EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9145
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:44 Plansix wrote: From my understanding she checked off a box on a form saying she has some level of Native American heritage and Harvard put in on profile or something. I don’t believe she ever proactively claimed to be native American beyond checking that box. In Canada they have cultural classes at school for kids with Aborigional ancestry. My kids are white as snow but still check the box noting their ancestry, but I would never claim that they are actually Aborigional, if that makes sense. I would sure as hell exploit it too if it could get them into Harvard :p | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:56 TheTenthDoc wrote: I mean, unless you allow for that possibility that she actually partially identifies as having Native American heritage? Or ever did? In which case (and I'll quote someone from Cherokee Nation here) "Trump’s inability to discern the difference between Senator Warren and Pocahontas is no accident. Instead, his attack on her native identity reflects a dominant American culture that has made every effort to diminish native women to nothing other than a fantastical, oversexualized, Disney character." My understanding is that she does not defend her ability to identify as native american. She has walked it back and recognizes it as illegitimate. So there's two possibilities. 1. She walks it back, does not identify as it, and thus the Cherokee nation thing is meaningless/invalid 2. She both identifies as and is genetically native american. In this case, the Cherokee thing is valid and Trump is being racist here. But she must actually be genetically native american. She can't just wake up and decide she is native american. | ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote: The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory. suddenly singular events constitute a pattern. tell all the climate deniers and gun nuts. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote: The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory. Or she checked a box when accepting the job, Harvard put it on her online profile as a professor and she never noticed until she ran against Scott Brown. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:01 Mohdoo wrote: My understanding is that she does not defend her ability to identify as native american. She has walked it back and recognizes it as illegitimate. So there's two possibilities. 1. She walks it back, does not identify as it, and thus the Cherokee nation thing is meaningless/invalid 2. She both identifies as and is genetically native american. In this case, the Cherokee thing is valid and Trump is being racist here. But she must actually be genetically native american. She can't just wake up and decide she is native american. whether she’s native american or not doesn’t reduce the offensiveness of boiling a culture down to Pocahontas as a means of offending someone. same thing really with turning people away from using ‘gay’ as an insult. whether the intended offendee is gay or not isn’t the point. at the end of the day he’s using ‘being native american’ as an insult. Warrens genealogy doesn’t matter here, it’s not right to use it as an insult. this does circle me back to it actually being racist though, so now i just don’t know anymore. maybe it suffices to say that it’s intended effect was not racism, but yet it is anyway. if i called a white dude Uncle Tom that’s still racist right? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote: Or she checked a box when accepting the job, Harvard put it on her online profile as a professor and she never noticed until she ran against Scott Brown. You forgot the part where she doubled-down on it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:06 brian wrote: whether she’s native american or not doesn’t reduce the offensiveness of boiling a culture down to Pocahontas as a means of offending someone. same thing really with turning people away from using ‘gay’ as an insult. whether the intended offendee is gay or not isn’t the point. at the end of the day he’s using ‘being native american’ as an insult. Warrens genealogy doesn’t matter here, it’s not right to use it as an insult. this does circle me back to it actually being racist though, so now i just don’t know anymore. This is where we disagree. "Gay" as an insult is used in a way that implies being gay is in itself a bad thing. Trump is not saying being native american is a bad thing because the entire point is that she is NOT native american. It is like mocking someone by saying "And we've got mr super genius over here saying god is uncomfortable with gay stuff". That isn't offensive to super geniuses. Super geniuses shouldn't feel like they are being attacked by someone sarcastically using the term. | ||
|
brian
United States9620 Posts
haha you didn’t have to edit your post too. whatever gets the point across. thanks!! | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
edit 2: I'll make this post slightly less useless by saying I miss when people distinguished between "nvm" and "nm" where nvm meant "nevermind" and "nm" meant "not much". Nowadays, people use "nm" to mean nevermind and it triggers me. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote: The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory. Is that correct? Iirc there issue was never about political supporter but rather in work application docs. This would put the mental illness with you and your camp obsessing over minority privilege. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:09 xDaunt wrote: You forgot the part where she doubled-down on it. She said that her family told her she had Native American ancestry. There don’t seem to be records to confirm or deny this, but that is what her parents told her. The Scott Brown camp pushed the entire thing in a vain attempt to discredit her and it went over like a fart in a space suit. I was there during it. The entire thing boiled down to Brown trying to force Warren to call her family liars on TV. It was and still is kinda pathetic. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On November 04 2017 00:59 xDaunt wrote: The thing that always strikes me about the Warren/Pocohontas thing is how it so perfectly illustrates the insane degree to which the American Left values diversity for diversity's sake. Think about it. Warren is a Harvard law professor and a nationally recognized leader in her field of expertise. She's clearly no dummy. Furthermore, she has indisputable progressive bonafides. Yet despite all of that, she still felt compelled to make up some horseshit about her being part Native American, supposedly to check some box with her supporters. That's mental illness territory. I might be misunderstanding you here, but in what world was the Native American thing made up specifically to please her supporters? She listed herself as a minority between 1986 and 1995, which was long before she entered politics. Do you think she listed herself knowing she would enter politics later on? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23248 Posts
One glaring reason that should have struck you from the beginning as to why this is bigoted is that Pocahontas wasn't fucking Cherokee. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:06 Broetchenholer wrote: Can you just all agree that the president of the United States should not write tweets about political enemies calling them anything but their title and name. I know he did a lot this last 1.5 years that were....unusual, but just the tweet without any racist namecalling would be the most ridiculous thing Angela Merkel ever did her whole political life. You guys adjusted quickly... Agreed. I don't even think that whether or not it is racist is the most relevant thing here. The president of the United States is communicating like a schoolyard bully. That is the most important thing. He calls people by names which he thinks are smart to demean them. The only people who do that kind of think are the asshole teenagers that make highschool hell for a lot of people, and the president of the USA. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote: Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23248 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:45 ChristianS wrote: Josh Marshall put up a blog about the Donna Brazile allegations against Hillary. If anyone's interested in reading a defense of Hillary from someone more authoritative than Wulfey, here it is. Looks to me like he hits a similar point to Wulfey: what actions is the DNC supposed to have actually taken to rig the primary? Put aside bias, influence over DNC decisions, etc.: what did they actually do to influence the out ome? I haven't followed this particular issue for a while, but that's the part I'd like to see to be convinced that the primary was actually "rigged." Brazile and Sanders saying it was is worth something, sure, but there are political reasons a statement like that would be popular. That doesn't mean they're lying, but it is a reason not to just take them at their word. So Definition of rig rigged; rigging transitive verb 1 :to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means Source I think we're done with that part. Or do you still need to be convinced Hillary's team controlled the DNC and they manipulated the primary with their lies? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 04 2017 01:50 Wulfey_LA wrote: You want someone more authoritative? Here we go: https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926465631536459777 Looks like Donna's doing some olympic-grade backpedaling or "clarification". I'm gonna say it again, but there are a bunch of FEC disclosures and a bunch of leaked emails. Neither have anything about this alleged arrangement. | ||
| ||
