The Make Fun of Elizabeth Warren Thread

[Strontium Dog]

The double standard is against Trump supporters here. Create a trump bashing thread, and it's fine. Here, create the odd hillary or Warren-bashing thread, and here come the white knights to tell us how unfair and unjustified the thread is, and how "we" don't need the thread.

If Elizabeth Warren ever raises a rapist to the Supreme Court, boasts of groping people, tries to roll back abortion rights etc then nobody would complain about a Warren-bashing thread. The double standard occurs when you think that her playing up her Native American ancestry, the biggest "who gives a fuck?" issue in world politics, is a more egregious offence than any of the million and one things Trump has done.

[Sean Hayden]

This is 42's job. You're arguing against his paycheck, don't expect you'll get far.

[Tero]

The world has moved on since the USSR collapsed. No country thinks the state should run manufacture, fRming etc. Soon all those will be in corporation hands. You own a farm, but you signed a deal with Big Agro (a team selling seeds, buying crops). The future is run by corporations.

Us socialists want to regulate these, as far as healthcare goes, and we want to have most schools run by public owned state/city/county level governments.

None of what is planned is anything close to communism. Soon enough BIG corporations will run all, press tv internet included.

[Brian Peacock]

So Brian, you think it's fine to claim you're a Native American when you're clearly white?

How bizzare. I'm pretty sure being Native American means something.

I don't think you've accepted this isn't the same as passing along family lore yet.

I reckon there's some cross-over here in my views regarding the intersection of family lore and assumed or claimed racial or ethnic group membership. I'm guessing Warren didn't pull the 'Native American shuffle' out of thin air, that her family lore along with the attitudes of her family and others around her played a big part in her 'heritage' being talked up. My initial point was that I see this all as 'identity politics' in as much as all sides in US politics seem keen to make gains on the back of the race-card: in this case Warren off the back of having a certain connection to a particular identity and the other side off the back of denying, lambasting, or deriding her claim to that identity - however slight or in-passing. 42 seems to agree with me when I said I thought race, and one's race, was important and significant in the US: the difference being that I don't understand why that's so and 42 basically saying that, "Well, it's important because it just is." But beyond that I have a suspicion that when Warren is being derided for saying she's got Native American in her what's also being derided is being Native American, though perhaps to a lesser, or at least to a less focused, extent.

[Svartalf]

you mean she'd make a fitter president than frump?

[Forty Two]

So Brian, you think it's fine to claim you're a Native American when you're clearly white?

How bizzare. I'm pretty sure being Native American means something.

I don't think you've accepted this isn't the same as passing along family lore yet.

I reckon there's some cross-over here in my views regarding the intersection of family lore and assumed or claimed racial or ethnic group membership. I'm guessing Warren didn't pull the 'Native American shuffle' out of thin air, that her family lore along with the attitudes of her family and others around her played a big part in her 'heritage' being talked up.

Her family went from being so opposed to Indians, that her mom had to elope in order to get married, because of the horror her white family had at an interracial marriage.... and then by the time she was a teenager, it was something to be "talked up?" After they eloped and returned home, Warren's parents changed the entire family zeitgeist, and they were all soon claiming significant Native American heritage, including "mamaws" and "pappaws" and haircuts and cheekbones and cookbooks, passing recipes that had been carefully preserved for generations by people who forced family members to elope rather than marry a native American...

My initial point was that I see this all as 'identity politics' in as much as all sides in US politics seem keen to make gains on the back of the race-card: in this case Warren off the back of having a certain connection to a particular identity and the other side off the back of denying, lambasting, or deriding her claim to that identity - however slight or in-passing. 42 seems to agree with me when I said I thought race, and one's race, was important and significant in the US: the difference being that I don't understand why that's so and 42 basically saying that, "Well, it's important because it just is."

That isn't at all what I said. I said it's important because important decisions are based on that identification. Affirmative action is based on race and ethnicity. So, simply declaring yourself a given race or ethnicity, like Rachel Dolozel, is a fraud. Also, if it didn't mean anything to Warren, why would she do it? Of course it was important to her. It gave her a certain "cred" at the time. Here I am - minority - native American - professor.

But beyond that I have a suspicion that when Warren is being derided for saying she's got Native American in her what's also being derided is being Native American, though perhaps to a lesser, or at least to a less focused, extent.

Not at all. You'd like to think that, as your posts on this topic amount to mental gymnastics where you're trying to contort the facts to somehow make this about how the critics of Warren are the ones in the wrong and are being racist. That's a reach on this.

You can see in how this has all played out with Warren - the search for a contorted way for her to be "right" on this issue. She originally said she didn't know how they got the idea she was an indian. Then she said that she gave the info to the universities, but it was her family lore and high cheekbones that gave her the idea - and remember - her mom and dad were sooooooo in love, but racist granny and grandad wold have none of their nuptuals, because mom was BOTH Cherokee and Delaware Indian. But, the media came to her defense, and said that it's soooo common for whites in Oklahoma and other places where there are a lot of Indian tribes to claim Indian heritage - it's just what families do in these places. So, the defense was that it's so common for hillbilly families to take pride -- PRIDE -- not racism against, but pride -- in indian heritage, that they were glomming onto native american heritage by the bucketload, even when there was no connection at all....

It can't be both. It can't be that white American Oklahomans hate Indians, but also take such pride in Indian heritage that they create generational family lore to claim such heritage -- and at the same time are so racist that they don't want their sons marrying anyone with Indian blood -- they have generations of ongoing Indian lore in their families....but are so racist they want to spoil their childrens' happiness by opposing marriages with anyone with Indian blood.

How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

[Forty Two]

Elizabeth Warren announcing her 2020 candidacy!

[Sean Hayden]

I'm with 42 on this one. It's a reach to call it racist to call her out on this.

If race didn't matter, no racists anywhere, it would be okay to claim you're a Native American and fabricate the reasons why?

[Strontium Dog]

It's funny how the right like to classify people as belonging to a certain racial group if they have a single ancestor from that race ("one drop") while denying people their right to self-identify as belonging to a certain racial group if they have a single ancestor from that race. Pick the bones out of that one.

[Forty Two]

The double standard is against Trump supporters here. Create a trump bashing thread, and it's fine. Here, create the odd hillary or Warren-bashing thread, and here come the white knights to tell us how unfair and unjustified the thread is, and how "we" don't need the thread.

If Elizabeth Warren ever raises a rapist to the Supreme Court, boasts of groping people, tries to roll back abortion rights etc then nobody would complain about a Warren-bashing thread. The double standard occurs when you think that her playing up her Native American ancestry, the biggest "who gives a fuck?" issue in world politics, is a more egregious offence than any of the million and one things Trump has done.

Who said anything about which is more or less egregious? There are hundreds of threads on this forum, not all of them deal with the most egregious issue in the world. And, plenty of threads deal with "who gives a fuck?" issues. You just complain that someone else is talking and laughing about an issue you don't think is important. Well, so fucking what? Who the fuck are you? You are free to deal with the threads you think are interesting, and everyone else can do the same. Some threads you won't even open, much less post in. That doesn't mean the threads are invalid or shouldn't be on the forum.

Look - what country are you from? The UK? You don't even HAVE abortion "rights" there. You have a law restricting abortion and applying certain regulations, and those laws vary from Scotland, to Northern Ireland, to England/Wales, right? The law is passed by parliament by simple majority, right? Would there be something wrong with the US doing it that way here? Or, is that not allowed in the US, but perfectly fine where you are?

And, nobody appointed a "rapist" to the SCOTUS. You're just inventing that allegation out of whole cloth.

Let's talk about Warren herself and her proposal to basically nationalize every large corporation in the United States which is absurd, and would cause immense damage to our economy. That would significantly injury millions of people.

[Forty Two]

It's funny how the right like to classify people as belonging to a certain racial group if they have a single ancestor from that race ("one drop") while denying people their right to self-identify as belonging to a certain racial group if they have a single ancestor from that race. Pick the bones out of that one.

Who's advocating the "one drop" rule, aside from Elizabeth Warren?

[Animavore]

I wonder if this one-note joke will get any where near the traction of the constant source of cringe humour that is President Fuckwit.

I can't imagine we'll get more than another page or two.

[Strontium Dog]

Who said anything about which is more or less egregious? There are hundreds of threads on this forum, not all of them deal with the most egregious issue in the world. And, plenty of threads deal with "who gives a fuck?" issues. You just complain that someone else is talking and laughing about an issue you don't think is important. Well, so fucking what? Who the fuck are you? You are free to deal with the threads you think are interesting, and everyone else can do the same. Some threads you won't even open, much less post in. That doesn't mean the threads are invalid or shouldn't be on the forum.

The simple fact that you see fit to castigate Warren on this while excusing Herr Drumpf his numerous calamities demonstrates what you consider more egregious.

I made no "complaint", so kindly desist from making false claims about me. Nobody's stopping you from posting whatever nonsense you want. I am merely giving my observations on those posts, as I am wont to do.

I am electing to ignore the lies about British abortion law, Warren's desire to turn the USA communist etc

[Forty Two]

Who said anything about which is more or less egregious? There are hundreds of threads on this forum, not all of them deal with the most egregious issue in the world. And, plenty of threads deal with "who gives a fuck?" issues. You just complain that someone else is talking and laughing about an issue you don't think is important. Well, so fucking what? Who the fuck are you? You are free to deal with the threads you think are interesting, and everyone else can do the same. Some threads you won't even open, much less post in. That doesn't mean the threads are invalid or shouldn't be on the forum.

The simple fact that you see fit to castigate Warren on this while excusing Herr Drumpf his numerous calamities demonstrates what you consider more egregious.

Feel free to cite to - and evidence - what you believe Trump's worse defalcations are.

I made no "complaint", so kindly desist from making false claims about me. Nobody's stopping you from posting whatever nonsense you want. I am merely giving my observations on those posts, as I am wont to do.

Yes yes - you are free to bitch about the threads you're not interested in. Keep up the good work!

I am electing to ignore the lies about British abortion law, Warren's desire to turn the USA communist etc

What lies? Was I wrong that the British Parliament can restrict abortion and change abortion law? Am I wrong in saying that there is no "right to abortion" in the UK (a right which cannot be abrogated by majority vote of Parliament)?

Is it wrong that abortion is legal under certain circumstances in England and Wales and Scotland based on the Abortion Act 1967? Is the summary of the law here wrong (a lie)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ed_Kingdom

Is Parliament not allowed to change that law and make it more or less difficult to get an abortion?

[Cunt]

Another example of racist focus on racial issues. If she hadn't been so eager to play her race card, this wouldn't be an issue.

It's awesome when people declare their own racism as she did. It makes it a lot easier to spot racists when they are loud about their racism.