Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:13 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
And AFAIK Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, the two most successful female politicians in the Western world, did not play the gender card either.
They came into leadership in different eras, cultures and selection procedures. And I rather doubt you were remotely as attentive of their leadership bids as you are of this one.

That being said, playing the "woman card" can be a risky game I would agree.
  #102  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:52 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I’m not misrepresenting anything. I’m just not bending over backwards to be charitable to her.
No bending required on our part, and yes you blatantly are.

Still waiting on that list of other "integrity problems" you mentioned.
  #103  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:55 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
I'm ruling Warren out after this cheap stunt and I hope she gets primaried.
OK bro.
  #104  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:30 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,191
Looking more intense now:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sa...211610976.html
  #105  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:40 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
No bending required on our part, and yes you blatantly are.

Still waiting on that list of other "integrity problems" you mentioned.
I never said she had ‘other’ integrity problems. I said she had an integrity problem, and this is it.

Look, you’re happy to accept that Elizabeth Warren (who, for all her other faults, is certainly not stupid) got her own race wrong on a census form. I’m not. I don’t think having a tiny amount of Native ancestry makes you an ‘American Indian’ any more than being able to trace your ancestors back to the Norman conquest makes you French, and I don’t think a smart person would make that mistake, no matter what their family said. If you don’t agree then...we’ll, I dunno what to tell you.
  #106  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:06 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This would be true of most politicians--but Bernie's main selling point is that he hasn't changed his tune since 1888.


This seems far and away the likeliest explanation to me. Sanders almost certainly tried to dissuade Warren from running, and she almost certainly tried to dissuade him from running, because not doing so would be stupid. Sanders probably talked about the attacks that would get leveled at Warren, just as she probably talked about the attacks that would get leveled at him.

I'm not impressed with how Warren has handled this, at all.
Assuming your "likeliest explanation" is what happened, I could see that. But, what if it isn't what happened? Which leads me to make what is undoubtedly the most important thing I've ever said here on the dope: if I had to bet, I would say Sanders did say it. If Warren made it up, it would reek of a desperation that I don't think she has to feel at this point, despite being behind Sanders in the polls. In any case, can we please get back to the truly important things leading up to the primaries: why the fuck does Steyer keep wearing that same dumb ass tie?
  #107  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:14 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I never said she had ‘other’ integrity problems. I said she had an integrity problem, and this is it.

Look, you’re happy to accept that Elizabeth Warren (who, for all her other faults, is certainly not stupid) got her own race wrong on a census form. I’m not. I don’t think having a tiny amount of Native ancestry makes you an ‘American Indian’ any more than being able to trace your ancestors back to the Norman conquest makes you French, and I don’t think a smart person would make that mistake, no matter what their family said. If you don’t agree then...we’ll, I dunno what to tell you.
I don't think you really care about that. You just don't agree with her policies. You, and the entire right, are just using that to smear her since you can't actually debate the policies. All the GOP has now is insults, smears, innuendo. Nothing substantive.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 01-16-2020 at 01:15 PM.
  #108  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:42 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,399
Interesting perspective from Nate Silver on the Warren campaign's decision to taking a shot at Bernie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Silver
Here are a few rather obvious truths about the Democratic primary:

1. Only one candidate can be nominated.
2. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of the more likely people to be nominated, have heavily overlapping bases of support.
3. But Warren narrowly trails Sanders in the national polls (both candidates trail Joe Biden) and Sanders is perceived as having momentum.
4. There are less than three weeks to go until Iowa.

What might you expect to happen under circumstances like these? Well, you’d probably expect the Warren campaign to become less risk-averse. If, for example, it had a damaging piece of opposition research on Sanders, now might be the ideal time to drop it. You’d disrupt the current, good-for-Sanders-and-not-so-great-for-you news cycle and shake things up a bit. But there would also be just enough time to pivot to a more positive message in the final week or so before Iowa.

...

This [going negative] is all pretty normal at this point in a presidential campaign — especially for a candidate in Warren’s situation. And there’s even some initial evidence that her strategy is working! Voters in our post-debate poll with Ipsos gave Warren the highest grade of any candidate for her debate performance — which mostly featured a positive, policy-oriented message along with a couple of chilly moments between her and Sanders. Meanwhile perceptions of Warren’s electability improved among voters in the poll after the debate, while Sanders’s favorability ratings worsened.

More nuanced analyses of the Sanders-Warren conflict suggest that maintaining a nonaggression pact would be mutually beneficial because otherwise Biden could run away with the nomination. But the word “mutually” is debatable. I’d argue nonaggression toward Warren is pretty clearly in the best interest of Sanders, who was in the stronger position than Warren heading into the debate and who would probably prefer to focus on Biden. But it’s probably not beneficial to Warren. Any scenario that doesn’t involve Warren winning Iowa will leave her in a fairly rough position — and winning Iowa means beating Sanders there.
Will this strategy work? It appears the immediate response was good for Warren. Long term? Time will tell. But the numbers that Nate show she has to finish ahead of Bernie in Iowa to have any sort of chance at the nomination. Taking the opportunity to ding him at this point, like Nate said, allows her to pivot back toward a positive message before Iowans caucus.

So while some individuals here may not like her decision to play the "woman card," or attack poor old Bernie, or go "low," or call herself "Native American," or whatever, the immediate Ipsos/538 poll after the debate rates this a net win for Warren. Again, whether that holds or shows up in any other polls, time will tell.
  #109  
Old 01-16-2020, 01:54 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 206
Last night on Fox, Tucker Carlson said CNN set this up to discredit Sanders because of his support for some cnn workers who had gone on strike.
__________________
He fell into the upholstery machine but hes fully recovered now.
  #110  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:13 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,828
I came in here thinking very poorly of Warren when I made this thread. I quite honestly don't think either of them are lying. One of them may be mistaken, (Warren).

I can't see Warren lying about this, but I can't see Bernie lying either.

Despite what people say about "Bernie Bros", If something were to happen to Bernie... Warren would STILL be my number 2.

I'm really sick of the "Bernie Bro" labeled, but whatever. What does it imply? That only men vote for Bernie? That women only vote for Bernie because of men? Do women, (especially progressive women), not have agency? I'm sick of the Bernie is sexist trope too.

He's an amazing man who has been nothing but consistent.

Warren is also awesome...

This is very unsettling.

Last edited by MyFootsZZZ; 01-16-2020 at 02:18 PM.
  #111  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:21 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Last night on Fox, Tucker Carlson said CNN set this up to discredit Sanders because of his support for some cnn workers who had gone on strike.
Good ol' Tucker. No conspiracy theory too far fetched that he won't spread it. Like a case of the clap.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #112  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ View Post
I came in here thinking very poorly of Warren when I made this thread. I quite honestly don't think either of them are lying. One of them may be mistaken, (Warren).

I can't see Warren lying about this, but I can't see Bernie lying either.

Despite what people say about "Bernie Bros", If something were to happen to Bernie... Warren would STILL be my number 2.

I'm really sick of the "Bernie Bro" labeled, but whatever. What does it imply? That only men vote for Bernie? That women only vote for Bernie because of men? Do women, (especially progressive women), not have agency? I'm sick of the Bernie is sexist trope too.

He's an amazing man who has been nothing but consistent.

Warren is also awesome...

This is very unsettling.
Don't let it unsettle you. It's okay if two good people have a disagreement -- sometimes they even let personal feelings get in the way. It doesn't mean that they're not decent people (or decent candidates). This isn't a big deal, even if one or both is letting ego and feelings affect them. They're only human. You can like both of them even when they have a little spat (or whatever this is).
  #113  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:24 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Don't let it unsettle you. It's okay if two good people have a disagreement -- sometimes they even let personal feelings get in the way. It doesn't mean that they're not decent people (or decent candidates). This isn't a big deal, even if one or both is letting ego and feelings affect them. They're only human. You can like both of them even when they have a little spat (or whatever this is).
Thanks. 🙂

Nice way of putting it. I'm worried about the issues as well. But whatever happens, happens.
  #114  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:25 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I don’t think having a tiny amount of Native ancestry makes you an ‘American Indian’ any more than being able to trace your ancestors back to the Norman conquest makes you French, and I don’t think a smart person would make that mistake, no matter what their family said.
You are ignoring the fact that there are a ton of people who have a tiny amount of Native ancestry and not only self identify as ‘American Indian’ but also are members of Native American tribes and recognized by the tribes as such (e.g. Tom Cole and Markwayne Mullin).

There's a lot of people like this across the country and there's a particularly high concentration of such people in Oklahoma. Growing up in Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren would have known many such people so the idea that she should have known that she should have known that she wasn't Native American by looking in the mirror is ridiculous because her own experience would have been that there are many Native Americans that don't look particularly Native American.

There's a lot of 'I don't think' in your post, but the real world doesn't give a shit what you think and it doesn't operate the way you think it should when it comes to who can and can not legitimately claim to be Native American. The fact that you don't think the world should work this way is your problem, not Elizabeth Warren's.

Warren ticked the 'American Indian' box on a form because she thought she had Native American ancestry necessary to legitimately do so. She thought this because she was told this repeatedly by family members her whole life. She later took a DNA test that verified that there was some truth to what her family members had told her.

There's not even a scintilla of dishonesty in Warren's actions here and there's a giant middle that you are excluding in your dishonest or stupid false dichotomy.
  #115  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,940
Is "Bernie Bro" an allusion to male supporters? I had no idea. I previously thought it was a generic hard core Sanders supporter. TIL.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #116  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:48 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You are ignoring the fact that there are a ton of people who have a tiny amount of Native ancestry and not only self identify as ‘American Indian’ but also are members of Native American tribes and recognized by the tribes as such (e.g. Tom Cole and Markwayne Mullin).

There's a lot of people like this across the country and there's a particularly high concentration of such people in Oklahoma. Growing up in Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren would have known many such people so the idea that she should have known that she should have known that she wasn't Native American by looking in the mirror is ridiculous because her own experience would have been that there are many Native Americans that don't look particularly Native American.

There's a lot of 'I don't think' in your post, but the real world doesn't give a shit what you think and it doesn't operate the way you think it should when it comes to who can and can not legitimately claim to be Native American. The fact that you don't think the world should work this way is your problem, not Elizabeth Warren's.

Warren ticked the 'American Indian' box on a form because she thought she had Native American ancestry necessary to legitimately do so. She thought this because she was told this repeatedly by family members her whole life. She later took a DNA test that verified that there was some truth to what her family members had told her.

There's not even a scintilla of dishonesty in Warren's actions here and there's a giant middle that you are excluding in your dishonest or stupid false dichotomy.
I think this is well stated. There is no great reason to assume negative motives. People are so weird when it comes to their ancestry. Some could care less and others are obsessive about it. With the emergence of an OTC genetic test kit, people are more and more interested in their ancestry and I imagine the self identification with whatever they find in their genetic results report will drive a lot of these personal decisions.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #117  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:53 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
nm

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 01-16-2020 at 02:56 PM.
  #118  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:57 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Is "Bernie Bro" an allusion to male supporters? I had no idea. I previously thought it was a generic hard core Sanders supporter. TIL.
It use to be the first description. People claim that men were voting for Bernie and women were voting for Bernie because of men. I'm not lying about that.

Now it's kind of turned into an all-encompassing name, I think. 😕

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro

Last edited by MyFootsZZZ; 01-16-2020 at 03:02 PM.
  #119  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:06 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,828
Maybe they exist but most are not.
  #120  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:18 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,584
If there was ever a grain of truth to that characterizaation, there certainly isn't now. Recent polls have shown that 58% of women have positive views of Sanders, and that his supporters are more likely to be female than supporters of any other candidate.
  #121  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:20 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think this is well stated. There is no great reason to assume negative motives. People are so weird when it comes to their ancestry. Some could care less and others are obsessive about it.
Quite so. Heinlein wrote of an iguana that bragged his great-grandfather was a T.Rex.

My MIL delved deeply, almost obsessively into her heritage (mostly Anglo-Nordic) and found definite links to Mayflower passengers and Gen. Abner Doubleday, who did not invent baseball. I ran a brief ancestry scan. Besides expected Anglo-Scot Quakers, and Cherokees the family did not speak of, I'm nth-cousin to music stars, Western outlaws, and US senators. Some self-destructed; some were hanged; family didn't talk about them, either. But if I'd been told of Mohawk heritage, I'd have believed. Why not?

Quote:
With the emergence of an OTC genetic test kit, people are more and more interested in their ancestry and I imagine the self identification with whatever they find in their genetic results report will drive a lot of these personal decisions.
Various kits and labs return varied results. Did I desire to prove Native American ancestry, I'd look for a kit or lab with a rumored bias in that direction. That still would not entitle me to tribal membership. And my wife likely won't let me marry into a local Miwuk family for a share of casino proceeds.
  #122  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:35 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
Lance, you keep saying that there are a ton of people who are as white as Warren who self-identify as Native American without any problems. Tell me, how many of those people have had to apologise to Native Americans for falsely claiming to be one?

You say the real world doesn’t give a shit what I think, but it seems actual Native Americans don’t give a shit what you think. Evidently, they have no more time for Warren’s bullshit than I do. And how do you square your claims of Warren’s unimpeachable sincerity with the fact that she submitted a plagiarised “family recipe” to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook? We know she lied about that. She stole it from the New York Times!

If you want to persist in giving her the benefit of the doubt then there’s nothing I can do about it. But for you to insist it’s unreasonable to say she lied about her heritage despite the plagiarism, despite the literal cultural appropriation apology tour, despite the DNA test results, and despite the fact that this “family lore” that we’re all supposed to take as fucking gospel was built on racist nonsense like “My Pawpaw had high cheekbones like all the Indians do” is completely absurd.

P.S. - Airbeck, I’m not right wing. Politically, I’m closer to Bernie than Warren.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 01-16-2020 at 03:39 PM.
  #123  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:42 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
So circular firing squad it is? Christ how can people not see an *exact* repeat of 2016 happening. Same damn thing. Why don't you get as worked up about what is happening to our country right now as you do about this? Is this more important to you than the supreme court? Than free and open elections? Than continuing to have any allies whatsoever around the world? Why do some people lose all perspective during primary season?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 01-16-2020 at 03:42 PM.
  #124  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
. She later took a DNA test that verified that there was some truth to what her family members had told her.
You've said this a couple times and I think I should loint out that it's not really true. The amount found makes it a dubious claim in the first place but also,most DNA databanks have almost no NA Indian DNA for comparison and so use South American native DNA to approximate.
  #125  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:10 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So circular firing squad it is? Christ how can people not see an *exact* repeat of 2016 happening. Same damn thing. Why don't you get as worked up about what is happening to our country right now as you do about this? Is this more important to you than the supreme court? Than free and open elections? Than continuing to have any allies whatsoever around the world? Why do some people lose all perspective during primary season?
Ironically, it may turn out to be that Bernie was right.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #126  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:01 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You've said this a couple times and I think I should loint out that it's not really true. The amount found makes it a dubious claim in the first place but also,most DNA databanks have almost no NA Indian DNA for comparison and so use South American native DNA to approximate.
I'm just going by the information provided in post #36 by Unreconstructed Man... "According to her own DNA test, her closest NA relative was between 6 and 10 generations away."

If his claim is inaccurate, take it up with him.
  #127  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
You keep repeating it. It's not true. You do what you like with that info.
  #128  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:07 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Lance, you keep saying that there are a ton of people who are as white as Warren who self-identify as Native American without any problems. Tell me, how many of those people have had to apologise to Native Americans for falsely claiming to be one?
She didn't apologize for falsely claiming to be a Native American. Once again your own cite is the proof that you are wrong. Read the words of her apology. There is nothing on there to indicate that she did not honestly believe that she had Native American ancestry.
  #129  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:11 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You keep repeating it. It's not true. You do what you like with that info.
I haven't repeated it since you brought it up, but I'm not sure I believe you. It is my understanding, that is supported by other posters in this thread, that her DNA test showed some distant Native American ancestors. If you have a cite showing that that is incorrect, I'll be happy to read it.
  #130  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:16 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So circular firing squad it is? Christ how can people not see an *exact* repeat of 2016 happening. Same damn thing. Why don't you get as worked up about what is happening to our country right now as you do about this? Is this more important to you than the supreme court? Than free and open elections? Than continuing to have any allies whatsoever around the world? Why do some people lose all perspective during primary season?
You think that the narcissists that want power actually care about you and your desires? They want power. Much of the nonsense they say is like religious leaders preaching stuff they don't believe for power.
  #131  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
I think if Bernie went the "Pocahontas" route it would hurt him among Dem primary voters.
I don't mean actually calling her Pocahontas; I mean pointing out the fact that she exaggerated her ancestral history a bit.

And while I personally don't think it's a bad thing that she reversed course on Medicare-for-All, the fact is that she did go all in on a Bernie-care like program and then later pulled back, which is also when she took her dip in the polls.

Don't tell me for a moment that Warren didn't know the mic was hot -- she absolutely knew they were on a recorded mic and that she was going to use that to look tough in front of the cameras. Her whole closing statement seemed to be an "I am woman" moment, and then she went right off into Bernie's direction.

In short, Warren tried a political stunt. Whether it's a effective or not in terms of hurting Sanders, I don't know, but I don't see how this really improves her image or that of the Democratic party when the general election rolls around.
  #132  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Interesting perspective from Nate Silver on the Warren campaign's decision to taking a shot at Bernie.



Will this strategy work? It appears the immediate response was good for Warren. Long term? Time will tell. But the numbers that Nate show she has to finish ahead of Bernie in Iowa to have any sort of chance at the nomination. Taking the opportunity to ding him at this point, like Nate said, allows her to pivot back toward a positive message before Iowans caucus.

So while some individuals here may not like her decision to play the "woman card," or attack poor old Bernie, or go "low," or call herself "Native American," or whatever, the immediate Ipsos/538 poll after the debate rates this a net win for Warren. Again, whether that holds or shows up in any other polls, time will tell.
That pretty much reaffirms what I said in an earlier post: a non-aggression pact is a silly idea, and it's silly because it's never going to last throughout the duration of the race. Even the sharpest, savviest politicians know that they might have 1 or 2 chances of being president -- nobody who's close enough to taste the nomination but behind in the polls is going to let a little gentleman's (gentlewoman's) agreement get in the way of potentially winning the nomination.

Warren knows that time is running out and she wanted to deliver her own Kamala Harris moment. It's entirely possible that Sanders might have made a remark to the effect that this might not be the best year for a female candidate, but if he said something to that extent, then it's understood that this was a private remark and Warren is being the under-handed one here, and she's using her vagina to do it.

A lot of Sanders' activists can be whiny babies, but this is one of the few times I'm with Bernie.
  #133  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So circular firing squad it is? Christ how can people not see an *exact* repeat of 2016 happening. Same damn thing. Why don't you get as worked up about what is happening to our country right now as you do about this? Is this more important to you than the supreme court? Than free and open elections? Than continuing to have any allies whatsoever around the world? Why do some people lose all perspective during primary season?
It's the progressive wing of the party that's fighting with each other for the heart and soul of that wing. It was bound to be a circular firing squad, but in this particular case, Warren's decision to slash Sanders may be just what Joe Biden needed to separate himself from the rest of the field. Buttigieg also stands to benefit from this as well. Both Biden and Buttigieg are showing resiliency, and they are both looking like they are above the fray. Sanders was wise not to engage with Warren, but he may still end up losing votes anyway.
  #134  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:54 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
That pretty much reaffirms what I said in an earlier post: a non-aggression pact is a silly idea, and it's silly because it's never going to last throughout the duration of the race. Even the sharpest, savviest politicians know that they might have 1 or 2 chances of being president -- nobody who's close enough to taste the nomination but behind in the polls is going to let a little gentleman's (gentlewoman's) agreement get in the way of potentially winning the nomination.
In addition, with Trump being as disliked and vulnerable an incumbent as he is, the Democratic competition is going to be particularly cutthroat. Not only is it the presidency at stake, you (the nominee) gets to be the one who goes down in history as the one who took down Trump.


Add to that the additional boost for Warren that she'd go down as the first woman president in history, and she has absolutely no reason not go all knives-out from here on out.
  #135  
Old 01-16-2020, 06:14 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
In addition, with Trump being as disliked and vulnerable an incumbent as he is, the Democratic competition is going to be particularly cutthroat. Not only is it the presidency at stake, you (the nominee) gets to be the one who goes down in history as the one who took down Trump.


Add to that the additional boost for Warren that she'd go down as the first woman president in history, and she has absolutely no reason not go all knives-out from here on out.
I'd hate to be the president following Trump, what a mess he's left.

But I see what you are saying.

Some are talking about Warren angling to be V.P. if Biden wins. Sounds like a conspiracy theorie.
  #136  
Old 01-16-2020, 06:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I haven't repeated it since you brought it up, but I'm not sure I believe you. It is my understanding, that is supported by other posters in this thread, that her DNA test showed some distant Native American ancestors. If you have a cite showing that that is incorrect, I'll be happy to read it.
Two Native American geneticists interpret Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test
Quote:
Because Bustamante used Indigenous individuals from Central and South America as a reference group to compare Warren’s DNA, we believe he should have stated only that Warren potentially had an “Indigenous” ancestor 6-10 generations ago, not conclusively a “Native American” one. The distinction might seem hypercritical to most, but to the sovereign tribal nations of the United States it’s an important one.
And the fact that if it was 10 generations back she would be 1/1024th Native American, which is fairly laughable.
  #137  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:19 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Thanks for the cite.

It doesn't say what you claimed it said.

You said, "You've said this a couple times and I think I should loint out that it's not really true."

But your cite only goes as far as saying that it's possible that it's not true.

i.e. The person who did her DNA test said, "EW had a Native American ancestor." While your cite says he should have said, "It is possible that EW had a Native American ancestor." That's a pretty far cry from saying, "EW did not have a Native American ancestor," which is what you implied.
  #138  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:28 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't mean actually calling her Pocahontas; I mean pointing out the fact that she exaggerated her ancestral history a bit.
If any Dem brings up the Native American thing, it's going to hurt them among Dem primary voters because Trump has already hitched his wagon to that line of attack. Even if Trump is doing all the name calling and someone like Sanders keeps it civil, people are just going to connect the two lines of attack. The one thing Democrats can agree on is that they don't want any similarities with Trump.

The Native American scandal thing is a swiftboat level fluff attack anyway. It plays well with voters who don't care about policy at all. Some of those work in primaries, but the most likely scenario is it hurts the person bringing it up as much or more as the person it's directed against.

As for the rest, yes this is obviously contrived from Warren and the hot mic doesn't feel spontaneous at all. The most charitable explanation would be that what she said is true, she legitimately wanted to keep it private, but someone else happened to leak it right now and she felt like she had no choice but to tell the truth, although even that doesn't explain the hot mic. It could still be true, but holding it until now and then releasing it doesn't make sense unless she thought she could use to boost her with left-wing voters.

I don't know if Sanders is every going to hit Warren on M4A. It has been an issue that's been killing primary candidates, but I think Sanders is coming from a place of not having a ton of allies on healthcare and realizing that if he calls Warren a liar over it, it paints M4A supporters generally as liars, and I think he also realizes if he becomes President that he's going to have to push for the public option and will put himself in the same conundrum.
  #139  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Thanks for the cite.

It doesn't say what you claimed it said.

You said, "You've said this a couple times and I think I should loint out that it's not really true."

But your cite only goes as far as saying that it's possible that it's not true.

i.e. The person who did her DNA test said, "EW had a Native American ancestor." While your cite says he should have said, "It is possible that EW had a Native American ancestor." That's a pretty far cry from saying, "EW did not have a Native American ancestor," which is what you implied.
Exactly. The test did not prove she had a Native American ancestor.
  #140  
Old 01-16-2020, 08:52 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Hugely delayed double post deleted.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 01-16-2020 at 08:53 PM.
  #141  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:25 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Exactly. The test did not prove she had a Native American ancestor.
The test results stated that she had a Native American ancestor.

Some other people said that those test results were stated overconfidently. Even if this is true, and it may well be, that doesn't indicate that Elizabeth Warren was dishonest.

Speaking of stating things overconfidently...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You've said this a couple times and I think I should loint out that it's not really true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's not true.
Those are miles away from what your cite actually said. Tsosie and Anderson do not say anything that supports your interpretation.
  #142  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:06 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The test results stated that she had a Native American ancestor.

Some other people said that those test results were stated overconfidently. Even if this is true, and it may well be, that doesn't indicate that Elizabeth Warren was dishonest.
I don't think she was being dishonest. However, the issue with the DNA test is that the Cherokee Nation does not recognize it. It's not theirs, they didn't contribute samples for the sake of accuracy and they have their own system for determining who is and is not a Cherokee. If one is not feeling particularly charitable you can characterize Warren's use of a DNA test to prove her heritage as a lie but I think it is more along the lines that she spoke too soon. If she really wants to know about her heritage she needs to sit down with the Cherokee Nation and see what they have to say about it. But if she shows up waving her DNA test around like it means something and says "hey guys, I'm home!" the response is going to be "there's a crazy white lady outside and she must have hit her head or something because she thinks she's one of us."

In any case, the only reason why any of this gets talked about is because Donald Trump is a racist bully who likes to call people racist names inasmuch as he can get away with it. I wish that was the focus rather than a petty squabble between Warren and Sanders.
  #143  
Old 01-17-2020, 06:33 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
I don't think she was being dishonest. However, the issue with the DNA test is that the Cherokee Nation does not recognize it. It's not theirs, they didn't contribute samples for the sake of accuracy and they have their own system for determining who is and is not a Cherokee. If one is not feeling particularly charitable you can characterize Warren's use of a DNA test to prove her heritage as a lie but I think it is more along the lines that she spoke too soon. If she really wants to know about her heritage she needs to sit down with the Cherokee Nation and see what they have to say about it.
Your argument here relies on a claim that Warren has said she was a member of the Cherokee Nation.

I've seen no evidence to support that claim. Do you have some?

(my emphasis in quote)
  #144  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:34 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
A reminder: What family lore says, and what genetic tests say, may not match for many reasons, possibly religious, social, political, whatever. My family lore excludes many names that genealogical sources confirm, but I don't feel like dropping those names. I've not voluntarily submitted DNA anywhere so I have no idea of, nor desire to know, my alleged bio-heritage. Quakers, Cherokees, Honkies, Crackers - they're all back there somewhere, with no stake in my here-and-now. Go back enough generations and we're all cousins. And kissing cousins, yum-yum!
  #145  
Old 01-18-2020, 07:29 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
That’s a terribly stupid thing to post. Having NA ancestry in the distant upper branches of your family tree doesn’t make you an ‘American Indian’.
It often does, depending on tribe. My blood quantum is either 1/16th or 1/32nd Cherokee, but I have ancestors on the Dawes Rolls, so I'm a citizen of Cherokee Nation. This is true of many of my fellow elder Oklahomans.
  #146  
Old Yesterday, 03:51 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
It often does, depending on tribe. My blood quantum is either 1/16th or 1/32nd Cherokee, but I have ancestors on the Dawes Rolls, so I'm a citizen of Cherokee Nation. This is true of many of my fellow elder Oklahomans.
My great-grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee, as well. Or so the family lore goes. I've been told that she's listed in the Rolls, too. I've never looked for myself, and, at this point (with that entire side of the family having died off - Mom, her mother, and her grandmother), I'm not even sure of what name she would have used, or how to spell it, so I've never actually made a serious attempt to research it.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017