I drive past Jackson’s grave twice a day or more. Would they like me to flip him the bird for them?
Well, it’s either “proto-baseball” or “random cruelty” depending on the vital status of the possum.
Yes, would you please? Post a picture if you can, too. Thanks.
Efforts in English transliteration are difficult, as pronunciation is, at best, uncerain. Just like “snotty pedantry” is not precisely the same as “fighting ignorance.”
However, Iyéčhiŋkiŋyaŋka čha kiŋyáŋ mitȟáwa kiŋ hoká ožúla does translate directly as “My hovercraft is full of eels”.
Well, that’s where we disagree then.
I think if her mom or someone told her that, and she has no reason to distrust them, it is fair to claim that heritage. My parents said we once lived in Alaska. I have no pictures or memories of it, but I would answer yes if someone asked if I’ve ever been there.
I think its best that her opponents chalk it up to their mistake in bringing it up and move on. And no, I don’t think she needs to defend her ancestry, not alleged ancestry. She is what is says and we should just accept that. I know she would agree with that point
Also, you need to account for Harvard’s standards. If they didn’t ask her for evidence, just whether she had Indian ancestors, then she was ok going on her vague memories of what her family told her. If Harvard had asked for a high standard of evidence, and she had faked it or even claimed it existed when it didn’t, then you might have a case against her. As it stands, the only basis for your case against her is your political animosity, which doesn’t count for much.
[quote=“YogSosoth, post:145, topic:653838”]
Well, that’s where we disagree then.
[quote]
Ok.
Well, I do agree with the first sentence. At best, it’s not relevant, and at worst, it makes them look petty.
If Warren’s ancestral claim is the only objection one has, I can’t imagine one not wanting her to be president, because it’s a rather trivial matter.
Personally, were I a voter in a venue where Warren was running for office, I’d gladly vote for her. I figure, though, by the time she amasses enough political support for a serious presidential bid, she’ll be too old to try for it. Let’s see if she can give a really kick-ass speech at the Dem convention in 2016 and, if the nominee goes on to lose, 2020 maybe her only reasonable shot, and a long one at that.
Maybe she can do more good serving two or three terms on the Banking Committee.
I think anyone for whom this is an issue wouldn’t be voting for her in any case.
It’s not a concern now, IMO, although it is something she’ll constantly be made fun of over, much like “I didn’t inhale” and barfing on the JApanese Prime Minister. She beclowned herself in a way that made progressive racial beancounting look absurd. But no, it doesn’t speak to her ability to govern or even really her basic integrity.
The real problem with Liz Warren is simply that she has no experience. Let her govern Massachusetts before we start talking about putting her in the White House. I don’t understand why we keep on getting excited over 1st term Senators when you’ve got a dozen good Democratic governors out there, plus Clinton and Biden.
Besides, she’d have to cut hard right to win a general election. Massachusetts politicians simply can’t win the Presidency. Everyone who runs out of there has to pretend to be more conservative and for some reason none of them know how to fake sincerity while doing it.
Uh, you do know your political acumen has taken a sharp hit since early November, don’t you? Or have you forgotten assuring us of various things that, uh, failed to come to pass?
Fair enough, but is there anything specifically wrong that you think I said? Massachusetts politicians are 0 for 3 competing for the Presidency since Kennedy(0 for a lot more if you count failed primary candidates like Tsongas and Ed Kennedy). So while my skills at predicting the future may suck, analyzing the past I’m not so bad at.
Also, Senators tend to do crappy too. Obama had unique qualities that helped him overcome that. Liz Warren is more Barbara Boxer than Barack Obama. Her appeal does not extend beyond the liberal base.
Well, I’m currently estimating Elizabeth Warren’s odd’s on getting the Dem. nomination in 2016 as around 100-to-1, so I don’t disagree with you on that. But I think you’re being a bit disingenuous in attributing it to being from Massachusetts. Every state has a poor record, especially if you get to dictate time-parameters. Other than Arkansas, Texas, and Illinois, do you realize that every single state has been completely shut out since the mid-1980s in seeking the presidency? Amazing, huh, that those three states have so dominated our culture, for the past three decades.
And just for the record, it isn’t your assertions that I hold against you–anyone can make an error, and I’ve made my share. But it’s the confidence you expressed in those assertions that make me devalue your pronouncements. When you say “X is so,” I will tend to think immediately, “Hmm, I need to examine X more carefully. It may be falser than I think.”
Many states haven’t produced candidates, but there’s no reason to expect that those candidates would be unelectable. Massachusetts actually has gotten candidates to the big race and lost, badly. And all three had the exact same problem: Flip. Flop. And why do Massachusetts candidates get tarred with that label? Because Massachusetts is a) much more liberal than the country as a whole, and b) candidates tend to be patrician-types that fail to connect with voters.
Elizabeth Warren is a) much more liberal than the country as a whole and is b) an academic.
I’m not saying no one from Massaschusetts can ever get elected, but it would have to be someone who wins statewide office while running well to the right of their state party and wasn’t a 1 percenter. As of right now, I can think of no one who fits that description.
As I keep saying, I don’t think much of her electoral prospects. But I disagree with your reasoning.
Maybe there’s a perfectly good reason that North Dakota or Alabama haven’t produced a hell of a lot of presidential contenders these past few centuries, don’t you think? Maybe that reason is that the states tend to take even more extreme positions on national issues than Massachusetts does. Plus they tend not to be crucial in terms of electoral votes or being swing states, so pols from there (and around 25 other states) tend to self-assess as “No way I’m a good candidate for national office.” Your counting them as “You don’t know, very few candidates have even tried” strikes me, again, as self-serving and disingenuous. I do know why so few have tried–they’d get wiped.
And on my other theme, your position makes me think “Hmmm, maybe Elizabeth Warren is a more viable candidate for national office than I’d thought. **adaher **says no, and he seems very confident in his bold assertions, and we all understand what THAT means.”
Hey, I earned that, but it’s one election cycle. I would have looked pretty good in 2010. How about you?
And do you really think a dyed in the wool liberal can be elected President? When was the last time that happened? Has it ever happened?
You didn’t hear that we actually elected a socialist president? Twice! It was all over the news.
I think he’s an extreme liberal, but his campaign rhetoric wouldn’t tell you that. He talks like an Eisenhower Republican.
Oh, and do you remember what my precise argument about the polling was? I said that either the polls were wrong or they were predicting incredible minority turnout, record breaking minority turnout in fact. Yet the media at the time was not reporting that. And when conservative commentators actually asked pollsters if they really thought the electorate would look like that, none were willing to make that prediction.
So the polls were right, there was recordbreaking minority turnout, and it was reported as such after the fact. But before, the media was pretty unwilling to go out on a limb about that. I was wondering at the time why such huge news wouldn’t be reported. Such a massive change in the electorate is a big deal!