The Elizabeth Warren v. Scott Brown thread

[Moliere]

My time in NYC makes it impossible for me to vote for Booker or Gillibrand. When NY/NJ senators are speaking to their own voters, they are at their most insane. Warren and Sanders are nonstarters. I could probably vote for Biden. At this point if it is anyone else vs trump I'll go third party for the second time in my life (and in back to back elections!).

Maybe Bloomberg will get in the race.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I’d vote for Bloomberg, but first I’d buy an eight year supply of Mexican Coca Cola.

[HBCoug]

What about Beto? That dude can raise money and seems like a team player! He is like an Hispanic version of Obama.

Love his breakfast burritos even if I know full well I'm going to pay for it later.

[Flystripper]

Love his breakfast burritos even if I know full well I'm going to pay for it later.

[falafel]

Please make it Biden. I can't stand Spartacus.

who is spartacus?

[old_gregg]

Love his breakfast burritos even if I know full well I'm going to pay for it later.

bacon and egg + a horchata. yes plz senor.

[Flystripper]

bacon and egg + a horchata. yes plz senor.

very solid order

[Bo Diddley]

very solid order

And then sometimes eventually not so solid.

[Babs]

IMG_0044.jpg

She persists!

[Northwestcoug]

The 1/1024th native american heritage has been solidified in the conservative circles, even though it does not represent what Warren's test determined at all. Trump has, of course, masterfully played on it. Warren simply cannot win on this issue. If she is going to have a national political future, she needs to drop anything involved about her heritage.

Here's a thread that touches on the ignorance of the media handling this case:

Embedded Tweet

As I said before, a huge grain of salt is needed interpreting the genetics of ancestry. The word "DNA" has become iron-clad in today's culture, yet ancestry determination based on DNA analysis rests on a lot of assumptions. I don't understand most of it, and hardly anyone reporting on it does either.

[Goatnapper'96]

The 1/1024th native american heritage has been solidified in the conservative circles, even though it does not represent what Warren's test determined at all. Trump has, of course, masterfully played on it. Warren simply cannot win on this issue. If she is going to have a national political future, she needs to drop anything involved about her heritage.

Here's a thread that touches on the ignorance of the media handling this case:

Embedded Tweet

As I said before, a huge grain of salt is needed interpreting the genetics of ancestry. The word "DNA" has become iron-clad in today's culture, yet ancestry determination based on DNA analysis rests on a lot of assumptions. I don't understand most of it, and hardly anyone reporting on it does either.

The Elizabeth Warren situation certainly highlights much of the absurdity of identity preferences included in the Affirmative Action agenda. Attempting to take into account historical disadvantages when evaluating folks for jobs, college admissions etc sounds real good- but in application it is a bit more difficult. How do folks fairly really evaluate the negative impact if historical disadvantages when doing little more than asking about your identity? It is absurd. Whatever her real percentage of Native American, I do not believe she was raised in the abject and hopeless situations one finds on many Reservations and which is the logic behind identity preferences. She did not suffer from the disadvantages the preferences she took advantage of are meant to correct. I do hope this negatively impacts popular opinion on the fairness and necessity of these programs. Having such an easy example of that absurdity being one of the most outspoken supporters of those programs will not be good for the affirmative action agenda.

[Northwestcoug]

The Elizabeth Warren situation certainly highlights much of the absurdity of identity preferences included in the Affirmative Action agenda. Attempting to take into account historical disadvantages when evaluating folks for jobs, college admissions etc sounds real good- but in application it is a bit more difficult. How do folks fairly really evaluate the negative impact if historical disadvantages when doing little more than asking about your identity? It is absurd. Whatever her real percentage of Native American, I do not believe she was raised in the abject and hopeless situations one finds on many Reservations and which is the logic behind identity preferences. She did not suffer from the disadvantages the preferences she took advantage of are meant to correct. I do hope this negatively impacts popular opinion on the fairness and necessity of these programs. Having such an easy example of that absurdity being one of the most outspoken supporters of those programs will not be good for the affirmative action agenda.

I agree with a lot of this. I was about to say 'as it pertains to Warren', as I considered her definitely not disadvantaged. Then I realized I didn't know any of her background, so I looked it up. Sounds like she was raised in a lower/middle income family. I'm still not sure if her stated heritage helped her career. Apparently the Globe investigated the issue, and they couldn't find any evidence that her stated heritage helped her at Harvard. It almost sounds like Harvard was using it more to help their credentials, rather than the other way around. Who knows.

I should stop, I'm sounding like a Warren apologist. But I'm reacting to how fast her story and the DNA test has been mischaracterized (though she certainly shares some of the blame with her statements), and how solidified it is becoming in certain media. Nothing is true anymore, it's whatever can help a political side that gets trumpeted the loudest.

[Uncle Ted]

Ouch...

I am a Native American. I have some questions for Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren released the results of a DNA test that suggests she has distant Native American heritage -- but that doesn't change anything for me, and other Natives like me, for that matter. My question still stands: Elizabeth Warren, where the hell have you been?

Seriously, let's not waste any time here, because I have a lot of questions.


Why didn't she say anything about the literal attacks on human rights and treaty violations during our fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota in 2016? While water protectors were being shot with water from cannons in freezing temperatures, while dogs were set on Natives protecting their ancestors' graves, and while Natives and allies were locked into "dog kennels," Warren's silence was deafening. While she eventually weighed in with a statement on Facebook, that was rightly and widely dismissed as too little, too late.


Why, up until only earlier this year, hasn't Warren said anything about police brutality in Indian country? Natives are more likely to die at the hands of police then any other demographic, yet for years, her voice -- her allegedly Native voice -- was nowhere to be found.


Why, up until only earlier this year, hasn't she said anything about sexual abuse in Indian country? Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than women of any other group, and yet not a peep from Warren about the attack on the people she claims to be a part of.
[...]
For years, when I was the culture editor at Indian Country Today Media Network, we requested interviews with Warren, but not once did she accept our numerous invitations for comment or explanation regarding her alleged ancestry. She simply ignored us.
[...]
When we needed her, she didn't lace up. She didn't show up.

It's not enough to claim to be Native. You must also be there for your people, be a part of the community, and not only when it's convenient or when you want something -- like the presidency.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/opini...ith/index.html

[wapiti]

I agree with a lot of this. I was about to say 'as it pertains to Warren', as I considered her definitely not disadvantaged. Then I realized I didn't know any of her background, so I looked it up. Sounds like she was raised in a lower/middle income family. I'm still not sure if her stated heritage helped her career. Apparently the Globe investigated the issue, and they couldn't find any evidence that her stated heritage helped her at Harvard. It almost sounds like Harvard was using it more to help their credentials, rather than the other way around. Who knows.

I should stop, I'm sounding like a Warren apologist. But I'm reacting to how fast her story and the DNA test has been mischaracterized (though she certainly shares some of the blame with her statements), and how solidified it is becoming in certain media. Nothing is true anymore, it's whatever can help a political side that gets trumpeted the loudest.

I agree that it was likely Harvard and Penn looking for diversity than it was Warren using it to her advantage. However, she could have stopped it. I suspect she regrets not doing so.

[Pelado]

And then sometimes eventually not so solid.

[Eddie]

..... Having such an easy example of that absurdity being one of the most outspoken supporters of those programs will not be good for the affirmative action agenda.

I'm just waiting for dudes to start "identifying" as women in order to fit in an affirmative action slot.