|
Trabisnikof posted:But sure, you're right Warren has spent a career ignoring the needs of Native Americans and Tribal Nations
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:[CITATION NEEDED] Here you go! https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/15/opinions/elizabeth-warren-native-heritage-where-has-she-been-moya-smith/index.html quote: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. Do you have some examples of her reaching out and working with Tribal Nations or Native American communities from before her run for president?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:(You're also probably wrong. After this kind of insult, I don't think those in Native communities or Tribal communities will forget it so quickly.) Native Americans make up 1% of the US population. reignonyourparade posted:It probably won't directly lose her many votes, but it'll much more easily hurt her ability to get young doorknockers out on the street, and that would lose her votes. It won’t because y’all are seriously overestimating how much staying power this story has when the midterms are three weeks away. DaveWoo posted:Agreed, Warren should just quit right now and make way for the new frontrunner: just lol if you aren’t voting Kasich / Hickenlooper in 2020 Paracaidas posted:I'm just waiting for Hamilton Nolan to drop another "Don't Piss on Your Best Friend" column. It has to be coming, right? I seriously doubt that the Mayor of Los Angeles is going to be able to distinguish himself among an enormous crowd of better known and better funded opponents. Maybe he will turn out to be far more charismatic and politically savvy than I imagine, but his candidacy seems like a long-shot compared to Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and others. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
So what about Kamala Harris. She has the highest odds on predictit. I know practically nothing about what she's done in office, other than make a few mealy mouthed comments about 'civility in politics'. I also remember right after she was elected senator someone on these forums said not to count on President Harris because despite winning, she had run a shoddy campaign for senator, though I don't remember any details about that. So I guess the only reason she's getting good odds right now is because South Carolina and California are early states and conventional wisdom would be that she'll do well in both?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here you go!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:since you're joining the right in their weird fetish over warren's heritage, it's probably safe to assume that if she actually had gone out of her way to fight for native populations in places like north dakota, halfway across the country from her actual constituency, you would have whined about it being political posturing No, it is Warren who fetishized her supposed heritage. I'm just disappointed that she both chose to further hurt and insult Native Americans and Tribal Nations just to try and score a political point and at the same time distracting the media from the 2018 race at a critical moment. But it seems like you now agree with me that she didn't do anything to help Native Americans (including the 37,000 who live in MA) but now you're arguing it would have been a politically bad move if she did? Edit: Your argument honestly reads like you believe the Cherokee Nation is joining the right-wing in fetishizing Warren's heritage. Do you think their response is incorrect? https://twitter.com/CherokeeNation/status/1051965527214776321 Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:It won’t because y’all are seriously overestimating how much staying power this story has when the midterms are three weeks away. It doesn't need much staying power when the demographic in question is specifically politically aware young people, many of whom are going to be quite tied in to racial issues. Maybe it won't matter for them, but I think they're the group most likely to remember it and they're a rather important group just to have a functional campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, it is Warren who fetishized her supposed heritage. Trabisnikof posted:But it seems like you now agree with me that she didn't do anything to help Native Americans (including the 37,000 who live in MA) but now you're arguing it would have been a politically bad move if she did? Trabisnikof posted:Edit: Your argument honestly reads like you believe the Cherokee Nation is joining the right-wing in fetishizing Warren's heritage. Do you think their response is incorrect? none of this is to say that it was a smart political move, only that your attitude about it is both dishonest and batshit loco KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:what i'm arguing is that you would have been at least as butthurt if she actually had directed special attention to native american issues in our state (37,000 people is a small-to-medium size town here.) that's because, for you, this isn't really about the issue you're ostensibly highlighting, it's an opportunity to be petulant on the internet. you must think everyone here is pretty loving gullible if you expect them to believe that you wouldn't accuse her of fetishizing her heritage if she had directed more attention to issues for native people, even though you are accusing her of that now after not really talking about it until this moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:So what about Kamala Harris. She has the highest odds on predictit. I know practically nothing about what she's done in office, other than make a few mealy mouthed comments about 'civility in politics'. I also remember right after she was elected senator someone on these forums said not to count on President Harris because despite winning, she had run a shoddy campaign for senator, though I don't remember any details about that. So I guess the only reason she's getting good odds right now is because South Carolina and California are early states and conventional wisdom would be that she'll do well in both? She's a freshman senator who has distinguished herself by using her 25 years in law enforcement to be a sharp and commanding force in hearings. This same background has made her unpopular among people who note her participation in California's notoriously brutal criminal justice system (at once being accused of being too cautious with her reforms while also doing things like fighting a state supreme court order to release inmates to address prison overcrowding) and her failure to prosecute banks. Her rhetoric in Congress has been solidly progressive but her background is complicated, often criticized, and doesn't hew to a good narrative. Also, she's a female person of color which makes her unpalatable to certain segments of the Twitter commentariat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:So what about Kamala Harris. She has the highest odds on predictit. I know practically nothing about what she's done in office, other than make a few mealy mouthed comments about 'civility in politics'. I also remember right after she was elected senator someone on these forums said not to count on President Harris because despite winning, she had run a shoddy campaign for senator, though I don't remember any details about that. So I guess the only reason she's getting good odds right now is because South Carolina and California are early states and conventional wisdom would be that she'll do well in both? Kamala Harris is not particularly remarkable, but she received some very early attention as a contender when she met with a bunch of Democratic donors (who seemed to be courting her as a possible successor to Hillary or something). I would say that she's maybe similar to (or a bit worse than due to the whole prosecutor thing) Gillibrand or something. Better than Biden, definitely worse than Warren. My current rating for some prominent contenders is something like Sanders >>>>>>>> Warren >>> Gillibrand ~= Harris > Booker > Biden Avenatti is a bit of a wild card that likely falls somewhere in the range between Sanders and Gillibrand/Harris; I'm not sure if I'd consider him overall better or worse than Warren (since I'm not sure if stuff like "being properly aggressive towards Republicans and willing to mention packing the court, etc" outweighs not having as much cred on issues like financial regulation as Warren). KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:if there's anything warren's done while in office, it's play up this issue and her heritage, right? Stuff like this (which Trabisnikov linked in another thread) is pretty damned unacceptable:  Like, you're free to still support her despite this, but there's no denying that it's hosed up to continue to draw the link (since she has no actually-meaningful link with Native Americans). edit: You can also try to argue "maybe she's not making every individual decision to say/write stuff like this," but if that's the case she still has a responsibility to either address or completely disengage with the issue. (To be honest, the most remarkable thing about this whole situation, to me, hasn't been Warren's own actions/words, but rather the defensive reaction of many Democrats/liberals regarding them.) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Stuff like this (which Trabisnikov linked in another thread) is pretty damned unacceptable: she has been completely disengaged with this issue since scott "he's one of us" brown first tried to make a mountain out of it in 2012, and through donnie calling her "pocahontas" at every possible juncture. trabisnikov's problem is that he would throw a temper tantrum regardless of how or whether she engaged with the issue of her heritage or with the native population in the state, nicely illustrating why it is that this is a political minefield in the first place KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:trabisnikov's problem is that he would throw a temper tantrum regardless of how or whether she engaged with the issue of her heritage or with the native population in the state, nicely illustrating why it is that this is a political minefield in the first place What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Or are you going to keep putting words in my mouth and declaring my opinion invalid because you think you can read my mind? What did I ever do to you? Like hell, can you even quote a post where I threw a "temper tantrum"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
my evidence is that while you're getting angry at warren for "fetishizing" the heritage she evidently does really have, and/or for trying to score political points, you also expect me to wholly swallow your implicit claim that if she talked up native american issues throughout her Senate term despite the fact that MA has only a tiny native population, you would applaud without accusing her of the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nandorvila/status/1052322403081019392?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:my evidence is that while you're getting angry at warren for "fetishizing" the heritage she evidently does really have, and/or for trying to score political points, you also expect me to wholly swallow your implicit claim that if she talked up native american issues throughout her Senate term despite the fact that MA has only a tiny native population, you would applaud without accusing her of the same. You're the one who brought up the phrase "fetishizing" to begin with, by accusing me of it. I'm just disappointed in this obviously stupid and hurtful political move and it makes me think less of Warren as a 2020 candidate. You've decided that I'm "dishonest and batshit" and it is obvious there's nothing I can do that would convince you that I would support any and all senators doing anything in their power to help Native Americans and Tribal Nations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
In what world does a single ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago whose name and region is completely unknown of which the only physical artifacts that we know to remain is a section of DNA in a white lady constitute any sort of heritage? Like I'm honestly confused she got back that result and thought "Yeah! I'm technically correct, this will play well".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
The question is whether the test result aligns proportionate to the claims about it she has previously made, which, yes it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
White people always are proud to say that they are part (1/32) Native American. I always find it so weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The question is whether the test result aligns proportionate to the claims about it she has previously made, which, yes it does. She claimed that she is "part Native American," and having Native American DNA does not actually make you part Native American in the estimation of anyone who matters. If her only claim was that she had a distant Native ancestor, the DNA test would prove her correct, but her website and the video put out makes claims to "heritage" which she emphatically does not have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Is there a political organization on earth with greater talent for moronic self-owns than the Democratic Party? Maybe the SPD in Germany or the Lib Dems, other than that I can't think of any
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
it blows my mind how many people on this forum don't see this as an unforced error.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it blows my mind how many people on this forum don't see this as an unforced error. Start banning Avenatti posters now. Just start tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it blows my mind how many people on this forum don't see this as an unforced error. Don't listen to your beliefs or how other people are interpreting it. Listen to how the candidate herself is spinning it! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it blows my mind how many people on this forum don't see this as an unforced error. It blows my mind people think this will matter at all after this week
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
i don't know why this has to be explained over and over but it's telling of how her team will respond to anything else in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Yeah I'm not sure this actually... does anything. Maybe hurts? The emotional core of the attack was always "it was ridiculous for this white-rear end white lady to claim a not-actually-lives indigenous identity on a form", and this doesn't do anything to counter that. The vast majority of white Americans cannot make the same claim, no (whether 1/32 or 1/1024). Trabisnikof posted:
They are absolutely correct; DNA tests have zero bearing on tribal citizenship. In fact the Cherokee nation has no minimum blood quantum, you need to prove you have an ancestor on official rolls (like the Dawes Roll). Warren has never claimed tribal citizenship, so it's a moot point. pospysyl posted:She claimed that she is "part Native American," and having Native American DNA does not actually make you part Native American in the estimation of anyone who matters. If her only claim was that she had a distant Native ancestor, the DNA test would prove her correct, but her website and the video put out makes claims to "heritage" which she emphatically does not have. Her claim is that she has a distant ancestor, and that is true. How you view the word heritage is on the beholder I suppose, but it means an inherited property. Maybe you're taking it to mean specifically cultural heritage? She has never claimed that. punk rebel ecks posted:White people always are proud to say that they are part (1/32) Native American. I always find it so weird. Most white people who say it are lying. But regardless I have seen a few people suggest that "1/32" isn't enough and people will look at you sideways because of it. Weird since the Cherokee Nation Principal Chief (Bill John Baker) is "only" 1/32 native. Of course Warren isn't claiming tribal citizenship or anything beyond "yes, I had an ancestor generations ago". All that said, I don't find it to be a good political move overall but it does seem to be doing a good job of getting people to trip over themselves trying to argue how much blood is enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Just don't run liz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:they could always vote for Trump lmao Demon Of The Fall posted:It blows my mind people think this will matter at all after this week Demon Of The Fall posted:It'll be Warren as the eventual candidate. How is that even a question? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:It blows my mind people think this will matter at all after this week It matters to recruiting staff and organisers and volunteers, which is a very large part of the ballgame rn. There's only finite amounts of talent really familiar with IA/NH/NV/SC, and the candidates are going to asking people to give up the next year+ of their lives as they start staffing up. This DNA test, and the way that the Warren team clearly thought this was a masterstroke, is going to give a lot of activists pause about spending the next 16 months in the Warren camp if this is the braintrust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
I'll be sure to bring it the gently caress up if she actually goes after Bernie at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:It matters to recruiting staff and organisers and volunteers, which is a very large part of the ballgame rn. There's only finite amounts of talent really familiar with IA/NH/NV/SC, and the candidates are going to asking people to give up the next year+ of their lives as they start staffing up. This DNA test, and the way that the Warren team clearly thought this was a masterstroke, is going to give a lot of activists pause about spending the next 16 months in the Warren camp if this is the braintrust. This is a lot of speculation. When she has a hard time finding volunteers because people for some reason care about this, maybe I’ll be concerned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:They are absolutely correct; DNA tests have zero bearing on tribal citizenship. In fact the Cherokee nation has no minimum blood quantum, you need to prove you have an ancestor on official rolls (like the Dawes Roll). Warren has never claimed tribal citizenship, so it's a moot point. quote:It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage. edit: Demon Of The Fall posted:This is a lot of speculation. When she has a hard time finding volunteers because people for some reason care about this, maybe I’ll be concerned. twodot fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:It blows my mind people think this will matter at all after this week Even if it doesn't make a difference politically, it's pretty gross of her, and native groups have made their displeasure clear; this being downplayed or ignored, and the complaints levied at those criticizing her for it, are similarly gross, and it reflects poorly on people whose concern is only dependent on whether it affects the number of votes she gets or not. Things don't have to "matter" for them to matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:It's tough to generate grassroots momentum in a meaningful, national way when someone has sucked the oxygen out of that ecosystem. I'm guessing the MSM will be craving a male contender who isn't Bernie or Booker, and if it's not Biden, Garcetti seems like as good a bet as any to outlast Bloomberg. I'm hoping we'll avoid the weekly darling cycle we saw with the GOP in 16. Something tells me Biden's not going to make it very far. Can't really put my finger on why though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
Demon Of The Fall posted:This is a lot of speculation. When she has a hard time finding volunteers because people for some reason care about this, maybe I’ll be concerned. People in general will not care, but the people who do still care will be disproportionately represented in those she needs to convince to volunteer. If it makes it hardER to find volunteers without actually reaching the realms of hard, that still falls into the Mattering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
can you point to gaffes by other candidates that led to a problems in finding campaign volunteers a year later?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, good point, Warren never said anything about citizenship, I wonder if that document talks about things other than citizenship. Let's check it out! Good job quoting more about tribal citizenship while suggesting it is something else I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Good job quoting more about tribal citizenship while suggesting it is something else I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:can you point to gaffes by other candidates that led to a problems in finding campaign volunteers a year later? if you want an example of a candidate's gaffe leading to getting hard up for volunteers a week later there's phil bredesen
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 02:10
|
|