Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Skerritt

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!!

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Plus, I don’t believe that anyone who calls Warren by that name gives a crap about Native Americans or their concerns. 

Oh, I agree that calling her "Pocahontas" is incredibly offensive.  Both to her and to Naive Americans.  Using the term "Pocahontas" as a derisive term is a pretty crappy and indefensible thing to do.  Add it to the others, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Ben Shapiro never fails to disappoint. Got a twofer here, bashing both Warren and the transgender community in the same Tweet:

Ben Shapiro‏ @benshapiro 5h5 hours ago

So now we have learned from the media that having a Native American great-great-great-great-great-grandparent makes you Native American, but that having two X chromosomes does not make you a woman.

The right knows that waging a culture war is the only way they stay in power.

To their credit, it's been working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is finished politically

at best six generations ago:

- does not qualify you for preferential treatment

- puts the lie to he gig grandma stories

- only puts her at 1.68% at best

her career is over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real quick things.

Don't ever call her Pocohantus here. 

If she did what it looks like she did there and tried to claim something that wasn't for her advantage, that's super lame and she deserves to be called out for it. One can do that without Pocohantus. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever point Coulter is trying to make here it is completely lost on me (yet it has 1400 retweets and 5000 likes)

Ann Coulter‏ @AnnCoulter 1h1 hour ago

So basically, Elizabeth Warren has the same percentage of Indian blood as Custer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think the only people who have ever set any bar at all and done so seriously in terms of what and who defines what race have actually been in segregated states and countries. I challenge you to find a better definition than the Nuremberg Laws. That's not a knock on you or anyone else arguing this point. It is the standard in terms of setting actual racial standards. If you want to do this I recommend you look at laws from around the 1910's in the segregated South or that. I'm not saying that's what Trump supporters are, I'm warning them that's where this sends up if they drill down on it.

It sounds like the Trump haters are the ones in this thread using the Nazi/KKK one drop rule to defend Warren. 

I am merely using common sense, logic, statistics, and Native American beliefs to assert that 1/1024 is irrelevant. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dozer said:

The test results showed a range of between 1/32 and 1/512.

six to ten generations.

Six genarations ago is 1/64

10 generations ago is 1/1024

they can't even be honest about that 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NFL2DF said:

It sounds like the Trump haters are the ones in this thread using the Nazi/KKK one drop rule to defend Warren. 

I am merely using common sense, logic, statistics, and Native American beliefs to assert that 1/1024 is irrelevant. 

 

DNA’s not real...AMOIritit!?’vm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Whatever point Coulter is trying to make here it is completely lost on me (yet it has 1400 retweets and 5000 likes)

Ann Coulter‏ @AnnCoulter 1h1 hour ago

So basically, Elizabeth Warren has the same percentage of Indian blood as Custer.

I think the point is that Warren is as much Native American as a guy who fought Native Americans

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I work in Indian Country (this is a term of art generally accepted by tribes and tribal members).  Most of my co-workers are tribal members, of one tribe or another.  I used to practice Indian law.  Although it's been a long time, and I've forgotten most of what I used to know.  Many of my good friends grew up on a reservation.  A couple of thoughts:

1.  The laws related to tribes, tribal members, and the relationship between them and the U.S. government is incredibly complex.  Lots of rules don't make sense.  

2.  There is a long and painful history with respect to the Trust relationship the government has with Tribes and Tribal members.  For example, many folks in Indian Country feel strongly that the U.S. MUST honor all of the trust duties that it has taken on (including, but not limited to, treaty obligations).  Many of the trust duties don't actually show up in treaties, but are a result of a complicated interpretation of common law trust relationships.  In short:  Tribes want autonomy and self determination and sovereignty, but they also want the U.S. to continue providing the support it pledged 100 years ago.  Sometimes these concepts are at odds.

The above doesn't really have much to do with the Warren situation.  What does is:

3.  The U.S. government does not consider you a federally recognized member of a federally recognized Tribe unless the tribe so recognizes you.  In very simplified terms: you aren't "Indian" in the government's eyes unless you are a member of a federally recognized tribe (there are some weird things going on where a tribe is recognized by a state, but not the feds, such as the Lumbee in N.C., but we'll leave that aside for now).

4.  The reason for the above, essentially, is that being a member of a tribe is not about "race," but rather "citizenship."  The idea of taking a DNA test to "prove" your citizenship into a tribe is almost laughable. 

5.  Most tribes have some sort of "blood quantum" requirement.  In those tribes, you need to be able to trace your lineage directly to someone on the original tribal rolls.  I've had friends who have had crappy situations because they may be 1/2 Tribe A, 1/4 Tribe B, and 1/4 Tribe C, and there spouse would be similarly situated. With one of my friends, her kids can be enrolled members of her tribe because they don't have the adequate "blood quantum" for that Tribe, even thought the kids themselves may be like 75% "Indian blood."  It's just a weird situation. 

6.  All of this is to say that, I'm a HUGE Warren fan, in terms of policy, gumption, feistyness, everything.  But I'm kind of mad about her claiming Indian blood.  Should it disqualify her for running for president?  I don't know.  Maybe. Because it's stupid.  As a country we have crapped on Indians for the last 400 years.  If my great great great grandmother was from Africa, but I was raised as a white kid from the suburbs, I'd feel stupid listing "black" on my website somewhere.  In fact, my kid sisters have a different father than me, and their father was clearly considered black or African American.  But they look white and were raised as white kids.  They wouldn't think of trying to call themselves black on a job application.

7.  TL;DR -- As much as I love Warren, I think she kind of sucks for identifying as part Native American, especially if it was based on "family lore." 

Glad I didn't put you on ignore with most of the other trolls around here because I would have missed out on this.

Best post of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Indestructible said:

I think the point is that Warren is as much Native American as a guy who fought Native Americans

:mellow:

So? Why should anyone care about this factoid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Six genarations ago is 1/64

10 generations ago is 1/1024

they can't even be honest about that 

This is what is being reported now 

 

the Globe has issued a correction 

Edited by Mike Damone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it’s 1/512th or 1/1024th is irrelevant, she looks bad and indirectly proves Trump right.  She took a hit to any presidential chance today, and took some bad advice from whoever she trusted to come forth with this.  Luckily for her she still has plenty of time to recover.   It’s important to have people tell you what you need to hear, and not what you want to hear.  She should have kept this private. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question. I've only been in here to talk Drew Brees with Henry Ford. Did I miss something? I thought all this had been known for a long time. Why all the interest today? Is there something new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dschuler said:

Whether it’s 1/512th or 1/1024th is irrelevant, she looks bad and indirectly proves Trump right.  She took a hit to any presidential chance today, and took some bad advice from whoever she trusted to come forth with this.  Luckily for her she still has plenty of time to recover.   It’s important to have people tell you what you need to hear, and not what you want to hear.  She should have kept this private. 

Not at all. If she runs for President she has taken this subject matter off the table for any debate she will be in (although maybe not the case for Trump).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Real quick things.

Don't ever call her Pocohantus here. 

If she did what it looks like she did there and tried to claim something that wasn't for her advantage, that's super lame and she deserves to be called out for it. One can do that without Pocohantus. 

 

How about calling Trump all sorts of disgusting names?

Pretending to care about the word Pocahontas while not caring about the vile and disgusting names that are thrown around daily here about Trump is a little disingenuous.

I realize the mob here will be upset with you, but you have shown some backbone recently and despite their crying most here respect it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Damone said:

The average white euro American is .18 percent Native American. Who advised her to release this info ??

Dirty politics.  Maybe someone that wants another Democrat to run in 2020 more than her.  Someone from the HRC camp if I had to guess, I don’t think Bernie plays dirty politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

Oh, I agree that calling her "Pocahontas" is incredibly offensive.  Both to her and to Naive Americans.  Using the term "Pocahontas" as a derisive term is a pretty crappy and indefensible thing to do.  Add it to the others, I guess. 

For many Trump supporters it's a feature not a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NFL2DF said:

How about calling Trump all sorts of disgusting names?

Pretending to care about the word Pocahontas while not caring about the vile and disgusting names that are thrown around daily here about Trump is a little disingenuous.

I realize the mob here will be upset with you, but you have shown some backbone recently and despite their crying most here respect it.

 

This isn't about her. This is about not using a term to mock a race. 

We try to limit the vile and disgusting names. Calling someone a POS will get a timeout. Calling someone an idiot seems lame to me, but we let that go. 

If you see something that is vile and disgusting, please use the report button. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, squistion said:

Whatever point Coulter is trying to make here it is completely lost on me (yet it has 1400 retweets and 5000 likes)

Ann Coulter‏ @AnnCoulter 1h1 hour ago

So basically, Elizabeth Warren has the same percentage of Indian blood as Custer.

Her point is that the amount of "Indian blood" Warren has is insignificant, to use a scientific term.

We all have "Indian blood" if you go back far enough seeing as "Indians" migrated from Asia.

#1/1024 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dschuler said:

Dirty politics.  Maybe someone that wants another Democrat to run in 2020 more than her.  Someone from the HRC camp if I had to guess, I don’t think Bernie plays dirty politics. 

I think former MA gov Deval Patrick will run with Obama’s backing and team

BO’s former campaign manager Jim Messina tweeted this

 

“Argue the substance all you want, but why 22 days before a crucial election where we MUST win house and senate to save America, why did

@SenWarren

have to do her announcement now? Why can’t Dems ever stay focused???”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

Thanks. I don't know why but I though this had happened a long time ago. Wasn't that the whole point of Trump mocking her with the name? Or was it just assumed she was not being truthful and now we know for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NFL2DF said:

Her point is that the amount of "Indian blood" Warren has is insignificant, to use a scientific term.

We all have "Indian blood" if you go back far enough seeing as "Indians" migrated from Asia.

#1/1024 

Oh, please. So actually we are all Native American now, or are to the same degree as everyone else? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dschuler said:

Whether it’s 1/512th or 1/1024th is irrelevant, she looks bad and indirectly proves Trump right.  She took a hit to any presidential chance today, and took some bad advice from whoever she trusted to come forth with this.  Luckily for her she still has plenty of time to recover.   It’s important to have people tell you what you need to hear, and not what you want to hear.  She should have kept this private. 

How many ancestors do you have to have to claim that group as part of your ancestry? Seems any % that is above 0 would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

How many ancestors do you have to have to claim that group as part of your ancestry? Seems any % that is above 0 would do.

Because Warren has less Native American DNA in her bloodline than the average white American. You should stop now  

 

http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-less-native-american-dna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I work in Indian Country (this is a term of art generally accepted by tribes and tribal members).  Most of my co-workers are tribal members, of one tribe or another.  I used to practice Indian law.  Although it's been a long time, and I've forgotten most of what I used to know.  Many of my good friends grew up on a reservation.  A couple of thoughts:

1.  The laws related to tribes, tribal members, and the relationship between them and the U.S. government is incredibly complex.  Lots of rules don't make sense.  

2.  There is a long and painful history with respect to the Trust relationship the government has with Tribes and Tribal members.  For example, many folks in Indian Country feel strongly that the U.S. MUST honor all of the trust duties that it has taken on (including, but not limited to, treaty obligations).  Many of the trust duties don't actually show up in treaties, but are a result of a complicated interpretation of common law trust relationships.  In short:  Tribes want autonomy and self determination and sovereignty, but they also want the U.S. to continue providing the support it pledged 100 years ago.  Sometimes these concepts are at odds.

The above doesn't really have much to do with the Warren situation.  What does is:

3.  The U.S. government does not consider you a federally recognized member of a federally recognized Tribe unless the tribe so recognizes you.  In very simplified terms: you aren't "Indian" in the government's eyes unless you are a member of a federally recognized tribe (there are some weird things going on where a tribe is recognized by a state, but not the feds, such as the Lumbee in N.C., but we'll leave that aside for now).

4.  The reason for the above, essentially, is that being a member of a tribe is not about "race," but rather "citizenship."  The idea of taking a DNA test to "prove" your citizenship into a tribe is almost laughable. 

5.  Most tribes have some sort of "blood quantum" requirement.  In those tribes, you need to be able to trace your lineage directly to someone on the original tribal rolls.  I've had friends who have had crappy situations because they may be 1/2 Tribe A, 1/4 Tribe B, and 1/4 Tribe C, and there spouse would be similarly situated. With one of my friends, her kids can be enrolled members of her tribe because they don't have the adequate "blood quantum" for that Tribe, even thought the kids themselves may be like 75% "Indian blood."  It's just a weird situation. 

6.  All of this is to say that, I'm a HUGE Warren fan, in terms of policy, gumption, feistyness, everything.  But I'm kind of mad about her claiming Indian blood.  Should it disqualify her for running for president?  I don't know.  Maybe. Because it's stupid.  As a country we have crapped on Indians for the last 400 years.  If my great great great grandmother was from Africa, but I was raised as a white kid from the suburbs, I'd feel stupid listing "black" on my website somewhere.  In fact, my kid sisters have a different father than me, and their father was clearly considered black or African American.  But they look white and were raised as white kids.  They wouldn't think of trying to call themselves black on a job application.

7.  TL;DR -- As much as I love Warren, I think she kind of sucks for identifying as part Native American, especially if it was based on "family lore." 

This is an excellent post, and I can vouch for all of what Sweet J posted here.  I live in a state with a large Indian population on several major reservations, and he's exactly correct about how tribal citizenship works.

I do disagree about this being disqualifying though.  My experience is that very few people understand what it means to "be Indian."  I certainly didn't before I moved to this state.  So I cut Warren a lot of slack by assuming ignorance rather than malice.  My attitude might be different if Warren had known what she was doing when she pushed her NA ancestry, but I doubt she had any idea that this is considered a big deal by the tribes themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

How many ancestors do you have to have to claim that group as part of your ancestry? Seems any % that is above 0 would do.

More than a hundred % more than her, a closer percentage to the the average person born in the US in her age group.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sweet J said:

I work in Indian Country (this is a term of art generally accepted by tribes and tribal members).  Most of my co-workers are tribal members, of one tribe or another.  I used to practice Indian law.  Although it's been a long time, and I've forgotten most of what I used to know.  Many of my good friends grew up on a reservation.  A couple of thoughts:

1.  The laws related to tribes, tribal members, and the relationship between them and the U.S. government is incredibly complex.  Lots of rules don't make sense.  

2.  There is a long and painful history with respect to the Trust relationship the government has with Tribes and Tribal members.  For example, many folks in Indian Country feel strongly that the U.S. MUST honor all of the trust duties that it has taken on (including, but not limited to, treaty obligations).  Many of the trust duties don't actually show up in treaties, but are a result of a complicated interpretation of common law trust relationships.  In short:  Tribes want autonomy and self determination and sovereignty, but they also want the U.S. to continue providing the support it pledged 100 years ago.  Sometimes these concepts are at odds.

The above doesn't really have much to do with the Warren situation.  What does is:

3.  The U.S. government does not consider you a federally recognized member of a federally recognized Tribe unless the tribe so recognizes you.  In very simplified terms: you aren't "Indian" in the government's eyes unless you are a member of a federally recognized tribe (there are some weird things going on where a tribe is recognized by a state, but not the feds, such as the Lumbee in N.C., but we'll leave that aside for now).

4.  The reason for the above, essentially, is that being a member of a tribe is not about "race," but rather "citizenship."  The idea of taking a DNA test to "prove" your citizenship into a tribe is almost laughable. 

5.  Most tribes have some sort of "blood quantum" requirement.  In those tribes, you need to be able to trace your lineage directly to someone on the original tribal rolls.  I've had friends who have had crappy situations because they may be 1/2 Tribe A, 1/4 Tribe B, and 1/4 Tribe C, and there spouse would be similarly situated. With one of my friends, her kids can be enrolled members of her tribe because they don't have the adequate "blood quantum" for that Tribe, even thought the kids themselves may be like 75% "Indian blood."  It's just a weird situation. 

6.  All of this is to say that, I'm a HUGE Warren fan, in terms of policy, gumption, feistyness, everything.  But I'm kind of mad about her claiming Indian blood.  Should it disqualify her for running for president?  I don't know.  Maybe. Because it's stupid.  As a country we have crapped on Indians for the last 400 years.  If my great great great grandmother was from Africa, but I was raised as a white kid from the suburbs, I'd feel stupid listing "black" on my website somewhere.  In fact, my kid sisters have a different father than me, and their father was clearly considered black or African American.  But they look white and were raised as white kids.  They wouldn't think of trying to call themselves black on a job application.

7.  TL;DR -- As much as I love Warren, I think she kind of sucks for identifying as part Native American, especially if it was based on "family lore." 

Just to clarify, are you arguing that someone who has 100% Native American ancestry but whose ancestors belonged to tribes that no longer exist because of genocide is not Native American?  Because Native American isn't just about "tribe."  Being a member of a "tribe" is not the only definition of being Native American.  Tribal affiliation and ancestry are very different concepts, especially with the number of children who were stolen and their ancestry wiped clean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Six genarations ago is 1/64

10 generations ago is 1/1024

they can't even be honest about that 

That "mistake" was pretty necessary for the PR. The real numbers show that in the best light possible she was still not correct. The person that did the study estimated it was 8 generations but gave a range of 6 to 10. Her story had been that she was 1/32. So The Globe saying she was 1/32 to 1/512th was pretty important for saying it was in line with what she had been saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mike Damone said:

This is what is being reported now 

 

the Globe has issued a correction 

People suck at math.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Or, you know.  Nearly twice as much.  According to that link.

True. The article was written during the 4 hours that the Globe didn’t revise their math and rule out 1/32. Instead the most is now 1/64. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

My attitude might be different if Warren had known what she was doing when she pushed her NA ancestry, but I doubt she had any idea that this is considered a big deal by the tribes themselves.

 

I have to assume she's very smart. I can't imagine any reasonable person not realizing it's a big deal to claim ancestry of a race. Especially a person in the United States claiming one as noble and important to our country as Native Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bradyfan said:

I do not see a good reason why Penn and Harvard should change her enithicity from Caucasian to American Indian shortly after hiring her unless it helped them to meet a diversity goal.  

Do you really have a hard time understanding this? I really wonder about Trump conservatives at this point. This is exactly what liberal academic universities are repeatedly accused of - by them. Yes, they were seeking to meet and demonstrate meeting certain diversity goals. It's purely bureaucratic, it happens at corporations and companies and firms of all kinds. 'Oh, you're Vietnamese/Egyptian/Honduran? Great we will check this box.'

And it is ridiculous. The liberals don't have rules for this any more than the conservatives.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine thinking the person in the wrong here is the person who simply told people what her ancestors told her and then took a DNA test in an attempt to provide transparency and disprove attacks on her by trolls.  

Meanwhile the President appears to be welshing on a million dollar charitable gift promise (not his first seven figure charitable gift welsh, mind you) and his defenders- who once ran @cstu off the board for a similar but orders of magnitude less despicable sin- don’t seem bothered by this at all.

I wish I was still surprised by any of this.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NFL2DF said:

It sounds like the Trump haters are the ones in this thread using the Nazi/KKK one drop rule to defend Warren. 

I am merely using common sense, logic, statistics, and Native American beliefs to assert that 1/1024 is irrelevant.

I asked someone this further up so I will just ask you - if someone's grandmother had her grandmother come from Ireland, is he not entitled to claim he's part Irish?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Why in the world would she release this now? 

Because the "Pocahontas" stuff is the major polling issue against her and she needs to get out in front of it before she runs for president.  Now it will have been an entire election old, one that she ran and completed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.