Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
River said:
What is the general consensus now that the smoke has cleared.

Is Warren a minority?

Was it OK for her to claim so, and to claim to be NA on work documents and listings?
Click to expand...

From the latest unread article.

In addition to everything else, this just shows horrible political instincts on Warren’s part. A few weeks before a mid-term election, she has handed the Republicans a news cycle, by doubling down on an indefensible claim and needlessly drawing attention to Donald Trump’s rhetoric. She has offended Native Americans and hurt the Democratic Party, and done so completely of her own volition. Looking at 2020 prospects, I have long been worried about Warren’s political skill—after all, she nearly lost an election to a Republican in Massachusetts. But this shows that she will fall right into Trump’s traps, and produce counterproductive own-goals.
Click to expand...

Own goal is a great way to put it.
 
liar in chief lies about paying 1,000,000

the liar in chief is not going to pay, his cult followers will quibble

the quibble cult of trump chants, "lock her up", as the best people plead guilty

TDS cult members make up excuses, and look like this
https://i.imgflip.com/2jtdpb.jpg
the best people, for a minority elected liar


stable genius
https://i.imgflip.com/2hdtwg.jpg
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Ignorance and Apathy.


I don't know.


I don't care.
Click to expand...

I just want to first make clear why I do think this is a significant issue, even if Republicans care about it only for completely opportunistic reasons. It is wrong to claim an oppressed identity if you do not actually have that identity.
Click to expand...

But our correspondent takes the time to let us that he doesn't care that Warren offended native Americans
 
Belz... said:
Oh dear, I see you've missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

rubs temples harder.

From the article.

"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

But I have missed the point.

Que sera sera......
 
The Big Dog said:
rubs temples harder.

From the article.

"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

But I have missed the point.

Que sera sera......
Click to expand...

Yes, you missed the point, which, as stated with actual words in my earlier post, is that while Democrats can't get away with this, Republicans can.

Sheesh, you're slow.
 
kellyb said:
Warren is going to be our next POTUS, y'all. The alt right attack is ...amusing to me. Like, I can't stop giggling. This is the "oppo research"? Well, thank you for your service. We've got this one.
Click to expand...

I've already said this, but it bears repeating. If this is the worst they can dig up on her, she must have lead an exemplary life.
 
"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

Belz... said:
And yet, someone did in 2016.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Yes, you missed the point, which, as stated with actual words in my earlier post, is that while Democrats can't get away with this, Republicans can.

Sheesh, you're slow.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

It is rare that you see such blatantly dishonest attempt to rewrite history when the actual words are written on the actual screen. But our correspondent who grossly misread what was quoted has decided to double down and is reduced to flat out making **** up.

Breathtaking dishonesty....
 
Belz... said:
Having the monarch as chief executive alongside the legislative and judicial branches doesn't seem like too bad of a compromise.
Click to expand...

It's worked for Canada since Confederation...

It isn't perfect, but it works and works with less acrimony than some systems, so lets fix some of the flaws (for instance an elected upper house, and maybe replacing "first past the post" with proportional representation should be discussed in true Canadian fashion - either over a coffee at the hockey rink, or in the local after the game) and keep what does work.
 
The Big Dog said:
Uh huh.
Click to expand...

Ok, still too slow, I see.

"And yet, someone did [run for president and expect to win (snip, see below) if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans.] in 2016"

Now, use this: "while Democrats can't get away with this, Republicans can."

And let's see if you can manage to get the point this time.
 
I am coming to the conclusion that all the groveling Warren apologists don't care that she offended Native Americans is because of racism.

“Whether Elizabeth Warren or Donald Trump or 23andMe’s Carlos Bustamante know it or not, they are making settler-colonial claims to our cultural and biological patrimony yet again."

Kim Tall Bear

yet the Warren lackeys are claiming that is to them irrelevant, and less important than a god damn speeding ticket.
 
Belz... said:
Ok, still too slow, I see.

"And yet, someone did [run for president and expect to win (snip, see below) if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans.] in 2016"

Now, use this: "while Democrats can't get away with this, Republicans can."

And let's see if you can manage to get the point this time.
Click to expand...

why bother lying?

The actual quote:

"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

Your actual reply not that made up goalpost move:

"And yet, someone did in 2016."

Or just keep doubling down, it is really quite a spectacle! Did you see where the line "the Democratic nomination" was "snipped" in that fraudulent post? Can a brother get a laughing dog!

Or do you think that people are to 'slow" to realize that you deleted the ******* clause??

FANTASTIC.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
It's worked for Canada since Confederation...

It isn't perfect, but it works and works with less acrimony than some systems, so lets fix some of the flaws (for instance an elected upper house, and maybe replacing "first past the post" with proportional representation should be discussed in true Canadian fashion - either over a coffee at the hockey rink, or in the local after the game) and keep what does work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that a more political senate is a good idea.
 
The Big Dog said:
why bother lying?
Click to expand...

Ok still much slower than I thought.

No one's lying. The answer makes perfect sense once you know what I was getting at, which I've clarified twice to you at this point.

Or just keep doubling down, it is really quite a spectacle!
Click to expand...

You seem to be one of those posters who just cannot accept the suggestion that you've interpreted someone's point wrong. Even in the face of explanations or evidence, you refuse to budge.

But then, that isn't surprising. If you could budge, you wouldn't still defend criminal politicians like Trump.

Or do you think that people are to 'slow" to realize that you deleted the ******* clause??
Click to expand...

I ACTUALLY POINTED OUT AND NOTED THAT I REMOVED IT. How's that for subterfuge? :rolleyes:
 
Belz... said:
Ok still much slower than I thought.

No one's lying. The answer makes perfect sense once you know what I was getting at, which I've clarified twice to you at this point.



You seem to be one of those posters who just cannot accept the suggestion that you've interpreted someone's point wrong. Even in the face of explanations or evidence, you refuse to budge.

But then, that isn't surprising. If you could budge, you wouldn't still defend criminal politicians like Trump.

I ACTUALLY POINTED OUT AND NOTED THAT I REMOVED IT. How's that for subterfuge? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The actual quote:

"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

Your actual reply not that made up goalpost move:

"And yet, someone did in 2016."

LOLZ!

"but but but, what i meant was some next level made up after the fact nonsense after you pointed out I had totally misread the quote and got egg on my face and you pointed it out!"
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, because of the reasons you just outlined. Good post, TM! Which is why I find this thread hilarious.
 
The Big Dog said:
The actual quote:

"But I honestly don’t think someone can run for president and expect to win the Democratic nomination if they are unable to own up to mistakes, and gratuitously offend and ignore Native Americans."

Your actual reply not that made up goalpost move:

"And yet, someone did in 2016."

LOLZ!

"but but but, what i meant was some next level made up after the fact nonsense!"
Click to expand...

See what I mean? No manner of data will change your mind about your intial interpretation. If that's how you understood it, then it must be so. So much so that you've stooped to accuse me of lying, because that's the only alternative. You just cannot accept to being wrong.

If you were less hyper-partisan you could've said that I should've said "but a Republican did". Ok, fine. But my point, which you're avoiding, still stands.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom