Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Maybe a sleaze ball is a sleaze ball, regardless of whether it is a Republican pussy-grabber or a Democrat who doubles down on being Native American when they are clearly not.
Click to expand...

What do you call a sleaze ball who doubles down on the definition of a word that they clearly got wrong? Asking for friend, obvs.
 
Dr. Keith said:
What do you call a sleaze ball who doubles down on the definition of a word that they clearly got wrong? Asking for friend, obvs.
Click to expand...

Seriously, if the meaning of the word 'elopement' is merely someone who schlepps off to get married in private, Warren's parents doing that is hardly the PTSD moment she wants us to believe.

Here's me thinking it was teenage angst ('each night I ask the stars up above, why must I be a teenager in love?') and they had to run away in the dead of night with her climbing out of the window with a sash because of some West Side Story type situation (a modern-day Romeo and Juliet) with the neighbourhood divided by racial lines into gangs and the parents bodily shielding their son from a Natalie Wood Hispanic-look alike.

But no, we discover the twenty-one-year-olds - regular Americans of the same demographic - having a private wedding and still being in the bosom of their family and community.

And here we all were feeling desperately sorry for the two young lovers kept apart by bigoted folk.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Trump's paternal grandparents were German immigrants making his father "German" while Trump's mother was an immigrant from Scotland. There was virtually no chance that he'd have any NA ancestry.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those are some concentrated white people.

But if you got it, flaunt it, I say. I don't know whether I have any NA ancestry, but I'd bet I do, considering where my ancestors have been and how long they've been there. If I had reason to believe I have some, and there was a space on a form to claim it, I'd claim it without a single pang of conscience.

Now that I think about it, I do seem to recall my mother telling me I have a little touch of NA ancestry. So I could probably gamble and claim it. if I was browbeaten by some crazed political ideologues to prove it, I figure my chances would be good.

It ain't no big thang. A mere bone of contention for crazed political ideologues to chew on. The blood of hunter-gatherers courses through all our veins.
 
Vixen said:
Trump's parents are 'recent immigrants' so kinda ironic he wants to keep'em out.
Click to expand...

And two of his three wives were immigrants. Both Ivana and Melania are 1st generation
Eastern European immigrants.
 
Vixen said:
Seriously, if the meaning of the word 'elopement' is merely someone who schlepps off to get married in private, Warren's parents doing that is hardly the PTSD moment she wants us to believe.

Here's me thinking it was teenage angst ('each night I ask the stars up above, why must I be a teenager in love?') and they had to run away in the dead of night with her climbing out of the window with a sash because of some West Side Story type situation (a modern-day Romeo and Juliet) with the neighbourhood divided by racial lines into gangs and the parents bodily shielding their son from a Natalie Wood Hispanic-look alike.

But no, we discover the twenty-one-year-olds - regular Americans of the same demographic - having a private wedding and still being in the bosom of their family and community.

And here we all were feeling desperately sorry for the two young lovers kept apart by bigoted folk.
Click to expand...

No, people 'elope' under different circumstances. The word itself means just secretly getting married. The question is the context why they might do it. It might be to avoid their Parent's lack of approval or it might mean a couple don't want a big ceremony and like the idea of doing it in secret.
 
Vixen said:
Seriously, if the meaning of the word 'elopement' is merely someone who schlepps off to get married in private, Warren's parents doing that is hardly the PTSD moment she wants us to believe.

Here's me thinking it was teenage angst ('each night I ask the stars up above, why must I be a teenager in love?') and they had to run away in the dead of night with her climbing out of the window with a sash because of some West Side Story type situation (a modern-day Romeo and Juliet) with the neighbourhood divided by racial lines into gangs and the parents bodily shielding their son from a Natalie Wood Hispanic-look alike.

But no, we discover the twenty-one-year-olds - regular Americans of the same demographic - having a private wedding and still being in the bosom of their family and community.

And here we all were feeling desperately sorry for the two young lovers kept apart by bigoted folk.
Click to expand...

Classic Vixen hyperbole when trying to gloss over being wrong.

1. The two were 20 and 19, not 21.

2. "PTSD"? Really, Vix? Warren never once implied that but it's a classic example of exaggerating in order to make something appear worse than it is.

3. If you pictured the whole West Side Story scenario then perhaps you should try and tone down that overactive imagination of yours.

4. Standing before a minister with only a witness to during your wedding is hardly "being in the bosom of their family and community".

No one should be ashamed to admit they are wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that they are wiser today than they were yesterday.
Click to expand...
Alexander Pope
 
acbytesla said:
No, people 'elope' under different circumstances. The word itself means just secretly getting married. The question is the context why they might do it. It might be to avoid their Parent's lack of approval or it might mean a couple don't want a big ceremony and like the idea of doing it in secret.
Click to expand...

When I was in my twenties, the parents of two friends of mine eloped to get married because the two children disapproved of their relationship - it was essentially a big **** you to both of them.
 
Katha Pollitt, writing in the leftist rag the Nation, reveals that perhaps Warren is significantly more damaged than it might appear:

As we were getting ready to leave, having written a collective total of 199 letters, I put on my columnist’s hat and asked how people felt about Elizabeth Warren. The general verdict from this tiny sample of revved-up white, liberal, never-miss-an-election New England Democrats was that she’s finished—or should be.
Click to expand...

Pollitt mounts a decent defense of Warren and points out that the other candidates have feet of clay as well (mostly stuff that the far left would hold against them).
 
Brainster said:
Katha Pollitt, writing in the leftist rag the Nation, reveals that perhaps Warren is significantly more damaged than it might appear:



Pollitt mounts a decent defense of Warren and points out that the other candidates have feet of clay as well (mostly stuff that the far left would hold against them).
Click to expand...

For falling in this trap, I think she's done, too. <snip>

I still don't think with all the talk of progressivism run rampant in the Democratic Party, that the Dems are going to follow up a failed woman candidacy with a second. She's got a pretty big campaign chest, though, so she'll be around for a while and we're 18 months out from the first caucuses. We'll see where the serious candidates are about a year from now. I think Warren, Sanders and Biden are a distraction but it gives the paleos a chew toy or two to play with.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess is that Warren knew that to have any chance of even shifting the debate during the primaries in 2020 she needed to dampen the controversy at least a little before then. She had a 36 point lead in her re-election campaign before resurrecting the ancestry controversy which has taken her lead down to a 25 points but still should be an easy win on Nov 6th. A year from now the whole ancestry issue will likely be lessened by her win and help her at least pull a Bernie and move the conversation the way she wants during the primaries.
 
acbytesla said:
No, people 'elope' under different circumstances. The word itself means just secretly getting married. The question is the context why they might do it. It might be to avoid their Parent's lack of approval or it might mean a couple don't want a big ceremony and like the idea of doing it in secret.
Click to expand...

Or because the parents who don't approve might have no legal power to stop the wedding but they either have enough local influence to stop it being performed in your town or might disrupt the ceremony.
 
Vixen said:
Trump's parents are 'recent immigrants' so kinda ironic he wants to keep'em out.
Click to expand...

Does he want to keep out immigrants in general? or just illegal immigrants?

I think he is ok with legal immigrants as long as they are coming from countries who provide proper documentation.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Or because the parents who don't approve might have no legal power to stop the wedding but they either have enough local influence to stop it being performed in your town or might disrupt the ceremony.
Click to expand...

There can be a thousand reasons and that's the point.
 
Drewbot said:
Does he want to keep out immigrants in general? or just illegal immigrants?

I think he is ok with legal immigrants as long as they are coming from countries who provide proper documentation.
Click to expand...

Persons who appear at the border and apply for asylum are legal immigrants, too. (ETA: If, of course, their application is accepted.)
 
Brainster said:
Katha Pollitt, writing in the leftist rag the Nation, reveals that perhaps Warren is significantly more damaged than it might appear:

Pollitt mounts a decent defense of Warren and points out that the other candidates have feet of clay as well (mostly stuff that the far left would hold against them).
Click to expand...

Opinions are like noses. Pretty much everyone has them. There are no perfect people and thus no perfect candidates. Warren's heritage claim though, will not be the reason she might not be the ideal candidate to win in 2020.

Personally, I think any issues Warren might have winning in 2020 are far more superficial, but no less real. (And the heritage claim is very superficial) I would vote for her in a minute. She's very smart on economics and business and has excellent policy positions. This is going to sound dumb to some of you, but IMV, her voice is too high pitched. It is even more grating on the ear than Hillary's. This matters. It shouldn't, but it does. People often react even more viscerally to the tone and tenor of people's voices than the content of their message.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
There are no perfect people and thus no perfect candidates.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Scarlett Johansson looks pretty perfect to me.

Personally, I think any issues Warren might have winning in 2020 are far more superficial, but no less real. (And the heritage claim is very superficial) I would vote for her in a minute. She's very smart on economics and business and has excellent policy positions. This is going to sound dumb to some of you, but IMV, her voice is too high pitched. It is even more grating on the ear than Hillary's. This matters. It shouldn't, but it does.
Click to expand...

I think she's a very competent crusader for important issues, but I'm not sure she has the ... how can I say this? I'm not sure she has the "animate the crowd" element that I think is required right now to energise voters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom