Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 866

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

I know that this is all just more of the same gibberish, but seriously, what does that even mean? The entirety of the modern left is not identity politics. I don’t understand why you’re trying to push this narrative that it is, but you’re not fooling anybody.

To elaborate, Bernie Sanders was inarguably the biggest leftist figure in 2016 and his platform was not identity politics. It revolved around income inequality and the monopoly on power that “the 1%” has, and he’s now the most popular politician in America because of that platform. How is the “entirety” of the modern left just identity politics?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

CatBus, your descriptions of facts can be so off-center I don’t know what to make of it. You say “Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down” as if she scribbled it on the margin of a notebook one time. She was listed as a minority/Native American in academic publications and openly represented herself as part Native American.

That’s separate from whether it was dishonest or boosted her career or is terribly serious. I mainatain it was most likely an honest mistake (believing she had substantial Native ancestry) and probably only had marginally helped her career if at all.

And conflating that with security mismanagement at a diplomatic outpost or security mismanagement of government documents and email…not good.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus, your descriptions of facts can be so off-center I don’t know what to make of it. You say “Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down” as if she scribbled it on the margin of a notebook one time. She was listed as a minority/Native American in academic publications and openly represented herself as part Native American.

What I meant was: She ran for US Senate and she didn’t bring it up in any public context until asked specifically about it – but neither was it a hidden family secret she kept locked away and never spoke of. She believed the family story was as true as it ultimately turned out to be. Her fault was that she believed it based solely on the word of her family, instead of seeking a second opinion, for too long.

That’s separate from whether it was dishonest or boosted her career or is terribly serious. I mainatain it was most likely an honest mistake (believing she had substantial Native ancestry) and probably only had marginally helped her career if at all.

On the subject of descriptions of facts:

You say “mistake”, I say “unsubstantiated at the time, and would have been understandable as a mistake, if it weren’t later supported by the evidence”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

You say “believing she had substantial Native ancestry”, I say “believing her great, great, great grandmother was at least partially Native American”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

And conflating that with security mismanagement at a diplomatic outpost or security mismanagement of government documents and email…not good.

You left out birth certificates. Maybe that comparison seemed a better match in your mind?

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

I know that this is all just more of the same gibberish

My thoughts exactly. I don’t think it’s worth responding to anymore.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

My only opposition to Warren is the fact that she’s not radical enough.

oh good grief.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

That would be very nice.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

My only opposition to Warren is the fact that she’s not radical enough.

oh good grief.

Do you care to elaborate? That’s my problem with her. I’d prefer Bernie Sanders.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

I might. I would certainly vote for Paul Ryan over Trump in a Republican Primary. However if it were Trump vs. Warren, I would be forced to vote for Warren.

“Wouldn’t it be nice” isn’t very practical in politics.

Actually, I think it would be very practical to have someone more likable. One of the many reason Hillary lost was because people didn’t like her.

Also, I’d to be able to vote for someone in the General Election that I actually want to be the President.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Other than being smarter and less erratic, Paul Ryan isn’t much different than Trump. They’d have very similar agendas.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Handman said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/young-voters-dont-know-where-to-buy-stamps-for-absentee-ballots-2018-9

I know people love to say that people who say “kids today are lazy” are out-of-touch… but… this is just a Google search away. And you can buy them everywhere. And you can ask literally anybody. I never had a problem figuring this out with my absentee-ballot.

Yeah, all you have to do is search online for the nearest post office. I guarantee you that they have stamps.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

So are you going to vote for Trump or third party or write-in?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus, your descriptions of facts can be so off-center I don’t know what to make of it. You say “Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down” as if she scribbled it on the margin of a notebook one time. She was listed as a minority/Native American in academic publications and openly represented herself as part Native American.

What I meant was: She ran for US Senate and she didn’t bring it up in any public context until asked specifically about it – but neither was it a hidden family secret she kept locked away and never spoke of. She believed the family story was as true as it ultimately turned out to be. Her fault was that she believed it based solely on the word of her family, instead of seeking a second opinion, for too long.

Okay but I don’t think Brown bringing it up is remarkable.

That’s separate from whether it was dishonest or boosted her career or is terribly serious. I mainatain it was most likely an honest mistake (believing she had substantial Native ancestry) and probably only had marginally helped her career if at all.

On the subject of descriptions of facts:

You say “mistake”, I say “unsubstantiated at the time, and would have been understandable as a mistake, if it weren’t later supported by the evidence”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

You say “believing she had substantial Native ancestry”, I say “believing her great, great, great grandmother was at least partially Native American”. Both could be considered true, but mine’s more accurate.

Problem for your claim of accuracy is you don’t know if any particular g-g-g gma had NA ancestry. You don’t know which ancestor. I’m giving “substantial” a meaning of “sufficiently high enough to claim identity as a member of that minority.” I’m not sure what that amount is, but if you have to go 6-10 generations back to maybe find one ancestor, I don’t buy it.

And conflating that with security mismanagement at a diplomatic outpost or security mismanagement of government documents and email…not good.

You left out birth certificates. Maybe that comparison seemed a better match in your mind?

Yes, that is on the same planet. But not at all the same as security mismanagement as a public official.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Other than being smarter and less erratic, Paul Ryan isn’t much different than Trump. They’d have very similar agendas.

Trump has no agenda except “win” whatever that means.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Other than being smarter and less erratic, Paul Ryan isn’t much different than Trump. They’d have very similar agendas.

Trump has no agenda except “win” whatever that means.

He’s being used to push the same kind of agenda that Paul Ryan would push. The only difference between a Ryan administration and a Trump administration is that the latter is headed by a demented and unpredictable moron.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

Which vote of yours did she lose?

Assuming she runs for president, that one.

So the primary? Or the general?

I am hopeful that the dems will come up with some decent alternatives, so I was thinking of the primary. As for the general - if it’s her versus the Donald, then I guess I’d have to admit that I’d have to vote for her. But wouldn’t it be nice if the dems could find someone that people didn’t have to reluctantly vote for - as was the case for many people who voted for Hillary Clinton?

We can only vote for the choices we are given. Forget Trump, would you really vote for someone like Paul Ryan over her?

Hmm, you’re not making this easy. Time might temper my views. We’ll see what plays out going forwards, and whether this is an isolated thing. At this moment I find it embarrassing and wrong.

Not that they are necessarily related, but in Rachel Dolezal’s case, it appears to have been a part of a much larger pattern of fraudulent behaviors.

On the flip side, there was a famous singer for Duke Ellington named Herb Jeffries who was white, but passed as black and claimed to be one-half black. He even accepted movie roles in westerns as the “bronze buckaroo”. I played in a backup band for him in one festival about 25 years ago - really nice guy, and later in life he admitted that he was 100% white.

You played in a backup band for a guy that sang with Duke Ellington? Wow! I am impressed.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Although I’m a very liberal democrat who generally supports Warren’s views, I find her ongoing claim of having Native American heritage to be an embarrassment at best, and outright fraud at worst. Six-to-ten generations back? Give me a break! Nearly everyone who has ancestors in North America can make that claim WITH substantiation from Ancestry.com. It sounds like she has LESS N.A. blood than the average American. She needs to drop it and apologize. Efforts towards equal opportunity are severely damaged when people - especially those for whom they were not intended - lie and abuse them.

The fact that she is digging in her heels over this has caused her to lose my vote. And seeing left-leaning media outlets still defending her on this is equally disturbing. Actual native Americans must be rolling their eyes.

I guess I’m not seeing this. She spends her whole life until 2012 AFAICT barely mentioning her family history – it’s unclear to me if she mentioned it in public at all. Then Scott Brown found somewhere where she wrote it down, calls her a liar about it, and suddenly she’s answering for it in public.

Do we know exactly where she wrote it down?

It seems that faulting Warren for fixating on her relatively inconsequential Native American family history is a lot like faulting Hillary for fixating on her e-mails and Benghazi, or Obama’s weird fixation on his birth certificate. I agree with DominicCobb it’s a strategic failing to let your opponents decide what you’re talking about.

Don’t know, I’ve a lot of times where politician A will accuse politician B of thing X, and then politician B will refuse to talk about thing X, it can make it looking like politician B is hiding something about thing X.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

I know that this is all just more of the same gibberish, but seriously, what does that even mean? The entirety of the modern left is not identity politics. I don’t understand why you’re trying to push this narrative that it is, but you’re not fooling anybody.

To elaborate, Bernie Sanders was inarguably the biggest leftist figure in 2016 and his platform was not identity politics. It revolved around income inequality and the monopoly on power that “the 1%” has, and he’s now the most popular politician in America because of that platform. How is the “entirety” of the modern left just identity politics?

Eating their own is the hallmark of the left. If you don’t pass the purity test and aren’t woke enough, you’re out, and a huge part of that is identifying with the right victims.

Pitting the population against rich people is just another us vs. them mentality and a natural extension of identity politics. No doubt that there are wealthy people who use their riches to assert their power and we should enact laws that prevent money from infecting our politics (like reforming campaign finance laws and striking down Citizens United), but demonizing everyone with money isn’t going to solve the problem.

I was a Bernie supporter and his message definitely made waves, but calling him the most popular politician in America today doesn’t fly. Recent polls for Democrat candidates in 2020 put him well below Joe Biden. Bernie had his moment in the sun and perhaps he can pull it off again, but I think he’s going to have a tough time against Harris and Booker.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I mean either way, it’s no wonder we can’t win shit in elections. We eat our own over things like this.

You’ve summed up the entirety of the modern left and its identity politics platform in two sentences.

Democrats would have to run an as-yet-unnamed rock star in 2020 for me to give them my vote. Hillary was the last pity vote they’re getting from me. They need another beating at the ballot box and some more soul-searching.

I know that this is all just more of the same gibberish

My thoughts exactly. I don’t think it’s worth responding to anymore.

You’re right, it’s not.

Enjoy your continued losses. You’ll be asking “why?” again in 2020 and will no doubt be blaming it on racism or sexism or whatever other “-ism” helps you explain it away.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

Problem for your claim of accuracy is you don’t know if any particular g-g-g gma had NA ancestry. You don’t know which ancestor.

Sure, her family story could have been wrong in part. It could have been her great-great-great grandfather, but the evidence does support the claim she made, down to the ethnicity and approximate number of generations back she specified, which lends the entire family story some credibility. But yes, which g-g-g grandparent may have been off, that is true.

I’m giving “substantial” a meaning of “sufficiently high enough to claim identity as a member of that minority.” I’m not sure what that amount is, but if you have to go 6-10 generations back to maybe find one ancestor, I don’t buy it.

See, that’s actually a point of agreement hiding in here, and why I like arguing with you. We actually do agree about stuff from time to time and it feels like a revelation every time it happens. We’re pretty polar opposite but we don’t just go to our respective corners and throw spitballs.

When you’re filling out a form and there’s checkboxes that say “check all that apply”, and you know for certain that you have approx 1/32nd ancestry from one of the listed groups, I can understand that you might want to check the corresponding box. Because you were instructed to “check all that apply” and it does apply. And the most charitable interpretation of checking that box under those circumstances is that you were being a little too literal with your instructions, without taking into account the larger context of why the boxes are there in the first place. If you recognized that there was a limit to the statistical value of particular parts of your ancestry, you would (and should) leave those boxes unchecked. You are not disavowing your ancestors, you are providing more useful data. Swallow the guilt and leave them out. Otherwise everyone would mark African because that’s where humanity started and we all have ancestors from there, right? Where that limit should be is up for some debate, and possibly a bit dependent on the purpose for which the data is being gathered, but I’d certainly place the bar higher than a single individual five generations back in almost all cases.

The less charitable interpretation involves embracing the exotic as a means to make your life’s story more interesting than it really is.

Those who write the questions probably don’t consider that anyone will answer for any percentage less than 1/8th. It’s unusual for people to go around knowing that they’re 1/32nd Native American. But with genetic testing becoming more commonplace, it’s increasingly normal. I’d suggest that people who write those questions suggest what a “significant portion” is, rather than leaving it as an exercise for the reader.

Similarly, it’s far too easy outside the checkbox scenario for people to throw around tiny fractional ancestries as if they mean something.

Nevertheless, she didn’t make it up. She and her family may be guilty of romanticizing or exoticizing, overstating the relevance of the native ancestry, but there is no indication that they were mistaken about, or lied about, or even exaggerated, the basic facts of their ancestry. This is what she was accused of, and she just shut down that line of criticism with evidence supporting her family story, exactly as it was told to her. Which is why the criticism is now moving on to other angles. And some of those new criticisms may very well be valid, and perhaps they are the criticisms that should have been made all along, but that’s another argument.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

It was a meaningful response. What was he supposed to say?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

It sounds to me like the could do a lot worse. They could actually do all of the things that your favorite rightwing Youtube channels have told you that they’re doing.

The Person in Question