• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is Georgia on your mind?

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.
Wrong. He won for many reasons: ... For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall"

Many things EACH cost that very close election. ... Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.
I think this part needs to be addressed with what actually happened. Clinton's campaign was not only financing itself but the Democratic party as well. They were running low on funds. If you will remember the head of the party (Donna Brazile, iirc) was not happy with the situation because Clinton said if you want my campaign funds I get a say in how they are used. It was considered a minor scandal at the time.

Yes, it was a conscious decision to not campaign in what were considered safe states but that decision was made due to funding issues, not hubris and self-entitlement as Derec continually claims. Derec's misogyny leads him to wrong conclusions again.

It was treating Pennsylvania as safe that was especially stupid. Nate Silver (already idolized for his predictive analyses in 2016) has a concept called "Tipping State." And the Tipping State was ... Pennsylvania! Other Rust Belt states were nearby on the Tipping Axis.

Because information now travels faster than horses, a large component of voter sentiment moves in unison across the fifty states. When Nate Silver's numbers showed Pennsylvania to be the tipping state, he meant that If the election were close, PA would be the Key state. Stated differently, IF PA voted Clinton, she'd win the necessary 270+ EVs; otherwise she wouldn't.

In the olden days, one would have needed a high school education to grasp that Pennsylvania was the most important place to direct campaigning. But in 2016, even a high school education was unnecessary: One only needed the literacy skills to skim Nate Silver's website.

Yet, Clinton hardly bothered to campaign in the Rust Belt. Explanation: Her goal was NOT to get 51% of the electoral votes, but to get 80%. In her delusion she thought she'd win a landslide and wanted the landslide as big as possible.

The delusion infected many Democrats. Whenever I pointed out, in 2016, that the Keystone State was the Key, all I got were whines that Clinton was going to win PA anyway.

Speaking of Donna Brazile, there's another topic on which the morons running the D Party should have listened to me (and Ms. Brazile). It was obvious to all that Biden would have been the stronger candidate. (He bowed out early because of a family death, but could have re-entered during or even after the Convention.) I pointed out that replacing candidates was appropriate even at that late stage given Clinton's very dismal performance. The nitwits at The Other Message Board — who pride themselves on "Fighting Ignorance" but can't hold a candle to IIDB! — whined and whinged that I didn't understand how primaries worked.

And yet:

In her new book, the former DNC chief details dysfunction in the Democratic Party and reveals secret deliberations to replace Clinton-Kaine with Biden-Booker ...
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
It's hard to comment intelligently on American elections without first acknowledging that Americans seem to be unusually stupid.

It's especially American politicians who have become increasingly stupid. I am certainly not the only one concerned about this. Andy Borowitz talks about his new book Profiles in Ignorance: How America’s Politicians Got Dumber and Dumber.

While it's clear that America has certainly gotten stupider in recent decades, is this a world-wide phenomenon? I don't think it's limited to a few Anglophone countries: Right-wing populists have been elected in recent European elections.

One country where I have some first-hand knowledge is the Kingdom of Thailand. Citizens here have become increasingly interested in actual issues, rather then who they'd like to have a beer with.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
My problem with the Native American angle was that she used it for personal/professional gain, while never actually embracing the alleged heritage. That is repugnant behavior. It is like Trump going out there pretending he is wealthy.

Oh, please. Not this again. Shame on you.

Her family legend pointed to a SPECIFIC ancestor alleged to be half Amerind. The DNA test more or less confirmed this, although Amerind testing is error-prone. That ancestor was likely quarter Amerind instead of half: So what?

There was nothing venal about Warren's embracing her family legend, but the QOP seizes on every half-truth or piece of gibberish they can find to make Ds look as bad as Rs.

It is a real shame that otherwise intelligent good-spirited Americans pick up on such QOP lies and gibberish and propagate it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I've never understood why so many Americans don't vote in most elections. I know a 53 year old woman who has never voted in her life. A neighbor helped her register in 2020, but at the last minute, she refused to vote. Why!
Combination of laziness and apathy. Apathy because the choices we have are so often poor (recall South Park's "turd sandwich vs. a giant douche")
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
People who will not vote for a woman because she's a woman outnumber by at least 10-to-1 people who will not vote for a man because he's a man. This is certainly true in POTUS elections, less so in lesser elections.
[citation needed]

Many things EACH cost that very close election. Clinton would have won without Comey's late intervention, just for starters. Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.
"I am not part of an organized political party - I am a Democrat" - Will Rogers

But despite all the other reasons for her loss, Hillary would have won, all things the same, if she were male.
I disagree. All things being the same, he would not even be nominated. Hell, he would not have been the Senator from NY most likely, since he would not have been married to Bill.
A Hildebrand Rodham would be a successful corporate lawyer, but I do not think he would have been a successful politician. Bill always had the political skills and talent between the two.

The main charges that resonated with low-information voters were that she was "shrill", or "shrewish" or ... <pick a pejorative associated with females>.
Some adjectives are gender specific. A shrew is a female stock character (also a small mammal). That does not mean that similar qualities would be liked if Hillary was Hildebrand.

His first term definitely demonstrated his incompetence. Yet he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 and ALMOST won (losing only by a few thousand votes in key states) DESPITE the proof of his severe faults.
The turnout was much higher in 2020 than in 2016 (61.3% vs. 55.7%).
And Trump being competitive in many key states is also a testament to the flaws of Biden. He was less flawed than Hillary, but still very flawed.

(As I've said, he WOULD have won running against anyone other than Joe Biden.)
Against Bernie or Liz, most surely. But against anyone? Very unlikely. I think Bloomberg would have won in the general by a greater margin and he would be a much better president than Uncle Joe. And I also think Biden and Liz had a deal for her to attack Bloomberg with that personal attack during a debate.

It's hard to comment intelligently on American elections without first acknowledging that Americans seem to be unusually stupid.
Unusually stupid? No. There are stupid people everywhere.
But I do think US system is far more centered on personalities than others in the developed world, and that lets stupidity shine through.
For example, most other countries do not have primary election. The candidates are put up by parties.

She is very popular among her supporters
That's almost a tautology. The thing is, she did not have enough supporters to finish higher than third in her own state.
and among intelligent progressives more generally.
[Citation needed] yet again.
A chief reason for her low vote totals is, again, the stupidity of American voters.
Just because you like Warren does not mean those of us who don't are "stupid" for not seeing how great she is. :rolleyesa:
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American.

I never thought the "governor of Alaska" was a fair quip, or an effective one. Alaska may not have a lot of people, but it does have a huge area that needs to be managed - wildlife, energy (lots of oil!) etc. And a governor is an executive position, unlike Senator. Besides, Vermont is smaller by population, and Delaware not that much bigger, and both those fellows were not ridiculed for how small the states they represented were.

Sarah Palin looked good on paper. But once she opened her mouth ...

We had a worker who was going on about how great of a politician Sarah Palin was. In Ohio... someone was claiming how great this nobody was in Alaska. The media gives the nod, Trump gives the nod... and there is an instant following.
How did we jump to Trump now?

The hard part in all of this is separating the chaff. Usually in the Senate, it is much harder to get a radical or a buffoon into office. You can gerrymander a district, but not a state.
True. Lots of buffoons and radicals (sometimes one and the same) in the House, on both sides. It's harder for them to be elected statewide, but not impossible.


Palin lost in Alaska. Why can't these people make it, but a Walker can.
Walker still hasn't shown he can.
Palin's was a special House election (at large district, so statewide) off term, so turnout is different. Also, Alaska has ranked choice voting and two viable Republicans were running, without many of their voters selecting each other as their second choice.

Walker seems particularly odd, because he is running against a Pastor, so the religion angle will be hard.
One of the reasons I can't stand Warnock.

Worst of all though, is Walker is almost stumping on a "I'm stupid, but vote for me I the red guy." type of ticket. He isn't running as much as an "outsider" but a "fucking moron".
Question: if Dems nominated a moron for Senate in your state, would you still for that person?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
People who will not vote for a woman because she's a woman outnumber by at least 10-to-1 people who will not vote for a man because he's a man. This is certainly true in POTUS elections, less so in lesser elections.
[citation needed]

Watch some Jordan Klepper videos and get back to us. Start with the QOPster who is proud that QOP has "great respect for women" but wears a T-shirt saying "Hilary sucks ... but not like Monica!" Continue to the interviews of FEMALE QOPsters who think hormones disqualify women from the Presidency.
His first term definitely demonstrated his incompetence. Yet he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 and ALMOST won (losing only by a few thousand votes in key states) DESPITE the proof of his severe faults.
The turnout was much higher in 2020 than in 2016 (61.3% vs. 55.7%).
And Trump being competitive in many key states is also a testament to the flaws of Biden. He was less flawed than Hillary, but still very flawed.

In 2016 many literate Americans knew of Trump only as a loud-mouth reality TV star. By 2020 it should have been obvious to any sentient being that he was grossly incompetent and criminal. He shouldn't have gotten any votes at all, yet came within a razor-thin whisker of victory. And you want to parse decimal points on the 74 Million votes he got? :confused2: Think about Donald Trump. Stare at the M in "74 Million." Get back to us when you have a clue.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Lebron James is close to a billionaire these days
So? He got there by throwing a big ball through a slightly larger hoop. Big whoop!
It's not like he created an electric car and rocket business.

and is big in Akron with helping with poverty, schooling, etc...
He is also a racist, who said that he "wants nothing to do with white people".
And his statements about policing have been totally idiotic.
Example: LeBron James Deletes Tweet Saying ‘You’re Next’ to Officer Who Shot Ma’Khia Bryant
Just to refresh everybody's memory: Ma'Khia Bryant was about to stab another teenage girl when she was justifiably shot. But Lebron only sees race and makes his judgement based on that alone.

He moved to LA for business reasons. The guy isn't a genius, but fuck, Walker and James have nothing in common, but being athletes.
They also have in common that neither should be a US senator.


A pastor is too far left? Is he even that partisan?
There is such a thing as Christian Left.
He won in 2020.
In a very unusual year. And this year his opponent is a bumbling idiot. Otherwise he'd lose for sure.
He is significantly more left than his state.
This site ranks him second on "progressive score" vs. "state tilt". Jon Ossoff is third. So he will be in some trouble too in four years.

You are making declarative statements with no backing. The Dems won two seats in the Senate in Georgia including runoffs. Clearly the candidates weren't too liberal then.
You disbelieve that 2020 was a highly unusual year because of Trump and COVID? What "backing" do you want on that? Yes, both of them won in 2020. That was a major coup for the Democrats. But it was also a fluke.

Warnock can string together sentences. Walker appears completely incapable of communication. This isn't some sort of dig. Walker isn't on Fox or CBS or MNF, and we can tell why.
Yes, Walker is a moron, and has diagnosed mental health issues.
And he is the only reason Warnock is leading right now.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American.
And that was all John McCain knew about her. Whether out of desperation or stupidity, he picked her thoughtlessly without any vetting. I liked John McCain but intelligence was not one of his strengths.

I never thought the "governor of Alaska" was a fair quip, or an effective one. Alaska may not have a lot of people, but it does have a huge area that needs to be managed - wildlife, energy (lots of oil!) etc. And a governor is an executive position, unlike Senator. Besides, Vermont is smaller by population, and Delaware not that much bigger, and both those fellows were not ridiculed for how small the states they represented were.

Sarah Palin looked good on paper. But once she opened her mouth ...

Hunh? :confused2: What "paper"? Her resume, persona, etc. were not secrets.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.
Perhaps. I would argue that some level of sociopathy is present in most politicians.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender.
Bullshit. You want to make everything about gender when Bernie and Warren have very different personalities, and Bernie's is just far more appealing.

No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy'
No, of course not. A schoolmarm is a woman, so that particular word would be applied to women. Duh.
A man exhibiting similar traits would be compared maybe to a strict headmaster character.

even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles.
How is Bernie schoolmarmy? He comes across as passionate, not schoolmarmy or headmasterly at all.
Again, Bernie and Warren have very different personalities.

Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging.
In my opinion Liz is lecturing DOWN on people.

But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.
Given that these people have supporters in the millions, of course some of them are bound to be sexist or racist.
You, however, are trying to reduce difference in popularity between Bernie and Liz to their gender, and that won't work.
The difference is due to their personalities, not gender.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died.
Another example is when she claimed that Bernie said that a woman could not win and the whole conflict between them over it.

She did not come off very good there either. 🐍

BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry.
Not to mention that Amerinds are from Siberia, which means that people indigenous to eastern Eurasia would share a lot of haplogroups with Amerinds.
Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.
Many probably do not even believe in DNA.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I think this part needs to be addressed with what actually happened. Clinton's campaign was not only financing itself but the Democratic party as well.
[citation needed] for that. Also, why couldn't DNC pay their own bills?

They were running low on funds. If you will remember the head of the party (Donna Brazile, iirc) was not happy with the situation because Clinton said if you want my campaign funds I get a say in how they are used. It was considered a minor scandal at the time.
I do not. So still [citation needed].

However, Hillary spent a LOT. More than Trump. And still she had no money to direct to states she really needed to fight for?
I call BS on that.
1.jpg


Yes, it was a conscious decision to not campaign in what were considered safe states but that decision was made due to funding issues, not hubris and self-entitlement as Derec continually claims.
Again, she outspent Trump by a lot. So there certainly was hubris.

Derec's misogyny leads him to wrong conclusions again.
Even if what you claimed about Hillary's finances was correct, your conclusion that criticizing her campaign strategy is due to "misogyny" is not only very wrong, but also insulting.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Actually, she did NOT use the NA family legend for personal gain.
We went over it, and she most certainly did. She claimed her race as "American Indian" as early as 1986 in a professional settings.
Warren-Registration-Card_1986.jpg


It was simply a family legend that she shared as people are won’t to do with coworkers and at some point, her employer realized they needed to demonstrate more racial diversity and asked her about her NA ancestry at which point she shared the family legend.
It was far more than that. You don't change the race you put on a professional membership card based on a "family legend". Not unless you hope for professional benefit, that is.
Also it's "wont to do". No apostrophe. It's its own word, not a contraction of "will not".

Good enough for their purposes. AFAIK, she never listed NA ancestry on any job application and never pretended to be anything but white.
How do you explain the bar registration card then?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It's especially American politicians who have become increasingly stupid. I am certainly not the only one concerned about this. Andy Borowitz talks about his new book Profiles in Ignorance: How America’s Politicians Got Dumber and Dumber.
Borowitz is some kind of comedian, right? He has an Onion-like column. He is not exactly a serious source.

While it's clear that America has certainly gotten stupider in recent decades, is this a world-wide phenomenon? I don't think it's limited to a few Anglophone countries: Right-wing populists have been elected in recent European elections.
That is due in part due to unwillingness of mainstream parties to do anything meaningful about the mass migrant invasion into Europe. Which continues, at a somewhat lower rate than in 2015, but mass migrants (mostly Muslim) are flooding into Europe still.
Other reasons include things like economic challenges. This Winter will be hard in Europe, and the energy policies of many idiotic politicians (exit from nuclear power in Germany, rejection of fracking throughout Europe) are a big reason Europe is so vulnerable to Russia's "gas sword" right now.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
It's especially American politicians who have become increasingly stupid. I am certainly not the only one concerned about this. Andy Borowitz talks about his new book Profiles in Ignorance: How America’s Politicians Got Dumber and Dumber.
Borowitz is some kind of comedian, right? He has an Onion-like column. He is not exactly a serious source.
Hunh? :confused2: :confused: Have you lost your grip? :confused: :confused2:

Borowitz wrote a NON-FICTION book about American politics. Are humorous people automatically dismissed? You yourself quoted Will Rogers a few posts ago. Al Franken was smarter than most Senators. Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken are just a few more examples of important commentators who had a sense of humor. Barack Obama, like many people of great intelligence, was very witty when he chose to be. Et cetera, et cetera.

Trying to discuss with you exasperates and often seems futile. You throw out trite Pavlovian soundbites ("some kind of comedian, right?") without intelligent reflection. Please work on improving your game.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Her family legend pointed to a SPECIFIC ancestor alleged to be half Amerind.
The family legend (or at least her claim of it) also included her mother not being able to marry her father because of her Indianness, and so they had to elope. Which is probably another lie by the Cherokee Princess.
Saagar Enjeti calls Warren’s credibility into question

The DNA test more or less confirmed this, although Amerind testing is error-prone. That ancestor was likely quarter Amerind instead of half: So what?
Probably far less than 1/4, given that Warren herself is estimated to be between 1/1024 and 1/64 Amerindian. Which would make her mother (about whose forced elopement Liz likely lied) 1/32 at most.

There was nothing venal about Warren's embracing her family legend, but the QOP seizes on every half-truth or piece of gibberish they can find to make Ds look as bad as Rs.
She also used it in professional setting where she claimed her race to be "American Indian". She also likely invented the story of her parents' elopement which does not hold up to scrutiny.

It is a real shame that otherwise intelligent good-spirited Americans pick up on such QOP lies and gibberish and propagate it.
What is gibberish is the fervent apologetics for Warren by parts of the progressive Left. She lost, get over it. And give it a rest with childish things like "QOP".
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Watch some Jordan Klepper videos and get back to us.
You made a specific claim (the 10:1 ratio) and I asked for citation. Instead, you direct me to non-specific videos by some comedian.

Start with the QOPster who is proud that QOP has "great respect for women" but wears a T-shirt saying "Hilary sucks ... but not like Monica!"
It is this absolute humorlessness of doctrinaire feminists that is really insufferable. You are offering comedians as sources, and yet cannot abide a fucking joke? Lighten up, Francis!

Continue to the interviews of FEMALE QOPsters who think hormones disqualify women from the Presidency.
Again, please provide a source to claims like this. And please, don't let it be "watch some Amy Schumer videos" ... :rolleyesa:

In 2016 many literate Americans knew of Trump only as a loud-mouth reality TV star.
He was also a real estate developer before that.

By 2020 it should have been obvious to any sentient being that he was grossly incompetent and criminal.
I do not think too many lobsters or octopi would realize that. Are you confusing "sentient" and "sapient"?

He shouldn't have gotten any votes at all, yet came within a razor-thin whisker of victory. And you want to parse decimal points on the 74 Million votes he got? :confused2: Think about Donald Trump. Stare at the M in "74 Million." Get back to us when you have a clue.

Saying stuff like that is a sure sign that you are hyperpartisan. No votes? Many people liked his accomplishments. His policies, his appointments. He pushed through a conservative majority on the SCOTUS. He passed a tax cut bill. Etc. You may not like any of it, I may not like most of it, but hell, many people did like it. So why should they not vote for him if they liked what he did?
He also implemented what US presidents since 1995 (when the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed) would not - move the US Embassy to Israel to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. That and the Abraham Accords were an accomplishment, whether or not you think he should have done that.
Oh, and there is the cancellation of TPP. Hillary was for it, Trump was against. And so was Bernie. Some things do not fit into neat partisan boxes.

So basically you are saying no people should have voted for Trump, even if they agree with his policies and appointments over the policies and appointments Biden was likely to make? Really?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
And that was all John McCain knew about her. Whether out of desperation or stupidity, he picked her thoughtlessly without any vetting. I liked John McCain but intelligence was not one of his strengths.
McCain had Palin foisted on him by the party because he was not a solid conservative and she was. She was not his actual choice.

Hunh? :confused2: What "paper"? Her resume, persona, etc. were not secrets.
Her resume was ok. Mayor, chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, then governor.
Certainly good enough for a running mate. On paper. Once she opened her mouth, it was different of course.

And again, for all the snickering about the population of Alaska, Vermont has fewer people, and Delaware not many more. So why no snickering there?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Hunh? :confused2: :confused: Have you lost your grip? :confused: :confused2:
That's where I know the guy from.

Borowitz wrote a NON-FICTION book about American politics. Are humorous people automatically dismissed?
Maybe, maybe not. Him being a creator of a sitcom does not inspire much confidence about him as a political writer.
Certainly not enough to go and get his book.

You yourself quoted Will Rogers a few posts ago.
As a humorous aside, not as a source for a claim.

Trying to discuss with you exasperates and often seems futile. You throw out trite Pavlovian soundbites ("some kind of comedian, right?") without intelligent reflection. Please work on improving your game.
You quoted two comedians when I challenged you about factual claims, such as your claim that there is a 10:1 ratio of people who would not vote for a candidate because she is a woman vs. those who would vote for her because she was a woman. Your response was "go watch [some comedian]'s videos" which is not a very intelligent reflection on your part. Please work on improving your game. I mean humorous people like Mark Twain and HE Mencken are good for flavor and commentary, but I would not use them as go-to sources about factual statements about politics of their day either.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,313
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Her family legend pointed to a SPECIFIC ancestor alleged to be half Amerind.
The DNA test more or less confirmed this, although Amerind testing is error-prone. That ancestor was likely quarter Amerind instead of half: So what?
Probably far less than 1/4, given that Warren herself is estimated to be between 1/1024 and 1/64 Amerindian. Which would make her mother (about whose forced elopement Liz likely lied) 1/32 at most.

You babble about the pedigree and couldn't spend a minute Googling for it. Let me help.

1) Naomi/Neoma 'Ocie' Smith (1794? - 1858) married Jonathan H. Crawford.
She is shown as "Cherokee" on her marriage license, presumably via her mother.

2) Preston H. Crawford married Edith May Marsh

3) John H. Crawford married Paulina Anne Bowen

4) Bethania E. Crawford married Harry Gun Reed

5) Pauline Louise Reed married Donald Jones Herring

6) Elizabeth Anne Herring (b. 1949) married Jim WARREN and was elected Senator from Massachusetts.

I don't know what arithmetic skills you have so I'll SPOIL this for you. If Neoma Smith was indeed half-Cherokee, Ms. Warren would be 1/64 Cherokee.

That's it. Henceforth if you have anything intelligent to write, place it at the TOP of your post. I will cease reading as soon as I come to the first instance of insipidity or obvious blather.

I did catch a glimpse of
So basically you are saying no people should have voted for Trump, even if they agree with his policies

His own Generals were making frantic phone calls to keep foreign leaders calm. Intelligence agencies were hiding secret information from him. He fiddled with his TV and BigMac and watched the country burn.

But it was reasonable for intelligent people to vote for him? Right. :)
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Actually, she did NOT use the NA family legend for personal gain.
We went over it, and she most certainly did. She claimed her race as "American Indian" as early as 1986 in a professional settings.
Warren-Registration-Card_1986.jpg


It was simply a family legend that she shared as people are won’t to do with coworkers and at some point, her employer realized they needed to demonstrate more racial diversity and asked her about her NA ancestry at which point she shared the family legend.
It was far more than that. You don't change the race you put on a professional membership card based on a "family legend". Not unless you hope for professional benefit, that is.
Also it's "wont to do". No apostrophe. It's its own word, not a contraction of "will not".

Good enough for their purposes. AFAIK, she never listed NA ancestry on any job application and never pretended to be anything but white.
How do you explain the bar registration card then?
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card? I'm asking because I never saw it before and I looked at a lot of sources back during the 2016 primaries.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.
Perhaps. I would argue that some level of sociopathy is present in most politicians.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender.
Bullshit. You want to make everything about gender when Bernie and Warren have very different personalities, and Bernie's is just far more appealing.

No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy'
No, of course not. A schoolmarm is a woman, so that particular word would be applied to women. Duh.
A man exhibiting similar traits would be compared maybe to a strict headmaster character.

even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles.
How is Bernie schoolmarmy? He comes across as passionate, not schoolmarmy or headmasterly at all.
Again, Bernie and Warren have very different personalities.

Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging.
In my opinion Liz is lecturing DOWN on people.

But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.
Given that these people have supporters in the millions, of course some of them are bound to be sexist or racist.
You, however, are trying to reduce difference in popularity between Bernie and Liz to their gender, and that won't work.
The difference is due to their personalities, not gender.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died.
Another example is when she claimed that Bernie said that a woman could not win and the whole conflict between them over it.

She did not come off very good there either. 🐍

BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry.
Not to mention that Amerinds are from Siberia, which means that people indigenous to eastern Eurasia would share a lot of haplogroups with Amerinds.
Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.
Many probably do not even believe in DNA.
I agree that many leaders have some sociopathic tendencies.

No, I do NOT make everything about gender. YOU and many men find Sanders more appealing. I find him exactly the opposite. I think he's a bombastic old man who wags his finger as he scolds and lectures, shouts and sprays spittle whenever he talks. Moreover, he's never been very effective as a Senator and even more, he only joins the Democratic party when he wants their nomination. He's an opportunist, even for a politician and not even a good opportunist. The finger wagging scolding and shouting are the epitome of school marm, at least if it's a woman who does it. If it's a man, he's a saint and wise and funny.

I don't see Warren as better than Sanders because she's a woman and he's a man. I think that many people like Sanders and enjoy or excuse his behavior (shouting, finger wagging, scolding, spittle) because he's a man: a crotchety old grandpa. And I think that many of those same people who see Warren as too much of a wonk do so because she's female. In 2016, Grandpas were cool and grandmas were not, at least in some circles.

Nice snake you included. I love it when [certain Sanders followers] include that whenever they talk about Warren. Shows their true colors. Apparently Sanders did try to talk her into dropping out, saying that a woman couldn't win.

Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.
Many probably do not even believe in DNA.

What an ugly thing to write. Pairs nicely with your allusion to the belief that NA people crossed the Siberian peninsula and so aren't really 'American' and have no more claim to the Americas than the Europeans who came after. It's always interesting when an atheist embraces manifest destiny so fiercely.

I'm fairly certain that the proportion of Native Americans who do not believe in DNA (whatever you mean by that statement) is roughly the same as the proportion of white people or black people or Hispanic people who don't believe in DNA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,243
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Actually, she did NOT use the NA family legend for personal gain.
We went over it, and she most certainly did. She claimed her race as "American Indian" as early as 1986 in a professional settings.
Warren-Registration-Card_1986.jpg


It was simply a family legend that she shared as people are won’t to do with coworkers and at some point, her employer realized they needed to demonstrate more racial diversity and asked her about her NA ancestry at which point she shared the family legend.
It was far more than that. You don't change the race you put on a professional membership card based on a "family legend". Not unless you hope for professional benefit, that is.
Also it's "wont to do". No apostrophe. It's its own word, not a contraction of "will not".

Good enough for their purposes. AFAIK, she never listed NA ancestry on any job application and never pretended to be anything but white.
How do you explain the bar registration card then?
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card? I'm asking because I never saw it before and I looked at a lot of sources back during the 2016 primaries.

The card was first reported by the Washington Post, I believe. It is still true that she did not claim to be of American Indian heritage for any personal gain, however. This card was issued to her AFTER she was accepted to the bar. Note the very tiny print above the "Race" line:

"The following information is for statistical purposes only and will not be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the attorney..."

Well, so much for that promise. In fact, the card was disclosed. Nobody should really expect authorities in the state of Texas to honor her privacy. After all, this card had value as part of a Republican smear campaign, and that would certainly invalidate any right she might have had to protection of her information.

See:

Washington Post: Warren listed race as ‘American Indian’ on Texas bar registration

 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,033
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I've never understood why so many Americans don't vote in most elections. I know a 53 year old woman who has never voted in her life. A neighbor helped her register in 2020, but at the last minute, she refused to vote. Why!
Combination of laziness and apathy. Apathy because the choices we have are so often poor (recall South Park's "turd sandwich vs. a giant douche")
It's more like ignorance imo. The woman I mentioned hated Trump but she had all kinds of fears about voting. Apathy does apply in many cases, but let's add ignorance to the mix. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the words, "My vote doesn't count" or something along those lines. People don't seem to understand that the only tiny bit of power most of us have is the vote. Even when I've disliked both major candidates, there was always one that was better or worse than the other, so it wasn't that hard to choose. Plus, it's so easy to vote in Georgia, despite some of the efforts to make it more difficult. My native state of New Jersey never had any early voting until recently. I think they have a week, while we have 3 full weeks of early voting, plus we don't need a reason to request an absentee ballot, like many states do.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I understand not wanting to make a choice from a set of horrible options. I'm facing that in the upcoming city council race. One candidate (incumbent) is interested only in her personal pocketbook, as evidenced by her votes. The other is interested only in his bucolic vision which supports his outsized ego. Unfortunately, he's possibly the better candidate but I don't know that I can bring myself to vote for him or her. I blame myself. I was busy with stuff at home and did not pay attention to who was running in that race--I wish I had known and had encouraged some decent, intelligent, thoughtful person to run.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,580
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think this part needs to be addressed with what actually happened. Clinton's campaign was not only financing itself but the Democratic party as well.
[citation needed] for that. Also, why couldn't DNC pay their own bills?

They were running low on funds. If you will remember the head of the party (Donna Brazile, iirc) was not happy with the situation because Clinton said if you want my campaign funds I get a say in how they are used. It was considered a minor scandal at the time.
I do not. So still [citation needed].

However, Hillary spent a LOT. More than Trump. And still she had no money to direct to states she really needed to fight for?
I call BS on that.
1.jpg


Yes, it was a conscious decision to not campaign in what were considered safe states but that decision was made due to funding issues, not hubris and self-entitlement as Derec continually claims.
Again, she outspent Trump by a lot. So there certainly was hubris.

Derec's misogyny leads him to wrong conclusions again.
Even if what you claimed about Hillary's finances was correct, your conclusion that criticizing her campaign strategy is due to "misogyny" is not only very wrong, but also insulting.
Which proves nothing. Dark money doesn't show up in those reports and it's an increasing part of politics. The campaign laws require the campaign to disclose it's spending, they can't impose restrictions on those who simply say their own thing even if said speech benefits one candidate over the other.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
You babble about the pedigree and couldn't spend a minute Googling for it. Let me help.
Babble is entirely your own. In any case, I do not care about the name of EW's great3 gammy to google her.

I don't know what arithmetic skills you have so I'll SPOIL this for you. If Neoma Smith was indeed half-Cherokee, Ms. Warren would be 1/64 Cherokee.
Indeed, she would be. But 1/64 is only the upper range of the estimate, not any certainty. Not even a point estimate.
If we use the bottom, 1/1024, then Gammy Neoma would be 1/32. If we use the geometric mean of the range (1/256) as a point estimate, then Gammy Neoma was 1/8 herself. Which is < 1/4.

That's it. Henceforth if you have anything intelligent to write, place it at the TOP of your post. I will cease reading as soon as I come to the first instance of insipidity or obvious blather.
So you want me to write my reply at the top, above the quotes from your post, as you will detect "insipidity or obvious blather" as soon as you start reading the quotes?

His own Generals were making frantic phone calls to keep foreign leaders calm. Intelligence agencies were hiding secret information from him. He fiddled with his TV and BigMac and watched the country burn.

I get it. Trump was a bad president. I did not vote for him in 2016. I did not vote for him in 2020. I am not a Trump supporter.

But unlike you I have enough perspective to know that policies he managed to implement, judges he managed to appoint etc. were things liked by millions of people who happily voted for him again. And others held their nose and voted for him because they disliked Biden/Democrats more.
People have different opinions. And in a democracy they have a vote even if they disagree with Swammerdami or with Derec. Deal with it.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
You were skeptical about it back then too. And I understand why you'd hope it wasn't true. It is damning, Rachel Dolzeal type stuff.
There probably were other threads where the card was brought up as well.

and I looked at a lot of sources back during the 2016 primaries.
2020 surely. EW chose not to run in 2016 against Hillary. So Bernie had to step up.
 
Last edited:

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,033
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I really don't care that Warren claimed to be of Native American heritage, although I do agree it was wrong of her to make that claim. I don't think she would be a good president. She's a good Senator and that's where she needs to stay. Nobody's perfect and again I'm reminded of the words to a song that B.B. King made famous. "Everybody lies a Little". The words include, "politicians lie a little". Actually, I'd say they lie a lot, some like Tfg lie constantly. Liz lied or exaggerated about her heritage, but I don't see her as a major liar compared to many in the Republican Party these days.

Anyway....the latest poll has Warnock back in the lead. I sure hope that's right.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
You were skeptical about it back then too. And I understand why you'd hope it wasn't true. It is damning, Rachel Dolzeal type stuff.
There probably were other threads where the card was brought up as well.

and I looked at a lot of sources back during the 2016 primaries.
2020 surely. EW chose not to run in 2016 against Hillary. So Bernie had to step up.
I don't have the time or patience to necromance through old threads. I sincerely admire your memory and ability to locate these threads. I haven't the patience. In any case, upthread here it was demonstrated that the NA notation was made AFTER she was admitted to the bar. I'm really not certain where you get the idea that race determines whether or not one is admitted to the bar in any state. It does not.

Like many people I know, Warren was perhaps over-proud of the family legend of NA ancestry. It may or may not be factual but it is apparent that she believed it to be true. It is easy if you look white and are raised white and the ancestry is far enough in history to be proud of being part Indian. It's a lot harder to live as a Native American openly.

And yeah, I meant 2020 not 2016.

Poor Bernie! Being forced against his will to run to be the nominee of a party he only belongs to when he wants to run for POTUS.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,496
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
You were skeptical about it back then too. And I understand why you'd hope it wasn't true. It is damning, Rachel Dolzeal type stuff.
There probably were other threads where the card was brought up as well.

and I looked at a lot of sources back during the 2016 primaries.
2020 surely. EW chose not to run in 2016 against Hillary. So Bernie had to step up.
I don't have the time or patience to necromance through old threads. I sincerely admire your memory and ability to locate these threads. I haven't the patience. In any case, upthread here it was demonstrated that the NA notation was made AFTER she was admitted to the bar. I'm really not certain where you get the idea that race determines whether or not one is admitted to the bar in any state. It does not.

Like many people I know, Warren was perhaps over-proud of the family legend of NA ancestry. It may or may not be factual but it is apparent that she believed it to be true. It is easy if you look white and are raised white and the ancestry is far enough in history to be proud of being part Indian. It's a lot harder to live as a Native American openly.
The Native American angle certainly is much more an asterisk in her career. When she ran for Senate, she wasn't exactly selling a Squanto theme to her identity.

Also, is she running for office in Georgia now?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,496
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago! Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage? That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago! Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage? That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
And with a hurricane bearing down on him, too! Seriously, Derec, stay safe. Hope the bad stuff misses you.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago! Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage? That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
I did recollect that there had been discussion(s) but I honestly did not remember the image of the TX bar card being filled in with Native American--and thanks for the reminder that that card was filled out AFTER she was admitted to the bar, not as part of any application she made.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,243
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago! Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage? That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
I did recollect that there had been discussion(s) but I honestly did not remember the image of the TX bar card being filled in with Native American--and thanks for the reminder that that card was filled out AFTER she was admitted to the bar, not as part of any application she made.

The date she was admitted is on the card itself, so it's easy to see that she got the registration card after she was admitted. Since it was for statistical purposes only, according to the registration card itself, she may have thought it was just a way to bump up the statistics for Native Americans. After all, she had that family legend.

I like to tell people that I'm descended from Betsy Ross and Aaron Burr, since we have that in our family legend, but who knows? That side of the family was a bunch of snobs. They also claim to be descended from Julia Dent Grant's family (Grant's wife), but her family were pro-slavery, so I don't tend to brag about that. Ultimately, though, we're all descended from cannibals. So, there's that. Luckily, they left that out of the family "bible", as they call it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
What is the source of this supposed bar registration card?
It was originally dug up by WaPo I believe. Aggressive paywall, I know. Snopes had an article about it too, when it broke.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

I'm asking because I never saw it before
You never saw it before? Are you sure? You participated in threads in which it was brought up.
Warren's Native American heritage gaffe
In this post of the Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered" thread you reply to my post where I mentioned the card directly.
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago! Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage? That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
I did recollect that there had been discussion(s) but I honestly did not remember the image of the TX bar card being filled in with Native American--and thanks for the reminder that that card was filled out AFTER she was admitted to the bar, not as part of any application she made.

The date she was admitted is on the card itself, so it's easy to see that she got the registration card after she was admitted. Since it was for statistical purposes only, according to the registration card itself, she may have thought it was just a way to bump up the statistics for Native Americans. After all, she had that family legend.

I like to tell people that I'm descended from Betsy Ross and Aaron Burr, since we have that in our family legend, but who knows? That side of the family was a bunch of snobs. They also claim to be descended from Julia Dent Grant's family (Grant's wife), but her family were pro-slavery, so I don't tend to brag about that. Ultimately, though, we're all descended from cannibals. So, there's that. Luckily, they left that out of the family "bible", as they call it.
Or she was asked to do so. Who knows? According to my family kegend, I am related to Ulysses S.Grant. No idea how. One of my kids did the 23 abd Me and shared his results. No surprises there—which actually surprised me. We seem to be from where we were told….
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I really don't care that Warren claimed to be of Native American heritage, although I do agree it was wrong of her to make that claim. I don't think she would be a good president.
Hear hear.

Anyway....the latest poll has Warnock back in the lead. I sure hope that's right.
It does. RCP average is very close - 0.7% for Warnock. Luckily for him, a metapoll like that should have a tighter MOE than individual polls.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I don't have the time or patience to necromance through old threads. I sincerely admire your memory and ability to locate these threads.
I mean, it is not that difficult with the search function. Of course, you are right on memory - I remembered that we discussed the bar card during the primaries, but of course I did not remember which thread(s) specifically.
I haven't the patience.
It's not like I had to slog my way through all the old threads. With the search function, it does not take very long. :)

In any case, upthread here it was demonstrated that the NA notation was made AFTER she was admitted to the bar.
A bar registration card is issued after bar admittance, correct. I did not claim otherwise. My claim was that she clearly used her alleged "American Indian" identity in her professional life, and not just as an interesting piece of family lore.

I'm really not certain where you get the idea that race determines whether or not one is admitted to the bar in any state. It does not.
I did not claim it does. But claiming "American Indian" as your race in professional settings can help you get hired because of "affirmative action" policies.

Like many people I know, Warren was perhaps over-proud of the family legend of NA ancestry. It may or may not be factual but it is apparent that she believed it to be true. It is easy if you look white and are raised white and the ancestry is far enough in history to be proud of being part Indian.
You cannot claim "family legend" as an excuse when you list "American Indian" as your race in a professional setting, such as a bar registration.

It's a lot harder to live as a Native American openly.
Yeah. Very hard cashing those casino checks or not having to pay certain taxes and fees the rest of have to.

Poor Bernie! Being forced against his will to run to be the nominee of a party he only belongs to when he wants to run for POTUS.
Bernie only ran after EW decided not to. That was my point.
With Elizabeth Warren saying no to 2016, Bernie Sanders eyes populist mantle
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The Native American angle certainly is much more an asterisk in her career. When she ran for Senate, she wasn't exactly selling a Squanto theme to her identity.
But now she does want to give Indians veto powers over any large-scale infrastructure development.

Also, is she running for office in Georgia now?
Fortunately, she does not.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Are you seriously bringing up a post in a thread over Michael Brown? That was 8 years ago!
The thread is from 2019 though, not 2014. It was about EW (and then also Kamala) libelously tweeting that Michael Brown was "murdered".
In any case, during the course of that thread, EW's claims of being an Indian, including her bar registration card, were brought up, and Toni commented on it. So it is not true that she never saw it before. I do not think she was lying, she most likely just forgot.

Do you have a Belichick database set up for race and gender rage?
Huh? No, but this forum has a search function.

That Toni couldn't recall it isn't too hard to believe. She isn't obsessed with women she disagrees with.
She is a big EW fan. And this was mere 3 years ago, not 8.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
And with a hurricane bearing down on him, too! Seriously, Derec, stay safe. Hope the bad stuff misses you.
Hurricane Ian made a wide berth around Atlanta. We did not even get any rain. Not even a drop.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Which proves nothing. Dark money doesn't show up in those reports and it's an increasing part of politics. The campaign laws require the campaign to disclose it's spending, they can't impose restrictions on those who simply say their own thing even if said speech benefits one candidate over the other.
Zipr's unsubstantiated claim was about campaign spending though. His claim was that the Hillary campaign was too broke (after subsidizing DNC for some reason) to campaign in PA or WI. And that anybody who says that Hillary's campaign made strategic mistakes is just a dirty, no-good "misogynist".
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It's more like ignorance imo. The woman I mentioned hated Trump but she had all kinds of fears about voting.
What kind of fears?
I think they have a week, while we have 3 full weeks of early voting, plus we don't need a reason to request an absentee ballot, like many states do.
And yet Georgia is getting boycotted by the likes of MLB over our voting laws just because outside groups are not able to distribute food and drink. :rolleyesa:
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The card was first reported by the Washington Post, I believe. It is still true that she did not claim to be of American Indian heritage for any personal gain, however. This card was issued to her AFTER she was accepted to the bar. Note the very tiny print above the "Race" line [about statistical purposes]
My point is merely that her use of race as "American Indian" shows that she was using her supposed Amerind identity in a professional setting, and did not treat it merely as a piece of family lore.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,677
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
No, I do NOT make everything about gender. YOU and many men find Sanders more appealing.
You claim people who prefer Bernie over EW do that because Bernie is a man. But you reject that you might prefer EW because she is a woman. Can you not countenance that like you, people have other reasons to prefer one over the other? Or does everybody disagreeing with you have bad motives automatically?

Btw, I do not find Bernie's policies any more appealing than EW's. But on a personal level he is much more likable.

I find him exactly the opposite. I think he's a bombastic old man who wags his finger as he scolds and lectures, shouts and sprays spittle whenever he talks.
Bombastic is a good way to describe him! Lecturing though I would ascribe more to EW. And whenever she lectures or scolds she sounds like she is talking to children, not adults.

The finger wagging scolding and shouting are the epitome of school marm, at least if it's a woman who does it. If it's a man, he's a saint and wise and funny.
Shouting is not the epitome of a schoolmarm. Scolding is, which is what EW does when she is not lecturing.
The moniker schoolmarm is gendered, but not the trope. Strict, scolding male teachers are also a thing, both in reality and in fiction. But Bernie does not really fit that mold.

I don't see Warren as better than Sanders because she's a woman and he's a man. I think that many people like Sanders and enjoy or excuse his behavior (shouting, finger wagging, scolding, spittle) because he's a man: a crotchety old grandpa. And I think that many of those same people who see Warren as too much of a wonk do so because she's female. In 2016, Grandpas were cool and grandmas were not, at least in some circles.
That is the thing. You say you prefer EW for reasons other than her gender, and I take you at your word. Can you not extend the same to those who prefer Bernie over EW? Why assume the like for Bernie is "because he's a man" and dislike EW "because she's female".

Nice snake you included. I love it when Sanders <Removed> include that whenever they talk about Warren.
Nice personal insult! (I read it before it was removed)
I included the snake because snake emojis became an online phenomenon (including #WarrenIsASnake hashtag) after the episode where EW attacked Bernie during a debate over her claim that he allegedly told her that a woman could not win.
It was another episode from the tumultuous 2020 primary season that ended with such a disappointingly conventional nominee.

Shows their true colors. Apparently Sanders did try to talk her into dropping out, saying that a woman couldn't win.
That was her claim. He denied it. In the end, ...
1906a1bb-4006-4dde-9468-4618cb48431f_text.gif



What an ugly thing to write.
They certainly disregard it whenever it is convenient to them and maintaining their special treatment.
Pairs nicely with your allusion to the belief that NA people crossed the Siberian peninsula
Siberian peninsula? You mean the Bering land bridge?
And I mean, they did cross it. Even if some will insist they were created de novo in North America, contrary to all scientific evidence.

and so aren't really 'American'
When did I say that?

and have no more claim to the Americas than the Europeans who came after. It's always interesting when an atheist embraces manifest destiny so fiercely.
I do not think Amerinds should have any more or less rights than any other US citizen. I also think that tribal sovereignty is incompatible with US citizenship as it creates two classes of citizens.

I'm fairly certain that the proportion of Native Americans who do not believe in DNA (whatever you mean by that statement) is roughly the same as the proportion of white people or black people or Hispanic people who don't believe in DNA.
I do not have numbers on that, but it would be an interesting thing to find out.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
4,243
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The card was first reported by the Washington Post, I believe. It is still true that she did not claim to be of American Indian heritage for any personal gain, however. This card was issued to her AFTER she was accepted to the bar. Note the very tiny print above the "Race" line [about statistical purposes]
My point is merely that her use of race as "American Indian" shows that she was using her supposed Amerind identity in a professional setting, and did not treat it merely as a piece of family lore.

Originally, you said she used that ancestry for personal gain. Now you are shifting the goalpost to "professional setting". Just how did her putting "American Indian" in a slot that called for "race" benefit her in any way at all? She had nothing to gain from it. Not a scholarship. Not entrance to the bar or a university. Not campaigning for public office. Nothing. She came from Oklahoma, which has the highest percentage of Native American ancestry of any state in the US. Lots of families there boast of Indian ancestry. Show us how she ever used that claim for any personal gain at all, or let it go.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Short reply because I'm tired and don't have time to separate out all of the various points:

I like Elizabeth Warren partly because to me, she's relatable. She grew up in modest circumstances, nearly had her career derailed because she became a mother but most of all because she's very open about how her POV has changed because of the work she did. I respect people who grow with experience and who can change their minds as they gain more experiences and see more of the world. She is an extremely hard worker, and works hard at her job, which she seems to see as serving the American people, and the people of her district.

Bernie Sanders has made a point (or his bros have) of having always held the positions he holds now. He doesn't talk about any way that his life experiences or those of other people have informed his opinions or positions or views with respect to policy. And I've always thought that people who shouted were less sincere and less effective. To me, it shows a bullying tendency and is not a characteristic I like in any kind of leader. In fact, to me, it's disqualifying. Sanders and Trump are two sides of the same coin in that respect, both full of ego and unable or unwilling to actually listen. More than that, Sanders has not been particularly effective in his role as Senator. To the extent that he is useful, it is as a gadfly, trying to push his party (as if he had a party) closer to his position. But he's too stubborn to actually join a party and lacks the charisma to form his own. He'd be more effective if he did either and if he could do either, he'd be a more effective person. I don't see him as a leader and certainly not presidential. He seems unwilling and unable to reach compromise, to bring sides together, to forge any sort of plan that multiple sides can support even a little. He's all bombast and much less substance than his acolytes assign to him. I would think the same if a female candidate displayed the same personality traits and the same...career trajectory, if that happened. I don't think it would. No woman who acted like Bernie would be elected to anything at all. Ever.

Yes, Warren being a woman is a bonus for me, given that to date, no woman has been elected as POTUS. In fact, to date, only one non-white man has ever been elected POTUS.

For the record, I had serious concerns about the age of Warren and Sanders (and Biden and Trump) with respect to serving as POTUS.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,172
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
No, I do NOT make everything about gender. YOU and many men find Sanders more appealing.
You claim people who prefer Bernie over EW do that because Bernie is a man. But you reject that you might prefer EW because she is a woman. Can you not countenance that like you, people have other reasons to prefer one over the other? Or does everybody disagreeing with you have bad motives automatically?

Btw, I do not find Bernie's policies any more appealing than EW's. But on a personal level he is much more likable.


I find this true among men I know and I believe that it is precisely because Bernie is a crabby old man. A woman who shouted, spittle flying and wagged her finger at people would be called all sorts of ugly names. I don't mean this as a slam against you or any other man but my observation is that men can get away with being angry, cranky, shouting, etc. and are not disliked for it. Women cannot. I think that in our society, women walk a very narrow line between being seen as a pushover or too pushy, forceful and bitchy, determined and strident. This is not a line that men, or at least white men must walk.

Bombastic is a good way to describe him! Lecturing though I would ascribe more to EW. And whenever she lectures or scolds she sounds like she is talking to children, not adults.

I don't see why 'bombastic' isn't disqualifying and is even praised when it is a cranky old man. Bombastic is defined as "
high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated." Synonyms include blustering, pompous, blathering and ranting. A woman would be pilloried for exhibiting such behavior. In fact, Warren is pilloried for a much, much milder form of that behavior. Bernie seemed to be talking down to people in a much more insulting way than Warren for all of her schoolmarmish ways.

For me, it is almost universally true that anyone who is shouting and pointing their fingers is less believable, less likeable, less competent. Lewis Black being an exception but then, he's not a politician.

Nice snake you included. I love it when Sanders <Removed> include that whenever they talk about Warren.
Nice personal insult! (I read it before it was removed)
I included the snake because snake emojis became an online phenomenon (including #WarrenIsASnake hashtag) after the episode where EW attacked Bernie during a debate over her claim that he allegedly told her that a woman could not win.
It was another episode from the tumultuous 2020 primary season that ended with such a disappointingly conventional nominee.

Actually, I wasn't aware that the term I used was considered an insult. Apologies to you and to the mods for having to delete it.

Funny that referring to Warren as a snake is not considered an insult and that among a certain set, Bernie is believed over Warren. Actually, the fact that when two different narratives emerged, it both is and is not shocking that only the female candidate is insulted with a derogatory little icon.

I found Warren to be believable when she said that Bernie told her a woman couldn't win. After all, there is plenty of history to demonstrate that is correct: women cannot win.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,580
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The card was first reported by the Washington Post, I believe. It is still true that she did not claim to be of American Indian heritage for any personal gain, however. This card was issued to her AFTER she was accepted to the bar. Note the very tiny print above the "Race" line [about statistical purposes]
My point is merely that her use of race as "American Indian" shows that she was using her supposed Amerind identity in a professional setting, and did not treat it merely as a piece of family lore.

Originally, you said she used that ancestry for personal gain. Now you are shifting the goalpost to "professional setting". Just how did her putting "American Indian" in a slot that called for "race" benefit her in any way at all? She had nothing to gain from it. Not a scholarship. Not entrance to the bar or a university. Not campaigning for public office. Nothing. She came from Oklahoma, which has the highest percentage of Native American ancestry of any state in the US. Lots of families there boast of Indian ancestry. Show us how she ever used that claim for any personal gain at all, or let it go.
Also, the one drop rule.
 
Top Bottom