The 2020 Race Could Revive a Bitter Feud Between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren

[Autumn]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/02/the-2020-race-could-revive-a-bitter-feud-between-joe-biden-and-elizabeth-warren/

Joe Biden was outraged. In February 2005, after eight years of starts and stops, the Senate was finally moving forward on a landmark overhaul of the nation’s bankruptcy laws—a bipartisan behemoth piece of legislation, backed by big banks and credit card companies, that the Delaware senator had taken a lead role in shepherding. But at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing on the bill, one of the witnesses had said something about his home state that Biden couldn’t let stand.

The witness’ specific concern was Delaware’s unique status as the venue of choice for large corporations filing for bankruptcy. Companies understood that the courts there (where many of the companies were nominally incorporated) were more likely to take their side against creditors, such as employee pension plans. And the venue-shopping opened up a broader issue of access; massive companies such as Enron could choose a forum thousands of miles away from where their employees lived, effectively shutting the workers out of the process. The Delaware option allowed companies to “escape the obligation to make the process open,” the witness said, while the millions of individuals filing for personal bankruptcy every year had no such luxury.

It was not the first time the pair had clashed, and it wouldn’t be the last. Long before their Capitol Hill clash, Warren called out Biden by name in op-eds and in her first book, accusing him of carrying water for the big corporations that called his state home and kept his campaign coffers full.

The bankruptcy fight was a pivotal moment for both Warren and Biden, who have each built a political brand based on a defense of the American middle class. Biden is fond of saying that he talks about working families so often his colleagues called him “Middle-Class Joe.” (Exactly who has ever called him that is a mystery.) Warren’s 2017 book was subtitled “The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class.” But there’s a key difference. In Warren’s telling, politicians like Joe Biden are exactly who the middle class needs protection from. And as the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign slowly heats up, the two may be on a collision course once more.

[George II]

1. Fourth time this has been posted since noon yesterday.

[Autumn]

2. Looks like a different video to me.

Is there a time limit in the rules George?

[George II]

70. Same "issue".

[bluewater]

72. What's wrong with people posting videos on "this issue" ?

[bluewater]

5. truth hurts?

I thought Biden was running on his record?

[Cary]

30. Is George stopping you from speaking to Joe Biden's record?

Does George have a right to make his statement? If you are interested in Joe Biden's record then why do you make a thinly-veiled attack on George?

[bluewater]

32. Is he trying to influence what people post?

when that post said :

"Fourth time this has been posted since noon yesterday."


I take issue with that on two grounds.

This video was posted once today, and I think someone included it in a sub-thread yesterday. So, it's not like the poster here is flooding the forum over and over with the same material

And what of it?

Why object to the video being posted here now?

Is there something untruthful in the video?

Why raise a any objection to a video about a topical matter?

The same polls are often repeated posted over and over, and I have not seen anyone object to that.

So the question is, why object in any way about someone posting this video here?

Is it because the truth hurts?

[Cary]

35. I don't know and I don't speak for.George

I can say that George is a friend and that he is a wonderful person. I am sure he will appreciate a more direct question.

[bluewater]

37. Thanks for the discussion

I understand your point, and I hope I have given an explanation of mine.
Thanks for the discussion.

[lapucelle]

60. Noting a fact concerning talking points is not an "objection".

[lapucelle]

63. No. Nor is he demanding apologies for apocryphal offenses.

[LibFarmer]

159. +1000 nt

[George II]

69. This coming from the person who posted it twice yesterday just 16 minutes apart:

11:45 AM https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287190385

12:01 PM https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287190404

[bluewater]

71. Sigh, Still wrong

That was a different video.

facts matter.

Do you have a problem with the content of these videos?

[George II]

73. Sigh, click on each of the links and look at the videos in each OP. Yes, facts matter - same video.

[bluewater]

74. Sigh, wrong yet again.

The video I posted yesterday was from the Elizabeth Warren Town Hall discussion hosted by Chris Hayes.

Chris Hayes is not in this video. They are clearly two different videos.

It's a sign of maturity to admit mistakes.

Are you trying to influence what people post? Neither video has "flooded" the forum. So what are you taking issue with?

Thanks for the discussion and thanks for bumping the thread.

it's an important issue and people really should watch _this_ video.

[George II]

75. Screen shots of the two posts:

First:



Second:

[bluewater]

76. Thanks for proving it's a different video than the one in this OP.

Nice work!

And thanks for giving people the opportunity to view that other video again too.

Thanks for the Discussion.

[George II]

77. Didn't you post this yesterday:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=190503

"Nice work".

[George II]

107. Quite a stretch. YOU didn't post those two OPs 16 minutes apart with the same video? REALLY?

[LibFarmer]

160. Bazinga!

(stealing your Sheldon-word!)

[Dennis Donovan]

164. No links back to the offending OP's?

[George II]

165. They were in post #69, earlier in the discussion.

[Cary]

113. It looks like you owe George an apology.

[LakeArenal]

104. I find neither Warren nor Biden to be bitter in their presentation or style.

Even as rivals.

Maybe supporters purport to be bitter?

[emulatorloo]

140. +1. I think I see a little wishful thinking in this thread.

[mcar]

80. I saw no objection

Just a cogent point. People do tend to post the same/similar things without first checking to see if there's already an OP on it.

[stonecutter357]

3. I don't think Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are Bitter people .....

[Autumn]

4. They aren't but some people are. Biden no longer has an air of invincibility. This will come

up in the debates.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Greatest Page for this gem!

[bluewater]

7. Elizabeth Warren working to protect the middle class!

We need a President Warren, we really do.

This video is just one example of why.

[Autumn]

15. One of a thousand examples why we need her in the White House.

[Cary]

19. What we need is a majority of WE, THE PEOPLE, who will assert our.will

Who empowers Unindicted Co-Conspirator?

It is the 30% to 40% with IQs under 90 who have buffaloed the likes of Lindsey Graham and who have intoxicated the likes of Mitch McConnell on the power they afford him. How did they impose an incredibly unpopular agenda?

They vote.

[George II]

61. How?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. And wouldn't the GOP and the Russians love that.

I know they don't agree on a number of issues but I hope they - and particularly their supporters - can refrain from rolling in the mud. I really like both of them and would happily support either - most importantly, whichever one is most likely to beat Trump. I hope this article wasn't intended to stir the shit.

[Autumn]

9. Why would you consider an OP on actual actions by the candidates being posted during

a primary to be stirring shit and rolling in the mud? Do you think Republicans will be gentle during the GE? Because they won't. There are about 5 candidates who will be very likely to beat Trump, I think that a little discussion on their actions is a good thing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. It depends on how *we* take it.

Of course it's important to know as much as possible about the candidates. But characterizing policy disagreements as a "bitter feud" stinks of shit-stirring. Analyze their positions rationally, but don't make the candidates out to be enemies because that encourages irrational, emotional arguments, and once you inject emotion - using terms like "bitter feud" - things start going off the rails, as in 2016.

I like both of them very much and would happily vote for either without any hesitation.

[ucrdem]

12. This.

And if Biden called her testimony "mild demagoguery" I would have to say that's been my impression too.

[Autumn]

13. I don't chose the titles when someone writes an article, I just copy it. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. I'm not blaming you; I know the title is the author's and not yours.

I am simply pointing out that the author is going to want readers, and one way to get readers (and ad revenue) is to emphasize conflict and "bitterness," which is more interesting and more likely to attract readers than a discussion of economic policy divergences. If it bleeds it leads, even if it's only ideological blood.

[tblue37]

38. Actually, the authors seldom get to title their own articles. An editor does that--

sometimes to the dismay of the author.

[Cary]

21. Have you now or ever "stirred shit?"

Please note that this is a question, Autumn. An honest answer is appreciated.

[bluewater]

27. Please define "stirred shit"

[Cary]

29. Notice that I used scare quotes?

It is Autumns' term, not mine. Ask her.

I did.

[Autumn]

33. Actually it's not my term Cary. I responded to a post that used that term. nt

[Cary]

36. True.

Can you answer the question?

[Autumn]

39. No. I see no need to answer an insulting question like that. I responded to you only because

the "quote" you attributed to me in response to another poster was not true.

[bluewater]

41. Thanks for catching that.

The other poster had me misled. Sorry.

[Cary]

49. I am not surprised that you refuse to answer

I asked you an honest question. You could choose to answer honestly, lie, or not answer. I note that you chose to not answer honestly.

[Autumn]

94. I was very honest, I said your question was insulting and I see no reason to answer it.

[Cary]

108. Did I say you were not honest?

No, I didn't say that at all. I said you chose not to answer honestly. I said you had three choices, one of which was to lie.

Do you see how you twisted my words? Yes, of course you see that Autumn.

Who you crappin?

[Autumn]

109. You asked for an honest answer. I gave you one.

Star Member Cary (10,371 posts)

21. Have you now or ever "stirred shit?"

Please note that this is a question, Autumn. An honest answer is appreciated.

Autumn (34,831 posts)

39. No. I see no need to answer an insulting question like that. I responded to you only because

the "quote" you attributed to me in response to another poster was not true.

Star Member Cary (10,371 posts)

36. True.

Can you answer the question?

and then again

Cary (10,371 posts)

49. I am not surprised that you refuse to answer

I asked you an honest question. You could choose to answer honestly, lie, or not answer. I note that you chose to not answer honestly.

and again my reply

Star Member Autumn (34,831 posts)

94. I was very honest, I said your question was insulting and I see no reason to answer it.

Someone's twisting but it's not me. You got your answer, twice and I'm done playing your game.

[Cary]

110. You didn't answer the question Autumn

You know it. I know you know it. You know that I know it.

Who you crappin?

[tonedevil]

114. It wasn't a legitimate question...

you got more answer than you deserved.

[Cary]

115. It was a legitimate question

I got exactly what I expected from Autumn. I don't have any what you think you mean by "more answer than you deserved." Nor do I care.

[tonedevil]

116. I think you left a word or two...

out of the salad you left there, but your question had no legitimacy whatsoever.

[Cary]

120. I think it makes no difference what I say to you, or Autumn

I don't think your intent is to have anything that I would consider to be a functional exchange. Of course that was the point of the question that Autumn couldn't see fit to answer.

So I won't bother to correct my typo.

[Autumn]

117. Tell you what. You buy the place and insist I post what you tell me to post

and then you can fucking ban me. Till then you are nothing but some poster on a message board.

[bluewater]

118. Bazinga!

good one, Autumn.

My rule of thumb is to ignore repetitive replies after two. You have more patience than me. lol

[Autumn]

119. I'm done with it.

[bluewater]

121. Hey, at least they were bumping this thread! lol

[Autumn]

125. Keeping it up on top!

[Cary]

123. No you aren't

Leopards, spots, ...

[Cary]

122. I would prefer to see simple, honest debate

But I understand that I ask for too much.

[bluewater]

124. Maybe a friend could help you.

didn't you mention them yesterday?

[Cary]

126. You assume that I need help

I don't.

[tonedevil]

127. You think you start an honest debate...

by asking people if they have now or ever stirred shit? To me that is pure troll.

[Cary]

128. All she had to do was say yes or no

You can call it whatever you want. You have my permission.

I call her refusal to give me a simple, honest answer just that. I also find those willing to attack me for asking the question to be quite telling. Unfortunately some here have an agenda beyond electing Democrats, and unfortunately I have to expend resources to understand that and to develop the best ways to respond.

As usual, Taoism provides a good answer. Keep attacking me. See where that gets you.

[tonedevil]

129. OK /nt

[Cary]

130. That's it?

That's all you have?

[tonedevil]

132. Why would I have more to say?

You think you asked a legitimate question I think it is nothing but hostile bullshit. We've both made our positions clear I don't think you have anything I'm interested in reading. OK?

[Cary]

135. You triangulated yourself into my question to Autumn

You saw fit to attack me for having the nerve to ask Autumn a question. I would think you would have a better argument.

I guess not.

[tonedevil]

137. OK /nt

[bluewater]

131. Zen Buddhism is Like a Philosophical Iceberg

"Zen Buddhism is like a philosophical iceberg: roughly all of the values are beneath the surface. On the whole, Buddhism is predicated upon the proposition that desires and attachment happen to be the principal grounds of suffering, and that deliverance from suffering comes from one detaching the misapprehension of a substantial self and one losing desires and attachments."

It is important to look beneath the surface, to look behind the screen, so to speak. To perceive what is actually there.

Like Taoism, Buddhism can provide insights into reality, to see things for what they really are.

[Cary]

133. Taoism is not the same as Zen

What's your point?

[bluewater]

134. No one said it was.

There is no point. Buddhism teaches us there is no "there" there. Reality is like shadows cast on a screen by shadow Puppets.

Shadow play, also known as shadow puppetry, is an ancient form of storytelling and entertainment which uses flat articulated cut-out figures (shadow puppets) which are held between a source of light and a translucent screen or scrim. The cut-out shapes of the puppets sometimes include translucent color or other types of detailing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_play

[Cary]

136. Wrong

Tai Chi teaches that in the beginning you have Wu Dang. That splits into Yin and Yang. The process of splitting into Yin and Yang is Tai Chi.

It is not that there is no "there" there. It is that if you use your effort and will you won't find the "there." You find "there" ironically by letting go.

[Cary]

138. So I ask Autumn a question, letting go of any expectation of any functional response

She doesn't understand what she has told me. And neither do you, apparently, which is equally telling.

As is your effort in attacking me. Why would you attack me? What is it you hope to gain?

Oddly your professed goals are probably 90% identical to mine or.George. And certainly your overriding goal is to defeat Nazis. Our "differences" are more about personalities than substance. And Autumn here is and has been so strident.

I let go of it. I ask simple, direct questions. I opt out of the game and watch as people try so hard to drag me back in. Responding without taking the bait is my challenge.

[bluewater]

139. "to mine or.George."

Who?

[Cary]

141. Nice try

Cast another line.

[bluewater]

142. "Oddly your professed goals are probably 90% identical to mine or.George."

You posted this.

I am confused.

Who?

[Cary]

143. I agree.

You are confused.

Unconfuse yourself. You can do it. I have confidence in you.

[bluewater]

145. Who?

Thanks for the discussion.

[Autumn]

146. You don't know George?

[bluewater]

147. Bazinga!

well played!

[marylandblue]

144. There's no use. I tried too. Full Dunning Kruger in effect here.

[Cary]

148. (Read slowly) Is that right?

[marylandblue]

150. Yes Grasshopper, that is right.

[Cary]

152. (Read slowly) You don't say?

[marylandblue]

154. You are easily amused.

[Cary]

155. (Read slowly) Is that right?

[marylandblue]

156. ...

[Cary]

158. (Read slowly) You don't say?

[Autumn]

162. She must be incredibly bored.

Or something.

[bluewater]

44. Someone owes an apology.

Misattributing a quote to someone warrants giving an apology.

[Cary]

52. If I owed her an apology she would have one

She still used the term.

Maybe she owes me an apology for falsely accusing me of asking her an "insulting question?"

Who is "misleading" whom?

[treestar]

51. Especially since as POTUS, they'd both have to deal with Congress

on this issue like any other.

[George II]

62. Problem is that some like to "roll in the mud" on the same issue every few hours....

...of course it was intended to do what you say, otherwise it wouldn't have been posted four times in less than a day.

[aikoaiko]

10. I stand with Elizabeth Warren on this issue.

You can’t side with credit card companies and then say you’re for working families.

[Cary]

23. You can if you are a Senator and your working family constituents work for credit companies

I would be the last to defend the bankruptcy "reform." I actually quit handling bankruptcies in large part because of that "reform." However a Senator has to represent his or her constituents.

[aikoaiko]

42. I think the credit card companies would have survived

....without more protections. They just made more money and more families were hurt with the protections.

Protecting families from bad lending practices was worth fighting for...even in Delaware.

[treestar]

50. credit cards are a convenience

Everyone doesn't hate credit card companies on sight. And you can still discharge the debt in Chapter 7. I thought it was making student loans harder to discharge was what made Biden such a monster.

[aikoaiko]

54. No it wasn't just student loans.

I like credit cards too, but CC lending practices can be terrible. They can give too much credit given family income and then when they cant make payments due to a financial emergency/crisis and miss payments, the n banks jack up rates and ruin families because they can’t recover.

It’s really a lot like the housing crisis. We should not have made bankruptcy harder if we wanted banks to be more careful.

[Cary]

55. Do you live in Delaware?

If not then you don't have a say in what their Senators do.

[aikoaiko]

57. I can say whatever the hell I want about any US politician

I know it’s inconvenient for some.

Deal with it better.

[Cary]

59. Yes but you missed my point

I spoke with precision and my assertion is correct. "Convenience" has nothing to do with it. Nor does your First Amendment rights.

[marylandblue]

83. No, you missed her point. Doesn't matter where you live, you have a say in every Senator's actions.

"Having a say" means you have a right to tell him what you think. He can ignore you if he wants, but that would be true if you lived in Delaware too.

You can also donate $1 to his campaign and identify yourself as a "campaign donor."

Or you can call your own Senator and ask that they publically oppose his proposal.

Or you can contribute to an advocacy group that will lobby him on your behalf, in accordance with your right to petition the government.

Or you can do what they did to Susan Collins, and promise to fund an opponent if she doesn't do what you want. Someday she might really regret not listening to what people saud because of that.

So in short, you were incorrect, because we all have a say, and imprecise because "having a say" is such a broad term, it covers just about anything you might do that isn't shutting up.

[Cary]

84. She misrepresented my point

That deoesn't mean I don't understand hers.

[marylandblue]

86. I think you don't understand her point.

The bankruptcy bill was sold as a way to reduce the number of people taking advantage of the bankruptcy system. But there were very few of these people. The true purpose of the bill was to increase bank profits at the expense of borrowers. Whether or not it was of any help to bank employees in Delaware was totally irrelevant. It probably wasn't helpful to them, but even if it were, it would have been at the expense of borrowers in the same state.

He represented the banks of his state well. The working families, not so much.

[Cary]

87. What you think I understand isn't of any concern

[marylandblue]

88. Ahh, got it. You really don't understand, and you have no defense.

You have plenty of rudeness and self-righteousness though, so it's all good I guess.

[Cary]

89. (Read slowly) Is that right?

[marylandblue]

90. I thought you weren't interested in my opinion.

[Cary]

91. (Read slowly) You don't say?

[marylandblue]

92. Don't read this.

Do you have anything constructive to say, like I don't know, addressing whatever point people actually have? I'm as much of a fan of snark as the next guy, but for someone who insists on unity and talks about "we the people" and all that BS, you sure are pretty fucking divisive.

And I know you don't give a shit about whatever anyone says, except as a source of your own personal amusement, but I just thought I'd tell you that. For my own amusement. Because that's all that really matters, amirite?

[Cary]

93. (Read slowly) Is that right?

[True Dough]

106. And I'd just like to say...

we miss you on Team Pete (Warren is my second choice, however).

[marylandblue]

111. Thanks. I felt bad about leaving Pete, but I think Warren has a better shot at this point.

Still love Pete and whould be happy to see him succeed in this election or wherever he goes after that. I hope Warren gives him a good job.

[Autumn]

112. I hope the job Liz gives him is to make him her VP. nt

[mcar]

81. Here is what's interesting, Cary

Earlier this week, an OP discussed another candidate's position on gun control - a position that is squarely out of the mainstream of our party.

That candidate's supporters explained that his position was OK because he was representing his constituents.

Here, though, it's being said another candidates position on an issue isn't OK, even though he is representing his constituents.

I get confused.

[Cary]

82. Exactly

[Kentonio]

151. When that senator then runs for president, then everyone gets to judge them on their record.

[Cary]

153. That's true

Everybody gets to say whatever they want. Everybody can say things about things like phony email scandals, Benghazi, pizzagate, that a person is ill, ...

You can even extoll the virtues of a vile Nazi.

So what's your point?

[Kentonio]

161. My point was pretty obvious.

You said unless people were from Delaware they shouldn't have a say in what their senators do. That may be true, but if that senator wants to be president, then every American gets to judge them on their senatorial record and very much gets a say over whether they should get the main job.

[Cary]

163. And my point was obvious

You don't have to be reasonably objective about it. There is nothing preventing you from cherry picking, distorting, being unreasonable, or even flat out making shit up.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but you seem to believe otherwise. You seem to think that anything goes. I mean here you are dressing me down for stating a fact that you haven't even denied, as if I have no right to my opinion if it doesn't conform to yours.

WTF?

[Kentonio]

167. Yes what you've tried to do is very obvious.

You’ve tried to throw up strawmen and be insulting to disguise the fact there is no actual rebuttal to what I said. You could have just said ‘yes, true’ but apparently common civility is too much like hard work for some people.

[MineralMan]

17. "Status Quo Joe?" Really?

I thought that nickname nonsense was Trump's territory. It's not a good look here on DU, it seems to me.

[Autumn]

18. I think the longer he campaigns the lower his support will go.

I think she would be smart to bring it up, he can't win against her on economic policies that help people.

[Vegas Roller]

65. You mean Joe is like Senator BS?

I think the longer he campaigns the lower his support will go.

[shanny]

78. yep.

[MineralMan]

16. I doubt that very much.

I don't think either Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren are in any sort of "bitter fight." They have, in the past, differed on details of some things. However, it seems highly unlikely that they will do a knockdown drag-out fight over those differences in this election cycle.

On the other hand, I'm sure some pundits will attempt to get them in a fight with each other. That "Let's You and Him Fight" nonsense is typical of biased people who are not running for anything.

15-year-old differences don't seem relevant to this primary race, somehow. There are more important issues, and common enemies to face. Why bicker over past differences on individual issues?

[Autumn]

22. Why bicker over past differences on individual issues? Because they are relevant in a primary.

This primary is where we get to decide what issues are important and who we choose to lead the fight against the common enemies we face. This primary is where we decide who we choose to be our leader for this time.

[MineralMan]

24. Whatever you say, then...

[Cary]

25. I am a one issue voter.

Defeat the Nazi in the White House.

[treestar]

47. Well put

Differences between Democrats on issues are just not that big.

[Cary]

53. Yes, for those of us not interested in "stirring shit."

We are the vast majority.

[True Dough]

105. Then why don't we just put all of their names in a hat and draw one?

No need for all this campaigning and debating. They're essentially all the same anyway.

[Vegas Roller]

66. Most are with you there

This is why detailed policy proposals have not worked.

People want someone who can defeat Trump. They know Biden is the man and he will do the right thing with healthcare, environment etc. when elected.


No point in having a "pure" candidate with trillions of dollars of spending proposals if he/she can't win against Trump.

[delisen]

34. Well said. nt

[Cary]

26. Pundits, Russian trolls, and GOP trolls

And, too, radicals who can't see the benefits of having discipline.

Ok I get the role of radicals, but we have a Nazi in the White House.

[treestar]

45. Pundits do that

I watched Lawrence O'Donnell try so hard to get Cory Booker to diss Biden more over the Eastland flap and Cory would not take the bait. Lawrence just kept trying.

If they can stir something up like that, it gives them more to talk about.

"Mild difference on an issue" is not as exciting and ratings-producing at "bitter feud."

[MineralMan]

48. Yes, they do, sometimes.

Especially pundits with a strong bias for or against a candidate.

Such exaggerated statements identify such pundits and lead me to ignore them in the future.

Pundits gotta write or they don't eat.

[marylandblue]

85. Whether they will personally have a "bitter fight" is up to their own styles,

But there is in fact a political fight going on, Warren at least has described as a "fight," and there are a lot of people who are bitter about it.

Warren believes that there is legalized corruption going on at the highest levels of government and that Biden is a poster child for this type of corruption. She is not calling him personally corrupt or evil. She is claiming we are trapped in a corrupt system, where policy is no longer made on behalf of the public, but on behalf of powerful interests.

The bankruptcy bill was the turning point in her own life when she realized this. Ostensibly it was about reducing the number of irresponsible borrowers who were taking advantage of the bankruptcy system. But her research proved that this was not a problem, instead lenders were making large profits through interest and fees that ended up burying desperate borrowers. The credit card industry wanted the bankruptcy bill to increase their profits at the expense of borrowers.

Biden had no interest in her research, because he was really representing the banks and corporations who finance his campaigns, made Delaware a financial center, made him a powerful Senator and dangle other goodies as needed. He did not however represent the borrowers of the State of Delaware.

That was the status quo in 2005 and 2015 too. The "normalcy" that some of us long for without realizing what was really going on. That's what Warren is running against and the bitterness of the fight is because of the system itself, not who they are.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

166. excellent summary

Worth scrolling through a page full of "did not; did too" to read.

Thank you.

[SouthernProgressive]

28. They aren't bitter people and there won't be a feud.

I know there are a bunch of people out there dreaming of it. Mostly Sanders third party supporters who want to see a Trump second term. Biden and Warren are adults. I hope the issue is debated by both of them, including in a debate. That will leave us with only a small group of Stein who are bitter and feuding. They seem to be a severely intellectually immature group as a whole. They love projections of bitterness and feuding because it's at the core of who they are.

[Midwestocrat]

43. Can't we just hug it out?

There's gonna be bitter feelings at the pace we're going. That was totally unnecessary what Harris did in the first debate. Yes she won a few percent. She also hardened the resolve of some that aren't huge fans of her.

[customerserviceguy]

46. And the circular firing squad tightens. n/t

[Blue_true]

97. Don't wanna miss. nt

[vlyons]

56. maybe a fued between some of their less self-controlled supporters

But I don't seriously that ANY of our Dem candidates are as immature and lacking in self-control as Trump and his minions as to waste time slimming one another. That's what Republicans do to each other to win. Our candidates may verbally disagree about policy issues anmd past votes taken, but I doubt if it will devolve into a personal feud.

[LibFarmer]

58. Keep posting this - it won't help Senator BS

In reality, Sen. Warren has her own issues and taking on Biden too harshly will only make her look bad.

She was a Republican and voted for Reagan and GHW Bush twice.

All Biden has to say is "When I was fighting for the Democratic party, Senator Warren was electing Reagan and Poppy Bush."

[Blue_true]

98. She saw the light bigtime in 1996. She has been open about that.

I promised to stop talking about this issue and after this, hopefully I can. Even as a republican in 1976, Warren was clear on the need for busing to correct past purposeful segregation, while Joe Biden seems to have been very unclear on that.

[progressoid]

102. Why do you keep bringing up Sanders in posts that have nothing to do with Sanders?

Obsess much?

[Autumn]

157. Rest assured if it come up again I will post it. If Biden says that he will have to

turn around and walk it back since it's not the truth, as usual.

[Vegas Roller]

64. While you're at it

Perhaps another OP on Lucy Flores?

It will make David Sirota really really happy with you.

[Autumn]

96. Yeah that was a good thread, an obnoxious repeat troll got banned.

Good times.

[elleng]

67. Seems anti-Dems are achieving goal of dividing and conquering.

[empedocles]

68. 'Those Who Do not Learn History Are Doomed to Repeat It' - Satayana

[Blue_true]

99. That isn't the case Ellen.

There are a few trolls here, but a lot of people simply are passionate about the democrat that they are backing. I am ok with that, they can bloody me if they want, as long as they join me in 100% supporting our nominee once that person has been chosen by Democratic Party primary voters.

[NBachers]

79. *yawn* oboy, it's the Biden /other candidate (preferably female) / ""bitter feud" post de jour.

[IluvPitties]

95. Let them debate their viewpoints

and the best argument win.

[Blue_true]

100. I totally agree. That is why we have primaries.

If Biden or Warren can't explain why they were where they were on that particular issue, then that should be concerning to their supporters.

[democratisphere]

101. Where does this crap keep coming from?!

Certainly not from a uniter!!

[AlexSFCA]

103. this is at least more relevant than busing

if Warren is on stage with Biden in the second debTe, I would love to see Warren confronting Biden on this issue. Biden often says he is proud of his record so I’d like to hear his defense on this particular issue.

[Iggo]

149. ...the MSM hopes.