Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Leroy42

So, Trump is claiming that she used her Native American Heritage to gain advancement in a position.

And yet again, so what. Why do Trump supporters, or indeed Trump himself, have any issue with this. According to Trump himself, using the system to your advantage is simply being smart. That was his answer in relation to tax issues.

So is this an attack on her because she is a Democrat, a woman or because it has links to Native Americans.

Because, there is no doubt, that this is not an attack because of the principle of it.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

1/1024th she is having a laugh. Her heritage...and the people lapping it up are the people she is laughing at.

So what is the accepted level for heritage then?

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

1/1024th she is having a laugh. Her heritage...and the people lapping it up are the people she is laughing at.

So 1/24 would be ok with you? 1/124? Whats your level for heritage? How far back does it have to go?

What was o'bama's, Bush, Clintons, kennedys and all the others who claim O'irish heritage that no one seemed to care about and lapped up?

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

1/1024th she is having a laugh. Her heritage...and the people lapping it up are the people she is laughing at.

I thought it was between 1/64th and 1/1024th

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the accepted level for heritage then?

As I posted earlier, my DNA shows both Norman and Viking ancestry but I would not claim it as my heritage, even if we have a haggart adjoining the house where I live and which is a word the Vikings gave us, meaning a place to store hay.
When most of my DNA shows my heritage is well over 90% Irish.

1/1024th for Warren is like 0.1% Native American. She is laughing at people...who thinks she can call that her heritage.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I thought it was between 1/64th and 1/1024th

CNN last night said it was 1/1024th

Stallingrad

I don't check in here as much as used to. This thread is becoming like American late night TV, obsessing over irrelevant distractions, just like the US Admin would like. It was much more interesting when it focused on the substantive issues.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

As I posted earlier, my DNA shows both Norman and Viking ancestry but I would not claim it as my heritage, even if we have a haggart adjoining the house where I live and which is a word the Vikings gave us, meaning a place to store hay.
When most of my DNA shows my heritage is well over 90% Irish.

1/1024th for Warren is like 0.1% Native American. She is laughing at people...who thinks she can call that her heritage.

So in other words you have simply made it based based on nothing. You don't see it as being her heritage but she does. What makes you right and her wrong?

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

Whom Trump would have had to pay, but instead it is Stormy Daniels and her supporters who funded her that have to pay Trump's lawyer, thus saving Trump money.

Yes, it was a victory for Trump.

However, it has been appealed so let us see where that brings us.

Also Daniels related, Trump has caved in relation to the NDA enforcement issue. He is being pursued further in that case.
He is due to be diposed in the Zervos case.
He was an unidicted co-conspirator in felony cases regarding campaign fraud violations concerning his former lawyer.
He also paid out substantial damages in the case taken re Trump University recently.

So, its perfectly fine to swing in here citing this small Court victory, but your refusal to acknowledge that he is getting his sizeable ass handed to him elsewhere in the Courts, including by Avenatti, makes you seem myopic and disingenuous.

Leroy42

Stallingrad wrote: »

I don't check in here as much as used to. This thread is becoming like American late night TV, obsessing over irrelevant distractions, just like the US Admin would like. It was much more interesting when it focused on the substantive issues.

Whilst some of the topics themselves are indeed irelevant, the point of the discussion, as is the case with the current Warren topic, is to show yet again that the Trump supporters have no reasons behind their positions save for Trump says it.

Suddenly they are all experts on what constitutes heritage for example.

And yet when you point out to them they have no problem with Trump gaming the tax system for his gain, which is all Warren has done if you accept that she used her heritage to advance her career, they never are able to answer.

So it is a case of showing them, over and over again unfortunately, that they are the ones using fake news and biased opinions.

pixelburp

Yes, it's pages of waffle over DNA and how much heritage is not enough heritage. I'll say again, the story here IMO isn't about Warren's ancestry, it's the reason behind the move; one that suggest more than an otherwise belated rebuke against Trump. And TBH yes, bringing it back to Trump and a reason to kick out at his support does show a little myopia.

Lord knows 2020 tattle has looked to and hinted at Warren taking a shot at the Democratic nomination: here we have the first hint that she might be taking it seriously (albeit via reading between the lines) and instead we got blather over DNA.

Elizabeth Warren vs. Trump on the 2020 ticket could be ... interesting.

Stallingrad

pixelburp wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren vs. Trump on the 2020 ticket could be ... interesting.

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

Captain Obvious

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

Depends on the woman really. I don't think Warren is the one for it though.

looksee

She would definitely have the problem of being intelligent and not given to demeaning or abusing or lying about anyone she saw as opposition, which is what she would be facing. Sadly it looks as though it will take someone as amoral and devious as Trump to challenge him, which would not be an improvement on what is there already.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Depends on the woman really. I don't think Warren is the one for it though.

I beg to differ.

The US is not ready for a woman POTUS. A major problem for HC was that she was a woman. Trump supporters have attempted to dress it up differently, but since they excuse pretty much all of Trump's actions whilst claiming the very same made HC totally unfit and untrustworthy, the only thing left it her sex.

jooksavage

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

Inclined to agree with this. Even if Warren or Sanders were to get elected, they'd be facing an enormous task: increased taxes and spending cuts just to get the deficit under control, mending diplomatic ties, trying to make up lost ground on climate change. The next administration is going to need more than 40% of Americans behind them. Warren will never do that.



Having said all that, even if the Dems were to find some kind of Northern-born, southern-dwelling, liberal-leaning, conscientious gun-owning, country n' western-singin' consensus candidate, you'd have the same few voices in here talking about how "divisive" they are. You know - like Obama and not like the current POTUS.

Professor Moriarty

looksee wrote: »

She would definitely have the problem of being intelligent and not given to demeaning or abusing or lying about anyone she saw as opposition, which is what she would be facing. Sadly it looks as though it will take someone as amoral and devious as Trump to challenge him, which would not be an improvement on what is there already.

You need to get someone who is squeaky clean and keep them detached from the dirty work. Then you change your campaign motto from "When they go low, we go high" to "When they go low, we go lower."

Captain Obvious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You need to get someone who is squeaky clean and keep them detached from the dirty work. Then you change your campaign motto from "When they go low, we go high" to "When they go low, we go lower."

There are some people making a name. Beto O'Rourke has been doing well across lines in Texas. A few of the Dems on the senate judicial committee made a good showing for themselves too.

TomOnBoard

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

I agree with this observation. Getting the first female president elected will be a big ask in itself and will require an extraordinary candidate to shine and appeal to large swathes of men as well as women. In the current climate, I would be running a non- confrontational but highly electable white male candidate in order to unseat Trump and try and repair the damage of his Presidency, I would also focus on trying to win back the Congress as, without that, the Presidency is likely to be totally hamstrung.

The most electable ticket for me would be the non- confrontational but highly electable white male candidate for president and non- confrontational but highly electable female (African American/Hispanic) as V.P. next time. However, that female candidate would have a very difficult task in 2024/2028 as a Presidential candidate, because she would be fighting against both a race and gender bias. So that might militate against the minority aspect in 2020.

Gwen Cooper

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There are some people making a name. Beto O'Rourke has been doing well across lines in Texas. A few of the Dems on the senate judicial committee made a good showing for themselves too.

There was a tweet posted earlier today by Matt Mackowiak from The Washington Times that made me laugh:

https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1052020321618935809

He's basically complaining that Beto is spending the money raised for his campaign on his -wait for it- campaign.

Captain Obvious

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

There was a tweet posted earlier today by Matt Mackowiak from The Washington Times that made me laugh:

https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1052020321618935809

He's basically complaining that Beto is spending the money raised for his campaign on his -wait for it- campaign.

That 38 million he raised has really terrified them.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That 38 million he raised has really terrified them.

But isn't he something like 9 points behind (the latest poll I saw anyway, although I could be totally wrong in that).

everlast75

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

she won the popular vote!

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't he something like 9 points behind (the latest poll I saw anyway, although I could be totally wrong in that).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/texas/

He's got a 25% chance aggregated. Sorry, Beto, not gonna happen. I think the $$ concerns by the tGOP are entirely an attempt to rally support elsewhere. It's not like Cruz is having any $$ problems.

Captain Obvious

Igotadose wrote: »

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/texas/

He's got a 25% chance aggregated. Sorry, Beto, not gonna happen. I think the $$ concerns by the tGOP are entirely an attempt to rally support elsewhere. It's not like Cruz is having any $$ problems.

It's very unpredictable. It's all about the voter turnout. The next debate will be a big one too. Cruz was very poor in the last one and looked pretty petulant. He's had to scramble a lot since and it appears he's done well. But will he keep it up until the vote or will O'Rourke make some more gains.

pixelburp

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be so.

We will never know if HC failed because of her baggage, Russian meddling or the US just was not ready for a female President. But the Dems would be mad to risk it again when the stakes are so high.

I do generally agree that a woman becoming President of America seems like a long shot, although I'm sure plenty of commentators had said the same about Obama (let's just ignore the dog-whistling that went on subsequent to his victory).

Hillary Clinton was always - Trump or no Trump - a difficult sell at best, to a great swathe of the electorate: to many she's the walking embodiment of the political establishment and entitlement, and her ties with that establishment arguably left her lacking a lot of Democratic support when it came to the crunch. Added to that, in the absence of any discernible charisma or personality, she was always going to struggle to endear herself to those less sure of her credentials - and against the braggadocio of Trump those chances simply evaporated. For me, her awful "Pokemon... go to the polls" quip summed up how culturally and politically adrift she was.

Elizabeth Warren seems amiable, quick witted and more charismatic than Clinton, in fact what little I've seen of her she seems cut from the same cloth as Sanders, being fairly forthright and up for a fight. Given her apparently strong socialist leanings, one presumes that'd be the main crutch and point of attack from the GOP and its associates (though from the other side, I've ALREADY seen some clickbait articles trying to apply the Purity Test to her, not being socialist enough etc., in the usual manner of Democrat self-destruction), but again I don't pretend to know much beyond the bullet points.

Then there's the case for Kamela Harris / Corey Booker, both of whom were pretty front & centre during the Kavaunagh hearings and previous; hard not to see their time in the sun as a test of the national appetite.

Captain Obvious

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052213711295930368

Trump classy as ever

Leroy42

So she loses a court case and in triumph Trump slanders her.

Great. Be expecting a new law suit by the end of the day.

WinnyThePoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1052213711295930368

Trump classy as ever

How embarrassing for the first lady.

Leroy42

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

How embarrassing for the first lady.

I think you need a conscience to get embarrassed. I have yet to see even the possibility that she is capable of either.