Anonymous wrote:Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

Why is it even a question? Based on the line of questioning on this issue by CNN, CNN was pretty much a part of Warren's campaign. CNN accused Bernie of saying that a woman can't be president, and after Bernie denied it, directly asked Warren how she felt that Bernie said this, simply assuming that Bernie had said this and essentially calling Bernie a liar. I am pretty sure that Warren planned it ahead of time with CNN that she would be confronting Bernie after the debate, and that CNN should catch the audio and release it. Bernie was obviously caught off guard by the confrontation and urged Warren to discuss it at another time. It's clear Warren wanted to press the issue with CNN's help and CNN was eager to oblige.

Warren is a vile human. She is the worst kind of politician - someone with no ideas of their own and who will do absolutely anything to boost her political standing and undermind her opponents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

That's a good question. That was a private conversation after the public debate -- wouldn't Warren AND Sanders have to consent to release it?

Or, was it leaked by who-knows-who...

Did Obama consent to having his remark about "Tell Putin that I'll have more flexibility after the election" released? Stuff on hot mics get revealed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

That's a good question. That was a private conversation after the public debate -- wouldn't Warren AND Sanders have to consent to release it?

Or, was it leaked by who-knows-who...

CNN is run by Jeff Zucker, good friend of Donald Trump. Although Chump calls it “Clinton News Network,” it’s as clickbait-y and stupid as Fox, and they’ve really enjoyed the money they’ve made.

So frankly, I think it was CNN for the usual fluffing Donald purposes.

I don't know where you are getting your information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

That's a good question. That was a private conversation after the public debate -- wouldn't Warren AND Sanders have to consent to release it?

Or, was it leaked by who-knows-who...

CNN is run by Jeff Zucker, good friend of Donald Trump. Although Chump calls it “Clinton News Network,” it’s as clickbait-y and stupid as Fox, and they’ve really enjoyed the money they’ve made.

So frankly, I think it was CNN for the usual fluffing Donald purposes.

Anonymous wrote:Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

That's a good question. That was a private conversation after the public debate -- wouldn't Warren AND Sanders have to consent to release it?

Or, was it leaked by who-knows-who...

Is nobody even mildly curious about why the audio was released?

Did Elizabeth Warren request it be released? Bernie?

Or, was CNN hoping to try to make Bernie look bad, again? And, if you don't think they were biased against Bernie during the debate, you weren't paying attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who has a problem with her investing in her son's education, putting him in an expensive boarding school, while she had her daughter in public school? I've always believed that parents should treat their children equally, and this DOES seem to say that she values the boy's education more than the girl's. (Plus, she and her husband moved around A LOT, and so her daughter had to be moved from school to school to school. Unless the daughter expressly turned down private school, this is an issue to me.)

No, not really. One child might have for better in one environment and one in another. One may have asked to go to public and one stay in private. One might have needed to change for social reasons. It’s a non-issue to me and suggests that she knows her kids well. Unlike the family I know whose kids want to switch to public but the parents won’t let them.

I'd like to hear from her as to why she made that decision. There MAY be a legitimate reason, and there may not be. I say this as someone who had dated someone who told me that his parents sent him to some fancy prep school and his sister to the local Baltimore public schools - and that he planned to do the same with his own (future) children - the boys to private and the girls to public. That was a big red flag to me, and the straw that broke the camel's back.

I mean, I’d like to know about the fraud by Bernie’s second wife at the college she ran. That’s a big red flag to me that he’s okay with that kind of grift, especially in his own family. And it’s as germane as private educational decisions made twenty five years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who has a problem with her investing in her son's education, putting him in an expensive boarding school, while she had her daughter in public school? I've always believed that parents should treat their children equally, and this DOES seem to say that she values the boy's education more than the girl's. (Plus, she and her husband moved around A LOT, and so her daughter had to be moved from school to school to school. Unless the daughter expressly turned down private school, this is an issue to me.)

No, not really. One child might have for better in one environment and one in another. One may have asked to go to public and one stay in private. One might have needed to change for social reasons. It’s a non-issue to me and suggests that she knows her kids well. Unlike the family I know whose kids want to switch to public but the parents won’t let them.

I'd like to hear from her as to why she made that decision. There MAY be a legitimate reason, and there may not be. I say this as someone who had dated someone who told me that his parents sent him to some fancy prep school and his sister to the local Baltimore public schools - and that he planned to do the same with his own (future) children - the boys to private and the girls to public. That was a big red flag to me, and the straw that broke the camel's back.

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who has a problem with her investing in her son's education, putting him in an expensive boarding school, while she had her daughter in public school? I've always believed that parents should treat their children equally, and this DOES seem to say that she values the boy's education more than the girl's. (Plus, she and her husband moved around A LOT, and so her daughter had to be moved from school to school to school. Unless the daughter expressly turned down private school, this is an issue to me.)

No, not really. One child might have for better in one environment and one in another. One may have asked to go to public and one stay in private. One might have needed to change for social reasons. It’s a non-issue to me and suggests that she knows her kids well. Unlike the family I know whose kids want to switch to public but the parents won’t let them.

Am I the only one who has a problem with her investing in her son's education, putting him in an expensive boarding school, while she had her daughter in public school? I've always believed that parents should treat their children equally, and this DOES seem to say that she values the boy's education more than the girl's. (Plus, she and her husband moved around A LOT, and so her daughter had to be moved from school to school to school. Unless the daughter expressly turned down private school, this is an issue to me.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised there's not a thread on this already. WTH Elizabeth Warren? I admit I don't care for her, but I don't believe she didn't realize the mic was on. It seemed intentional, and under the belt. I wouldn't choose her, now, over Bernie Sanders for that alone. How petty. We want to win the White House. Come on, people.

Of course she realized it was on. It was part of her setup.

Every mic is always on. When should they have settled this face to face? When, in their empty schedules, should they have gotten together to make nice? Why would she assume that this post-debate chat would be made public when none of the other post-debate chats were made public? So you’re saying she’s got an inside man at the tv station?

And OP this was already being discussed within another thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this an issue when we have a president illegally assassinating foreign leaders and taking the fate of our republic head on?

You're saying it's not worthy of discussion?

It’s dead. The beef is over. It’s not Tupac and Biggie. There are bigger fish to fry than this goldfish.

Get real: we’ve learned a lot (100% negative, I’m afraid!) about Warren, previously a top contender, from this episode.

Yeah. We learned she scraps when she needs to, and that dull coward Bernie calling her a liar on national tv deserved an answer. I’m in her camp more than ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this an issue when we have a president illegally assassinating foreign leaders and taking the fate of our republic head on?

You're saying it's not worthy of discussion?

It’s dead. The beef is over. It’s not Tupac and Biggie. There are bigger fish to fry than this goldfish.

You're saying a Presidential campaign against Trump is of lower importance than some fake beef between some fake gangsters?

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised there's not a thread on this already. WTH Elizabeth Warren? I admit I don't care for her, but I don't believe she didn't realize the mic was on. It seemed intentional, and under the belt. I wouldn't choose her, now, over Bernie Sanders for that alone. How petty. We want to win the White House. Come on, people.

Of course she realized it was on. It was part of her setup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this an issue when we have a president illegally assassinating foreign leaders and taking the fate of our republic head on?

You're saying it's not worthy of discussion?

It’s dead. The beef is over. It’s not Tupac and Biggie. There are bigger fish to fry than this goldfish.

So you are an Elizabeth Warren voter....