Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
I was extremely dissatisfied with my boring results.

But Warren hasn't claimed to be a minority for some years. I understand being upset at 1990s Warren. But 2010s Warren doesn't seem to be claiming to be native American.
Click to expand...

Here is her claiming she is 1/32nd Native American in 2012.

Is that the basis for the Trump bet?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rican-how-many-people-have-that-heritage.html
Elizabeth Warren, the U.S. Senate candidate who claimed minority status during law school and as a young law professor, continues to insist that she is 1/32 Native American. Warren’s only proof is her mother’s word. Many American families have stories about Native American ancestors. How many really do?
Click to expand...
 
Warren: I am Native American
Trump: LOL! Take a DNA test
Warren: *takes junk science test and publishes a slickly produced pre-campaign ad
Native American leaders and activists: Warren and her supporters are RACIST
 
Darat said:
Can you quote that part, I'm not seeing it?
Click to expand...

??
Elizabeth Warren, the U.S. Senate candidate who claimed minority status during law school and as a young law professor, continues to insist that she is 1/32 Native American. Warren’s only proof is her mother’s word. Many American families have stories about Native American ancestors.
Click to expand...
 
The Big Dog said:
Warren: I am Native American
Trump: LOL! Take a DNA test
Warren: *takes junk science test and publishes a slickly produced pre-campaign ad
Native American leaders and activists: Warren and her supporters are RACIST
Click to expand...
You could make RACIST red. That would be even more convincing. Also it seems like you're slacking off because you omitted disgusting and the other adjectives that you bandy about so frequently.
 
Belz... said:
Oh, my god. You just can't help yourself. You just can't have a civil discussion, can you?

Let me help you:

I said that it was possible for someone to make that argument reasonably, not that I would make it myself.

Do you have trouble understanding simple English?
Click to expand...
And, when I challenged you on how it is reasonable to call Warren wrong about having an NA Ancestor, you did your Peruvian isn't Cherokee dance. If being unable to answer questions and changing what we are talking about midstream isn't changing the rules of the game as we go along...(not to mention the whole wrong=/=unsubstantiated mistake you made to get this whole ball rolling)



What the **** does "calvinball" mean? <checks> I didn't change the rules as I went along. You're the one who just didn't understand what I meant. Is that so difficult to accept? Are you done personalising the discussion? Are you Warren's lover or something? Did I hurt your feelings at some point?



I'll grant that one. I wish you had said that earlier instead of all that nonsense you're typing.
Click to expand...
I should have said earlier that I was responding to your earlier claim? Was I supposed to have been precognitive and known you would change it?
 
wareyin said:
And, when I challenged you on how it is reasonable to call Warren wrong about having an NA Ancestor, you did your Peruvian isn't Cherokee dance.
Click to expand...

It's not a dance. It's an explanation. Her claim is unsubstantiated, which you've agreed to. I'd like to remind you that the whole point of my A,B, C, D, E list was to illustrate that a person, in this thread or elsewhere, could hold several, reasonable opinions that don't all come from the same "side" of the discussion or of the political spectrum. Someone could hold, correctly or not, that her claim is wrong without necessarily being 'influenced' by the other "side".
 
Belz... said:
It's not a dance. It's an explanation. Her claim is unsubstantiated, which you've agreed to. I'd like to remind you that the whole point of my A,B, C, D, E list was to illustrate that a person, in this thread or elsewhere, could hold several, reasonable opinions that don't all come from the same "side" of the discussion or of the political spectrum. Someone could hold, correctly or not, that her claim is wrong without necessarily being 'influenced' by the other "side".
Click to expand...

Wrong, or unsubstantiated? Because remember, they actually aren't the same thing.
 
They aren't going to get it. Their brains have just literally been rewired.

There are only two sides. Even if you aren't on a side, your opinions have to be. Any "neutral" is lying and really a puppet of "the others."
 
Belz... said:
Yes I know. As I said, someone could hold, correctly or not, that her claim is wrong without necessarily being 'influenced' by the other "side".
Click to expand...

Someone could hold an incorrect position that has been dishonestly put out by one side without having been influenced by the only source putting out that information, you say? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
 
wareyin said:
Someone could hold an incorrect position that has been dishonestly put out by one side without having been influenced by the only source putting out that information, you say? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Click to expand...

See? Openly and unapologetically not just labeling, but outright defining anyone with a different opinion as belonging to "the other side" in some degree.

I disagree with him about Elizabeth Warren. Therefore I have to be a Republican. Or a dumb sod tricked by the Republicans. Or a Republican Sleeper Agents.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
They aren't going to get it. Their brains have just literally been rewired.

There are only two sides. Even if you aren't on a side, your opinions have to be. Any "neutral" is lying and really a puppet of "the others."
Click to expand...

Do you have a magical source of information about US politics that has zero bias? If you do, please share! Otherwise, it's downright ridiculous to repeat incorrect claims made by a single group while claiming not to have been influenced by that group.
 
JoeMorgue said:
See? Openly and unapologetically not just labeling, but outright defining anyone with a different opinion as belonging to "the other side" in some degree.

I disagree with him about Elizabeth Warren. Therefore I have to be a Republican. Or a dumb sod tricked by the Republicans. Or a Republican Sleeper Agents.
Click to expand...

Lots of people are tricked. It doesn't actually mean you are a dumb sod to have been fooled. I gather that in a lot of ways it's easier to fool the ones who think they are too smart to fall for it.
 
wareyin said:
Someone could hold an incorrect position that has been dishonestly put out by one side without having been influenced by the only source putting out that information, you say?
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what I say. You can't believe that "She's not Cherokee" is an opinion that only someone on the right or someone influenced by the right could possibly hold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom