Looking forward to learning more about the first
Cherokee to run for President.
Well, now I can make fun of my friends who drink Mich Ultra!
Why couldn't you make fun of them before now?
Why couldn't you make fun of them before now?
OK, good point.
Warren has name recognition, but I almost feel that could be a liability this time around. There are going to be SO MANY Democrats vying for the nomination that it seems very possible some new and fresh candidate (like Obama did) comes out of nowhere and surprises everyone. But who knows exactly what people in Iowa or New Hampshire will or won't do at this point.
It is a fun time of year though! First DNC debate is in June, things will be ramping up very soon!
I was 2 when JFK was in office. 😛
I was born when Truman was in office.
I was 2 when JFK was in office. 😛
I was born when Truman was in office.
The same Alex Truman who works over here at the Auto parts store?
I was 2 when JFK was in office. 😛
I was born when Truman was in office.
The same Alex Truman who works over here at the Auto parts store?
Which office was he in, and don't tell me he was in the back office.
[quote[I was going by what you wrote and how you wrote it. Proper English can be tricky. You didn't directly quote Trump or state that you were replying directly to anything he said, so what is left but to go by what you posted, much less implied?
I wrote, “Here’s to 2 years of racist Native American comments”, which could be interpreted multiple ways I guess.
Boyton Brother said, "And I even further doubt that you misconstrued it, seeing as though you posted a picture of a carrot in response to my post, signifying you construed it perfectly"
The carrot on the stick was referring to the usual left versus right B/S that you can set your watch to on this board. No need for individual specifics in the post, it happens automatically based on who is posting. A sad thing to witness (IMHO)
Every thread and post is a left v right? I don’t think so. Several liberals here are against impeaching Trump, including myself.
So what's your point? All that comment showed is that you specifically mentioned Trump and I knew without implied speculation who/whom you were referring to. See how that works?
You knew I was talking about Trump? But you just explained that you thought I meant “Natives making racist comments”. Which is it?
One more thing, love the double standard. It is cool to call someone of the opposite political affiliation a plethora of derogatory terms, but trip hard when they call someone of your affiliation something derogatory. Even if It is deserving, wrong should be wrong, right?
The President of the United States should ABSOLUTELY be held to a higher standard than his constituents.
BoytonBrother, my apologies for making this into way more than it ever should've been. I didn't realize you referred to Trump in the original post until you clarified it later. Notice, my comment about what natives on nearby reservations had to say on the matter. As for the derogatory statements, yes the President should be held to higher standard. My point was regarding my perspective. Calling another person "scum" or "trash" sounds just like something a racist a might call another human being, right? So even though the particulars might have a different application, the thought and feelings behind the statement are pretty much the same, hateful. So why is it okay for one form of hate to be abhorred, while another is okay. Hate is hate and it's wrong regardless. One form is hate is never better than another, never.
She and ObamaCorp certainly didn't offer any support to the Sioux during the Standing Rock oil pipeline conflict, until it was all over. Of course no repubs did either.
Calling another person "scum" or "trash" sounds just like something a racist a might call another human being, right?
Some might, sure.
So even though the particulars might have a different application, the thought and feelings behind the statement are pretty much the same, hateful. So why is it okay for one form of hate to be abhorred, while another is okay.
Because of the different “applications”. Hating someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc, is abhorrent because people can’t control those things, and are usually irrelevant. None of those things are about character. Hating someone because they demonstrate dispicable behavior, and cause damage to innocent people, is a whole different game.
Hate is hate and it's wrong regardless. One form is hate is never better than another, never.
I respectfully disagree. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to hate someone who inflicts pain and damage to innocent people, especially for their own dysfunctional selfish reasons. Those people deserve to be hated.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to hate someone who inflicts pain and damage to innocent people, especially for their own dysfunctional selfish reasons. Those people deserve to be hated.
If you apply your reasoning for hate, you should in theory hate pretty much every politician in the USA at the federal level. Yet, I can see you dismissing that position due to your situational ethics and political affiliations.
I respectfully disagree. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to hate someone who inflicts pain and damage to innocent people, especially for their own dysfunctional selfish reasons. Those people deserve to be hated.
OK, two different threads today and you use the phrase "those people" in it. Just which of you classifications of "those people" are you making reference to?
If you apply your reasoning for hate, you should in theory hate pretty much every politician in the USA at the federal level. Yet, I can see you dismissing that position due to your situational ethics and political affiliations.
I don't think every politician inflicts pain on innocent people for dysfunctional and selfish reasons. Obama never did, and neither did George W. Bush, nor many others, from my perspective. They might possess one or some of those, but not everything together, like Trump has done repeatedly.
What a confused and confusing thread.
Bottom line: if you live in the United States, much of your exposure to Elizabeth Warren for the past 2 or 3 years has been the fact that the GOP hate machine dug up her citing Native American heritage in the past. President Trump in particular has run with it. This minor point has obscured her actual track record. Anyone who lives in the United States knows this, as is demonstrated by Original Goober's comment.
Why does that matter? Well, for starters, there's the comedy of Donald Trump making this a talking point.
Trump has lied so much that people have become hardened to it, but for starters, the guy dodged being drafted by lying, yet still brags that he would have made a great general and that he would have clearly run into a building to stop a shooter. I really do not know how anyone can ignore or get past that point. If you are critical of Warren's Native American claims yet have not been critical of Trump for far more egregious claims regarding Vietnam or his fantasies of military leadership or bravery facing a school shooter, please explain.
Original Goober offers this: "Looking forward to learning more about the first Cherokee to run for President."
Well, Goob, check out Warren's record of fighting to keep Wall Street and big banks honest.
Then do some homework on Trump. Why did U.S. banks stop lending him money? Why did he have to shell out cash to settle the Trump University issue? Why did he have to pay off a stripper in 2016 that he had been having sex with behind his current wife's back?
In a nutshell: if you have an issue with Elizabeth Warren's character yet support Trump despite his character, you have some serious explaining to do.
More recently, Trump had claimed he would give a million bucks to charity if Warren took a DNA test. She took the test. He didn't pay. He is obviously the liar there. She took the POTUS at his word, and he lied. Yet somehow, Trumpers are OK with that.
I'm more interested in her track record than her heritage or even her claims about her heritage. Yet Trump, to his credit, has such a powerful spin machine that despite his own track record of adultery and fraud, he has been able to keep the focus on her Native American DNA.
I would consider voting for her. She has shown that her priorities are far more about what is good for America than he has. She would not be up at 3 a.m. tweeting lies. She would not use the White House to enrich cronies and family. Unlike Trump, she has not been caught hiring illegals. She has not cheated on 3 different spouses. Anyone who thinks she is too "strident" yet gives Trump a pass for swearing at opponents and encouraging violence at his rallies and embracing Alex Jones should give it more thought.
From here on in, of course, people WILL ask the kinds of questions about Warren that we have debased ourselves to asking: can a politician who speaks intelligently still get elected, or are people now suspicious of good grammar? Is this candidate good enough at fighting dirty to win? Can she come up with short slogans for people with short attention spans? How can we get the white nationalist vote? Yeesh.
OK, two different threads today and you use the phrase "those people" in it. Just which of you classifications of "those people" are you making reference to?
Great question. I'm referring to those that simply have an axe to grind and want to fight, and unknowingly use politics as their platform....those that don't even realize it, and that they just have some personal issue. It is not unique to a political affiliation, as most Hollywood actors and comediens fall into this category. I joined Twitter years ago with the goal of following comediens, so that my Twitter feed would be funny every time I opened it. Nope, instead it's Trump this, Trump that.....all my favorite comediens. Saddens me. How can they be mad at every policy? Surely not all are bad. Trump Derangement Syndrom is a real problem, as was Obama Derangement Syndrome. Same syndrome, same person, different target.
On the right, it's those that accept this Russian asset piece of trash in the White House, in exchange for what? I've heard "conservative judges". Funny how that never came up in Trump's campaign or his first 2 years. Economy....so you accept having a Russian asset President in exchange for the possibility of a few extra bucks in your pocket? What does that make that person? These people just have an axe to grind, and sadly influence our country, with the help of Putin pouring gasoline on the fire online.
and JimSheridan knocks it out of the park!
I don't think every politician inflicts pain on innocent people for dysfunctional and selfish reasons. Obama never did, and neither did George W. Bush, nor many others, from my perspective. They might possess one or some of those, but not everything together, like Trump has done repeatedly.
I did say pretty much all politicians. Obama helped put policies in place that both hurt and helped many people financially. Personal perspective and experience will dictate which one you may or may not be? Although paled in comparison to Trump, he isn't innocent. Lawyers are unscrupulous people for the most part and those who lose or surrender their license, more than likely do so cause of dysfunctional reasoning, behaviors, and/or choices. Usually fueled by financial or political gain and in those arenas, there rarely are ever victimless crimes or acts of corruption.
The Big Picture...why spend millions to try for a job with a salary of just a fraction of that? That is textbook dysfunctional and if someone wants to be delusional, they can believe it isn't done for personal gain. That in my opinion is about as selfish as a person can be.
and JimSheridan knocks it out of the park!
Brer,
Agree with you 100%. Jim's post was one of the most enjoyable posts & full of good info I've read on here in quite a while.
I really do not know how anyone can ignore or get past that point.
In a nutshell: if you have an issue with Elizabeth Warren's character yet support Trump despite his character, you have some serious explaining to do.
She took the POTUS at his word, and he lied. Yet somehow, Trumpers are OK with that.
Here’s my explanation. The military stories, the lies, the crime, the Russian control, the sleazy character - the supporters know it’s all wrong, but he convinced them that he can erase big bad boogeyman Obama, and restore white Christian male supremacy to the United States. Obama/liberals/Dems = diverse level playing field, which frightens them. Trump is the last thread that they can cling to, and Obama/libs/Dems/Warren/Beto/AOC are all trying to snap it, which will of course cause them to plunge downward (in their minds only).
She wants to get rid of the Electoral College. Hasn't changed her position on this issue.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/warren-calls-scrapping-u-electoral-college-2020-televised-041859918.html
