The Pocahontas 1/2020th thread, aka E. Warren


#41

It’s hilarious, if it wasn’t so sad. NOBODY can survive their litmus test of being politically correct, they just use it selectively to take out whoever they don’t like and turn a blind eye to those they do.


#42

It’s just the entrenched top tier folks in the DNC. Putting a few heads on sticks on the long road to the primaries.


#43

apparently some think think she’s the worst ?_?


#44

Holy crap, I’d hardly call that “thinking”, I am amazed these people can tie their own shoe laces. Putin seems to be a high priority for them all though. Not a bad thing to be cautious of Putin but my god some of their thinking is broken. This line was off the charts mental.

“Tulsi and Trump are in secret cahoots, possibly via Putin” :crazy_face:


#45

Love the very first comment.

“I’m gay af. She’s not my candidate. She’s not America’s candidate.”

:laughing:

Oh, the bubble people some live in. Dollars to donuts the gay dude lives in an urban area on either the left or the right coast of America. He’s too fundamentally separated from reality to live anywhere else.


#46

I never really heard of these folks coming into the light, Gabbard, Castro, et al., but in the long run, I think its’ a good thing. Mo’ voices, mo’ better. The erection of Trump has shown that the tried and true Koolaid doesn’t hold water with younger voters, and even if the power centers are still held by septuagenarians, it’s not stopping the advance of outliers, or fringe thinkers, from throwing their hats in the ring and getting votes. Was talking with my 19 year old son and he says, yeah, the young want their leaders to be in the moral right and are willing to ignore things like logic and math, which shows me that they perceive a moral void. Just listen to chatter from Pelosi about the wall…it’s immoral. Well, according to Woody Allen, morality is subjective, and the young are birdboxing around trying to find their path to power.

Good for them. I’mma wait on Kasich to return.


#47

The guys a never Trumper, to the point I suspect he will run as a third party candidate to split the vote so the Democrat candidate will win, or attempt to anyway. What’s to like about this guy? Rubio is pretty slimy of late too. Now we have Romney too, joy of joys.

I hate to say it, but if it wasn’t for the public, impeachment for Trump would fly though the House and Senate in a heartbeat, based on nothing whatsoever.


#48

I like his honesty.


#49

Well, honesty is a quality I like too. But realizing he doesn’t have a chance to run against Trump in a Republican primary is like observing water is wet.

I’m a liberal who thinks Trump is on the right side of history, people like Romney, McCain, Rubio and Kasich. I don’t like them at all, not even a little bit.

Ted Cruz on the other hand, I couldn’t have named a politician I hated more 2016 and before, it seems he has a sense of humor. Still hate the guy.


#50

That’s one way to interpret it. The other way is much less flattering to the youngsters.

Morality is for people who aren’t smart enough for ethics.


#51

Those who need strong leaders doom themselves to ending up with weak leaders, which in turn simply dooms them:

http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=11046


#52

Let me get this straight:

Elizabeth Warren claimed to have Native ancestry through her great great great grandmother. trump, with no evidence, calls her a liar and starts mocking her with offensive racial slurs like “Pocahontas”. Warren then takes a DNA test proving that she has Native ancestry six generations back (matching Warren’s claim). And somehow trump wins?

Wins how? In a childish “Ha! Made you look!” way that is already passe on fifth grade playgrounds?

She claimed Native ancestry (and never claimed to BE a member of any tribe) and her DNA test bore this out. She was telling the truth, and trump was shown yet again to be nothing but a bully, a liar, and a racist as always.


#53

Offensive to who? Walt Disney?

By “Native,” I assume you mean Mexican, Peruvian and Colombian, as those were the samples her DNA was compared against in the test she took. Warren claimed she has Cherokee ancestry, and the Cherokees want nothing to do with her.


#54

I’m European and if I compare my ancestry to hers:

a) She’s whiter than me
b) I’m more “native american” than her (due to the matching Dna being actually from South America rather than real native american)


#55

She’s backed off that claim it would seem, but claiming to be native American in job interviews and touting her native American heritage is problematic to actual Native Americans, to say the least.


#56

Not sure I’d say that Trump wins, but definitely - no question about it - Warren lost. Decisively.

Look, she claimed in roughly 1986, in an AALS listing she compiled, that she was native American. Sometime later she - a graduate of Rutger Law (public school) - came to the attention of Harvard Law and was hired by them. Harvard used her purported native American ancestry to tout their law school; Warren claims she didn’t know but in any case she never protested.

Elizabeth Warren thus became the first graduate of a public law school in Harvard’s history to become a professor for Harvard Law.

When she gained tenure at Harvard in 1992, her Harvard bio was scrubbed clean of her native ancestry. Harvard claims there was nothing to it.

Trump has done a great service to the US by exposing Warren as a lily-white liberal who was so terrified of not coming to the attention of Ivy League law schools that she was willing to fudge her race in her AALS listing.

Whether libs acknowledge it or not, Warren’s and Harvard Law’s actions are a condemnation of affirmative action, a condemnation that now resonates perfectly with the identity politics of the Democrat party.

This would all be swept under the rug if not for Trump. So not so much that Trump wins, but that America wins.


#57

Is this dissimilar to me claiming to have German ancestry, although I am not a German citizen?

Actually asking, as I dont see the difference between the above and this girls claims.


#58

I think the important thing is: what do real natives think?

"“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

  • Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr."

#59

If you do actually have German ancestry, then yes, it’s different.


#60

But, didnt the DNA tests show that she did in fact have some Native American ancestor like 6 generations back ?