Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Stacyhs]

Hilary’s voice it was a cadence issue with me. Just sounds a bit like a droning voice actor reading microwave instructions. I understand what she is trying to do but it has issues.

Still, both are preferable to Trump, who’s tone and voice are so annoying that he could be telling us truthfully that he is resigning and will admit his criminal activities and I’d still want to hit the mute button.

Hillary's voice doesn't bother me and I think she has a good sense of humor which some people don't think.

With Trump, it's that smug look and stupid grin he gets when he thinks he's being so smart. It's also his inability to speak like an adult instead of a 12 year old and need to repeat everything at least 3 times.

They're coming to take out jobs! 3000 people (versus a nation over 100,000 times the side of the crowd)!

They might have MS-13! And siege weapons!

Don't forget all those middle easterners hiding in the middle of the crowds!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

With Trump, it's that smug look and stupid grin he gets when he thinks he's being so smart.

Quoted for truth, that combination of studipidity and self satisfaction.

 

[lomiller]

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I just didn't understand how Republicans could be responsible for such a wide swath of Democratic opinion.

It’s beside the point but why would you assume Democrats are not exposed to and influenced by right wing media? In many local markers it’s difficult to find anything but right wing media. Increasingly people are aware that they see something that comes from Fox News, Breitbart or Sinclair Media they need to apply an extra level of scrutiny, but not everyone has realized this and even those that have can still be deceived.

Like I said it’s beside the point, since I was speaking to a pattern of appeasement. “there is this accusation out there about candidate X so lets just find another one so as not to risk loosing people who are on the fence”. This doesn’t work because the same type of s*** will be thrown at whoever is nominated and anyone willing to believe the first batch will be equally prone to believing whatever comes later. Whatever they say their party affiliation, the Democrats will never be able to win the votes of people who fall for this.

 

[carlitos]

It’s beside the point but why would you assume Democrats are not exposed to and influenced by right wing media? In many local markers it’s difficult to find anything but right wing media. Increasingly people are aware that they see something that comes from Fox News, Breitbart or Sinclair Media they need to apply an extra level of scrutiny, but not everyone has realized this and even those that have can still be deceived.

Like I said it’s beside the point, since I was speaking to a pattern of appeasement. “there is this accusation out there about candidate X so lets just find another one so as not to risk loosing people who are on the fence”. This doesn’t work because the same type of s*** will be thrown at whoever is nominated and anyone willing to believe the first batch will be equally prone to believing whatever comes later. Whatever they say their party affiliation, the Democrats will never be able to win the votes of people who fall for this.

You were commenting on an article in The Nation, written by a prominent leftist who had interviewed die-hard liberals in the Northeast. If you want to change the subject, that's fine, but it's not related to your initial comment.

 

[theprestige]

That Nation article is pretty interesting. I had to keep stopping to look up all the in-group jargon. Word of the day: "brocialist".

 

[acbytesla]

That Nation article is pretty interesting. I had to keep stopping to look up all the in-group jargon. Word of the day: "brocialist".

I love The Nation. It has been around since the mid 1800s. It has had some great contributing writers over the years like Christopher Hitchens.

 

[theprestige]

I love The Nation. It has been around since the mid 1800s. It has had some great contributing writers over the years like Christopher Hitchens.

Rolling Stone had great contributors like Hunter S. Thompson and P. J. O'Rourke. It also had contributors like Sabrina Erdely. What's your point? Do you also like pie?

 

[acbytesla]

Rolling Stone had great contributors like Hunter S. Thompson and P. J. O'Rourke. It also had contributors like Sabrina Erdely. What's your point? Do you also like pie?

I'm just saying it's a great magazine. Most of the articles are very well written and not everything is political. I also don't think it's always been viewed as liberal. But it has never shied away from controversial writers such as Chomsky who is really hated by the political right.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

Agree 100%.
I actually brought that up early in the "2018 elections" thread. Was a bit surprised that it seemed no one else saw that as an issue.

Like you, I find her to be fantastically qualified, and would like to see her as the POTUS. I just don't think she can win with that voice.

 

[d4m10n]

Like you, I find her to be fantastically qualified, and would like to see her as the POTUS. I just don't think she can win with that voice.

C'mon now we're not all that sexist in the U.S.

 

[Stacyhs]

Agree 100%.
I actually brought that up early in the "2018 elections" thread. Was a bit surprised that it seemed no one else saw that as an issue.

Like you, I find her to be fantastically qualified, and would like to see her as the POTUS. I just don't think she can win with that voice.

I would also support Warren if she were the Dem nominee.

 

[Distracted1]

C'mon now we're not all that sexist in the U.S.

Goes beyond sexism. There is ageism in there as well .

When she said proudly "I am a nasty woman", I completely understood the sentiment- and agreed with her choice to make an issue of it, but it sounded like the sweet librarian lady who puts out cookies and orange juice for the kids trying to do a "gangsta rap". There was no gravitas to the words.

Picture pee-wee Herman trying to do the Samuel Jackson "Ezekiel 3:17" monologue from Pulp Fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

Agree 100%.
I actually brought that up early in the "2018 elections" thread. Was a bit surprised that it seemed no one else saw that as an issue.

Like you, I find her to be fantastically qualified, and would like to see her as the POTUS. I just don't think she can win with that voice.

The voice thing is definitely sexist as generally women have higher pitched voices than men. But I think it is difficult for someone to sound authoritative with a Mickey or Minnie Mouse sounding voice.

 

[Stacyhs]

The voice thing is definitely sexist as generally women have higher pitched voices than men. But I think it is difficult for someone to sound authoritative with a Mickey or Minnie Mouse sounding voice.

OH, I dunno. I'd hate to cross Bernadette on The Big Band Theory!

 

[acbytesla]

OH, I dunno. I'd hate to cross Bernadette on The Big Band Theory!

Yes, but it's sounds even tougher when she yells like Mrs Wollowitz.

 

[wareyin]

I would also support Warren if she were the Dem nominee.

Running against Trump, I would support anyone who was not as bad as he is for the Dem nominee. I do think that Warren, Biden, and Clinton would all be better as POTUS in 2020, but I'd like to have someone who is not yet a septuagenarian.

 

[acbytesla]

Running against Trump, I would support anyone who was not as bad as he is for the Dem nominee. I do think that Warren, Biden, and Clinton would all be better as POTUS in 2020, but I'd like to have someone who is not yet a septuagenarian.

Definitely need new blood.

If Booker wasn't black, I think he would win easily. It like Warren's voice shouldn't matter, but I'm afraid it does. I also have been thinking Al Franken should run. I can also imagine Beto running. Beto has many of the ideas of Bernie Sanders and the charisma of another Robert.

 

[theprestige]

Al Franken should totally run.

 

[acbytesla]

Al Franken should totally run.

I'm glad we agree. I respect Al tremendously.

 

[Minoosh]

Katha Pollitt, writing in the leftist rag the Nation, reveals that perhaps Warren is significantly more damaged than it might appear:

This caught my eye because in addition to being part Native American, I'm related to Katha Pollitt.

It's almost certain I am more related to Katha Pollitt than I am to any Native American.

Talking of DNA, my adopted brother (age 61) told me yesterday he had tracked down his blood family because he had his DNA tested and apparently "opted in" to be told of matches in the database. A half-sibling of his had also done this. It turns out he has something like 7 half-siblings. I felt ... something like a loss. I can see it raises issues of ... ownership. It made me understand, I think, some of the negative reaction to Warren's DNA revelation. I can't really explain it very well.

About the pitch of Warren's voice: I don't think Americans are used to hearing female voices in leadership. It's kind of like, for a long time all white men who shaved their heads looked weird to me. Then after a while it became normal. IMO this society doesn't know what to do with older women. We're not used to them being celebrities. At least, that's my perception of white people. It might be a little different in black, Latino or Native American culture. Oprah for example is in a class of her own. Given the importance of image, sadly, Democrats might do best to pick a celebrity and groom them for politics, vs. finding people who have come up through politics. George Clooney for example. Obama was a fluke, a smart, attractive and ambitious man outside of normal racial boundaries and straddling the old/young divide.

I can't think of a female politician who hasn't at some point been written off. Michele Bachmann looked pretty good, but she's crazy. Michelle Obama looks terrific, but she's probably too smart to want to be president. Sarah Palin does not have the ... gravitas, to put it kindly. We don't have the equivalent of an Angela Merkel, or the female PMs of the UK.

ETA: Nancy Pelosi another example of a female leader whose voice grates on some people.