2020 Democratic presidential primary

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (14963 of them)

*quarrel not wuartel. Jesus.

🌴 (Trϵϵship), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 03:41 (seven years ago)

She did claim native identity and used the DNA test to back it up.it was really shitty. Stop finding excuses for shitty colonialism

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:12 (seven years ago)

I’ll say even though she wasn’t claiming tribal identity and the misinformation about that is frustrating, it’s fair to say she should have met w tribal leaders beforehand anyway and coordinated the response w them since the Trump attack line she was responding to isn’t solely about her and her family but implicates that community in a big way.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:13 (seven years ago)

She did claim native identity and used the DNA test to back it up.

citation needed

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:14 (seven years ago)

http://www.criticalethnicstudiesjournal.org/blog/2018/12/19/syllabus-elizabeth-warren-cherokee-citizenship-and-dna-testing

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:16 (seven years ago)

xp - how do you distinguish between "tribal identity" which was my terminology and I intended to mean 'membership in a tribe', and "native identity" which was your term? What does "native identity" even mean?

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:18 (seven years ago)

What does sophistry mean

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:23 (seven years ago)

Your citation specifically regards her "claims to Cherokee ancestry", which is a rather broad way to state her claim that one specific ancestor of hers was identified as Cherokee in her family lore. Transmuting that into claiming a current and inclusive "native identity" doesn't seem accurate at all.

What does sophistry mean

Words often have shades of meaning and nuance. I am being as clear about these as I know how to be. You are being unclear, and when challenged to clarify you are being evasive.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:26 (seven years ago)

She did this in the form of a video, check 4:22 in https://youtu.be/RHzbdZuVyAM

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:27 (seven years ago)

U guys are all talking about some bullshit donald trump wants us to talk about. Good job everybody.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:28 (seven years ago)

Sweep sweep

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:29 (seven years ago)

that's a good one. can you moo?

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:36 (seven years ago)

Xxpost Not really.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 05:37 (seven years ago)

Warrens ad was emptyness personified. She's actually pretty good on the policy front is the shame of it, but she's just built to lose

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 06:13 (seven years ago)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dv4ocvcUYAM-YBT.jpg

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 06:14 (seven years ago)

tbf he could be so beaten by that point that any Democrat wins but idk

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 06:15 (seven years ago)

those captioned photos are gross

Dan S, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 07:23 (seven years ago)

Well of course they are, thats the point. This is why we need a candidate that doesn't think they can play that game, just sticks to policy and messaging and doesn't think that somehow they can get in the ring and wrestle with Trump

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 07:39 (seven years ago)

Hey did you make an intentionally bad meme to illustrate that point for everyone? Please just say that you made it anyway. Don’t say “no I found it” even if that happens to be true.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 08:26 (seven years ago)

I can ask a moderator for it to be deleted, turned into a link or moved to right wing cartoon thread. Turned into link is probably best but can go with any

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 11:34 (seven years ago)

how do you do fellow brawlers, lets spar. really?

anvil, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 11:42 (seven years ago)

i’m not voting for someone because i think they can “get in the ring and wrestle with trump.” That’s just such a bleak attitude and also something for the strategists to figure out, not the voters.

In other news jay inslee is running for president on a climate change platform. I don’t see myself voting for him, but seems useful to have someone in the ring with that as their #1 priority in terms of influencing the platform.

🌴 (Trϵϵship), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:00 (seven years ago)

Never mind i misread your post, anvil

🌴 (Trϵϵship), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:02 (seven years ago)

we were bored New Year's Day, eh

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:15 (seven years ago)

I am reading Rebecca Solnit's fb where someone is talking about schoolmarm/Warren comments. Ha! "I don't believe in the death penalty, except for that remark. As we're governed by a quivering pile of putrescent lard."

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:22 (seven years ago)

...let's concern-troll the hell out of Warren by pretending that we're just worried about OTHER PEOPLE being raging misogynists subjecting another woman candidate to inane criteria, insults, dismissals and condemnations we would never try out on a man!

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:27 (seven years ago)

Otm

Trϵϵship, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:30 (seven years ago)

I still laugh at Kamala Harris lacking "executive skills" or whatever that puerile shit was.

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:43 (seven years ago)

If Sanders, Warren or Gillibrand get the nomination, it'll be fun to watch conservative "never Trumpers" squirm and prevaricate in their endorsements.

resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 13:57 (seven years ago)

How many of them supported hillary? I remember them prevaricating then, saying they’d vote for mcmuffin or whatever.

Trϵϵship, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 14:19 (seven years ago)

fwiw warren was the biggest "underperformer" in the midterms among incumbents, according to 538

Warren is the first big name for 2020, but I find her underperformance as an incumbent in 2018 really worrisome. If you're losing support among your own constituency how can you win the country? https://t.co/SkvUVX7Iel pic.twitter.com/Dux7ZfeBKU

— Sarah E. Frostenson (@sfrostenson) January 2, 2019

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 14:56 (seven years ago)

(i'm just highlighting the chart, not frostenson's commentary (which makes some sense, but i'm pretty sure there are lots of examples of politicians doing well on a national scale while simultaneously losing ground among their own constituency. that scenario could be caused by the almighty triangulation strategy, for example)

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 14:59 (seven years ago)

She did not really lose ground, though. She won by 8 points in 2012, and 24 points in 2018.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:02 (seven years ago)

24 points is also exactly the margin Ed Markey won with in 2014. I don't really get that chart.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:05 (seven years ago)

"I still laugh at Kamala Harris lacking "executive skills" or whatever that puerile shit was."

I was just relaying what someone who had to work with her office when she was DA claimed (he works in DNA testing).

akm, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:16 (seven years ago)

Yeah, I wasn't blaming you, I remember it was from a dude that had worked for her. You can tell him his criticism was inane.

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:21 (seven years ago)

Oh correction, he worked with her office.

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:30 (seven years ago)

xpost frederik

She underperformed 538’s “expected margin” for her in 2018, which was calculated individually for each candidate and takes into account all sorts of things that i can’t easily copy and paste using my phone right now

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:44 (seven years ago)

She did not really lose ground, though. She won by 8 points in 2012, and 24 points in 2018.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:02 AM (forty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

24 points is also exactly the margin Ed Markey won with in 2014. I don't really get that chart.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:05 AM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the margins are considered in the context of the political climate. having the same margin in a year that is much better for democrats overall means something different than a neutral year or smaller lean dem year

k3vin k., Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:46 (seven years ago)

Baseball guys get this stuff.

clemenza, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:48 (seven years ago)

it’s a park adjustment haha

k3vin k., Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:48 (seven years ago)

I just invented a new word: sabersplaining.

clemenza, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:49 (seven years ago)

I guess there is both a park and league adjustment

k3vin k., Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:49 (seven years ago)

It’s not a prediction, it’s a projection

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:52 (seven years ago)

If she’s the best candidate she should be supported anyway.

Trϵϵship, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:53 (seven years ago)

Even if people hate her for dumb reasons.

Trϵϵship, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:54 (seven years ago)

She underperformed according to the 538 chart, but that doesn't show that she 'lost ground'. It was her first year as an incumbent, coming after Ted Kennedy who routinely won by 40+ points. So we can't say if she's less popular than she used to be.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 15:59 (seven years ago)

there was a CNN piece this morning on Warren vs Klobuchar and Brown and it came to similar conclusions re: her electability.

akm, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 16:06 (seven years ago)

I’m a member of an Indian tribe in good standing and I have the card to prove it, though by blood I’m about 1/16th and I look just as white as Warren. I think this controversy is completely silly.

o. nate, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 16:20 (seven years ago)

It's more of an liability that Romney admits to being 100% mormon.

Yerac, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 16:24 (seven years ago)


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.