Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
I'm not at all characterizing her claims of Native American ancestry as a lie. She did, I think, exaggerate by calling herself a Native American. I'd much rather she hadn't done that.

But no, that choice does not make her unfit for elected office.

I say that as one who is not at all thrilled by Warren. She does some things I like, but she's politically far left of me. If it came down to Trump and Warren, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. Other races would require some deliberation.
Click to expand...

And "lie" isn't exactly how I would describe it either.

More so I just have a vague desire to, with 320 million people in America, find someone we don't have to... make excuse for is probably is the closest I can get to wording how I feel. I just want to stop grading politicians on a curve if that makes any sense.

You'd think with 320 million of us we can find one person, just one we could be enthusiastic about without any major "Buts....."
 
Last edited:
Does anyone believe, even absent this whole ancestry contretemps, that Warren would be the Democratic candidate for the presidency? I don't see that as ever having been likely because of her hostility to the interests of the banking and finance industry. Mainstream Democrats, the actual party machinery ones, always quietly accede to the wishes of Mammon. Also I don't see the Democrats running a woman again, in case it really was sexism that cost them last time. It'll be a white man this time, to cut down on the variables.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And "lie" isn't exactly how I would describe it either.

More so I just have a vague desire to, with 320 million people in America, find someone we don't have to... make excuse for is probably is the closest I can get to worded how I feel.

You'd think with 320 million of us we can find one person, just one we could be enthusiastic about without any major "Buts....."
Click to expand...

Was easier, back in the days when not quite every event in a pol's life was scrutinized quite so closely as now.

Abe Lincoln suffered from severe bouts of depression, but the voters certainly had no clue. JFK was nowhere near as healthy as he portrayed himself and folks were largely ignorant of FDR's disability due to polio. These matters would be grist for public consumption these days, of course. (Not that a disability due to polio is the same as stretching the truth about one's ancestors, morally speaking).
 
Drewbot said:
It's one thing to tell stories about hearing about someone in your family being Native American. I have no problem with that.

I only have a problem with the mental leap she must have made to check off a box on a form that said she was an aggrieved minority, in a recruitment guide.

She claims she did it to meet people of like backgrounds, however, the recruitment guide didn't list "Native American" next to her name. It simply said 'minority' at the top of the Appendix.

Harvard claims they didn't hire her because she was a minority, but after she was hired touted her as a Native American faculty. If the recruitment guide didn't list her as Native American, and she didn't tell anyone at Harvard she was Native American, then how did Harvard know to list her as a Native American faculty member?
Click to expand...

I can agree with this, it was dumb to check that box and allow Harvard to use her to tout diversity -HOWEVER: Does any of that really matter at all when evaluating her public service? I say it absolutely does not. You might argue that it says something bad about her character. Maybe it does. The question is, is this a disqualifying character issue? Not for me.
 
I can't believe that "Pinche Gringo" got published in National Review past the auto-censor. That's going to be my new custom title if they will let me.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And "lie" isn't exactly how I would describe it either.

More so I just have a vague desire to, with 320 million people in America, find someone we don't have to... make excuse for is probably is the closest I can get to worded how I feel. I just want to stop grading politicians on a curve if that makes any sense.

You'd think with 320 million of us we can find one person, just one we could be enthusiastic about without any major "Buts....."
Click to expand...

It's a sample selection problem: decent people don't want to hold office. The truly good fear making a mess of things, and the truly wise know that the pains of power outweigh the pleasures. So the population who run for political office skew towards the foolish, insane, and evil. Or the idealist burning with a zeal to fix everything, which is a special kind of foolish.
 
fascinating. As soon as warren gets scorched by the native American community for her stupid

SIX MINUTE LONG PRE-CAMPAIGN VIDEO STUNT

the apologists have got their latest talking points, which are "no big deal," "irrelevant" this thread is "ridiculous."

That might have been correct before Warren went full stupid and released the

SIX MINUTE LONG PRE-CAMPAIGN VIDEO STUNT

and tried to tweak Trump on twitter.

protip: the only worthwhile response for Warren aficionados is:

"Warren should not have fallen for Trump's needling, hopefully she will learn something, apologize to the NA community and put this in the rear view mirror."

Did the dems learn nothing from 2016?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
It's a sample selection problem: decent people don't want to hold office. The truly good fear making a mess of things, and the truly wise know that the pains of power outweigh the pleasures. So the population who run for political office skew towards the foolish, insane, and evil. Or the idealist burning with a zeal to fix everything, which is a special kind of foolish.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm convinced. Let's bring back monarchy.
 
phiwum said:
Was easier, back in the days when not quite every event in a pol's life was scrutinized quite so closely as now.

Abe Lincoln suffered from severe bouts of depression, but the voters certainly had no clue. JFK was nowhere near as healthy as he portrayed himself and folks were largely ignorant of FDR's disability due to polio. These matters would be grist for public consumption these days, of course. (Not that a disability due to polio is the same as stretching the truth about one's ancestors, morally speaking).
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the Petticoat Affair? We tend to forget the scandals of the past, but I assure you our ancestors were no better than we are. What they lacked in technological convenience of communication they made up for in spiteful imagination. At least our scandals are based on things people said or did, back then they just invented what they didn't have knowledge of.
 
The Big Dog said:
fasconating.
Click to expand...



As soon as warren gets scorched by the native American community for her stupid

SIX MINUTE LONG PRE-CAMPAIGN VIDEO STUNT

the apologists have got their latest talking points, which are "no big deal," "irrelevant" this thread is "ridiculous."
Click to expand...

Personally I've been saying that it was ridiculous since the beginning. I didn't know if she had any Cherokee in her back then and I don't know now, though that seems more likely now than then. But to make a fuss about all that is ridiculous. Does that one, let's uncharitably call it a fib, somehow erase everything else about her or make her a bad candidate for anything?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Ever hear of the Petticoat Affair? We tend to forget the scandals of the past, but I assure you our ancestors were no better than we are. What they lacked in technological convenience of communication they made up for in spiteful imagination. At least our scandals are based on things people said or did, back then they just invented what they didn't have knowledge of.
Click to expand...

"We need to bring some civility back to politics!"

"Y'all do know that politicians used to literally shoot each other right?"

Andrew Jackson wouldn't have called Warren "Fauxahontaous" or whatever over this. He would have shot her in a duel or beat her to death with his cane, that is if he could have taken a break from the genocide.
 
Belz... said:
Ok I'm convinced. Let's bring back monarchy.
Click to expand...

I know you're joking but a good proportion of historical monarchs were quite decent rulers. If we control the variables we know caused problems (religion, inbreeding, unclear succession, mental illness) a constitutional monarchy might well work better than our current purportedly representative alleged democracy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I know you're joking but a good proportion of historical monarchs were quite decent rulers.
Click to expand...

I was only half joking, actually. The "good" thing about monarchy is that, usually, royals were educated in exactly the sort of things they needed to lead a kingdom. So at least they were, statistically, more competent at it than Joe the Plumber.

Of course, they were unaccountable and generally saw the commoners as disposable tools but, you know, no system's perfect. I much prefer democracy, but sometimes I wish we had a way to ensure that candidates were fit for office without opening a pandora's box where the rules create a de facto aristocracy.

If we control the variables we know caused problems (religion, inbreeding, unclear succession, mental illness) a constitutional monarchy might well work better than our current purportedly representative alleged democracy.
Click to expand...

Having the monarch as chief executive alongside the legislative and judicial branches doesn't seem like too bad of a compromise.
 
//Honest Question//

If we reinstalled a (Conceptual within modern context) Monarchy what would be a reasonable failsafe?

But in traditional monarchies it was... revolt.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Honest Question//

If we reinstalled a (Conceptual within modern context) Monarchy what would be a reasonable failsafe?

But in traditional monarchies it was... revolt.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think you can just have monarchy. You need a constitutional one. Say, with the Executive branch represented by the Monarch who, by way of having all the money in the world, is largely insulated from corruption. I also think the Senate should be appointed rather than elected, though if we want it to serve _some_ useful function I'd prefer if it were composed of experts in various predetermined fields (science, education, economy, law, etc.) rather than just another bunch of politicians.

I don't know. Just thinking aloud.
 
Belz... said:
... rather than just another bunch of politicians.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point I've thought on myself from time to time.

It's been pointed out that, for all basic purposes, everyone in high politics is a... politicians and not by definition per se but by virtue of politics having coalesced into this separate and distinct field of study.

So we don't have scientist and teachers and engineers and 3rd Class Telephone Santizers in government, we have people who are experts on the politics of science and teaching and engineering and 3rd Class Telephone Sanitizing.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This is an interesting point I've thought on myself from time to time.

It's been pointed out that, for all basic purposes, everyone in high politics is a... politicians and not by definition per se but by virtue of politics having coalesced into this separate and distinct field of study.

So we don't have scientist and teachers and engineers and 3rd Class Telephone Santizers in government, we have people who are experts on the politics of science and teaching and engineering and 3rd Class Telephone Sanitizing.
Click to expand...

The reason for that idea, for me, is that if the Senate's supposed to confirm appointments and laws, then they should bloody well be aware of the impacts of these things, not just whether this'll hurt or help their reelection chances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom