Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread Part 2

BobTheCoward said:
I disagree
Click to expand...


The NC GOP lie, saying there will be no morning vote on a budget veto and then, while some GOP Democrats are out remembering 9/11, the GOP go ahead and vote on it anyway. You claim this is only fair, because a play-action pass (also a deception) is legal in football.

I've never even seen evidence that Warren was lying, at worst she was merely wrong, but for the sake of argument let's assume she actually was lying. But hey! Bluffing is OK in poker (not to mention the previously mentioned play-action pass), therefore this does not disqualify Warren from the Presidency.

Wait, let me predict your response/defense: "I, BtC, don't care about being consistent".
 
Cabbage said:
The NC GOP lie, saying there will be no morning vote on a budget veto and then, while some GOP Democrats are out remembering 9/11, the GOP go ahead and vote on it anyway. You claim this is only fair, because a play-action pass (also a deception) is legal in football.

I've never even seen evidence that Warren was lying, at worst she was merely wrong, but for the sake of argument let's assume she actually was lying. But hey! Bluffing is OK in poker (not to mention the previously mentioned play-action pass), therefore this does not disqualify Warren from the Presidency.

Wait, let me predict your response/defense: "I, BtC, don't care about being consistent".
Click to expand...

I think what the NC legislature did was morally wrong. I only defended it because the OP requested for people to try and defend it.
 
Giordano said:
It strikes me that the facts are relatively clear and generally accepted by all the posters in this thread. The only remaining question is how one views those facts in assessing Warren's character and appropriateness for office. The facts don't bother me much, nor apparently most of the other posters here. I like her. But these same facts do bother a few of the members here. Okay, but it seems to me that no amount of further posting will likely change these subjective views. Yet the thread will continue...
Click to expand...
Agree.

Kennedy and Clinton were womanizing pricks
Nixon was a lying crook
Reagan suffered the onset of Alzheimer's while still in office
George Bush Sr was an uncharged war criminal
George Bush Jr knowingly started a war based on intelligence he knew was false
Trump is a malignant narcissist and a pathological liar, inter alia

None of these things, apparently, are disqualifying to being POTUS, but believing your family's oral history and as a result being goaded by the Racist in Chief into taking a DNA test, when she probably ought to have known it was ill advised to do so and might offend a very small number of people, and then apologising to those people and being forgiven by them, is disqualifying?

As our thankfully departed oversized canine troll used to say.......'K.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
It strikes me that the facts are relatively clear and generally accepted by all the posters in this thread.
Click to expand...
Not really. There is a steady stream of obfuscation/minimization, such as the recent suggestion that her lie is somehow comparable with a non Irish person wearing green on St Patrick's day. Or that her self-identification was something other than a clear, unary declaration. Or that the very definition of dishonesty doesn't include victim-less lies.
 
varwoche said:
Not really. There is a steady stream of obfuscation/minimization, such as the recent suggestion that her lie is somehow comparable with a non Irish person wearing green on St Patrick's day. Or that her self-identification was something other than a clear, unary declaration. Or that the very definition of dishonesty doesn't include victim-less lies.
Click to expand...

Or equivalent to an actual federal crime.
Seriously though, Warren was cheating. Not much different from that woman recently jailed for 14 days for changing her daughter's entrance exam marks to get her into an Ivy League college.
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
Not really. There is a steady stream of obfuscation/minimization, such as the recent suggestion that her lie is somehow comparable with a non Irish person wearing green on St Patrick's day. Or that her self-identification was something other than a clear, unary declaration. Or that the very definition of dishonesty doesn't include victim-less lies.
Click to expand...

But did she actually lie?

During 1982 I was on a working holiday in the UK. I applied for a number of jobs during the time I was there, a few of which were in Scotland (mostly things like bar staff in Edinburgh Pubs etc). Hypothetically, lets say that the application forms had a checkbox which said something like "Are you Scottish by either birth or descent?"

Now given that I told you about my family story in Post #48 (and you must have read it because you replied in Post #51) and given that DNA testing hadn't been invented yet, and everyone in the family, including me, beleived it to be true, then do you think I would have been cheating, lying or being dishonest if I ticked that box?

If you think yes, then please justify that answer.

If you think no, then explain how that is any different from what Warren did?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
He'd be related via Penn and his wife being a sister of your husband's ancestor, of the Great Aunt variety.

For example in the days when Finland (as part of Sweden) was Catholic none of the priests and bishops were supposed to marry procreate, yet it is known many of the early bishops did have children, maybe claimed it was their brother's/sister's to get around the Pope. Anyway, the earliest Bishop of Åbo (Turku), Konrad Bitz, had a grandmother whose daughter (his mother's sister) is my direct ancestor.



Likewise another famous Bishop, Magnus Tawast likewise is an avuncular direct ascendent. The point, uncles and aunts are pretty close relatives as they are the siblings of one's parents: pretty much the same genes, so your husband is not incorrect, if Penn and his wife had offspring, to make the wife's sister's children first cousins.
Click to expand...

No. I didn't say the weren't in some way related. The family story is that they are direct descendants of Penn. They are in no way biologically related to Penn and certainly not direct descendants.

But thanks for explaining about 'related through marriage'. I've never have understood the concept otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Seriously though, Warren was cheating. Not much different from that woman recently jailed for 14 days for changing her daughter's entrance exam marks to get her into an Ivy League college.
Click to expand...

Trebuchet said:
Outside of the whole "breaking the law" thing, of course.
Click to expand...

Trebuchet, stop nitpicking unimportant details such as one being totally illegal and one not.
 
varwoche said:
Not really. There is a steady stream of obfuscation/minimization, such as the recent suggestion that her lie is somehow comparable with a non Irish person wearing green on St Patrick's day. Or that her self-identification was something other than a clear, unary declaration. Or that the very definition of dishonesty doesn't include victim-less lies.
Click to expand...
But these points involve much exactly what I stated, our individual interpretations of what the accepted facts mean in terms of our views of Warren.

But JJ as much as I hate to prolong this thread even further, your post does go further by stating "facts" in contraction to my understanding of the actual situation. Is it a lie if Warren (and most of her family) believed it? That would be a misunderstanding, not a lie. But even more her DNA test actually proved it was not a lie at all; it was true, but just not enough " true" to meet your own opinion of how much Native American you feel would qualify her. That is your opinion. And I if she included this as something to be proud of and ad part of her self identification, who are you (or who am I) to deny her this? I identify as Jewish yet there are many other more Orthodox Jews who believe I am not Jewish enough to do so. Screw them!
 
smartcooky said:
But did she actually lie?

During 1982 I was on a working holiday in the UK. I applied for a number of jobs during the time I was there, a few of which were in Scotland (mostly things like bar staff in Edinburgh Pubs etc). Hypothetically, lets say that the application forms had a checkbox which said something like "Are you Scottish by either birth or descent?"

Now given that I told you about my family story in Post #48 (and you must have read it because you replied in Post #51) and given that DNA testing hadn't been invented yet, and everyone in the family, including me, beleived it to be true, then do you think I would have been cheating, lying or being dishonest if I ticked that box?

If you think yes, then please justify that answer.

If you think no, then explain how that is any different from what Warren did?
Click to expand...
No you weren't lying. But no, your scenario isn't parallel.

As I explained before, in no way do I blame Warren for misunderstanding family lore. I accept her understanding that she was 1/32 NA when really she was actually 1/64. This is utterly meaningless. The lie was stating her race as "American Indian" when she knew (incorrectly) she was only 1/32.

Warren knew that her race was not "American Indian" yet she claimed it was. You did nothing of the sort.
 
Giordano said:
But these points involve much exactly what I stated, our individual interpretations of what the accepted facts mean in terms of our views of Warren.

But JJ as much as I hate to prolong this thread even further, your post does go further by stating "facts" in contraction to my understanding of the actual situation. Is it a lie if Warren (and most of her family) believed it? That would be a misunderstanding, not a lie. But even more her DNA test actually proved it was not a lie at all; it was true, but just not enough " true" to meet your own opinion of how much Native American you feel would qualify her. That is your opinion. And I if she included this as something to be proud of and ad part of her self identification, who are you (or who am I) to deny her this? I identify as Jewish yet there are many other more Orthodox Jews who believe I am not Jewish enough to do so. Screw them!
Click to expand...
Well, this makes it easier to pursue our angle of discussion, because now it's you playing fast and easy with the facts.

Warren isn't delusional. She knew that her race was not "American Indian" yet she claimed it was. That's a lie.
 
Giordano said:
I identify as Jewish yet there are many other more Orthodox Jews who believe I am not Jewish enough to do so. Screw them!
Click to expand...
How Jewish are you? My mom is Jewish and my dad's mom is Jewish. (Both secular.) Will the Orthodox let me in?
 
Last edited:
Warren impresses me as sincere. I believe her when she says...

Warren said:
Like anyone who’s being honest with themselves, I know that I have made mistakes. I am sorry for harm I have caused.
Click to expand...

What mistakes? Thinking she was 1/32 NA when really she was 1/64? That's not something to apologize for. That didn't cause any harm. She knows full well what her mistake was. She lied about her race.

To be clear... I'd be utterly, positively delighted if Warren winds up as POTUS. I'm concerned about candidate Warren though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom