders has a better chance, which is why Project Veritas went after him with one of their dopey videos this morning, but he's still significantly behind Biden in polls. But unless this topic turns into a brawl at the debate, no one is going to even remember it by Friday.

Sanders has a chance. Warren has less of a chance. I'm one of those people who thinks they'd be better as a team.

I don't place much faith in polls & I also know that someone other than Biden winning the first primary can change things quite a bit.

From the Buzzfeed article - even Warren's staff know her story was embellished:

[quore]At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning, the Warren staffer’s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders’ description than Warren’s. “Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the campaign official wrote

Who cares? It's just futile. Neither one of them stands a chance against Trump.

Yes. This. The DP is pathetic as usual. Actually it's excelled itself, being unable to oust the blatantly criminal Trump.

Who cares? It's just futile. Neither one of them stands a chance against Trump.

Yes. This. The DP is pathetic as usual. Actually it's excelled itself, being unable to oust the blatantly criminal Trump.

I'm a woman and I preferred Hillary to Obama and I support Warren. I don't think a woman can win. Americans will never vote for a woman president if they have an alternative, and they will always have an alternative. Even if Bernie said this, he's not wrong. I don't really see what the problem is here, and again, Warren is my preferred candidate.

[quote] Enough women would have turned away from Trump because of Liz.

This is so much fiction, it’s laughable. Liz “Lets Put Men in Women’s Prisons!” Warren? Liz “Let Males Compete in Girls’ Sports!” Warren? You can’t be serious.

The minute Dump and his team weaponize Liz’s current stance on these issues to the masses, those same hypothetical women who’ve switched over will switch right on back.

These already hard-to-elect candidates are doing a good job at burying themselves further. I get that it’s a competition between them at the moment, but this is one scenario where the most critical consideration is that one of these Democrats - any one of them - beat Trump in the general election. They truly are a motley crew and it won’t make it any easier if they tear each other apart in the meantime. I can’t imagine a Trump voter being won over by any of them, and that is scary.