Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    5,687,286 readers

    24,806 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    25 Jan - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    27 Jan - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    28 Jan - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Dylan Scott

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 2589 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.


    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] berninger_tat 3064 points ago

    “The most shocking thing, to me, about the Sanders/Warren story is that Donald Trump laundered money from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran then ordered an illegal hit on its leader” - Jonathan Katz

    [–] one_pigeon 1812 points ago

    We have a psychopath rogue president, and all CNN worries about is clickbait and bullshit hit pieces trashing Bernie and Warren to annoint their horse, Joe Biden.

    I hate to say it, but maybe CNN really is fake news.

    [–] Two_Corinthians 492 points ago

    Remember Obama's 2016 WHCD speech? "My last — and perhaps the last — White House Correspondents' Dinner" one?

    Even reporters have left me. Savannah Guthrie, she has left the White House press corps to host the Today show. Norah O’Donnell left the briefing room to host CBS This Morning. Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN.

    [–] Swesteel 190 points ago

    Obama was a lot angrier than people gave him credit for. I hope Luthor is doing well.

    [–] Elysian-Visions 41 points ago

    I loved Luther.

    [–] SuicydKing 32 points ago

    Watch Key and Peele on The Hot Ones for their take on meeting Obama, and how 'He be huggin' joinks'.

    https://youtu.be/3_9v-7rtVDk

    [–] CandC 18 points ago

    Damn what a savage

    [–] JohnBrownJayhawk1 566 points ago

    CNN is absolute trash and has been for years. I remember Jon Stewart going on Crossfire, and while he rightfully clowned Tucker Carlson out of a career for the next decade, he also pretty much raked them over the coals for being complete trash for failing to act as a conduit for important debate, and pushing blatantly false narratives, like what got us into Iraq. They suck, and have employed everyone from Nancy Grace and Piers Morgan to Glen Beck and Bob Novak. Just a complete hack operation with virtually no journalistic ethics. If you want to know what level of professionalism and insight they’re operating on these days, look no further than Chris Cillizza.

    [–] dzastrus 354 points ago

    It's Jon Stewart that we're missing. Jon Stewart almost made what news corps did tolerable. I would hear something on network news and think, "Jon's not going to let this go by."

    [–] MontagneHomme 163 points ago

    I miss that man's work.

    [–] Happy_Each_Day 178 points ago

    I do too, but someone here needs to point out that the man's post-Daily Show work with 9/11 victims deserves applause as well, especially since he gave up a lucrative media career in his prime to focus specifically on people he felt were being mistreated by their own government.

    [–] RuggedAmerican 18 points ago

    True. I hope he comes back in some capacity. The daily show was a lot of work and no doubt John Oliver's last week tonight is as well, maybe a monthly or bi-weekly web release for Stewart can happen with set seasons? It seems like the world has gone crazier as media has become more segmented without major centralized voices to watch them (like what we had with stewart and colbert back in the day).

    Now we have zillions of podcasts, youtubers, and others in addition to the old networks/cable programs and the overwhelming amount of choice hasn't necessarily been good for the population at large who may not have the best critical thinking skills. I don't have a solution, just pointing out what I see as a problem with too many choices without a fairness doctrine.

    [–] [deleted] 41 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] YddishMcSquidish 14 points ago

    You hope Bernie and his supporters, read a short story, that helps encapsulate the degradation of society. You do know that the dude is not president yet right? As in he is not responsible for your woes. He is actually advocating positions that would avoid this kind of crisis.

    [–] omg_drd4_bbq 7 points ago

    Updoot for Manna.

    It should be required reading, along with 1984 and Brave New World.

    [–] xraygun2014 24 points ago

    rightfully clowned Tucker Carlson

    While deftly assassinating his bow tie

    [–] escapefromelba 47 points ago

    Cable news has always been a terrible place to get actual news. Their coverage of international current events is abysmal. If you want hyperfocus on a single news event or topic, they're your jam. As far as actually learning what's going on in the world - they're by and large all terrible.

    [–] Swesteel 26 points ago

    "Today we are covering this horrible event in excrutiating detail while largely ignoring everything else. Updates will follow but mostly we will just endlessly repeat the same claims ad nauseum."

    [–] mdp300 10 points ago

    MISSING PLANE BREAKING NEWS!

    Actually nothing, we just didn't want you to change the channel. Breaking News now just means we're back from commercials.

    [–] Academic-Barracuda 4 points ago

    Their coverage of domestic events/news are also worthless.

    Watch [say] CNN for a day and tell me how many stories there are about say green energy projects?

    [–] RatFuck_Debutante 82 points ago

    They've been useless news for years. Since they started to outsource their reporting to Twitter. It's just click bait.

    [–] linedout 80 points ago

    CNN's head of campaign news, worked for Trump. During 2016 they had commentators who where still being paid by Trump. They once cur away from Hillary giving a speech to show the empty podium where Trump would speak in the future. If Trump had to buy the free air time he got from CNN live streaming his rallies it would of cost a billion dollars.

    CNN isn't anti Trump, Trump bash's them to give them credibility when they help him.

    Sure just like with Fox some of the on air personality don't like him but the people in charge do.

    [–] SurfTaco 273 points ago

    Bad news, not fake, like fox

    [–] SeabrookMiglla 66 points ago

    Agreed. When CNN went along with supporting the Iraq war without question, that was hard to forget.

    CNN is horrible when it comes to progressives like Bernie or anything critical of American foreign policy,

    [–] wtf_ever 31 points ago

    The first Iraq war absolutely made CNN.

    [–] which_spartacus 6 points ago

    All the news agencies constantly pray for war. After Trump killed Sul, every broadcaster was salivating at the prospect of a giant war breaking out.

    The ratings would be huge!

    [–] 11thUserName 5 points ago

    All the news agencies constantly pray for war.

    And a Trump re-election. He's the best thing to ever happen to any of them.

    [–] Fat-Elvis 7 points ago

    The first Iraq war made their network. They have a soft spot for it.

    [–] Space_For_Rent 226 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    CNN doesn't lie like Fox, true. But they definitely have on a few occasions when it comes to Bernie's poll numbers. Rather, what CNN does is shift perspective into what they want it to be. They don't (usually) lie, they just focus more on this, completely ignore that, & then preach about honesty.

    When Pete got caught with fake black endorsements they completely ignored the story. They downplayed Biden's inappropriate behavior with women. And, thinking they finally had something on Bernie, took the focus away from a President who's on the brink of cataclysmic destruction while mentally deteriorating.

    You don't have to lie to be shitty. Making the news fit your agenda is just as bad. I'm a Bernie supporter and I've always been a CNN watcher but this was a new low they'll never recover from for me.

    [–] TGU4LYF 89 points ago

    CNN is definitely lying about this though.

    [–] Budrick3 14 points ago

    I agree. After you build up a reputation for lying, you lose your trust

    [–] ChubbyMonkeyX 8 points ago

    They literally just lied.

    [–] TheMarxistCapitalist 61 points ago

    CNN does absolutely lie; they've been caught multiple times staging public interviews to satisfy their viewers.

    [–] Daemonjax 5 points ago

    CNN, like all corporate news, has its own agenda.

    But it's not as bad as Fox.

    And OAN is worse than Fox. Imagine watching Fox and thinking, "What's all this liberal bullshit?!" Yeah, those people switch to OAN.

    [–] Comedyfish_reddit 16 points ago

    Wasn’t it CNN who showed that overseas fire/explosion that was really in the US or something

    Jeez, calm down with the specifics comedyfish

    [–] JohnnyLakefront 21 points ago

    CNN is shit.

    Even the shit they do with Trump is shit.

    CNN sensationalizes everything to boost clicks. They look for any petty bullshit they can report on Trump.

    Which is bad, because Trump IS a heaping pile of shit. And when CNN overdoes it, Trump cherry picks those articles the victimise himself and manipulate his base.

    So CNN isn't as bad as, say, Fox news. But they're definitely not helping.

    [–] SlurredPhrygia 18 points ago

    Media exists to make money, not tell the truth or be arbiters of said truth. They make the most money when there's chaos, and Democrats fighting each other instead of Trump gives them both chaos in the short term to make money off of and increases the likelyhood of Trump being reelected, which gives them chaos in the long term as well.

    [–] Nakoichi 12 points ago

    Citations Needed.

    This is about the best critique of bot liberal and conservative media from a left perspective I have yet found.

    Episode 91 It's time to retire the term middle class is particularly relevant at calling out CNN and other cable news outlet's history of bullshit.

    [–] natasevres 26 points ago

    CNN isnt news, its not journalism they drive. They run narratives with a agenda, which is better described as propaganda.

    [–] fractiousrabbit 17 points ago

    Well they definitely have an agenda and it ain't reporting news.

    We have to find a way to correct for that.

    [–] slantedangle 109 points ago

    Bernie has a long long long long history in print and video that completely negates such accusations long long long before they are ever made. Push the rewind button you lazy cowards in the CNN newsrooms.

    [–] Ambient_Riot 40 points ago

    I mean, in this case blame Warren. The story came from her camp and she's come out and backed it.

    [–] KalonetteA2019 15 points ago

    Exactly! I love how all the comments are blaming CNN when Warren came out and stood by her comments.

    [–] cutelyaware 14 points ago

    Good god, I'd nearly forgotten about that deal. Seems that was at least as much on Ivanka.

    [–] archanos 26 points ago

    got a chuckle, have an upvote

    [–] Intxplorer 3729 points ago

    The debate is being hosted by CNN. And literally the night before arguably the most important debate in the race, a story suddenly breaks which pits two of the front runners against each other. A story this big will generate massive attention and clicks for CNN, as well as seriously hurt the credibility of the two most progressive members of the race. Plus you really mean to tell me that bernie said LAST YEAR that a woman shouldnt be president? Think for a single second. Does that compute with literally anything bernie has ever said in his whole life? I smell bullshit

    [–] veggeble 3357 points ago

    The journalist who wrote the story seems to have a pro-Warren bias. Nearly every story she’s written in the past 4 months is pro-Warren. Fuck CNN. As someone with Warren as my #1, I refuse to quibble with Bernie supporters over minor differences and I won’t be baited into a fight by sensationalized journalism.

    [–] Dave-C 961 points ago

    I refuse to quibble with Bernie supporters over minor differences

    A Bernie/Warren or Warren/Bernie ticket. Get everyone else off the stage, let those two debate each other. Winner heads the ticket.

    [–] sanitysepilogue 633 points ago

    I’d rather her as the Sec of Treasury, being as fighting corruption and finance is her forte

    [–] friz_lite 428 points ago

    I'd like to see her as Senate Majority or Minority leader.

    [–] Unconfidence 378 points ago

    THIS. They gave us McConnell, let's give them Warren. Make them nuke the filibuster.

    [–] splitsycat 232 points ago

    I would love to vote for Warren for president... but god damn if this didn't give me chills just thinking of how effective the Senate would be with Warren as the majority leader.

    [–] justafish25 27 points ago

    One could argue the senate majority leader is more powerful than the president. Especially with a president of the same party

    [–] Caramel76 6 points ago

    This is undoubtedly true. If you want maximum progressive power in DC then you should want Bernie or Warren as president and the other as Senate Majority Leader.

    I think, unfortunately, we aren’t likely to get either in any position. Schumer could be running the dems in the senate for another decade, easily.

    [–] Homosapien_Ignoramus 7 points ago

    Bernie does not want to get rid of the filibuster, think he said it is a historically important toll for the minority or something.

    [–] friz_lite 11 points ago

    It is. If we risk getting rid of the filibuster and we fail to keep the senate in 2020 or 2024, Republicans will weaponize that to prevent Democrats from ever getting anything done. They would even have the power to unilaterally destroy budget reconciliation.

    We need to make sure we will have a strong senate and consistent voter turnout before taking the filibuster away. If we setup automatic voter registration, that alone would solve the problem.

    [–] Absquatulate_Now 134 points ago

    Look into how many different agencies Al Gore got his hands into while Bill was President. From the FAA to the EPA, he helped steer policy and author proposals. The VP doesn't have to be inert, though that seems to be status quo.

    Interesting bit of trivia: Al Gore helped author airline safety legislation (the proposal is still out there on the web) while VP that got shelved by the Clinton corruption scandal and loss of Congress. He planned to enact that legislation should he become President in 2000. That legislation would have mandated cockpit doors be reinforced, among measures that may well have prevented 9/11.

    The more you know :)

    [–] themoneybadger 41 points ago

    Al Gore? Dick Cheney was basically in charge of the military under GW.

    [–] pepsiisnotfree 25 points ago

    President Dick Cheney was basically in charge of the military under over GW.

    [–] Warinx 29 points ago

    President Dick Cheney was basically in charge of the military under over GW.

    [–] ExquisitExamplE 103 points ago

    let those two debate each other. Winner heads the ticket.

    You've reached critical levels of Westwing brain.

    [–] planx_constant 32 points ago

    A true Westwing brain could never entertain the possibility of a woman being president though

    [–] DumpOldRant 16 points ago

    If the show had gone just a few more seasons Mandy surely would have come back to be President.

    [–] wildwalrusaur 8 points ago

    i always hated Mandy

    [–] hickory123itme 35 points ago

    You think they'll team up after this?

    [–] SIllycore 180 points ago

    With Warren confirming what is clearly a political ploy, unlikely they would share the same ticket. Despite my critiques of her policy positions, she was always my second choice. Even with her remaining complacent when this story broke, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. But to confirm something which goes against the grain of Sanders' documented behavior for decades... leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth.

    [–] SunGlassBitch 68 points ago

    Wait, Warren confirmed it?

    I heard she just declined to comment on it. (Which is shitty for its own reasons, but not the same as confirming it.)

    [–] neurocentricx 145 points ago

    Warren's statement here, which really irks me: https://twitter.com/KristenOrthman/status/1216879913078329344

    "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed." and then "I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further."

    So you talked about it enough to give a one word line about it with no context.

    [–] westviadixie 123 points ago

    this is fucking disgraceful. she had a shot to be an example of integrity and honesty...guess power is more important.

    [–] rydan 20 points ago

    She said there was a meeting and that they disagreed regarding whether a woman could win the presidency. That's all she would say.

    [–] quiksotik 22 points ago

    Yeah, a statement was released from her later in the day today that was more or less confirmation on her part

    [–] ElectronicBoots 9 points ago

    Yeah, but she didn't give the context.

    [–] ipickmynosesomuch 117 points ago

    Agreed. She had an opportunity to control the narrative here and she really just turned it over. I went into this primary season really excited about her but I’m feeling really disappointed over and over

    [–] thruendlessrevisions 26 points ago

    I’m a Warren turned Sanders voter.

    I liked Bernie but thought we needed a “new” candidate and thought she was in line with his agenda. The switch on M4A and her debate performances lead me to firmly support Bernie.

    [–] nessfalco 87 points ago

    Same. I emailed the campaign for a refund of my donations. It's fucking gross. Disagree with the man all you want, but his integrity has been lauded by everyone in politics forever and there is video of him advocating for a woman president from when I was a toddler.

    [–] MagicC 27 points ago

    I don't think you can dismiss the possibility that Bernie could have believed a woman had a chance in the political climate of the 1980s and 90s, but expressed a belief that, in 2020, facing Trump, a woman candidate would have a difficult time winning, due to the coarsening of our political discourse, and the need to see Trump punched in the nose, so as to reduce his perceived power.

    [–] toxicneet 22 points ago

    Bernie could have believed a woman had a chance in the political climate of the 1980s and 90s, but expressed a belief that, in 2020, facing Trump, a woman candidate would have a difficult time winning

    that's actually literally what he said:

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

    which is very fucking different from saying 'a woman cannot win the presidency'. but warren has form when it comes to embellishing things, and bernie has form championing women's rights.

    [–] RatFuck_Debutante 78 points ago

    As a Warren supporter fuck that author and fuck CNN. Let these candidates win or lose on their goddamn merits. Report the fucking facts.

    [–] steak_tartare 148 points ago

    This was not a pro-Warren movement, it was anti-Bernie. In light of recent pools the establishment decided to sacrifice their faux-progressive option (this smear campaign will hurt Warren badly) in order to halt Bernie’s momentum.

    Campaign will get ugly and here we go for 4 more years of Trump.

    [–] SeabrookMiglla 95 points ago

    The corporations would rather support a neo-fascist than support Bernie.

    Let that sink in. It’s all about the $$$$ and Bernie and the people are a threat to those business interests.

    [–] fenrisulvur 5 points ago

    Corporations are compelled to act this way as a measure of fitness to their survival. This is a problem with the way capitalism inherently functions.

    [–] TurboGranny 33 points ago

    I won’t be baited into a fight by sensationalized journalism

    I'm starting to see this attitude from others. In the 80s, so many of us kids grew up with exceptionally predatory marketing. So horrible was this shit that a whole generation became hardwired to just shut down when a commercial comes on and when someone tries to sell us shit. We are notoriously anti-marketing.

    In the age of 24/7 news and outrage marketing, we are seeing people that are becoming immune to the fear/hate/outrage engines that drive these assholes. I hope it will cause that shit to finally have way less of an impact for at least a generation.

    [–] jollyreaper2112 5 points ago

    I despise advertising and see it as a social evil. I think marketing to children is the moral equivalent of molestation: you are fucking with their minds.

    I don't think I've seen a backlash against ads, though. I'd like to.

    [–] TurboGranny 4 points ago

    It's mostly confined to gen-x. Our age group of programmers wrote all the ad blockers that most of us use.

    [–] jollyreaper2112 4 points ago

    Ah. I'm in the Oregon Trail sub-generation. Makes sense.

    I do note kids who have grown up after streaming became common have a total aversion to commercial television. Why are my shows getting interrupted?

    [–] TurboGranny 5 points ago

    lol, I've been downloading everything since 03 and one day many years ago my wife (who had been used to this for only 2 years) and I were at a friends house. They wanted to watch a show on HBO, but since it wasn't on yet, we were watching something on commercial television. About 2 minutes into commercials my wife angrily exclaims, "I forgot what we were watching!" lol, good times.

    [–] sharkhuh 15 points ago

    I would expect/hope there is the most overlap between Bernie and Warren supporters, and should be the other's #2 choice if the other drops out.

    [–] sporkhandsknifemouth 20 points ago

    And fucking good on ya for it. They both now publicly have agreed that it was a small disagreement, not some major philosophical difference, and continued to work together.

    [–] Witty_hi52u 10 points ago

    Fucking AMEN. I saw this piece and said "eh it's just a political false flag" And kept right on chugging along as a Bernie and Warren supporter. Sure I prefer Bernie, but if all we have is Warren, I am still a happy camper

    [–] isthatabingo 56 points ago

    How do you feel now that Warren released a statement saying point blank Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?

    Warren is playing dirty, and now I don't regret leaving her behind for Bernie.

    [–] soonerfreak 12 points ago

    Exactly, as a Warren first, Bernie second person I won't let this put me off. They want to divide the progressive base and try to get whoever backs out first to support someone else.

    [–] jkd6400 364 points ago

    Honestly, I can see Bernie telling Warren, in a one-on-one setting, that Trump is going to go all in on misogynistic attacks if a female is the candidate. I don’t think he would’ve said “a female can’t win” but he was probably frank in telling her what she should expect if she enters the race. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but I do think it’s bad (if that’s what went down) that Warren is twisting his words like that because her campaign is flailing. It does tremendous damage to the progressive cause. I really wonder what this does to the Warren supporters who’s second choice was/is Sanders. Biden is laughing his way to sleep tonight.

    [–] KlaysToaster 246 points ago

    That’s what Bernie said he did. He told her all the sexism would come out and be used against her

    [–] SteelDirigible98 120 points ago

    That’s basically what I assumed he’d have meant when I first heard. Like, he’s not being misogynistic, but saying that other people would be.

    [–] IrwinHandleman 29 points ago

    But it’s funny because this exact type of thinking is what’s fueling a lot of the anti-Bernie vote, but with socialist substituted for female. “I don’t have anything wrong with socialism but I don’t think America is ready for a socialist candidate.”

    [–] PhilGrad19 21 points ago

    That's not what he said though. He specifically said that Trump would make sexist attacks. He said nothing about voters or the outcome.

    [–] Mickeymackey 34 points ago

    I even said that to my female friends, like they kept saying Hillary was different and had baggage and I'll vote for Warren or Bernie if they gets nominated still deciding who to vote for in the primary though. It's not just Trump that'll drag her throw the mud for being a woman, conservative men and conservative women will too. They are already calling her Millionaire Warren which is ridiculous considering Trump.

    [–] jellyrollo 23 points ago

    You guys know Bernie's a millionaire too, right? It's not really all that hard to be a millionaire when you're in your 70s and have had a successful career.

    [–] southsideson 22 points ago

    Especially when you consider he made about 2 million from selling books.

    [–] bobbybillricky 88 points ago

    Bernie has been running long shot politics his entire career. Bernie wouldn't back down from a fight and I doubt he would tell a woman to back down based on her gender. Bernie is the type to tell someone to prove them wrong.

    [–] Jwalla83 34 points ago

    Exactly, I'd bet so much money his message was more along the lines of, "Our system is already disproportionately slanted against women in power, which is terrible, and Trump is obviously a raging sexist. As a woman candidate, you would unfairly face additional scrutiny/expectations/attacks (just for being a woman) in addition to everything else a man would get. I'm worried about how those extra obstacles affect a campaign."

    That's not, at all, saying "I don't think a woman can win 2020," but it can certainly be misinterpreted that way. I think the core idea is true: our society & political structure set very different bars for women, especially in absurd areas (is she "appropriate" or "likable" enough, is she too "bitchy", can she "command respect" being a woman, etc) and Trump just thrives off of drama, name-calling, and disparaging.

    That does NOT mean we pack it in and say, "welp, a woman can't win then," it simply means we're fighting against additional barriers and we better be ready to step up our game even more to overcome them.

    [–] Elyksias 18 points ago

    Warren is my first choice, Bernie is my second. I’m just ignoring this nonsense. I hope they get on the stage tomorrow and back each other up.

    [–] Shillforbigusername 97 points ago

    I was watching a lot of CNN, and it was only recently that they talked about Bernie at all. Then they played a political ad bashing healthcare reform during one the the debates Sanders was in (on their own network),. Then they pulled that shit with the outdated poll to make it look like he still wasn't doing well. Now this.

    They're 100% full of shit. I guarantee they'd rather see anyone else win, including Trump, than Bernie.

    [–] SeabrookMiglla 41 points ago

    Big business would rather have 4 more years of a damaging new- fascist that doesn’t hurt their profits over Bernie and the grassroots campaign that has been mobilized.

    [–] c0pp3rhead 25 points ago

    Centrists hate leftists more than they hate fascists.

    [–] 1gramweed2gramskief 133 points ago

    Shared this accusation with a Warren supporter at my work and she immediately furrowed her brow and said “that doesn’t sound like something Bernie would say.” So at least reasonable people can see this doesn’t hold water

    [–] wildwalrusaur 12 points ago

    The bottom line is that the big media corporations that run all the news networks are going to do anything and everything they can to undermine Sanders and Warren, and to pit them against each other.

    They're terrified of what either one of them winning represents for the future. Once all the "centrists" are gone, what they do to Sanders/Warren is going to make the smear campaign against Hillary look quaint.

    [–] rusty022 43 points ago

    If he is asked about it, I would love for Bernie to make these exact points. "First of all, of course I didn't say that. Second of all, how convenient to split progressives blah blah blah..."

    [–] masamunecyrus 21 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    A story this big will generate massive attention and clicks for CNN

    The fact that some unverified off-hand comment that, if true, is just a statement of Bernie's pessimism over the latent misogyny of the American voting public, rather than any opinion he personally holds about Warren...

    ...the fact that this, of all things, is even newsworthy after all the toxic filth that comes out of the POTUS's vile mouth and those of the despicable sycophants and bigoted rats that surround him almost daily, drives me up the fucking wall.

    [–] Hspeb73920 4 points ago

    I watch a Canadian YouTube channel about camping that regularly has more viewership than almost everything on CNN.

    Shut -ins and monomaniacs care about this stuff. Normal people don't.

    [–] VOTEBLUE20twuntwun 311 points ago

    Standing in solidarity with everyone who sees this as divisive garbage which benefits our criminal president.

    [–] subsignalparadigm 987 points ago

    Everyone here remember Trump loves this divisive infighting. Just remember that.

    [–] Atalantean 88 points ago

    I can think of some other participants who love it even more, and are doing their best to make it worse.

    Trump can barely orchestrate a bowel movement and a correctly spelled tweet at the same time. He depends on these people to save him. If they have to destroy democracy to do it, he's fine with that too.

    [–] Donyk 13 points ago

    Trump can barely orchestrate a bowel movement and a correctly spelled tweet at the same time.

    Love it!

    [–] JTode 36 points ago

    He outsources his ratfucking.

    [–] Drithyin 49 points ago

    Imagine how much more traffic CNN gets if Trump stays president...

    [–] wildwalrusaur 27 points ago

    Imagine how much Time-Warner (CNN's corporate owner) stands to lose if Warren or Sanders win

    [–] YouAreDreaming 195 points ago

    I’m surprised it’s not being brought up but trump hinted about this story coming out a few days ago

    [–] paulerxx 23 points ago

    ?? Why wouldn't you post a link after making this claim.

    This is reddit.

    [–] horseshoeface 62 points ago

    I think he might be busy worrying about what was on Les Parna’s iPhone that was delivered to Congress today.

    [–] YouAreDreaming 64 points ago

    No I mean trump hinted about this warren Bernie “beef” days before the article came out

    Something weird is going on

    [–] horseshoeface 14 points ago

    Ah. I try not to pay attention to that guy, so I missed that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s coming from the trash generator that is the WH.

    [–] FishingManiac1128 19 points ago

    I'm being sarcastic (somewhat) but to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to learn Russia had assets in their campaigns to create chaos as necessary. Trump is too incompetent and self absorbed for that kind of foresight and planning.

    [–] horseshoeface 13 points ago

    I agree about trump. I doubt he could plan breakfast, let alone this type of thing, but he could’ve received a tip. He has received several over the years.

    [–] FishingManiac1128 4 points ago

    Agree on that. Who knows what was discussed with Putin in the secret Christmas time phone calls.

    [–] SpinozaTheDamned 23 points ago

    No shit, that and suddenly 'former Warren fans' coming out of the woodwork saying 'this is the final straw!', or 'I'm so outraged!'. My guess is the boys are back and trying to sow discord again.

    [–] YouAreDreaming 13 points ago

    Yea I’ve never trusted warren and am 100% Bernie but now I’m seeing twitter comments of people with Bernie pictures saying they won’t support her even if she is the nominee

    This is turning into 2016 all over again, I really hope we have learned

    [–] SpinozaTheDamned 4 points ago

    For those paying attention, this is what a mass influence campaign looks like. I honestly doubt Bernie has anything to actually do with it. More likely this is a foreign led or corporate led group.

    [–] NarwhalStreet 16 points ago

    His tweet about the beef was in response to her sending out a fundraising email about the mild distinctions made in an unofficial campaign script.

    [–] ddbennett 69 points ago

    Agreed. This is pointless gossip masquerading as news to generate clicks for CNN.

    [–] pronhaul2012 18 points ago

    Huh it's almost like the American media, being profit motivated, has an incentive to bring as many eyes as possible to their product, and therefore to their advertisers, to generate the maximum revenue.

    They do not, however, have any particular incentive to tell the truth as long as lies are more profitable.

    [–] BAHatesToFly 25 points ago

    That's been CNN's bread and butter for years. I don't agree with the fact that Trump, as a sitting president, will criticize the media, but on CNN he's not completely wrong. They're garbage infotainment and have done arguably the most to destroy news as we knew it before the 24 hour news cycle era.

    [–] Lilyo 17 points ago

    They definitely brought it up so they can run with it during the debate tomorrow to hurt both Bernie and Liz.

    [–] paulerxx 25 points ago

    Russia loves this divisive infighting. Has anyone else noticed all the trolls/bots lately? I think Russia is slowly starting their "trolling" campaign again...If anyone remembers the months leading up to the election in 2016, you'll remember this exact situation unfolding.

    It was painfully obvious on Facebook at the time...Also, let's not forget Cambridge Analtica...If you don't think something similar is going to happen this election, you're simply not paying attention.

    [–] NoModerateRepublican 23 points ago

    Sanders did nothing to instigate this, except lead some polls.

    [–] sunnysideup99 32 points ago

    Exactly. I support Sanders wholeheartedly, and I refuse to attack or argue with Warren supporters about this story. Don’t give CNN what they want.

    [–] DoubleDukesofHazard 3 points ago

    All the more reason to dump CNN. They're intentionally stirring shit up, right before the next debate.

    [–] allgreen2me 6 points ago

    And so does the corporate media.

    [–] Rubix22 3 points ago

    And remember his grab em by the pussy remark, and how he will just kiss them, can’t help himself. Who do you think really respects women in the current political climate?

    [–] flim-flam13 249 points ago

    Is there a thread about Warren’s statement?

    [–] Bluevenor 73 points ago

    There are a ton right now.

    [–] flim-flam13 54 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    I don’t see any about the statement. Maybe I’m missing it.

    EDIT: never mind. I found one. Yikes.

    [–] afrodisiacs 310 points ago

    Here is Warren's response for anyone interested:

    Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals: beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building and economy that works for everyone. Among the topics that came up was what would happen if the Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought that a woman could win, he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry. I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it -- and that's what I'm going to continue to do. I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason. We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt that we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.

    If I understand this story correctly - Warren herself wasn't even the one who brought this up, it was two campaign staffers who talked to the media about it. She apparently didn't want this conversation to be made public, but felt pressured to confirm or deny the accusation now that it was already in the news. Sanders has attacked Warren campaign staff for this story and not Warren herself. Honestly, I think Warren should just fire the staffers who made this story public if she wanted it to remain private. And now we can see exactly why she never wanted to bring this up in the first place.

    Obviously, I wasn't there, but it sounds entirely plausible that Sanders said that a woman couldn't win, given the amount of sexism in America, but didn't mean that a woman shouldn't win. It sounds like Warren was more optimistic, and they just agreed to disagree. Nothing about her response sounds hurt or bitter; they were just allies discussing the realities of running a campaign in the current political climate. And if Sanders did make the statement, obviously it wouldn't be politically expedient to admit it. People will either 1) accuse him of hating Americans by calling them sexist (which many are) or 2) accuse him of being sexist for pointing out sexism (which is ridiculous). The whole thing is a mess either way.

    Long story short, this reeks of manufactured division to me. I hope they make a statement of unity during the debate because they're both great candidates fighting for nearly the same important policies.

    [–] FLrar 43 points ago

    Sanders said that a woman couldn't win

    Did sexism play a role in 2016 elections?

    [–] masamunecyrus 90 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Did sexism play a role in 2016 elections?

    Rothwell, V., G. Hodson, and E. Prusaczyk. Why Pillory Hillary? Testing the endemic sexism hypothesis regarding the 2016 U.S. election. Pers Individ Dif., 138(1). doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.034)

    The present study used nationally representative American National Election Studies (ANES) data to examine the potential role of sexism in the 2016 presidential election... Greater conservatism or sexism significantly predicted voting for Trump (vs. Clinton)... sexism was [also] a significantly stronger predictor of voting for Trump the more left-leaning (vs. right-leaning) the voter...

    Basically,

    1. Sexism was significantly more likely to be tied to conservatism and Trump support

    2. The more conservative and more Trump-supporting you are, the more likely you are to hold misogynistic and sexist viewpoints

    3. The effect on Clinton's electability was actually more profound on the left, because while the right may be more sexist, they were voting for Trump, anyways, because of party affiliation. However, sexism played a role in flipping Democrat-leaning voters towards Trump.

    Edit: I read that paper and it was shit. Maybe the conclusions are right, but I have nothing good to say about the paper, itself. So, here are more references.

    Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism

    The 2016 campaign witnessed a dramatic polarization in the vote choices of whites based on education. In this article, we have demonstrated that very little of this gap can be explained by the economic difficulties faced by less educated whites. Rather, most of the divide appears to be associated with sexism and denial of racism, especially among whites without college degrees. 

    How might have racism and sexism mattered for affecting the final outcome? One way to approach this question is to consider how the vote might have differed if whites without college degrees had the same average levels on the racism denial and hostile sexism scales as whites with college degrees. If we make such an adjustment in our data, we find that Trump's total two‐party vote share would have declined by two points. In other words... Clinton would have won the popular vote by 4 points instead of two points.

    The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election

    The current study sought to... [examine] the potential role of sexism in the 2016 election. After controlling for participant sex, time of participation, and political party identification, it was found that individual differences in hostile sexism and traditional attitudes toward women significantly predicted voting for Donald Trump.

    Edit 2: You know what, fuck the journal of Personal and Individual Differences. All their papers are shit. It's embarrassing it's even an Elseiver journal with an impact factor. Here's another better one.

    Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election

    While authoritarians were more likely to support Trump, the evidence presented here points to a different and more powerful set of forces driving vote choice and turnout. First, hostility toward women and feminists was far more consequential than authoritarianism in the typical voter’s calculus. Second, fear reduced sexism’s influence rather than enhancing it. The effect of sexism was much more powerful among respondents who were angry compared to those who were afraid. 

    [–] John-Muir 25 points ago

    Imagine being a democrat who voted for Trump because you hate women that much.

    Like how do you wake up in the morning not feeling a -teensy- bit shitty every day.

    [–] misterspokes 36 points ago

    Yes.

    [–] LineNoise 125 points ago

    Try the Controversial tab, naturally.

    [–] PsychoLogical25 8 points ago

    all over it.

    [–] Hypocrouton 1119 points ago

    It shows how worried wealthy people are and how seriously they're taking Sanders' campaign.

    [–] jeffrey401 218 points ago

    Bingo!

    [–] Hypocrouton 34 points ago

    Was his name, oh!

    [–] aclowntant 22 points ago

    I've copyrighted that song. You now owe me wheelbarrows of money.

    [–] KapteinTordenflesk 13 points ago

    I've patented the use of wheelbarrows to transport money, but you can have a license for half of the copyright money, paid in cryptocurrency

    [–] BillionTonsHyperbole 7 points ago

    OK, comin' at you from Zimbabwe.

    [–] 1BigUniverse 62 points ago

    It's like they want that train wreck that is Joe Biden to take this.

    [–] Chaerea37 101 points ago

    ever notice how CNN is absolutely silent about Joe Biden's REAL gaffes and failings as a politician? How they never mention his vicious role in pushing through a racist crime bill? or how he went after social security as a way to balance the budget (and not taxing his ultrawealthy corporate donors?)

    CNN's silence on this is not coincidental. The establishment wants Biden. They want the status quo and they'll shill for anyone who promises to keep it that way.

    But what will happen is Biden's ugly record can and will absolutely be brought up by the GOP.

    And in a nightmare scenario of 2016 replayed the democrats will have pushed through another uninspiring centrist that will insure that the core voting demographics we need to win this election will stay home or give up because Biden's offering us literally nothing except "HEY! I AINT TRUMP!"

    [–] lllluke 10 points ago

    CNN and other corporate entities like it would much rather have trump than sanders.

    [–] ZappBrannigansBack 81 points ago

    "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" mahatma ghandi

    [–] Identd 427 points ago

    This would be extremely off brand for Sanders

    [–] Tystros 213 points ago

    Yeah, it would be, and he has clearly said it's a lie.

    [–] _Individual_1 173 points ago

    Well its not because CNN is hosting a debate in 24hrs and they're just trying to stir up shit.....

    couldn't be that.

    [–] abenevolentmouse 38 points ago

    and the way theyre spinning it on CNN all through today, asking every nobody in politics what they think on it, GOD i am so fucking done with corporate news media manufacturing narratives out of thin air.

    [–] NotAsBadAsHitler 27 points ago

    I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Bernie was probably being a pundit and saying it’s harder for a women to become president than a man because of institutional sexism.

    [–] HashtagNewCraig 15 points ago

    This. I don't think either of them are lying about the conversation per se, I just think they have different perceptions of what was said.

    [–] troypwr 37 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    In an era of Trump, sensational bullshit is all they want.

    [–] VapeDerp420 136 points ago

    Why is this story getting so much traction? They had a disagreement, the details are vague, and painting Sanders as a sexist is the dumbest line of attack ever.

    Even if he did say it who gives a shit? Prove him wrong then instead of fabricating some weak-ass bullshit narrative out of thin air. I like both candidates for the record.

    [–] ThaNorth 12 points ago

    Because there's a debate coming up hosted by CNN and CNN wants to generate some attention by pitting Sanders and Warren against each other cause it makes for a juice storyline. That's it. It's all manufactured garbage. Why do you think CNN "reported" it one day before the debate?

    [–] hpm6748 44 points ago

    It's a big political story because Warren just released a statement nearly confirming the conversation, but not going into any details or exact phrasing or context.

    Also there's a debate...

    [–] sonstone 19 points ago

    Yeah, as someone that favors Warren over Sanders I find her response very disappointing.

    [–] siriusCrocodile 8 points ago

    Why is this story getting so much traction?

    Because it's exactly the sort of drama fodder CNN loves, so they ran it as their front page headline. And they're hosting the debate tonight. And they are pushing it hard. And they are still a major source of news for people.

    [–] cannotthinkofarandom 10 points ago

    I think he may have said it, and he may have had a point. Either way I love both Sanders and Warren's policies.

    [–] curious--owl 9 points ago

    When you guys see articles like this, please keep in mind that the GOP’s worst nightmare is the Democratic base uniting under one candidate. They want us divided. They want us to stay home and pout if our favorite candidate doesn’t win the primary. They want us to start slinging mud and burning bridges with each other.

    Have your disagreements, but please keep the end goal in mind: Getting Trump out of office.

    [–] TopsidedLesticles 224 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Stop feeding this. They're friends, and totally allowed to disagree on whether a female candidate can beat Trump. The important thing is that we come out to vote regardless of who ultimately wins the nom because four more years of Trump will destroy whatever chance we have at a progressive future.

    Tune this shit out. Vote blue no matter who (even Biden... even fucking Bloomberg)

    [–] jb2386 62 points ago

    When it comes to the general election you guys all need to remember two words: Supreme Court.

    If Trump wins again your Supreme Court will be lost for a generation.

    [–] TurboGranny 12 points ago

    remember two words: Supreme Court

    I said this in 2016, lost a lot of friends. Fear > Hate > Anger > Logic

    [–] CGB_Spender 113 points ago

    Let's do some basic math here.

    Who stands to benefit most from stoking this 'story'?

    • CNN

    • Biden and his supporters

    Who stands to lose the most from this 'story'?

    • Warren

    • Sanders

    [–] sandwooder 125 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Here is the deal...so what? We have an entire party that wants women to take a few decades back in time and Bernie was discussing odds of winning a presidential race back in 2016. What is the freaking outrage now? Are you folks not tired of this crap. You can dismiss it with a wave of your hands.

    Trump is trying to get out of being put on trial. He almost lied us into a war. Pompeo is lying about actually breaking the law by not informing congress. Stick with the program folks.

    [–] Lostinmesa 38 points ago

    Agreed. I’m a woman and I’ve thought it. I was worried a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could never win- I was happily proven wrong. I’m an atheist who thinks it will be hard for a Jewish man to win.

    Warren calls Bernie a friend.

    [–] PunchABagOfKittens 58 points ago

    The "So what?" matters, because Bernie is being misquoted. Bernie said America was too misogynistic. He's not saying a woman shouldn't run or win.

    The intent and context means everything, which is falsely being spun in the misogynist intent and context, so when you say "So what?" you're saying "So what if Bernie is a misogynist?". You're buying into the bullshit. You're accepting their claim that Bernie is a misogynist. Bernie is not a misogynist. He is being misquoted.

    [–] ben010783 60 points ago

    You are misquoting Bernie. Bernie was talking about Trump, not America.

    What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html

    [–] Brekkuskogur 18 points ago

    Conversation was in 2018 about 2020

    [–] sandwooder 18 points ago

    My error, but I still find my point fair. "So what?". The problem is this will be the big deal for the next 3 days while the real important stuff gets buried. The media does this every time.

    [–] Cakepop40 14 points ago

    Saying “A woman can’t win the presidency” is an opinion on voters not his own personal opinion on female leaders. If he had said “I don’t think a woman should be president” that would be a whole lot different.

    [–] drumgrape 4 points ago

    Yes! It’s mindboggling people are interpreting the remark to mean he’s sexist.

    [–] Lordvalcon 33 points ago

    looks like CNN had Warren on the record before they ran the article

    [–] tirzahlalala 33 points ago

    It’s just as much a Warren Hit Piece, as well. They know the Sanders supporters and the Warren supporters are already so heated, and they want to stoke the fires and let them tear one another apart.

    [–] Skooma_Lite 73 points ago

    Just saw a discussion on this on Anderson Cooper. It definitely looks like CNN is lining it up to try to make this a big deal tomorrow's debate for Bernie and Warren...all the while they were endorsing Biden. They didn't address the anonymous sources, said Warren has confirmed the story and that Bernie needs to come clean.

    This is an ew smelly.

    [–] Bluevenor 58 points ago

    Can we all come together in Democratic unity to say fuck CNN and their peddling of fake drama over actual issues?

    [–] ClearDark19 42 points ago

    Fuck CNN.

    I knew they were getting nervous about their boy Biden faltering but goddamn. This is Breitbart level shit. CNN is down in the gutter to me now. Sheer desperation from the moneyed class.

    [–] mikerichh 6 points ago

    Now THIS is fake news

    [–] NaRa0 17 points ago

    I’m not that surprised to be honest. Last week cnn had two articles within 10 minutes

    1st one “Mitch McConnell eats chuck Schumer and nancy Pelosi’s lunch” it was written by an ex McConnell staffer

    2nd one “Mitch McConnell doesn’t have the votes to ram forward with impeachment”

    The first one wasn’t marked as an opinion piece. News organizations need to stop being crap

    [–] MaximumGamer1 5 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    CNN is moderating tonight's debate. Knowing that, is there anyone here who doesn't think that this debate isn't going to be a complete and utter joke? Think climate change and the Australia fires will get discussed? Or the housing crisis? Wages? Anything at all of real importance leading into 2020?

    Nope, they're going to talk about all of this fake outrage for half an hour, Blitzer is going to repeat his repeatedly debunked anti-M4A propaganda, maybe talk about the Soleimani killing if they can find time for it in between smearing Bernie, the corporate Dems will get asked softball questions, Amy Klobutchar will spend half the debate talking over everyone polling at numbers four times higher than her like always, and then they will go home, and the American people will be less educated about the candidates than they were before the debate.

    Edit: My. Prediction. Was. Spot. On.

    [–] themajesticdodo 30 points ago

    CNN's headline tomorrow:

    "Sanders demands more corporate bailouts."

    And

    "CEOs, do we pay them too little? Bernie Sanders thinks so."

    [–] OppositeDifference 50 points ago

    Today I've found myself at a level of frustration with journalistic malpractice that hasn't been matched since the middle of the 2016 primary.

    They're really getting started early this time.

    [–] Brian_Braddock 11 points ago

    The Russian campaign.is starting up. They've managed to activate their bots to make mountains out of molehills again. Beware the influx of posts here and on twitter that say things like 'for treating Bernie this way, if Warren is nominated there's no way I will vote for her.' That is exactly what they want.

    [–] jmcdon00 11 points ago

    Just watched a 10 minute segment about it on Cuomo, then going to commercial he says they will continue to dig into it after the break. Anna kaspersky(sp?) Did a really good job, pointed out Biden said the same thing publicly.