The Make Fun of Elizabeth Warren Thread

[Forty Two]

We really need a thread devoted to tearing a politician apart because she maybe exaggerated her legitimate Native American ancestry.

Whereas Trump lies every time he opens his mouth, and there's total radio silence from the same quarters (unless it's to defend him).

Hmmm.

LOL!

Threads can be created by anyone, anytime - they aren't up to a vote, and only those threads that "we" as a group agree on are permitted. You don't like the thread - why? There are far less relevant threads about other politicians and small non-issues.

Radio silence on Trump? Are you mad? There are several threads on Trump bashing him, all the time. Try to create a thread on a political or economic issue that doesn't bash him, and it's merged with the "bash trump" threads. I can't believe you are trying to sit there with a straight face and saying there isn't enough space here dedicated to bashing Donald Trump. LOL. That takes some denial.

And you're complaining that OTHER PEOPLE aren't criticizing or bashing Trump enough? It's not enough that all those that hate him are running wild on multiple threads posting every jot and tittle available that denigrates him, but you need the two or three Trump supporters here to bash him as well? It's not fair unless I also engage in the bashing? What the fuck, dude? How often do you and the Trump bashers defend him or congratulate him on a success or favorable news?

One thread is created to make fun of a woman who everyone pretty much thinks is going to run for President in 2020, and it's a "Make fun of..." thread, just like other threads that make fun of Trump or other people - but, that - to you -- is unfair.

[Tero]

If she does indeed run, and Trump survives to 2020,

Trump will be reelected by a landslide, because Warren's political positions are battier than her bullshit Native American heritage. I would love to see her defend her her Accountable Capitalism Act in a debate. LOL. Only an extreme socialist could possibly sign on to that load of manure.

Trump will not be elected as the economy will tank by then. We only need 60 000 people in rust belt states that
Did not vote last time. Demographics favor Democrats as Republicans are rejecting all but white folks.

[Forty Two]

[Strontium Dog]

I was really only commenting upon your double standards.

How often do you and the Trump bashers defend him or congratulate him on a success or favorable news?

If he ever achieves anything worthwhile, then that will be cause for qualified praise.

[Brian Peacock]

Race is such a divisive issue in the US, and while nobody can really say what it is so-called 'identify politics' has its roots in a long-standing political obsession with racial identity, and particularly with racial identity being used as a totem for moral virtue and worthiness as an emblem that somehow speaks to a persons character, capacities and/or abilities. This seem to play out across the park, with neither Democrat nor Republicans being able to articulate exactly why self-reporting on one's social or ethnic antecedence, or one's beliefs about same, is important or significant enough to warrant public derision and denigration - only that, for some reason, it just is. I also suspect that being female is also a factor here, with many people just socially absorbing the idea that women are morally, politically and/or administratively less competent than men and that, basically, a woman only achieves high office or a position of power on the basis of her femininity rather than solely their personal qualities (or in Warren's case on the basis of her femininity and her self-declared non-white antecedence).

[Forty Two]

I was really only commenting upon your double standards.

How often do you and the Trump bashers defend him or congratulate him on a success or favorable news?

If he ever achieves anything worthwhile, then that will be cause for qualified praise.

Well, clearly, whether you think something is "worthwhile" depends on your premises. And, you're not required to praise him. But your evident understanding that you need not praise him ought to give you a clue as to why those who do find his achievements worthwhile need not participate in the endless Trump bashing on multiple threads, much of it unjustified and mischaracterized.

[Forty Two]

Race is such a divisive issue in the US, and while nobody can really say what it is so-called 'identify politics' has its roots in a long-standing political obsession with racial identity, and particularly with racial identity being used as a totem for moral virtue and worthiness as an emblem that somehow speaks to a persons character, capacities and/or abilities. This seem to play out across the park, with neither Democrat nor Republicans being able to articulate exactly why self-reporting on one's social or ethnic antecedence, or one's beliefs about same, is important or significant enough to warrant public derision and denigration - only that, for some reason, it just is. I also suspect that being female is also a factor here, with many people just socially absorbing the idea that women are morally, politically and/or administratively less competent than men and that, basically, a woman only achieves high office or a position of power on the basis of her femininity rather than solely their personal qualities (or in Warren's case on the basis of her femininity and her self-declared non-white antecedence).

I think it's easy to see why self-reporting one's race or ethnicity is important. Important decisions are made based on race and ethnicity. So, someone self-reporting as black when they are clearly white means they might get the benefit of a racial or ethnic preference when they don't really qualify.

I don't know anyone who thinks women are morally, politically or administratively less competent than men. Who thinks that? And, nobody has said that Warren achieved high office based on her femininity, have they? Are you speculating here?

Warren is being treated no harsher than a man would be, if he made these ludicrous claims. In fact, men tend to get harsher treatment than women, because if anything there is still a holdover in our culture which specifies that there are certain things that can be done or said to or about a man that can't be done or said to or about a woman. In this case, though, about the Native American heritage, I think that any male US Senator who was considered a likely 2020 contender who had the native american issue that Warren has, would be skewered mercilessly, and rightly so.

[Forty Two]

I was really only commenting upon your double standards.

The double standard is against Trump supporters here. Create a trump bashing thread, and it's fine. Here, create the odd hillary or Warren-bashing thread, and here come the white knights to tell us how unfair and unjustified the thread is, and how "we" don't need the thread. Try creating a pro-Trump thread? They immediately get vitriolic commentary against the existence of the thread, and the moderators merge them into the Trump bashing thread - we cannot have balance -- we cannot have a pro-Trump thread. We cannot even have a "neutral" thread involving an issue in which Trump is mentioned - because that's too many Trump threads.

That's the double standard.

The suggestion that I, as a Trump supporter, don't spend enough time joining you and others in bashing Trump is not a double standard. It's my point of view. Just as you are entitled to your point of view, without "balancing" it with pro-Trump commentary, I can express my views without "balancing" my views by agreeing with you or others.

[Forty Two]

If she does indeed run, and Trump survives to 2020,

Trump will be reelected by a landslide, because Warren's political positions are battier than her bullshit Native American heritage. I would love to see her defend her her Accountable Capitalism Act in a debate. LOL. Only an extreme socialist could possibly sign on to that load of manure.

Trump will not be elected as the economy will tank by then. We only need 60 000 people in rust belt states that
Did not vote last time. Demographics favor Democrats as Republicans are rejecting all but white folks.

Well, if the economy tanks, he's fucked. He is living by "results", and he'll die by results.

Right now, no matter how much you want to deny it, on substance, Trump has been fantastic. His moves on the economy have been stellar and achieved measurable results - favorable results - he's helped 10s of millions of people. Wages are up. Unemployment is down. Labor Participation is Up. GDP is up. By all measures, we have one of the best economies in the last century, certainly the best economy in at least 50 years. He has strengthened the military and taken care of our veterans and service people. He has strengthened the border and stopped a metric ton of illegal immigration. He has made headway with North Korea. He has destroyed ISIS. He has kept us out of new wars. Two years in, and you no longer hear about him bringing on World War 3 and being warmonger, do you? Why? He has no interest in new wars - he wants to do business.

[Forty Two]

[Scot Dutchy]

Old man Trump was arrested in the 1920’s for involvement in a Klan-connected fracas in New York City which killed a cop and supported the America First covert-Fascist cause in the 1930’s. He was such a bigoted slumlord that folksinger Woody Guthrie wrote a song against him and many years later, he was sued by civil rights agencies for discrimination.

A great background.

[Tero]

”Pocahontas is going to take your guns away.”

Nah, poor sound bite. The Republicans really hated Hillary.

[Brian Peacock]

Race is such a divisive issue in the US, and while nobody can really say what it is so-called 'identify politics' has its roots in a long-standing political obsession with racial identity, and particularly with racial identity being used as a totem for moral virtue and worthiness, as an emblem that somehow speaks to a persons character, capacities and/or abilities. This seem to play out across the park, with neither Democrat nor Republicans being able to articulate exactly why self-reporting on one's social or ethnic antecedence, or one's beliefs about same, is important or significant enough to warrant public derision and denigration - only that, for some reason, it just is. I also suspect that being female is also a factor here, with many people just socially absorbing the idea that women are morally, politically and/or administratively less competent than men and that, basically, a woman only achieves high office or a position of power on the basis of her femininity rather than solely their personal qualities (or in Warren's case on the basis of her femininity and her self-declared non-white antecedence).

I think it's easy to see why self-reporting one's race or ethnicity is important. Important decisions are made based on race and ethnicity. So, someone self-reporting as black when they are clearly white means they might get the benefit of a racial or ethnic preference when they don't really qualify.

I don't know anyone who thinks women are morally, politically or administratively less competent than men. Who thinks that? And, nobody has said that Warren achieved high office based on her femininity, have they? Are you speculating here?

Warren is being treated no harsher than a man would be, if he made these ludicrous claims. In fact, men tend to get harsher treatment than women, because if anything there is still a holdover in our culture which specifies that there are certain things that can be done or said to or about a man that can't be done or said to or about a woman. In this case, though, about the Native American heritage, I think that any male US Senator who was considered a likely 2020 contender who had the native american issue that Warren has, would be skewered mercilessly, and rightly so.

That's kind of my point - if it's considered reasonable or necessary to make important decisions based on race then what exactly are those decisions based on: what is race; what is a race; what distinguishes one race from another such that one-or-another race needs to be given special consideration when it comes to important decision-making; and what is it about race which seemingly makes taking this piss out someone reasonable when it's based on self-reporting of one's social or ethnic antecedence, or one's beliefs about same?

The 'Native American issue' as you put it is actually a series of charges level against Warran's legitimacy, competence, probity and character - ad homming charges at that - which is to say that they're not necessarily 'her issues' as you see it but the issues that others have with her. Even here the inclination seems to be to make someone responsible and accountable for the public denigration and derision they receive - and in this specific case to make Warren responsible and accountable for the public denigration and derision she's receiving because she reported that she had some Native American ancestry when, in fact, it turns out she probably does. Again, what is important about race in this regard, or even one's reported social or ethnic antecedence? Does it help to be one race or another; does one's race afford some kind of privilege or advantage not afforded to those of a different race?

[Sean Hayden]

So Brian, you think it's fine to claim you're a Native American when you're clearly white?

How bizzare. I'm pretty sure being Native American means something.

I don't think you've accepted this isn't the same as passing along family lore yet.

[Strontium Dog]

Well, clearly, whether you think something is "worthwhile" depends on your premises.

I can't argue with that. I make no apology for thinking that driving public discourse into the gutter, driving America's global standing into the mud, perpetuating rampant misogyny and racism etc are things that are not worthy of praise.