Thank goodness other people remember this joke.
Please don't link the Washington Times, it's freakin Moonie loonies.
Let's be real here. Few people actually care about any of this. Those on the right just want a 'gotcha', where they can show some prominent person lying. Especially because their leader has taken to randomly give a rather nonsensical nickname to the woman in order to make fun of her. I mean, the historical figure - leaving aside the possible abuse situation there, since it is very debatable - was a Native American woman who converted to Christianity, moved to Britain and even took on a British name. That is just too far removed from a woman maybe exaggerating her ancestry, but not even adopting its culture or beliefs. Heck, if it wasn't for him and his nicknames, most likely no one would really care. Instead, people here are debating semantics in order to 'prove' themselves right over what amounts to, well, nothing.
Okay, to knock you off your high horse. I'm on both sides of "This doesn't matter". This is true bottom of the barrel scrapping for shit to throw at her. And at the same time:
"This test says I'm some percentage of Cherokee!"
"Great! Who gives a shit?"
This is now a thing because Trump put a fake dollar on a mouse trap and Warren was dumb enough to go for it. The only people that should give a shit about this are her and her family. And actual Cherokees who probably don't enjoy their heritage being owned by other people as a conversation piece.
All that said, still love that joke because that has been the history of people claiming Native heritage. You don't see people trying to claim they're black based on roughly 1-2%, do you?
Honestly wish Republicans cared as much about the deficit, the economy, the working class or their own consistency between words and actions as they did about Warrens DNA......
The right has been after her like a hive of angry bees, as they do, over it for years so she established she was telling the truth, which is exactly why the right is trying yet again to shift the goal posts--now it's how much Native American ancestry she has compared to other Americans, which, on the upside, is their inadvertent way of acknowledging they were wrong.
I can see this working out to the Democrats advantage actually.
Have her act like she is about to run and watch the Republicans vilify her for the next two years. Then, she doesn't run and another person does they have basically ignored this entire time. Hopefully one that isn't status quo and can actually get voters to want to come out.
The DNC and the media worked to tilt it against him to extremes but he still managed to come from a virtually unknown and almost win despite it all with the majority of actual Clinton supporters I knew only seemed to support her because they didn't know anything about Sanders except as "That guy running against Clinton" and "That guy facebook says wants to charge me a 90% tax on my income".
So overall, he did very well considering what he was up against and is now one of the most popular politicians in the nation.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting he run. I personally don't want him to either. With his age, I don't want him to swear in only to have his mind or body go shortly after and ruin anything he could have done because of it or have him being taken advantage of due to it.
I truly hope someone else runs with his endorsement and on his policies, I would gladly vote for them and if the DNC actively tries to screw them, I will withhold my vote in the general again, even if it is against Trump.
I have no problem losing a legit primary and holding my nose for the winner, but I will not vote for a cheater either way.
No one can "Throw down" with Trump. It requires being as much of a scumbag as he is and everyone, including other Republicans, just aren't. First, you can't have it both ways. You can't be better than Trump and also wallowing in the mud with him. That's how you go from "Deplorable" to "They go low, we go high" to "White supremacists" to "We can't be civil anymore". You look like a tone deaf jackass.
But on the no dirty laundry front, Biden is well known and, as far as I know, gain fresh. So it looks like it will be put upon him to run rather than take a chance on a new person with no name recognition.
- - - Updated - - -
If the reason got passed over was not being as recognizable as Hillary, what chance does any other unknown have to get in there?
I say something to you that I said during the election. If Bernie Sanders got cheated, what the fuck happened to Martin O'Malley?
I disagree. I think you can carry yourself well overall, and when confronted with a bully, bite back. It would take some finesse, but imo it will be necessary to win. I'm not saying wallow in the mud with him, but certainly have some easy quip reply's to his eternal line of bullshit.
One of the big problems with the Dems is that our answers are always longer than the GOP. Almost without exception. We need to market our policies better, so we can get a message out to a broader audience.
Which is why he's still my secret favorite.But on the no dirty laundry front, Biden is well known and, as far as I know, gain fresh. So it looks like it will be put upon him to run rather than take a chance on a new person with no name recognition.
Have no clue who Martin O'Malley is.
Sanders was passed over because Clinton was already Pre-Decided to win years before hand and Sanders actually pushed for the policies that the Democrats only want to pay lip service to for votes but never actually push for when in power.
If he was near as known as her from the start, he could have killed it. But also the DNC would have worked harder at putting him down instead of just ignoring him as much as possible.
One of the best ways to deal with an political issue and win if you have the power, just don't talk about it or let it into the discussion as much as possible. So long as you make sure the public doesn't know or isn't talking about it, they have no drive to address it.