Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[JoeMorgue]

Do you have a magical source of information about US politics that has zero bias?.

Since you've declared the entire world split into two groups how world "non-bias" even work in your world?

You need some concept of neutrality for non-bias to work as a concept. You can't do that when the only sides you recognize are "Enthusiastically agrees with me 100% about everything down to the tiniest detail with the same motivation, same priorities, same language used, and same results wanted" and "The enemy."

Why do we even have people? Would could Thanos snap away everybody but one Democrat and one Republican and by your logic nothing would change.

 

[Belz...]

Do you have a magical source of information about US politics that has zero bias?

I don't think this is going where you want it to go.

If you do, please share! Otherwise, it's downright ridiculous to repeat incorrect claims made by a single group while claiming not to have been influenced by that group.

No, it really isn't, especially since this isn't a complex opinion. It's one that someone could correctly or incorrectly hold simply as a response to being exposed to neutral data. That you can't see that is very interesting.

You're also completely ignoring, deliberately at this point, the main argument. In fact, you are contorting yourself pretty pathetically in order to maintain your us-vs-them mentality. No one can possibly disagree with you and not be on the other "side".

 

[wareyin]

No, that isn't what I say. You can't believe that "She's not Cherokee" is an opinion that only someone on the right or someone influenced by the right could possibly hold.

Of course not. As I understand it, Warren herself states she is not a member of the Cherokee. This doesn't really help your claim that without the dishonest claims by the Republicans, a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that Warren's DNA evidence of NA Ancestor means she is wrong about having a Cherokee ancestor.

 

[wareyin]

Since you've declared the entire world split into two groups how world "non-bias" even work in your world?

You need some concept of neutrality for non-bias to work as a concept. You can't do that when the only sides you recognize are "Enthusiastically agrees with me 100% about everything down to the tiniest detail with the same motivation, same priorities, same language used, and same results wanted" and "The enemy."

Why do we even have people? Would could Thanos snap away everybody but one Democrat and one Republican and by your logic nothing would change.

Your strawman about agreement aside, are you capable of recognizing that information can be untrue? And that sometimes, such as in this case, one particular group is the only source of that false information? If you are still following, how could a reasonable person learn the false information if they did not hear or read it?

 

[The Big Dog]

You could make RACIST red. That would be even more convincing. Also it seems like you're slacking off because you omitted disgusting and the other adjectives that you bandy about so frequently.

How do we know that you have not read the articles from Native Americans that I have posted? Because I am quoting the adjectives that they use that you wrongly accuse me of "bandying about." It is cool, tho, it is likely unreasonable for us to expect you to read the actual articles quoted and linked.

 

[lobosrul5]

Warren: I am Native American
Trump: LOL! Take a DNA test
Warren: *takes junk science test and publishes a slickly produced pre-campaign ad
Native American leaders and activists: Warren and her supporters are RACIST

Curious: are there any relevant DNA tests that she could take that would satisfy you as not "junk science"?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

A reasonable person would conclude that Fauxcahontas spent decades pulling the Indian wool over the eyes of everyone she ran into, and just like with Teddy, Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, most Democrats could care less, even as fake news goes wobbly on them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your strawman about agreement aside, are you capable of recognizing that information can be untrue? And that sometimes, such as in this case, one particular group is the only source of that false information? If you are still following, how could a reasonable person learn the false information if they did not hear or read it?

Do me a favor.

Sum up what you think my opinion is. Humor me.

 

[carlitos]

A reasonable person would conclude that Fauxcahontas spent decades pulling the Indian wool over the eyes of everyone she ran into, and just like with Teddy, Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, most Democrats could care less, even as fake news goes wobbly on them.

Teddy Roosevelt?

ETA - I have mentioned this to others, but if you are going to use silly nicknames, you run the risk of people not knowing who you are talking about.

 

[Belz...]

Of course not. As I understand it, Warren herself states she is not a member of the Cherokee.

Huh, who's playing Calvinball now? You know that we're not talking about tribal membership but ancestry. In fact this was made very clear earlier in the discussion.

This doesn't really help your claim that without the dishonest claims by the Republicans, a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that Warren's DNA evidence of NA Ancestor means she is wrong about having a Cherokee ancestor.

How about you answer the actual point I made: Do you think it's possible for someone to hold the same opinion as someone else without having been influenced by that other person?

 

[wareyin]

I don't think this is going where you want it to go.



No, it really isn't, especially since this isn't a complex opinion. It's one that someone could correctly or incorrectly hold simply as a response to being exposed to neutral data. That you can't see that is very interesting.

You're also completely ignoring, deliberately at this point, the main argument. In fact, you are contorting yourself pretty pathetically in order to maintain your us-vs-them mentality. No one can possibly disagree with you and not be on the other "side".

I find it fascinating that some people are simply incapable of looking at a political situation and recognizing concerted efforts by one political party as coming from that "side".

The naivety to repeat talking points put out by one side uncritically, while claiming no influence by the very group putting out those talking points is something to behold. Reminds me of James Randi talking about how easy it was for magicians to fool scientists.

 

[The Big Dog]

Curious: are there any relevant DNA tests that she could take that would satisfy you as not "junk science"?

Not that would allow anyone to conclude that a person was a member of the Cherokee Nation, or any NA tribe in the USA

 

[Dr. Keith]

A reasonable person would conclude that Fauxcahontas spent decades pulling the Indian wool over the eyes of everyone she ran into, and just like with Teddy, Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, most Democrats could care less, even as fake news goes wobbly on them.

And yet we are left with so little actual evidence of this. Cookbook, mentioning it after being hired and tenured, telling family stories. Surely she played this to some actual advantage at some point in her career. She is a cagey liberal to have hidden the evidence of all the cool stuff she got by beating that Cherokee drum her whole life.

 

[wareyin]

Do me a favor.

Sum up what you think my opinion is. Humor me.

Sure! Harrumph, political parties are bad! All of em! And Warren shouldn't have done that stuff the Republicans accused her of! Bah humbug!

How'd I do?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Teddy Roosevelt?

ETA - I have mentioned this to others, but if you are going to use silly nicknames, you run the risk of people not knowing who you are talking about.

You know I'm talking about Teddy and Mary Jo. Why pretend otherwise?

 

[Belz...]

I find it fascinating that some people are simply incapable of looking at a political situation and recognizing concerted efforts by one political party as coming from that "side".

No one's ignoring the political landscape. We're simply telling you that it's not the simplistic, black-and-white situation you insist exists.

The naivety to repeat talking points put out by one side uncritically

It's not a talking point, Wareyin. People can come to their own conclusions and happen to agree with your opponents without being in league with them or being influenced by them. Your refusal to admit or even consider this just marks you as an ideologue, not a rational thinker.

 

[Marcus]

They aren't going to get it. Their brains have just literally been rewired.

There are only two sides. Even if you aren't on a side, your opinions have to be. Any "neutral" is lying and really a puppet of "the others."

This seems to be the rule on political threads.

 

[varwoche]

Do me a favor.

Sum up what you think my opinion is. Humor me.

I hope s/he doesn't. This doesn't sound like it's headed anywhere productive.

More to the point, like the carpenter who only owns a hammer, the way you post your middle ground high horse routine in seemingly every thread is way past expiration date. You did made some good points the first several hundred times though.

 

[wareyin]

Huh, who's playing Calvinball now? You know that we're not talking about tribal membership but ancestry. In fact this was made very clear earlier in the discussion.

Hmm, sloppy language messed us up before, and it appears to be doing so again. I don't read "Warren is Cherokee" as "Warren has a Cherokee ancestor".

How about you answer the actual point I made: Do you think it's possible for someone to hold the same opinion as someone else without having been influenced by that other person?

Depends. Was it something that your first person would never have heard about without your second person? As a real world example, there's a politician in the news because her political opponent made a claim about her. Were it not for the opponent making a claim, there would be no opinion to hold. Holding the same opinion as the opponent who made it, therefore would be impossible had that opponent not made the claim.

 

[lobosrul5]

Not that would allow anyone to conclude that a person was a member of the Cherokee Nation, or any NA tribe in the USA

But it was Herr Trump who suggested a DNA test in the first place. And of course no where did he mention testing for a specific tribe. So you are, in essence, angry at Warren for simply doing as the president requested.

ETA: now if you want to argue whether actually doing something the president goes on about in his pep-rally's is probably a really bad idea, then I'd agree.