Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

[Minoosh]

Just watched a Warren clip. There is nothing wrong with her voice. It's not high-pitched. We're just not used to hearing voices of female leaders. Whether we can get used to it by 2020, I have no idea. I can't stand Trump's voice; plenty of people love it.

People liked Reagan's voice, and GWB struck a warmer note than Gore.

ETA: I think Franken is a nonstarter.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

Here's a good one with a good voice.

 

[Minoosh]

Here's a good one with a good voice.

You're right, she's sounds authoritative but also warm.

 

[acbytesla]

Just watched a Warren clip. There is nothing wrong with her voice. It's not high-pitched. We're just not used to hearing voices of female leaders. Whether we can get used to it by 2020, I have no idea. I can't stand Trump's voice; plenty of people love it.

People liked Reagan's voice, and GWB struck a warmer note than Gore.

ETA: I think Franken is a nonstarter.

It is high pitched to my ear. And I do agree we're not use to hearing voices of female leaders. But if you listen to say Merkel or Thatcher, their voices are much lower than Warren or Hillary. As for Trump, t cant stand hearing him talk but I attribute that not to the tonal qualities of his voice, but the words coming out of his mouth.

I don't think Al is going to run. But I very much think he should run. And for many reasons. To start with, I think he can genuinely make argument that while he made mistakes, he has and does support women. His transgressions were minor and he certainly paid for them. He's articulate with a history of promoting progressive causes including universal health care.

 

[acbytesla]

You're right, she's sounds authoritative but also warm.

Duckworth sounds better at the end of that speech than she did at the beginning. And I would argue that she too suffers from that high pitch squeal that is hard on the ears. It mostly is evident when she gets excited.

 

[Minoosh]

Duckworth sounds better at the end of that speech than she did at the beginning. And I would argue that she too suffers from that high pitch squeal that is hard on the ears. It mostly is evident when she gets excited.

I am not hearing it.

Re: Trump's voice. It is partly his voice and partly the mind-numbing repetition he employs. He bores me to tears.

 

[Brainster]

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.

I thought Warren had a very good chance of getting the nomination; the article actually surprised me with its tone of desperation. As for the timing, we are only a little over 15 months away from the Iowa caucuses. At least last time around, the Democrats held their first debate in October of the year before the election, which would indicate there there is less than a year.

Sanders still has that machine that almost derailed Hillary; he's no joke. His age is very much an issue, which is why I see Warren poised to take over. But I have little doubt that the Left is going to have its candidate this time around; the super-delegates have been neutralized (at least in the first round of balloting).

Biden is unlikely, I agree, but the fact that he is making noises about running can't be ignored. He will have some advantages in the race; as a loyal soldier to Obama he can probably count on strong support from black leaders. And he'd probably qualify as the "establishment white male," a group that used to have a stranglehold on the nominations. Of course he probably will have trouble getting more support from black leaders than Harris or Booker, assuming they run (I assume both of them are about 90% at this point).

 

[lionking]

I thought Warren had a very good chance of getting the nomination; the article actually surprised me with its tone of desperation. As for the timing, we are only a little over 15 months away from the Iowa caucuses. At least last time around, the Democrats held their first debate in October of the year before the election, which would indicate there there is less than a year.

Sanders still has that machine that almost derailed Hillary; he's no joke. His age is very much an issue, which is why I see Warren poised to take over.

Biden is unlikely, I agree, but the fact that he is making noises about running can't be ignored. He will have some advantages in the race; as a loyal soldier to Obama he can probably count on strong support from black leaders. And he'd probably qualify as the "establishment white male," a group that used to have a stranglehold on the nominations. Of course he probably will have trouble getting more support from black leaders than Harris or Booker, assuming they run (I assume both of them are about 90% at this point).

Surely the Democrats can find someone under 70. If not, it’s a very sad state of affairs.

 

[Brainster]

Surely the Democrats can find someone under 70. If not, it’s a very sad state of affairs.

Well, traditionally presidential candidates have been governors of large, electorally important states. Andrew Cuomo?

Recently they've gone with senators and been successful with a black male senator from a large, electorally important state--Corey Booker?

Of course if they want to go with another crook, there's always Bob Menendez.

 

[Craig4]

Surely the Democrats can find someone under 70. If not, it’s a very sad state of affairs.

They also need someone from outside Washington. Democrats, particularly in the Senate have done some heroic work subverting Trump and his agenda. That has come at the price of doing a lot of really ugly sausage making in public. Their party would be well served by a candidate not associated with any of that. There are a couple of governors who look pretty good right now and have stayed largely out of the fray.

 

[Darat]

That caravan is full of people who would like the opportunity to seek asylum. Trump is terrified. He is telling his people to be terrified. Not of mobs rushing the borders, but of asylum seekers.

That is like being afraid of Mormon's walking around your neighborhood. They aren't breaking down the door, they are just asking if they can come in. You can say no if you're not interested. Or you can meet them at the door with an AK-47.

And what sort of hell hole would the USA be today be if had let in asylum seekers, those escaping persecution, those wanting a new start and the poor when it was founded?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

And what sort of hell hole would the USA be today be if had let in asylum seekers, those escaping persecution, those wanting a new start and the poor when it was founded?

If it hadn't, it would be nothing but a bunch of Elizabeth Warrens.

 

[acbytesla]

They also need someone from outside Washington. Democrats, particularly in the Senate have done some heroic work subverting Trump and his agenda. That has come at the price of doing a lot of really ugly sausage making in public. Their party would be well served by a candidate not associated with any of that. There are a couple of governors who look pretty good right now and have stayed largely out of the fray.

I don't buy that argument at all. Whether they've been in the House or the Senate or have been a Governor, or even someone without political experience. it really doesn't matter.

They just need someone appealing. Someone smart, savvy and electable. Avenatti looked a possibility, for about 5 minutes. If Beto comes close to beating Cruz in Texas, I can see him making a run. I imagine it's going to be a big field of Dems including more than a couple of Septuagenarians including Sanders, Warren and Biden. I doubt Cuomo because he's hated by the left because of his shenanigans. And of course Blasio. I think Hillary will definitely try and push her way in but I think the party wants her to give it a rest and stay out. Booker and Duckworth are outside shots as well.

 

[Stacyhs]

Just watched a Warren clip. There is nothing wrong with her voice. It's not high-pitched. We're just not used to hearing voices of female leaders. Whether we can get used to it by 2020, I have no idea. I can't stand Trump's voice; plenty of people love it.

People liked Reagan's voice, and GWB struck a warmer note than Gore.

ETA: I think Franken is a nonstarter.

Agree with all the above.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, America still has a problem with women in positions of power.

 

[smartcooky]

Of all the people on the left that I have been watching during the recent debates over Kavanagh, Mueller, and the Warren DNA saga etc, three people have stood out to me as well spoken and intelligent people who would do well as POTUS

Cory Booker.
Kamala Harris.
Elizabeth Warren.

Its a pity former CIA Director John Brennan isn't a politician... I like straight shooting, straight talking no-nonsense people. Brennan has a strong personality and is just the sort of character the US needs to repair the damage done by Trump. I reckon he is a "get it done" type of guy.


However, lets be honest here.... Howdy Doody would make a better POTUS that the current moron.

 

[Belz...]

I like Brennan, too. I'd like to see him debate Trump. Hell, I'd like to see Richard Painter debate Trump. He'd probably tear him a new one.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump's debate style consists of smirks, calling people denigrating names and threats. All an opponent needs to do is call him on his lies with facts and act like an adult who is speaking to a child having a tantrum.

 

[theprestige]

Trump's debate style consists of smirks, calling people denigrating names and threats. All an opponent needs to do is call him on his lies with facts and act like an adult who is speaking to a child having a tantrum.

The Trump-Clinton debates are public record. Either your assessment is wrong, or Hillary wasn't able to act like an adult and use facts.

 

[smartcooky]

Trump's debate style consists of smirks, calling people denigrating names and threats. All an opponent needs to do is call him on his lies with facts and act like an adult who is speaking to a child having a tantrum.

The Trump-Clinton debates are public record. Either your assessment is wrong, or Hillary wasn't able to act like an adult and use facts.

To be fair, that was then, and this is now.... two years is an age in politics.

During the lead up to the 2016, a fair portion of the country (almost half) thought he might end up being good President. They hoped he might grow into the job. Now, all hope of that is lost.

All Trump has grown into is a sneering, narcissistic, tantrum-throwing man-child; he is a (now) self-confessed "Nationalist" (and he's a racist, so you can interpret that as "White Nationalist"). He is also openly misogynistic and homophobic. He intentionally stirs up racial hatred among his base, and calls them "fine" people when they beat up and murder those who oppose him.

Additionally, he craps all over your closest military allies, while embarrassingly licking the boots of the world's two most dangerous terrorists - Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un, both enemies of the USA.

Meanwhile, having screamed and yelled at full volume over Hilary Clinton's private email server in 2016, and how it was this big fat security risk for the country, in 2018 he happily uses his insecure private iPhone for White House and Government business, allowing China, Russia and probably North Korea to eavesdrop on his conversations.

But by far the worst aspect of this man's Presidency is not actually Trump himself, its that a fair percentage of Americans (including yourself, it seems) are happy with this state of affairs; happy to have a Fiddle-playing Emperor running your country into the ground, rapidly turning it into a banana republic, while a large number of you look on and cheer. You do know don't you (at least, I hope you know) that Trump, and GOP, are trying to change the US Federal Law Enforcement structure so that the FBI is directly responsible to the President? Dog help you all if they succeed; the USA would be one helluva Police State!

Much of the rest of the Western world used to look to the United States of America for guidance... "what do the Americans think?" has been a fairly common theme in other countries for the last 50 or so years. Well, not any more. Now we look to the United States and wonder what has become of it, and worry about where it is going, and what will happen.

Trump hasn't "Made America Great", he's made it into a world-wide laughing stock, and is well on course for turning it into an international pariah.

 

[dann]

That caravan is full of people who would like the opportunity to seek asylum. Trump is terrified. He is telling his people to be terrified. Not of mobs rushing the borders, but of asylum seekers.

That is like being afraid of Mormon's walking around your neighborhood. They aren't breaking down the door, they are just asking if they can come in. You can say no if you're not interested. Or you can meet them at the door with an AK-47.

The thread seems to have deviated considerably from Elizabeth Warren and her ancestry ...

Trump isn't terrified at all, and he doesn't actually believe that Middle Eastern terrorists are hiding in the caravan, but he and Fox and other white supremacists know that they can use it to rile up his voters.