Elizabeth Warren 2020

[NoRagrets 1141]

Independent voters are dying to vote democrat. Nominating an extremist like her gives them a reason not to.

just nominate a boring democrat that will stand up to trump in the debates and it's a landslide.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

40 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

Independent voters are dying to vote democrat. Nominating an extremist like her gives them a reason not to.

just nominate a boring democrat that will stand up to trump in the debates and it's a landslide.

Did that last time.  Hillary was as middle of the road as Dems come and beat Trump in every debate.  Didn't work.   Also, Warren isn't an extremist.  That's just stupid.  The fact that you think she is shows that the Dems can't nominate a boring Dem because Dems that have longevity like Warren have already been put through years of the GOP hate machine to the point where you think she's an "extremist."  To win, the Dems need someone like Obama, exciting and more importantly new.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Nice job Fox News

[RayDog 682]

6 hours ago, NoRagrets said:

Independent voters are dying to vote democrat. Nominating an extremist like her gives them a reason not to.

just nominate a boring democrat that will stand up to trump in the debates and it's a landslide.

Since over 60% of the country approves her policy positions it is a lie to call her an extremist. It is funny that 95% of people are opposed to political corruption, yet the right lines up against her anti-corruption bills and call them extremist.

 

[NoRagrets 1141]

She's about as far left as it gets.

We need Joe Biden.

[Biff Tannen 46163]

1 hour ago, NoRagrets said:

She's about as far left as it gets.

We need Joe Biden.

It's fucked up that I'm not sure if I agree with this or not.  I can't believe we have to carefully choose between (in this case) two extremely competent, seemingly genuine people in order to not drive voters toward a completely insane racist shitbag criminal on the other side.  In a sane world, either Warren or Biden destroys trump 100% to 0%.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

What makes Elizabeth Warren far left?

[RDCanecutter 26881]

33 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What makes Elizabeth Warren far left?

Her alleged British heritage. Those wankers are all on the dole, aren't they.

[Js1 87179]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What makes Elizabeth Warren far left?

Fox News says so

[Stilicho 1422]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What makes Elizabeth Warren far left?

She has a vagina.  And she once claimed to be a Cherokee, or some other random Native American tribe that are vulnerable to firewater and other assorted liquors. Everyone knows that's Native Americans are the root cause of communism.  Do you even Manifest Destiny bro?

In all seriousness, Elizabeth Warren is not far left.  But she's not the 2020 candidate.  The 2020 election may be the defining election of the 21st century as far as American politics is concerned.  The Rs are running their own low-IQ Mussolini, hoping that the "common clay" turns out to vote against brown people.  We Ds are still looking for our candidate.  

The midterms don't have to be policy driven.  Historically, they've always been a reflection of the popular will vis-a-vis the current administration.

Give me a D that jumps out grabs you by the metaphorical balls for 2020.  Because that's what is needed.  We can argue policy all day long, but we need someone that can resonate.  Someone that can cover the various spectrums of the U.S. populace.  Warren isn't that person.

[staboner 5084]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:55 PM, NoRagrets said:

Independent voters are dying to vote democrat. Nominating an extremist like her gives them a reason not to.

just nominate a boring democrat that will stand up to trump in the debates and it's a landslide.

and what is extreme here?

[Stilicho 1422]

3 minutes ago, staboner said:

and what is extreme here?

Nothing.  She is old and has a vagina.  That's as extreme as it gets.

To be frank, we're still looking for our next Obama.  The young-ish candidate that reflects a new set of socio-cultural values that can cross the political divide in both the policy and the ideological arenas.  

We don't have one yet.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Give me a D that jumps out grabs you by the metaphorical balls for 2020.  Because that's what is needed.  We can argue policy all day long, but we need someone that can resonate.  Someone that can cover the various spectrums of the U.S. populace.  Warren isn't that person.

I actually think Warren is that person.  She’s really good at dumbing down complex problems so average people can understand them. Who did you have in mind that would be better?

I’d take Beto with Warren’s platform in a heartbeat but unless you’ve got a better candidate to put up, I find your analysis of Warren lacking.

It sounds like you’re looking for a culture warrior.

[Js1 87179]

15 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

She has a vagina.  And she once claimed to be a Cherokee, or some other random Native American tribe that are vulnerable to firewater and other assorted liquors. Everyone knows that's Native Americans are the root cause of communism.  Do you even Manifest Destiny bro?

In all seriousness, Elizabeth Warren is not far left.  But she's not the 2020 candidate.  The 2020 election may be the defining election of the 21st century as far as American politics is concerned.  The Rs are running their own low-IQ Mussolini, hoping that the "common clay" turns out to vote against brown people.  We Ds are still looking for our candidate.  

The midterms don't have to be policy driven.  Historically, they've always been a reflection of the popular will vis-a-vis the current administration.

Give me a D that jumps out grabs you by the metaphorical balls for 2020.  Because that's what is needed.  We can argue policy all day long, but we need someone that can resonate.  Someone that can cover the various spectrums of the U.S. populace.  Warren isn't that person.

Warren or Biden speak to the rust belt voters who turned to Trump in 16 - flips the Midwest back to D and win

Harris speaks to the minority voters who didn’t show up in Detroit or Philly - flip those 2 and you only need higher minority turnout in NC, Wisconsin or Florida to win.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Js1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Nothing.  She is old and has a vagina.  That's as extreme as it gets.

To be frank, we're still looking for our next Obama.  The young-ish candidate that reflects a new set of socio-cultural values that can cross the political divide in both the policy and the ideological arenas.  

We don't have one yet.

Look at where Obama’s inexperience got us.  

Trumpistan 2017.

Im just saying, another Obama could just repeat the cycle of hollow politics.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Stilicho 1422]

 

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Warren or Biden speak to the rust belt voters who turned to Trump in 16 - flips the Midwest back to D and win

Harris speaks to the minority voters who didn’t show up in Detroit or Philly - flip those 2 and you only need higher minority turnout in NC, Wisconsin or Florida to win.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Look at were Obama’s inexperience got us.  

Trumpistan 2017.

Im just saying, another Obama could just repeat the cycle of hollow politics.

The cycle of "hollow" politics is the new political reality.  I don't like it anymore than the next person, but we live in a different age.  Popular electoral voting mirrors the Voice than anything else.

I have no problem with a Biden/Harris, Warren/Harris, Biden/Booker, Harris/Booker ticket.

My fear is that 2020 will not an election based upon politics or policy platform.  Rather, it will be an election based upon popularity.  Trump didn't win simply because Hillary failed to run her campaign through Rust Belt.  She was immensely unlikable across a number of policy spectrums.  Trump won on a number of populist platforms that he never intended to implement, but nevertheless, sounded extremely appealing to a segment of the population that sees it's hopes of economic accomplishment disappearing and its way of life eroding.  I live among these people. I know.

What we need is a younger version of either Roosevelt.  A ticket that people can recognize and and identify with across socio-economic, political, and racial divides.  I just don't see that  in the current crop of D candidates. 

That's not to mean that they don't represent happy alternatives to our present condition.  I just feel like 2020 is a chance to remake the American political apparatus a greater reflection of the actual population.  I also want to see Texas play in the CFP, so my delusions may be vast.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Stilicho

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I see 2020 as the greatest opportunity for real change.  Whatever is left of Trump by then should be an easy candidate to beat just as Hillary 2020 would have been a cakewalk for Republicans.

Playing not lose is a terrible strategy.

Make the 2020 election about IDEAS and not hollow rhetoric and/or fear mongering.  

[Stilicho 1422]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I see 2020 as the greatest opportunity for real change.  Whatever is left of Trump by then should be an easy candidate to beat just as Hillary 2020 would have been a cakewalk for Republicans.

Playing not lose is a terrible strategy.

Make the 2020 election about IDEAS and not hollow rhetoric and/or fear mongering.  

This is my entire point.  The 2020 election should reflect a paradigm shift just as great as those of Lincoln, FDR, or LBJ.  It's almost a necessity for the continued function of our country striving to meet its own expectations.

I simply feel that when nearly 40% of the electorate is okay with fucking over themselves and as well as their neighbors in their own abstract sense of "team", that we may someone that transcends these things.  That's wishful thinking, I know.  I simply wish that wasn't the case.

[Js1 87179]

It’ll be Kamala Harris. Fight me. 

 

[David Dennison 19534]

28 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It’ll be Kamala Harris. Fight me. 

 

I'd be fine with that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[UTDD 362]

I don't think Warren is the ideal candidate for 2020 personally.  (At least for me that is true)  There is almost no one that I would not vote for against Trump, but Warren would be really low on my list to be honest.  But I'm saying that as someone who is probably an independent swing type voter (very liberal on social issues, very conservative fiscally) and maybe turnout with the base is better for 2020, I don't really follow politics that closely.  I think they need someone younger who is a much more exciting agent of change that can also contrast really well against Trump.  I also think they should try and find someone outside of Washington D.C. preferably with some executive experience like a governor.  

Edited October 1, 2018 by UTDD

[troph 25223]

I don't think Warren is the ideal candidate for 2020 personally.  (At least for me that is true)  There is almost no one that I would not vote for against Trump, but Warren would be really low on my list to be honest.  But I'm saying that as someone who is probably an independent swing type voter (very liberal on social issues, very conservative fiscally) and maybe turnout with the base is better for 2020, I don't really follow politics that closely.  I think they need someone younger who is a much more exciting agent of change that can also contrast really well against Trump.  I also think they should try and find someone outside of Washington D.C. preferably with some executive experience like a governor.  

 

If your only reason is bc you don’t like Bernie fiscal policy then fine. I think a lot of men and women apply a double standard that negatively and disproportionately impacts female candidates. She isn’t the pretty face, instead she’s older, angrier and unapologetic about it. That shouldn’t be an issue but it is.

 

As to the economics - reality is in this two party set up - but for trump your type is much more likely to vote Republican and so there isn’t a huge incentive to twist economic platforms to your view for those like Warren. That may make her a less ideal candidate but even the moderate sounding ones will be more like her. Beto downplays party and extreme liberal positions but he’s as progressive as they come too.

 

Folks abandoning the party bc of trump aren’t ideal voters for Dems quite honestly.

[Your Mom 4969]

42 minutes ago, UTDD said:

 But I'm saying that as someone who is probably an independent swing type voter (very liberal on social issues, very conservative fiscally)...

 Sounds like there’s no two ways about it, you are a Democrat,  the more fiscally conservative of the two parties. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html

Quote

So it is with budget policy. Get this: Since 1977, the three presidential administrations that have overseen the deficit increases are the three Republican ones. President Trump’s tax cut is virtually assured to make him the fourth of four. And the three administrations that have overseen deficit reductions are the three Democratic ones, including a small decline under Barack Obama. If you want to know whether a post-1976 president increased or reduced the deficit, the only thing you need to know is his party.

Edited for a better link to the picture

Edited October 1, 2018 by Your Mom

[David Dennison 19534]

2 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

 Sounds like there’s no two ways about it, you are a Democrat,  the more fiscally conservative of the two parties. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html

 

It's amazing what tax cuts do when you don't do anything about spending on things like, oh let's say, the military and health care for many of the old people who vote for you.

Edited October 1, 2018 by David Dennison

[UTDD 362]

5 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

 Sounds like there’s no two ways about it, you are a Democrat,  the more fiscally conservative of the two parties. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html

Edited for a better link to the picture

Well aware of prior presidential performance fiscally, and definitely would say Bill Clinton was for me almost the ideal president in how he handled fiscal policy while still balancing his own issues that he wanted to address.  Very underrated actually as I don't see many mention this when talking about him.  I was also definitely against the Trump tax cuts although I might have been in favor of a targeted tax cut for only the middle class and also have no issues with raising taxes for higher incomes to ensure middle class tax cuts have a positive balance sheet overall.  

I have lived in a state in the past full-time and still live there three months a year or so (Hawaii) that often has had very irresponsible fiscal policy and I think it's not a fair statement to apply the presidential performance of the Democrat as the platform of the entire party overall being the more fiscally responsible party.  I think there are so many variations of how governments actually function at the local, state, and national levels that you have to consider every case specifically one by one and do the best to gauge how you think a candidate will do when elected.  I believed on a gut level from purely a fiscal perspective that on a spectrum (from 2016 election) that Trump would definitely do more deficit spending than Hillary, but less than Bernie Sanders.  Now fiscal policy is not the only consideration obviously for a candidate, but it's a factor for sure.  I also definitely buy that Republican presidents since at least Reagan have ballooned the national balance sheet in ways I don't like at all. 

[troph 25223]

Well aware of prior presidential performance fiscally, and definitely would say Bill Clinton was for me almost the ideal president in how he handled fiscal policy while still balancing his own issues that he wanted to address.  Very underrated actually as I don't see many mention this when talking about him.  I was also definitely against the Trump tax cuts although I might have been in favor of a targeted tax cut for only the middle class and also have no issues with raising taxes for higher incomes to ensure middle class tax cuts have a positive balance sheet overall.  
I have lived in a state in the past full-time and still live there three months a year or so (Hawaii) that often has had very irresponsible fiscal policy and I think it's not a fair statement to apply the presidential performance of the Democrat as the platform of the entire party overall being the more fiscally responsible party.  I think there are so many variations of how governments actually function at the local, state, and national levels that you have to consider every case specifically one by one and do the best to gauge how you think a candidate will do when elected.  I believed on a gut level from purely a fiscal perspective that on a spectrum (from 2016 election) that Trump would definitely do more deficit spending than Hillary, but less than Bernie Sanders.  Now fiscal policy is not the only consideration obviously for a candidate, but it's a factor for sure.  I also definitely buy that Republican presidents since at least Reagan have ballooned the national balance sheet in ways I don't like at all. 

Republicans downplay Clinton most democrats see him the way you do. He was a rockstar fiscally. He was just a walking talking bonerhead. Too bad.

[UTDD 362]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

 

Republicans downplay Clinton most democrats see him the way you do. He was a rockstar fiscally. He was just a walking talking bonerhead. Too bad.

 

Agreed and it kind of sucks for a lot of people he will mostly be identified with Monica versus some things he did as president.  I also think if Hillary was just another "normal" Democratic candidate with the exact same positions but just a different name (prior baggage really hurt her I believe) that candidate likely would have won 2016, especially in the three critical states she lost.  (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

57 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I don't think Warren is the ideal candidate for 2020 personally.  (At least for me that is true)  There is almost no one that I would not vote for against Trump, but Warren would be really low on my list to be honest.  But I'm saying that as someone who is probably an independent swing type voter (very liberal on social issues, very conservative fiscally) and maybe turnout with the base is better for 2020, I don't really follow politics that closely.  I think they need someone younger who is a much more exciting agent of change that can also contrast really well against Trump.  I also think they should try and find someone outside of Washington D.C. preferably with some executive experience like a governor.  

You’ll come around.  Elizabeth Warren’s political strategy has been in the making for a while.  She’s positioned herself to capture the Bernie bros early even though she’s actually much more conservative than Bernie when it comes to the welfare state.

 Her positions aren’t far left, they’re just so disruptive to the status quo’s culture of corruption and corporate greed.  She’s going to use Trump’s playbook against him by going right after him relentlessly.  

Trump’s strongest appeal is he’s a fighter. He doesn’t have any original ideas or solutions but he’s excellent at putting his opposition on the defensive.  

That isn’t going to work against Elizabeth Warren because she doesn’t have the political baggage of a traditional Washington insider.  It also helps more than hurts that she’s a woman.  I can’t tell you how many people were begging her to run in 2016.

As far as the age thing goes, she doesn’t look a day over 60 and that’s really all that matters. Bernie, Trump, and Hillary are all older than Warren so to use it as a disqualification is kind of absurd considering the alternative if someone much more inexperienced and naive. 

Will she be the nominee? I have no idea but her ideas should be attractive enough to permeate to the platform of whoever gets the nomination.

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

23 minutes ago, UTDD said:

Well aware of prior presidential performance fiscally, and definitely would say Bill Clinton was for me almost the ideal president in how he handled fiscal policy while still balancing his own issues that he wanted to address.

Good thing we didn't give that another go. 

[BNB 100]

 

Elizabeth Warren Finally Admits That She's Probably Running For President

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty

@EMZANOTTI

October 1, 2018

 8.2k views

At a town hall event in Massachusetts over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) finally admitted she's considering running for president in 2020, upending months of denials.

"After November 6, I will take a hard look at running for president,” she told the crowd, according to The Hill.

The audience gave her a standing ovation.

Warren is the first Democratic candidate to declare an interest in challenging likely Republican nominee, current President Donald Trump, in the 2020 midterms. Others, like Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have been raising their profiles through interviews and events, and still others, like Sen. Cory Booker (D-NY) have quietly opened operations in early states like Iowa, under the guise of helping Democrats there compete for

Warren has been less than coy about her presidential ambitions, though she's kept any mention of future plans out of the media until now, likely because she's in the midst of a re-election campaign (and finding out a candidate will abandon their post within the next six months, with the start of the next presidential campaign, is not a selling point to voters).

She has, however, been quietly streamlining her public image, sponsoring a handful of bills aimed at increasing her ties to the Native American community and reforming her fiscal policy agenda from progressive to more middle-of-the-road.

Edited October 1, 2018 by BNB

[BNB 100]

I don't think she is a good candidate for the dems.

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

4 hours ago, BNB said:

I don't think she is a good candidate for the dems.

If I recall, the reasons you gave when you stated that opinion before had nothing to do with policy. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

When does Warren come out and accuse Custer of assaulting her on the Trail Of Tears ?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The fear is palatable 

 

[Red Five 41736]

Good one Junior. That’s really funny.
You’re going to jail.

[AtticusFinch 155]

On 9/3/2018 at 8:21 AM, Biff Tannen said:

It's fucked up that I'm not sure if I agree with this or not.  I can't believe we have to carefully choose between (in this case) two extremely competent, seemingly genuine people in order to not drive voters toward a completely insane racist shitbag criminal on the other side.  In a sane world, either Warren or Biden destroys trump 100% to 0%.

Biden might be able to beat Trump.  Of course, you would have to ignore his plagiarism,  weird way he fondles little girls and the shady business dealings by his son Hunter helped by Lunch Box Joe.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/03/15/inside-the-shady-private-equity-firm-run-by-kerry-and-bidens-kids/amp/

[Red Five 41736]

Shady business dealings? Are you fucking serious?

[AtticusFinch 155]

11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Shady business dealings? Are you fucking serious?

My bad.  I'm sure its standard practice for The Bank of China, a government owned bank, to invest a billion dollars in a tiny fund held by the Vice President's son, and expect nothing in return....while the VP is in China on a diplomatic trip to discuss policy.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

My bad.  I'm sure its standard practice for The Bank of China, a government owned bank, to invest a billion dollars in a tiny fund held by the Vice President's son, and expect nothing in return....while the VP is in China on a diplomatic trip to discuss policy.  

Happens aaaaaaaall the time.....

[AtticusFinch 155]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Happens aaaaaaaall the time.....

Of course it does....it's just unethical and proves the political class will do anything to enrich themselves...which is why all the political angst from the left is puzzling 

Edited October 7, 2018 by AtticusFinch

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

2 hours ago, AtticusFinch said:

My bad.  I'm sure its standard practice for The Bank of China, a government owned bank, to invest a billion dollars in a tiny fund held by the Vice President's son, and expect nothing in return....while the VP is in China on a diplomatic trip to discuss policy.  

What did the Vice President do for them in return? I mean, the VP has so much power. 

You must've really been outraged when the Chinese pledged a half billion dollars to build a theme park next to a Trump resort in Indonesia, threw in a bunch of new patents for Ivanka, and BAM!, Trump lifted the ban/sanctions on ZTE.

Also when Jared used an official government meeting to lobby the Qataris to bail him out on his private business venture at 666 5th Ave, they declined, Trump decided to join the Saudis in a blockade of Qatar, the Qataris changed their minds and decided to bail out Jared, and BAM!, the blockade was lifted and we're friends with the Qataris again. 

How outraged are you by such obvious corruption? Oh, and what did the Vice President do for the Chinese again?

[AtticusFinch 155]

14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What did the Vice President do for them in return? I mean, the VP has so much power. 

You must've really been outraged when the Chinese pledged a half billion dollars to build a theme park next to a Trump resort in Indonesia, threw in a bunch of new patents for Ivanka, and BAM!, Trump lifted the ban/sanctions on ZTE.

Also when Jared used an official government meeting to lobby the Qataris to bail him out on his private business venture at 666 5th Ave, they declined, Trump decided to join the Saudis in a blockade of Qatar, the Qataris changed their minds and decided to bail out Jared, and BAM!, the blockade was lifted and we're friends with the Qataris again. 

How outraged are you by such obvious corruption? Oh, and what did the Vice President do for the Chinese again?

It's not about the VP's power.  It's about the administration's relationship to the Chinese government via trade, intellectual property, military, etc.  The fact is, the Obama administration was very friendly to China.  The Trump administration is not.  The Chinese government makes routine gestures such as this to influence policy.  This is how they conduct business.  You miss the point entirely.  This isnt about Trump.  It was a statement about Biden.  But it shows your sanctimonious attitude that Trump is all evil and your inability to denounce corruption on your side...or you think it's ok because you dont care.

[Red Five 41736]

4 hours ago, AtticusFinch said:

My bad.  I'm sure its standard practice for The Bank of China, a government owned bank, to invest a billion dollars in a tiny fund held by the Vice President's son, and expect nothing in return....while the VP is in China on a diplomatic trip to discuss policy.  

You think "shady business dealings" would be an issue for Joe Biden. In a general election against Donald Trump. Is that right?

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

2 hours ago, AtticusFinch said:

It's not about the VP's power.  It's about the administration's relationship to the Chinese government via trade, intellectual property, military, etc.  The fact is, the Obama administration was very friendly to China.  The Trump administration is not.  The Chinese government makes routine gestures such as this to influence policy.  This is how they conduct business.  You miss the point entirely.  This isnt about Trump.  It was a statement about Biden.  But it shows your sanctimonious attitude that Trump is all evil and your inability to denounce corruption on your side...or you think it's ok because you dont care.

So you've got nothing and completely ignored my questions about the fairly obvious quid pro quo corruption by the Trump administration. You're an intellectually dishonest fraud.

And you chose a totally inaccurate username. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[RPM 26623]

6 hours ago, Red Five said:

You think "shady business dealings" would be an issue for Joe Biden. In a general election against Donald Trump. Is that right?

Which one has voluntarily released his taxes?

Edited October 8, 2018 by RPM

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Well, what do you know.   Warren took a DNA test that found "strong evidence" of a Native ancestor around the generation she has claimed:  https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.html

 

Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Now, I'm the direct descendant of the mountain man Jim Bridger. That means I got a little Injun in me. And our battle plan will be that of an Apache resistance. We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty they will know who we are. 

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

The problem is that the Republicans aren't concerned with facts and evidence. They create their own reality. Karl Rove said as much and Trump is the poster child for the practice. They're the party of "alternative facts." They will simply dismiss the results of the test as false and their base will fall in line.