Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

NWBuck
NWBuck

Someday I'll forgive the ignorant mofos who voted for anyone other than her during the primaries.  But that day is not gonna be anytime soon. 

LowPressure
LowPressure
BrickHorn
BrickHorn

The Most Pampered Generation was gifted a cheap education.  Then they voted to dismantle the system that made their own success possible and compiled wealth from lower taxes due in part to reduced gov

Posted Images

Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted (edited)

Still waiting to hear what these radical leftist views of hers are that make her supposedly unelectable.  

She's nothing like Clinton.  Clinton was a shameless panderer who was dragged through the mud for voting for the Iraq war, getting caught laughing on tape about the Ghaddafi stuff, and being too corporate/wall street friendly.  And those were just the legitimate gripes against her.  Warren is a consistent populist who has made a name for herself going after wall street.  So far the biggest knock on her seems to be she's an uppity woman who maybe puts more significance in part of her heritage than others.  

She would be one of the most intelligent in the field of candidates and is more than qualified.  But please Democrats, let's listen to a bunch of conservative Republicans on which candidate they think we should nominate since they're not going to vote for them either way.  

Edited by Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.R. Juniors Junior Jr.

J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

This video she put together is pretty bad ass, campaign wise.  

It goes over her entire family history and portrays her as a common woman that had a pretty normal life through college but highlights her elite talent as a scholar and teacher. 

She says she dropped out of college, went to "commuter college", finished law school.  

Commuter College = Cougar High, right?

If so, we've got a new alternate nickname for UH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
Posted

I think they will have to really highlight her normal background growing up as much as possible to connect her better with normal Americans who might initially see her as an old, white, Northeast liberal in an ivory tower.  Carter and Clinton were Southerners that could play well to a broader demographic and I think that helped for those specific campaigns.  Obama was young, dynamic, racially mixed, with a compelling personality and vision.  I don't see Warren with these natural advantages starting out but her background is a good story for her campaign.  Her populist stances could help with some Clinton defectors who went with Trump but her very strong anti-corporate stances could tweak some specific types of independents too, so they should hear she was a Republican (during general election mostly) in the past to try and show some balance.  I think the Democrats should pick someone else personally, but the biggest factor in my humble opinion for 2020 will be the strength of feeling towards/against Trump more than any specific candidate as long as it's not a terrible choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack

Jack 51

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I can’t wait for Lindsay Graham to trot out a bunch of women she sexually assaulted in hs and college.

Basically every male in the democratic candidate for president should expect to have a John Edwards/#metoo attack thrown at them over the next couple years.  I'd put the chances of a male representing the democrats in 2020 at zero.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted (edited)

The people on the hiring committees assert that her claim of Indian heritage was not used in the hiring decision - that they chose they best candidate, regardless of ethnicity.  I'd be curious for which hires do they assert that ethnicity was a consideration used to hire somebody who wasn't they best.  I'm sure they'll say "none", to which we all know is a bullshit assertion.

In the early days of affirmative action an employer was not permitted to ask about race or request a photo.  We need to go to a time when an employer can not obtain gratuitous race info.

 

1/500th Indian doesn't make you an Indian, and it won't lose the Liawatha moniker.

Edited by MixtyMotions
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jack

Jack 51

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why would every male candidate need to expect such an accusation?  Are you saying all males are sexual predators?  Pretty fucking sexist of you, Jack.

No but the democratic party started eating their own awhile ago.  They are the party of sexism and identity politics.  After all the believe all women shit, there is no way they are going to allow a man to represent them in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18942

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Jack said:

No but the democratic party started eating their own awhile ago.  They are the party of sexism and identity politics.  After all the believe all women shit, there is no way they are going to allow a man to represent them in 2020.

The Republican Party is also a party of identity politics.

Guess which identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20983

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

16 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

The people on the hiring committees assert that her claim of Indian heritage was not used in the hiring decision - that they chose they best candidate, regardless of ethnicity.  I'd be curious for which hires do they assert that ethnicity was a consideration used to hire somebody who wasn't they best.  I'm sure they'll say "none", to which we all know is a bullshit assertion.

In the early days of affirmative action an employer was not permitted to ask about race or request a photo.  We need to go to a time when an employer can not obtain gratuitous race info.

 

1/500th Indian doesn't make you an Indian, and it won't lose the Liawatha moniker.

1/500th makes you "black" though, amirite?

Edited by Celery Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Jack said:

No but the democratic party started eating their own awhile ago.  They are the party of sexism and identity politics.  After all the believe all women shit, there is no way they are going to allow a man to represent them in 2020.

Why would that cause women to accuse male democratic candidates of sexual assault?  Are you saying that all male presidential candidates are always accused of sexual assault, but we only hear of certain accusations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don’t think Conservatives are claiming this is a strike against her or means she shouldn’t run. I think they are just laughing at her and half the country thinks it’s a sophomoric and ridiculous thing to laugh at and the other half think it’s hilarious that people don’t see why it’s such a funny thing to “lie” about. 

Just like everything else in 2018, the liberals and conservatives are on such opposite ends of the magnet that whatever news falls, there is no common ground and only two completely different views that one can’t fathom how the other can be so wrong.

It reminds me of a political version of the blue/gold dress and yanni and the other word; half the population is convinced their worldview and perception is right— and their brains are reinforcing it— and the other half is the same way.

and of course on surly if all you can see is the blue dress, if someone tells you why they think it might be gold, you are a troll.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why would that cause women to accuse male democratic candidates of sexual assault?  Are you saying that all male presidential candidates are always accused of sexual assault, but we only hear of certain accusations?

I think what he's saying (and this is supported by Lyndsay Graham) is that the Republicans are going to drum up fake accusations of sexual assault as revenge for certain women coming forward with allegations against Kavanaugh.  That despite the fact that Ford presented credibly, Kavanaugh objectively lied multiple times under oath while defending against the allegations, and the women came forward on their own and were not head hunted by the Democrats.  Because both sides and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don’t think Conservatives are claiming this is a strike against her or means she shouldn’t run. I think they are just laughing at her and half the country thinks it’s a sophomoric and ridiculous thing to laugh at and the other half think it’s hilarious that people don’t see why it’s such a funny thing to “lie” about. 

Just like everything else in 2018, the liberals and conservatives are on such opposite ends of the magnet that whatever news falls, there is no common ground and only two completely different views that one can’t fathom how the other can be so wrong.

It reminds me of a political version of the blue/gold dress and yanni and the other word; half the population is convinced their worldview and perception is right— and their brains are reinforcing it— and the other half is the same way.

and of course on surly if all you can see is the blue dress, if someone tells you why they think it might be gold, you are a troll.

I'm still curious to know that the lie is that you're referring to.  I keep on seeing trolls and former conservatives (y'all aren't conservative anymore) referring to her lie.  But none of y'all have actually explained what that lie is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

I'm still curious to know that the lie is that you're referring to.  I keep on seeing trolls and former conservatives (y'all aren't conservative anymore) referring to her lie.  But none of y'all have actually explained what that lie is.  

I think you just proved my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

More like you just proved mine.  I asked you to explain your assertion and you can't.  Tell me what lie you're referring to.  

The lie which was her origin story and being the claimant of uncommon Native American ancestry compared to most people in her city, state, heck I'd go as far as to say region, to the degree to which she self-identified in a way that may or may not have a) helped her in any way b) made her look foolish in any way and c) bothered people in any way.

The fact that you don't see the above as a "thing" is making my point in saying that there are two minds in America right now and one cannot fathom the other side. You can't fathom the above, so it becomes "tell me about that thing that doesn't exist and that you are so clearly making up to waste everyone's time, Edmund."

If you can sit back and ridicule Rachel Dolezal about identifying being black, even though she probably has a black person in her ancestry 10 generations back, then how is it unfathomable to ridicule Warren for doing the same? Race isn't a construct (like gender, I've learned from you guys), so that's what is meant as the lie she was telling herself/others. It's not even a horrible or mean lie. It would be like if I grew up thinking I was Turkish and then came to find out I was Irish, or something. You just parrot what your parents told you. But that doesn't mean others are wrong in making fun of  me because with my green eyes and ginger hair and freckles, I'm very unlikely to be a Turk so I should probably leave it off an application or not try and chair the Texas Turkish Cultural Committee.

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I see what you are saying, but your blue dress/gold dress analogy isn't quite on point.  One side sees a dress of one color and the other side claims there is no dress and the sky is green.

My point is that it seems like both sides brains are taking information, validating it in their brains/values/worldviews, processing it, and enriching it and opinions and landing places are formed. The difference is in what has helped to shape peoples views. I think one could easily say the opposite of your claim. It's a messy place to be in as a people and I wonder if it's because until the last 30 years, as a people we largely consumed information out of the same trough, together, and so we were naturally gonna have the same frameworks. Now we can get information from anywhere and everywhere and nothing is the same. It's chaos, but maybe two sides have crystallized out of the chaos. Both sides think they are good and the other is evil.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14936

Posted
Posted
I think what he's saying (and this is supported by Lyndsay Graham) is that the Republicans are going to drum up fake accusations of sexual assault as revenge for certain women coming forward with allegations against Kavanaugh.  That despite the fact that Ford presented credibly, Kavanaugh objectively lied multiple times under oath while defending against the allegations, and the women came forward on their own and were not head hunted by the Democrats.  Because both sides and all that.


Don’t dissect the frog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, tantric superman said:

Warren was stupid to push the Indian stuff in her applications, and it's biting her in the ass.  As it should.

That being said, hope she has some fun with it at Trump's expense. 

This is where I land on it as well. It's not a big deal at all, it's just funny and it has inspired some racial humor from Trump so I hope she gives some back. Whomever said she should call him Welcher all the time is spot on. Bring him some Welche's grape juice and call him a welcher all day and she wins the PR battle by a mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

STFU, honky.

Why are you so racist?

34 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

More like you just proved mine.  I asked you to explain your assertion and you can't.  Tell me what lie you're referring to.  

Its not a lie, but it’s pretty dishonest. Claiming, or not refuting, when others try to prop up some portion of your ancestry is very odd. I compared it somewhat to stolen valor before in this thread. Reaping benefits over many years based on such a flimsy connection is dishonest. 

Edited by GRHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So now we're just making things up and/or repeating lies.

You are right, she didn't use it on applications. She just wanted to self-identify and really who knows why?

Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory. Critics note that she had not done that in her student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas.

Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The lie which was her origin story and being the claimant of uncommon Native American ancestry compared to most people in her city, state, heck I'd go as far as to say region, to the degree to which she self-identified in a way that may or may not have a) helped her in any way b) made her look foolish in any way and c) bothered people in any way.

 

So the lie is something she didn't actually do or say.  You are projecting your biases on her actions in order to make a conclusion about her that puts her into a bad light.  What did she do?  She marked on some minority law teacher list that she has Native American ancestry.  Does she have Native American ancestry?  Yes.

Did she include that information on a job application?  No.  Did she run for office as a Native American? No.  She answered a simple question honestly based upon the information that was provided to her by her family.  And then people like yourself, and Trump, and Fox News twisted what she did and said to present an alternative narrative in an effort to attach her credibility.    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So the lie is something she didn't actually do or say.  You are projecting your biases on her actions in order to make a conclusion about her that puts her into a bad light.  What did she do?  She marked on some minority law teacher list that she has Native American ancestry.  Does she have Native American ancestry?  Yes.

Did she include that information on a job application?  No.  Did she run for office as a Native American? No.  She answered a simple question honestly based upon the information that was provided to her by her family.  And then people like yourself, and Trump, and Fox News twisted what she did and said to present an alternative narrative in an effort to attach her credibility.    

She listed herself as a minority. She self-identified as a minority. This despite being just like everyone else who chooses to not identify as a minority because recognize it is either dishonest, foolish, shameful or absurd to claim to be a minority because of something 9 or 10 or 11 generations back. I guess by her definition, everyone can claim being a minority and have it not be dishonest, as long as they do it outside of applications and just for their own aggrandizement and delusions.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter and it shouldn't stop her from running. I think it's too far to do the whooping and war chant stuff that her opponent's staff did, whether you think it funny or not to mock her in that way, but I think calling her out of on her ridiculousness in this instance is fair game.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...