Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

BobTheCoward said:
The list of Trump's disqualifying qualities is innumerable.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. There are six things that can disqualify someone from the presidency:

1. Age
2. Citizenship
3. Disapproval of the voters
4. Disapproval of the electors
5. Incapacity, as determined by the cabinet and the legislature
6. Disapproval of the legislature

That's it. Not only are Trump's disquaifying qualities totally numerable, they currently number zero.
 
theprestige said:
On the contrary. There are six things that can disqualify someone from the presidency:

1. Age
2. Citizenship
3. Disapproval of the voters
4. Disapproval of the electors
5. Incapacity, as determined by the cabinet and the legislature
6. Disapproval of the legislature

That's it. Not only are Trump's disquaifying qualities totally numerable, they currently number zero.
Click to expand...


So the relevance for this thread is that Warren currently has no disqualifications. She is qualified in the first two of your points, untested in the remaining four.
 
crescent said:
I used to work with a member of of the Cherokee tribe. She had blue eyes, pale skin and white-blonde hair (and that strong, strong Okie accent). Yet, she had the ancestry and was a tribal member.

I admit, that influences my perception of the Warren ancestry issue. A person can have very little native ancestry, but still be a member of a tribe, still be culturally and legally an American Indian.
Click to expand...

This may date me a bit, but growing up we got the Mandie books as soon as they came out. She was described as a blonde blue-eyed girl who grows from eleven to eighteen or so over the series, has a full Cherokee grandfather (father's side, hence why her mother? stepmother? hates her) and a white kitten that never grows into an intact tomcat. I am already aware that appearance matters jack **** for determining ancestry.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So the relevance for this thread is that Warren currently has no disqualifications. She is qualified in the first two of your points, untested in the remaining four.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I mean, "disapproval of the voters" is really "collective disapproval of a majority of the voters". But the exact reason is going to vary with each individual voter. BobTheCoward might think Warren's ancestry claims are disqualifying, and he's probably not alone. But as far as being the consensus of the majority? Probably not, and impossible to really tell. Opinion polls can only tell us so much, and "why I didn't vote for Warren" isn't going to be a question on the ballot.

So BobTheCoward thinks it's disqualifying, but that's like, just his opinion, man.
 
d4m10n said:
I mention this just to point out how commonplace tribal membership is around here, ...
Click to expand...

For me it's numerous requests to provide letters of reference for students applying for some kind of Tribal scholarship or similar. By a big margin, those requests come from students who are phenotypically caucasian. I can see why Warren's claims carry a lot skepticism elsewhere but here in Oklahoma? It's totally normal for a woman who looks like her to have some Native ancestry. We white folks are loaded with biases about this of course, but she looks more Native to me than do A LOT of our verified, tribally-affiliated students.
 
theprestige said:
On the contrary. There are six things that can disqualify someone from the presidency:

1. Age
2. Citizenship
3. Disapproval of the voters
4. Disapproval of the electors
5. Incapacity, as determined by the cabinet and the legislature
6. Disapproval of the legislature

That's it. Not only are Trump's disquaifying qualities totally numerable, they currently number zero.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you merely wanna list the bare minimum qualifications. Most of us aren't really satisfied with a bare minimum president. I mean, for example, if you're looking for a way to avoid food poisoning, you can simply stop eating.

"Disapproval" is a subjective term, and of course there's a numbers game involved when it comes to voters, electors, or legislators. Most of us (probably not you) demand, for example, that a president also be Literate, Numerate, Level Headed in a Crisis, and Sane (for a few examples) to truly qualify for the Presidency. I'm not saying those are Constitutional criteria (like you are focusing on) but again, for most people, these are also essential criteria for qualification.

You, individually, can always choose to settle for less of course. Some of us seek something more than bare minimum, however.
 
theprestige said:
Yep.

I mean, "disapproval of the voters" is really "collective disapproval of a majority of the voters". But the exact reason is going to vary with each individual voter. BobTheCoward might think Warren's ancestry claims are disqualifying, and he's probably not alone. But as far as being the consensus of the majority? Probably not, and impossible to really tell. Opinion polls can only tell us so much, and "why I didn't vote for Warren" isn't going to be a question on the ballot.

So BobTheCoward thinks it's disqualifying, but that's like, just his opinion, man.
Click to expand...


That's not accurate. We all should know that "collective disapproval of a majority of the voters" does not disqualify one from the presidency. Trump didn't even get a plurality and he qualified (in the minimal sense).
 
Cabbage said:
Sure, if you merely wanna list the bare minimum qualifications. Most of us aren't really satisfied with a bare minimum president. I mean, for example, if you're looking for a way to avoid food poisoning, you can simply stop eating.



"Disapproval" is a subjective term, and of course there's a numbers game involved when it comes to voters, electors, or legislators. Most of us (probably not you) demand, for example, that a president also be Literate, Numerate, Level Headed in a Crisis, and Sane (for a few examples) to truly qualify for the Presidency. I'm not saying those are Constitutional criteria (like you are focusing on) but again, for most people, these are also essential criteria for qualification.



You, individually, can always choose to settle for less of course. Some of us seek something more than bare minimum, however.
Click to expand...
Calm down lol. Horses for courses. It's a Bobbian rebuttal to a Bobbian argument. Don't read more into it than is actually there.
 
Cabbage said:
That's not accurate. We all should know that "collective disapproval of a majority of the voters" does not disqualify one from the presidency. Trump didn't even get a plurality and he qualified (in the minimal sense).
Click to expand...
Good call out. Earlier I just said "disapproval of the voters" for brevity, even though we all know it's a bit more complicated than that. Feel free to get as detailed as you think the topic requires, about majority of voters in majority of states, etc. I think we're probably all on the same page already, though.
 
The Shrike said:
At least 29 tribes in the US have no minimum blood quantum requirement for membership. They instead emphasize verified lineal descent, with some Cherokee leaning heavily on the Dawes Rolls for that starting point.

Non-native folks living outside the former Indian Territory that is now the state of Oklahoma are generally naive to how much "Native blood" is actually out there among ostensibly white (and black!) people in Oklahoma. Blonde hair and blue eyes are by no means an indication that a person you meet in Oklahoma is not to some degree Native American.

  1. Some of these people have traced their ancestry, gotten documentation, and pursued official tribal affiliation.
  2. Some have traced their ancestry but didn't have the documentation and have not pursued tribal affiliation even if they might self-identify as Native American in part.
  3. Others think they have that ancestry but they actually don't.

Warren is in that second category, and there are thousands of people in there with her.
Click to expand...

As both of my maternal great grandparents were German citizens, were born in Germany, spoke German and emigrated from Germany, my family always thought they were...well...German. Nuh uh. Turns out they were both of Danish ancestry as my genealogical research and DNA revealed.

Husband's family claimed direct descent from William Penn. Even said so in newspaper clippings from old obituaries. Husband's family is Mormon so they have A LOT of genealogy info. Turns out they couldn't possibly be Penn's descendants as his descendants have been documented very well and none of my husband's ancestors is among them. Turns out the family story got skewed: they descend from a sister of the woman who married Penn. But does that mean my husband's family were lying? Nope. It's what they believe and that misinformation is still being passed down in the family lore.
 
theprestige said:
Calm down lol. Horses for courses. It's a Bobbian rebuttal to a Bobbian argument. Don't read more into it than is actually there.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm quite calm. I'm just calmly reminding you we don't have to keep our qualifications to a minimum; it's OK to have higher standards.

theprestige said:
Good call out. Earlier I just said "disapproval of the voters" for brevity, even though we all know it's a bit more complicated than that. Feel free to get as detailed as you think the topic requires, about majority of voters in majority of states, etc. I think we're probably all on the same page already, though.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think we are on the same page, but I just wanted to point out it's not a majority of voters in a majority of states (that's neither necessary nor sufficient), it's a plurality in each of a collection of states having at least 270 electoral votes (ignoring potential split electoral votes in Maine or Nebraska).
 
varwoche said:
I don't fault her for that aspect. The problem is, even per the family story, she was fractional. Self-identifying based on a small fraction is dishonest.
Click to expand...

There is not a single white person born to Southern parents who does not endlessly trumpet “Native American “ ancestry.

Every one does it. It is as ingrained as the Lost Cause narrative.
 
autumn1971 said:
There is not a single white person born to Southern parents who does not endlessly trumpet “Native American “ ancestry.

Every one does it. It is as ingrained as the Lost Cause narrative.
Click to expand...
"Trumpeting ancestry" could mean a lot of things. It could mean a mention of an NA ancestor. Or it could mean an untruthful racial self-identification, ala Warren. If the latter is the case, these people should expect uncomfortable scrutiny if/when they run for POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom