Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Elizabeth Warren’s WH2020 annoucement is bad news for Bernie

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Elizabeth Warren’s WH2020 annoucement is bad news for Bernie

They both appeal to similar segments of the Dems base

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,114
    premier
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302
    deuxieme
  • shadsyshadsy Posts: 283
    Stupidly anecdotal, but I was in Massachusetts for a while during the summer and asked quite a few people (almost all Democrats) about her and nobody seemed very enthused about her as a Presidential candidate.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    Troiseme?
  • premier

    You make me feel very proud
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 6,540
    viewcode said:

    Troiseme?

    OH GODDAMITT!

    (stalks off in Cartman mode)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    edited December 2018
    Why is Warren running bad for Bernie? Bernie is already well ahead of Warren in the polls and second only to Biden. Plus do not forget the centrist vote will be far more divided in 2020 too with multiple candidates running Biden, Booker, maybe Bloomberg etc. As for name recognition in 2016 Trump shot to the top of the GOP polls well before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, that was dismissed as name recognition but it was Trump who demolished the rest of the GOP field.

    Remember too the last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was Reagan in 1980 and Reagan was also the runner up in the 1976 Republican primaries and overcame accusations of being too old to win
  • They should go for Biden. So sayeth the Wallet of Morris Dancer.
  • American scientist Larry Roberts who helped design and build the forerunner of the internet has died aged 81.
  • HYUFD said:

    Why is Warren running bad for Bernie? Bernie is already well ahead of Warren in the polls and second only to Biden. Plus do not forget the centrist vote will be far more divided in 2020 too with multiple candidates running Biden, Booker, maybe Bloomberg etc. As for name recognition in 2016 Trump shot to the top of the GOP polls well before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, that was dismissed as name recognition but it was Trump who demolished the rest of the GOP field.

    Remember too the last candidate to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House was Reagan in 1980 and Reagan was also the runner up in the 1976 Republican primaries and overcame accusations of being too old to win

    The converse - that Warren not running would be good for Sanders - is clearly true (as they appeal to a similar sector of Democrats, and she might be inclined to endorse him). Therefore it's fair to say that her decision to run is bad for him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704
    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.
  • DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,704

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    FPT paths to victory, based on the mid-terms, I'd expect both Florida and Ohio to stay Republican in 2020.

    Winning Arizona would be useful for the Democrats, but I think the path to victory runs through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    Yet she will be going against Trump, who has a lifetime of continuously playing fraudulent cards. And is himself a fraudulent cad.

    It may be that Trump has changed America's political landscape for good. That would be sad.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,654
    DavidL said:

    She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election.

    This is pre-2016 thinking. Trump has completely recalibrated the notion of what is unacceptable and acceptable behaviour from a candidate.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,625
    Sean_F said:

    FPT paths to victory, based on the mid-terms, I'd expect both Florida and Ohio to stay Republican in 2020.

    Winning Arizona would be useful for the Democrats, but I think the path to victory runs through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    Ohio barely counts as a swing state anymore based on the 2016 result. I expect FL to be very close though. And based on the midterms Trump has his work cut out in the midwest. If he loses those he is gone, regardless of what happens elsewhere. As you say, Arizona is fairly irrelevant.
  • DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    Yet she will be going against Trump, who has a lifetime of continuously playing fraudulent cards. And is himself a fraudulent cad.

    It may be that Trump has changed America's political landscape for good. That would be sad.
    Absolutely. Trump also have the devoted cult that believe it is the fake news media making things up about him, just as the cult won’t hear a word against brexiteer lying magic grandpa.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    They should go for Biden. So sayeth the Wallet of Morris Dancer.

    Mr Dancer's wallet:

    Please get away from the keyboard, Your constant selfish posts in support of Biden and Mordaunt are tedious. Please let Morris Dancer out of wherever you have locked him up, so he can launch you from the giant space cannon.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788
    edited December 2018

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    What the tests showed was no more Native American than most Americans. It is like your average Brit claiming they are Scandinavian, like no shit you are 1064th Norse.

    The point is she has continuously claimed over her life not only to have relatives that are Native American, but her official ethnicity was such.
  • Mr. Doethur, I don't have so much money I can afford to launch my wallet into space :p
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    She is 1/1024 Native American.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    edited December 2018
    Sean_F said:

    FPT paths to victory, based on the mid-terms, I'd expect both Florida and Ohio to stay Republican in 2020.

    Winning Arizona would be useful for the Democrats, but I think the path to victory runs through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    Based on the midterms results in those states the Democrats won both the Senate and Governors races in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, won the Arizona and Ohio Senate races but not the Governorships and the Republicans held both the Florida Senate seat and Governorship.

    The Democrats also made the most gains in House seats in Pennsylvania so you are right
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,731
    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Do Democrats need to make a choice between progressive (i.e. left wing) or maintream (i.e. experienced steady as you go)?

    Or is it a choice between "Change for the better" or "Strong and Stable, cling to nurse"?

    "Change for the better" need not be left wing. Look at Trump or Brexit.

    At the moment, I think "Change for the better" captures the mood of the majority in both the USA and the UK. But in the US, there may also be a yearning, after Trump, for a safe pair of hands eg Biden. Hard to call. It's not obvious.

    In the UK, no party can seriously offer strong and stable, safe pair of hands! Both main parties will be offering "Change for the better". The Labour Party is better positioned for that. Safe pair of hands won't be on offer from either Corbyn or Johnson.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,848
    You couldn't pick a worse candidate to face Trump. She represents everything Trump is strong against, screeching harpy with awful policies and shady "native American" claims to help her career. I know the latter is subjective but Trump will put that in his Twitter megaphone and her credibility evaporates.

    If the Dems nominate her then they aren't serious about winning in 2020 against Trump or someone who can grab the Trump base and bring back the suburban middle classes he's struggling to hold now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited December 2018

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    If we're honest, the only question that should ever be asked in a primary race is, 'would this person make a good president?'

    Unfortunately, as we saw last time, that question doesn't always get asked. That's how one party ended up with a dodgy failed property developer with a history of marital problems who seemed to be evading awkward questions at every stage, and the other ended up with, God help us, Donald Trump.

    Therefore, the question for the Democrats must be - who can beat Trump? I'd like to think anything above 'plant life' would be in with a shout, and it's therefore doubly depressing to say I don't think Warren can. She's a slightly less tainted Hilary Clinton.

    They need someone fresh. Harris would be a better bet.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited December 2018

    Mr. Doethur, I don't have so much money I can afford to launch my wallet into space :p

    Surely you can take the money out?

    Or would it imprison you again and start spouting rubbish about Mordaunt? :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    If we're honest, the only question ever asked in a primary race is, 'would this person make a good president?'

    Unfortunately, as we saw last time, that question doesn't always get asked. That's how one party ended up with a dodgy failed property developer with a history of marital problems who seemed to be evading awkward questions at every stage, and the other ended up with, God help us, Donald Trump.

    Therefore, the question for the Democrats must be - who can beat Trump? I'd like to think anything above 'plant life' would be in with a shout, and it's therefore doubly depressing to say I don't think Warren can. She's a slightly less tainted Hilary Clinton.

    They need someone fresh. Harris would be a better bet.
    Harris is a California liberal, she will not win the rustbelt either.

    Biden or Sanders are their best bet
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    Sean_F said:

    FPT paths to victory, based on the mid-terms, I'd expect both Florida and Ohio to stay Republican in 2020.

    Winning Arizona would be useful for the Democrats, but I think the path to victory runs through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    Ohio barely counts as a swing state anymore based on the 2016 result. I expect FL to be very close though. And based on the midterms Trump has his work cut out in the midwest. If he loses those he is gone, regardless of what happens elsewhere. As you say, Arizona is fairly irrelevant.
    Agreed about Ohio. Florida is usually tight. But, Trump is popular in the State (most polls give him net positive ratings there) and I don't think the enfranchisement of felons will undermine his chances much (new black voters will be offset by new blue collar white voters). Subject to events, Trump probably has 254 Electoral College votes sewn up, if he runs in 2020. Not a majority, but very close to one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    Sean_F said:

    Florida is usually tight.

    And in addition to its remarkable alcohol intake, it's usually a swing state as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    edited December 2018
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT paths to victory, based on the mid-terms, I'd expect both Florida and Ohio to stay Republican in 2020.

    Winning Arizona would be useful for the Democrats, but I think the path to victory runs through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

    Ohio barely counts as a swing state anymore based on the 2016 result. I expect FL to be very close though. And based on the midterms Trump has his work cut out in the midwest. If he loses those he is gone, regardless of what happens elsewhere. As you say, Arizona is fairly irrelevant.
    Agreed about Ohio. Florida is usually tight. But, Trump is popular in the State (most polls give him net positive ratings there) and I don't think the enfranchisement of felons will undermine his chances much (new black voters will be offset by new blue collar white voters). Subject to events, Trump probably has 254 Electoral College votes sewn up, if he runs in 2020. Not a majority, but very close to one.
    Trump's 'Winter White House' is at Mar a Largo in Florida and as the midterms showed he is more popular there than in the Midwest now.

    Indeed it is possible for the Democrats to win the Electoral College and lose Florida, as they did in both 1960 and 1992
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    She is 1/1024 Native American.
    and @FrancisUrquhart

    Which is 10 generations back, how many generations back was she claiming?

    If she claimed her Grandmother/Grandfather were born to Native American parents then she was either lying or incredibly misinformed if she was claiming a few generations further back again it isn't too hard to see how that misinformation could come about.

    Especially if you had someone in her family tree who had declared themselves Native American but only been 1/4 Native American or something similar, a couple of inaccuracies over such a long time frame could easily push it back a few generations without Warren herself deliberately lying.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    The DNA results don't suggest fraud. Wikipedia says that ' the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree several generations back'. So she's got a family legend which looks like there's some basis in it. Somewhere in the 18th C probably.

    She's a well respected bankruptcy lawyer; might be wise for Trump to watch his step if she's the candidate, even for VP. Incidentally, as the test showed evidence of Native American DNA, did Trump ever pay up?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,848

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    The DNA results don't suggest fraud. Wikipedia says that ' the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree several generations back'. So she's got a family legend which looks like there's some basis in it. Somewhere in the 18th C probably.

    She's a well respected bankruptcy lawyer; might be wise for Trump to watch his step if she's the candidate, even for VP. Incidentally, as the test showed evidence of Native American DNA, did Trump ever pay up?
    He won the bet so no need to pay. 1/1024th native American doesn't count as being native American. Only in the minds of the "Hillary won 2016" die hards did that count for anything.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,525
    shadsy said:

    Stupidly anecdotal, but I was in Massachusetts for a while during the summer and asked quite a few people (almost all Democrats) about her and nobody seemed very enthused about her as a Presidential candidate.

    She fails my leftism test - didn't support Bernie last time, not unequivocably in favour of universal free healthcare, free marketeer and fromer Republican, don't know her views on interventionism. Maybe I'm underinformed, but she strikes me as an inside left candidate, not radical enough to enthuse the insurgents, not mainstream enough to please the establishment, and likely to strike those who don't follow things closely as Hilary Mark II. I think she'll fade, though getting in first is clearly a good idea.
  • DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926
    As DavidL has already said, Warren would have no chance against Trump in a general election.

    Pocahontas, Pocahontas, Pocahontas...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    The DNA results don't suggest fraud. Wikipedia says that ' the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree several generations back'. So she's got a family legend which looks like there's some basis in it. Somewhere in the 18th C probably.

    She's a well respected bankruptcy lawyer; might be wise for Trump to watch his step if she's the candidate, even for VP. Incidentally, as the test showed evidence of Native American DNA, did Trump ever pay up?
    Almost every American has a Native American ancestor. I think the median is 1/64.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,267

    shadsy said:

    Stupidly anecdotal, but I was in Massachusetts for a while during the summer and asked quite a few people (almost all Democrats) about her and nobody seemed very enthused about her as a Presidential candidate.

    She fails my leftism test - didn't support Bernie last time, not unequivocably in favour of universal free healthcare, free marketeer and fromer Republican, don't know her views on interventionism. Maybe I'm underinformed, but she strikes me as an inside left candidate, not radical enough to enthuse the insurgents, not mainstream enough to please the establishment, and likely to strike those who don't follow things closely as Hilary Mark II. I think she'll fade, though getting in first is clearly a good idea.
    Anecdote alert. Knew a number of people who worked on the 2012 Obama campaign. The all thought at the time Warren was next. Suspect her following has some depth.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 35,302

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    She is 1/1024 Native American.
    and @FrancisUrquhart

    Which is 10 generations back, how many generations back was she claiming?

    If she claimed her Grandmother/Grandfather were born to Native American parents then she was either lying or incredibly misinformed if she was claiming a few generations further back again it isn't too hard to see how that misinformation could come about.

    Especially if you had someone in her family tree who had declared themselves Native American but only been 1/4 Native American or something similar, a couple of inaccuracies over such a long time frame could easily push it back a few generations without Warren herself deliberately lying.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-native-american-ancestry-debate-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.906a03d06761

    "Warren had actually been identifying as a minority for nearly a decade in an official national law school directory, the Association of American Law Schools desk book. And the Boston Globe also reported that for at least six years, Harvard University reported to the federal government that it had a Native American law professor. It was a statistic the paper argued was probably reported by Warren herself to the school."

    1/1024th qualifies you as a minority?
  • Mr. D, 1/1024 means you're a minority of a minority :D
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    The DNA results don't suggest fraud. Wikipedia says that ' the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree several generations back'. So she's got a family legend which looks like there's some basis in it. Somewhere in the 18th C probably.

    She's a well respected bankruptcy lawyer; might be wise for Trump to watch his step if she's the candidate, even for VP. Incidentally, as the test showed evidence of Native American DNA, did Trump ever pay up?
    He won the bet so no need to pay. 1/1024th native American doesn't count as being native American. Only in the minds of the "Hillary won 2016" die hards did that count for anything.
    You mean he weaselled out of paying up?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
  • Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Not only did she make herself look ridiculous but she has over her career continuously played this fraudulent card.
    I think fraudulent is a bit harsh. It was clearly a family legend that she believed but which turned out not to be true. But Pocohontas is a killer, even by Trump’s standards. Even better than lying Ted.
    In fairness didn't she have a Native American ancestor just the connection was a few generations further back?

    You could easily imagine that getting lost in the movement of time with either a forgetful older relative or just a 'creative story teller' to a younger relative who then passed the information on in good faith.

    It is one of the silly little stories that people (and the media) run with but I think would have very little effect when it comes to the vote in a presidential race. Although it could harm her more in a democratic race if the story makes people think she would be more likely to lose the presidential election.
    She is 1/1024 Native American.
    and @FrancisUrquhart

    Which is 10 generations back, how many generations back was she claiming?

    If she claimed her Grandmother/Grandfather were born to Native American parents then she was either lying or incredibly misinformed if she was claiming a few generations further back again it isn't too hard to see how that misinformation could come about.

    Especially if you had someone in her family tree who had declared themselves Native American but only been 1/4 Native American or something similar, a couple of inaccuracies over such a long time frame could easily push it back a few generations without Warren herself deliberately lying.
    She put her official ethnicity down as Native American and used that fact throughout her career. If Shen has simply said from time to time well I had a distant relative who was etc etc, it is quite different from saying you are that ethnicity.

    I am pretty certain if I look at my family tree I am 1/1000th black, North African, etc...but if I tried to claim I was BAME on official documents and sat on such committees I think those of that ethnicity would quite rightly think I was a fraud.
  • Mr. Divvie, ha, that's rather good.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788
    edited December 2018
    Hell, I am probably more closely related to han solo than Warren is to a Native American.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    and @FrancisUrquhart

    Which is 10 generations back, how many generations back was she claiming?

    If she claimed her Grandmother/Grandfather were born to Native American parents then she was either lying or incredibly misinformed if she was claiming a few generations further back again it isn't too hard to see how that misinformation could come about.

    Especially if you had someone in her family tree who had declared themselves Native American but only been 1/4 Native American or something similar, a couple of inaccuracies over such a long time frame could easily push it back a few generations without Warren herself deliberately lying.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-native-american-ancestry-debate-explained/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.906a03d06761

    "Warren had actually been identifying as a minority for nearly a decade in an official national law school directory, the Association of American Law Schools desk book. And the Boston Globe also reported that for at least six years, Harvard University reported to the federal government that it had a Native American law professor. It was a statistic the paper argued was probably reported by Warren herself to the school."

    1/1024th qualifies you as a minority?
    I don't know what the cut off would be but I have a friend who is closer than that to Native American* who thinks of himself as white.

    Edit: *At least as far as he knows.

    I do wonder if a bit of old fashioned racism might have helped, the same way the child of a black and white parent could be thought of as Black a mixed race family member could be thought of as whatever non white race they were mixed with rather than a mix.

    A pure Native American a few generations back would have been very different to a 1/8 Native American a few generations back in terms of the effect on her results.

    To make a different point surely Warren wouldn't have done the test if she herself knew she was lying?

    Could have played off criticism from some like Trump as not legitimising his insults if she knew she was covering a lie.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305
    edited December 2018

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    The worst Presidents since WW2 before Trump, W Bush and Carter, both came into office aged under 60.

    One of the best, Reagan, came into office at 69
  • Mr. Urquhart, Han*.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305

    shadsy said:

    Stupidly anecdotal, but I was in Massachusetts for a while during the summer and asked quite a few people (almost all Democrats) about her and nobody seemed very enthused about her as a Presidential candidate.

    She fails my leftism test - didn't support Bernie last time, not unequivocably in favour of universal free healthcare, free marketeer and fromer Republican, don't know her views on interventionism. Maybe I'm underinformed, but she strikes me as an inside left candidate, not radical enough to enthuse the insurgents, not mainstream enough to please the establishment, and likely to strike those who don't follow things closely as Hilary Mark II. I think she'll fade, though getting in first is clearly a good idea.
    She looks like a female Kerry
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    The worst Presidents since WW2 before Trump, W Bush and Carter, both came into office aged under 60.

    One of the best, Reagan, came into office at 69
    At least Carter was .... and indeed is ..... an honest man.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    The worst Presidents since WW2 before Trump, W Bush and Carter, both came into office aged under 60.

    One of the best, Reagan, came into office at 69
    At least Carter was .... and indeed is ..... an honest man.
    He is a decent charitable man and the oldest surviving ex President, he was still hopeless in office
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.
  • Mr. Urquhart, Han*.

    I was talking about hans, the Dutch milkman my mum was friendly with growing up...dad wasn’t so keen on him though, don’t know why.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    Unfair - to ghastly men.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    My objection is not on account of her age - but (to me) she shouts "More of the Same".

    The last time the Democrats did that it did not end well.

    While it is entirely a matter for US voters, above all else I would prefer Trump out of the White House.

    I remain to be convinced that Warren is the answer. She looks like a (diluted) Hillary2
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 49,305

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    The worst Presidents since WW2 before Trump, W Bush and Carter, both came into office aged under 60.

    One of the best, Reagan, came into office at 69
    At least Carter was .... and indeed is ..... an honest man.
    Nixon was also just 47 when he ran for President in 1960, 55 when he was elected in 1968
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788
    edited December 2018

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109
    A few slightly different discussions...

    I don't particularly think of anyone with one descendent 10 generations back who is X and the rest Y as a member of X group, nothing more than a distant connection.

    Did Warren actively lie in full knowledge that it wasn't true. Which is possible but I lean against the idea.

    That she used or abused that identity would be a slightly different charge which would still exist even if she was Native American to whatever fraction she claimed.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,926

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    My objection is not on account of her age - but (to me) she shouts "More of the Same".

    The last time the Democrats did that it did not end well.

    While it is entirely a matter for US voters, above all else I would prefer Trump out of the White House.

    I remain to be convinced that Warren is the answer. She looks like a (diluted) Hillary2
    OK, understood.

    How about Sanders? He’d be 79, but if he’s healthy I don’t think it’s impossible. I suspect he’d have to commit to one term though. Perhaps O’Rourke as VP?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    As I said, she's been very silly. But I hardly think it's a massive crime, especially compared to all the sh*t that trump's said and done.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517
    Off-topic:

    I've just been entertaining and amazing my son by sticking needles into balloons without them bursting.

    God, I hate the holidays ... ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    TBH, no.

    My late father always asserted that as his mothers maiden name was Griffiths he must be descended from the last (apart from Glyndŵr's) royal house of Wales, but he never tried to either prove it or benefit from it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    TBH, no.

    My late father always asserted that as his mothers maiden name was Griffiths he must be descended from the last (apart from Glyndŵr's) royal house of Wales, but he never tried to either prove it or benefit from it.
    That's an enormous leap of logic, especially since there are no known living descendants of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    edited December 2018

    A few slightly different discussions...

    I don't particularly think of anyone with one descendent 10 generations back who is X and the rest Y as a member of X group, nothing more than a distant connection.

    Did Warren actively lie in full knowledge that it wasn't true. Which is possible but I lean against the idea.

    That she used or abused that identity would be a slightly different charge which would still exist even if she was Native American to whatever fraction she claimed.

    I suspect that she thought the Native American ancestor was more recent. May well have had more than one, of course given the figures of 1/64th quoted earlier.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    My objection is not on account of her age - but (to me) she shouts "More of the Same".

    The last time the Democrats did that it did not end well.

    While it is entirely a matter for US voters, above all else I would prefer Trump out of the White House.

    I remain to be convinced that Warren is the answer. She looks like a (diluted) Hillary2
    OK, understood.

    How about Sanders? He’d be 79, but if he’s healthy I don’t think it’s impossible. I suspect he’d have to commit to one term though. Perhaps O’Rourke as VP?
    At 79 his life expectancy is 8 years (and I suspect he'd do a lot better than average) - but the question is how much is spent in good health - so clearly his VP choice is critical.

    https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 71,833
    edited December 2018

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.

    We see it here when politicians pretend to be working class when in fact they are elitist upper middle class snobs.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9973697/Labours-Chuka-Umunna-under-fire-for-labelling-people-trash-on-elite-social-network.html
  • I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,202
    HYUFD said:

    shadsy said:

    Stupidly anecdotal, but I was in Massachusetts for a while during the summer and asked quite a few people (almost all Democrats) about her and nobody seemed very enthused about her as a Presidential candidate.

    She fails my leftism test - didn't support Bernie last time, not unequivocably in favour of universal free healthcare, free marketeer and fromer Republican, don't know her views on interventionism. Maybe I'm underinformed, but she strikes me as an inside left candidate, not radical enough to enthuse the insurgents, not mainstream enough to please the establishment, and likely to strike those who don't follow things closely as Hilary Mark II. I think she'll fade, though getting in first is clearly a good idea.
    She looks like a female Kerry
    Only without the compelling back story. She looks a very poor choice for the general.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788
    edited December 2018

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    As I said, she's been very silly. But I hardly think it's a massive crime, especially compared to all the sh*t that trump's said and done.
    Well as stated down thread, perhaps Trump has totally altered the narrative, just as being a terrorist supporting anti-Zionist now doesn't appear to damage your chances in the UK.

    In the past, all of this stuff would have you sloping back into the shadows sharpish.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    ydoethur said:

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    TBH, no.

    My late father always asserted that as his mothers maiden name was Griffiths he must be descended from the last (apart from Glyndŵr's) royal house of Wales, but he never tried to either prove it or benefit from it.
    That's an enormous leap of logic, especially since there are no known living descendants of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn.
    What about Rhodri, though? But as you say, an enormous leap, especially as most Welsh royalty had no concerns about keeping it in their trousers.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242
    There's a good chance that most of us include William the Conqueror and Mohammed among our ancestors.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,950
    ydoethur said:

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    TBH, no.

    My late father always asserted that as his mothers maiden name was Griffiths he must be descended from the last (apart from Glyndŵr's) royal house of Wales, but he never tried to either prove it or benefit from it.
    That's an enormous leap of logic, especially since there are no known living descendants of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn.
    Au contraire, if he was Welsh, and given that GaL appears to have had a minimum of 7 grandchildren, he is bound to be a descendant no matter what his mum was called, for reasons discussed all over the internet but e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938
  • Off-topic:

    I've just been entertaining and amazing my son by sticking needles into balloons without them bursting.

    God, I hate the holidays ... ;)

    Enjoy it while it lasts.

    The transition from "fount of all knowledge who knows everything" to "old fool who knows nothing" is but brief.....of course, you wont have changed....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
    Why on Earth would you voluntarily give strangers your DNA for testing unless it's really necessary (e.g. paternity/maternity tests)? It's putting an amazing amount of trust that they'll maintain your privacy.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109
    Sean_F said:

    There's a good chance that most of us include William the Conqueror and Mohammed among our ancestors.

    Got some of that all conquering Khan DNA in there as well...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,517

    Off-topic:

    I've just been entertaining and amazing my son by sticking needles into balloons without them bursting.

    God, I hate the holidays ... ;)

    Enjoy it while it lasts.

    The transition from "fount of all knowledge who knows everything" to "old fool who knows nothing" is but brief.....of course, you wont have changed....
    One of the first phrases he learnt to say was: "Daddy, you're silly."

    I thought that was most wise of him, as it's a phrase I hope he'll have to use many times throughout his life. ;)
  • I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
    Why on Earth would you voluntarily give strangers your DNA for testing unless it's really necessary (e.g. paternity/maternity tests)? It's putting an amazing amount of trust that they'll maintain your privacy.
    It was a long time ago and I was curious.

    In truth it didn't tell me anything that immediate family history wouldn't - but it was interesting to survey the hand I've been dealt.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 24,242

    Sean_F said:

    There's a good chance that most of us include William the Conqueror and Mohammed among our ancestors.

    Got some of that all conquering Khan DNA in there as well...
    Anyone with Russian or Cental Asian ancestry probably has Genghis as an ancestor.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    edited December 2018

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
    I was looking at an ancestry site's correspondence/blog recently and there was a very indignant posting from from someone who KNEW all their ancestors were Bavarian but at some relatively recent point there was, according to her DNA results, 'something' else.
    It is, after all, a wise child.......

    Edit. spelling.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,109

    A few slightly different discussions...

    I don't particularly think of anyone with one descendent 10 generations back who is X and the rest Y as a member of X group, nothing more than a distant connection.

    Did Warren actively lie in full knowledge that it wasn't true. Which is possible but I lean against the idea.

    That she used or abused that identity would be a slightly different charge which would still exist even if she was Native American to whatever fraction she claimed.

    I suspect that she thought the Native American ancestor was more recent. May well have had more than one, of course given the figures of 1/64th quoted earlier.
    It just seems unlikely she would have gone for the test and public release knowing in advance that there was only on descendent many generations back rather than a few or one close one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    edited December 2018

    ydoethur said:

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    TBH, no.

    My late father always asserted that as his mothers maiden name was Griffiths he must be descended from the last (apart from Glyndŵr's) royal house of Wales, but he never tried to either prove it or benefit from it.
    That's an enormous leap of logic, especially since there are no known living descendants of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn.
    What about Rhodri, though? But as you say, an enormous leap, especially as most Welsh royalty had no concerns about keeping it in their trousers.
    Rhodri's last confirmed living descendant was Owain Lawgoch, murdered in 1378. It is not quite impossible he (Rhodri) had a daughter, but who or even whether she married or whether she had children is unknown.

    If there are any living descendants, they would likely be through his daughter Gwladus, who married Rhys Fychan of Deheubarth. Lord Mowbray would appear to be descended from this couple, but that wouldn't lead to the surname 'Griffiths', it would be 'Price.'
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 31,788
    edited December 2018

    I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
    Why on Earth would you voluntarily give strangers your DNA for testing unless it's really necessary (e.g. paternity/maternity tests)? It's putting an amazing amount of trust that they'll maintain your privacy.
    I notice lots of my most active online friends are stating they will now look to quit social media in the New Year....more chance of them sitting in a dark room for 30 days....but again, Facebook scandal doesn't seem to have really dampened people's enthusiasm for giving tech giants info about every aspect of their lives.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    There's a good chance that most of us include William the Conqueror and Mohammed among our ancestors.

    Got some of that all conquering Khan DNA in there as well...
    Anyone with Russian or Cental Asian ancestry probably has Genghis as an ancestor.
    How Khan you tell the difference?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
  • I have, in the past. been told I am a distant relative of Henry Ford, and also of George Eliot.

    We're also apparently linked to the family that started Royal Crown Derby. (I'm sad to say my mum's side of the family were bankers, though thankfully distant. I'd like to think we've atoned since those dark days.) ;)

    I have seen no firm evidence for either (e.g. family trees), but believe the links with Eliot and Royal Crown Derby are firm. But I'd be very, very careful before attempting to make any political advantage out of such claims as they're currently just family hearsay.

    Warren was very silly. But I bet we all have such stories in our families about our ancestors, and few of us would have researched them.

    But if one of your alleged distant famous relatives was an ethnic minority, would you put your official ethnicity down as that minority despite your appaearance being white & sit on committees for that minority group?
    I hate these identity politics.
    I did one of those DNA test things....

    I am (a very small part) Japanese.....how the heck, that got there, who knows, but Here's To Mongrels!"
    Why on Earth would you voluntarily give strangers your DNA for testing unless it's really necessary (e.g. paternity/maternity tests)? It's putting an amazing amount of trust that they'll maintain your privacy.
    I notice lots of my most active online friends are stating they will now look to quit social media in the New Year....more chance of them sitting in a dark room for 30 days....but again, Facebook scandal doesn't seem to have really dampened people's enthusiasm for giving tech giants info about every aspect of their lives.
    Using social media to announce that they are leaving social media.

    Expect daily Facebook updates to let the world know how they are doing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256
    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
    His name was actually 'Lewis,' 'Loulou' was his nickname.

    I think it's a bit unfair to suggest everyone called Lewis is a predatory and insatiable rapist and paedophile. I mean, I'm not Hamilton or Clive's hugest fan, but I don't think they're quite that bad.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238

    Off-topic:

    I've just been entertaining and amazing my son by sticking needles into balloons without them bursting.

    God, I hate the holidays ... ;)

    Enjoy it while it lasts.

    The transition from "fount of all knowledge who knows everything" to "old fool who knows nothing" is but brief.....of course, you wont have changed....
    One of the first phrases he learnt to say was: "Daddy, you're silly."

    I thought that was most wise of him, as it's a phrase I hope he'll have to use many times throughout his life. ;)
    My sons are now in their 50's. When they in their teens they generally felt my advice was at best useless. By the time they were in their 20's I had obviously learned a lot and now they call on me for advice on parenting.

    Funny thing, life!
  • King Cole, the stages of growing up:
    Childhood - thinking your parents know everything
    Adolescence - thinking your parents know nothing
    Adulthood - thinking your parents know something
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    Off-topic:

    I've just been entertaining and amazing my son by sticking needles into balloons without them bursting.

    God, I hate the holidays ... ;)

    Enjoy it while it lasts.

    The transition from "fount of all knowledge who knows everything" to "old fool who knows nothing" is but brief.....of course, you wont have changed....
    One of the first phrases he learnt to say was: "Daddy, you're silly."

    I thought that was most wise of him, as it's a phrase I hope he'll have to use many times throughout his life. ;)
    My sons are now in their 50's. When they in their teens they generally felt my advice was at best useless. By the time they were in their 20's I had obviously learned a lot and now they call on me for advice on parenting.

    Funny thing, life!
    When I was twenty, I realised my father was an ignorant fool. When I was twenty-one, I was amazed at how much he'd learned in the last year.

    Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    There's a good chance that most of us include William the Conqueror and Mohammed among our ancestors.

    Got some of that all conquering Khan DNA in there as well...
    Anyone with Russian or Cental Asian ancestry probably has Genghis as an ancestor.
    How Khan you tell the difference?
    And they've probably got about the same amount of Denisovian ancestry.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,383
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
    His name was actually 'Lewis,' 'Loulou' was his nickname.

    I think it's a bit unfair to suggest everyone called Lewis is a predatory and insatiable rapist and paedophile. I mean, I'm not Hamilton or Clive's hugest fan, but I don't think they're quite that bad.
    sounds like a lovely chap right enough
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
    His name was actually 'Lewis,' 'Loulou' was his nickname.

    I think it's a bit unfair to suggest everyone called Lewis is a predatory and insatiable rapist and paedophile. I mean, I'm not Hamilton or Clive's hugest fan, but I don't think they're quite that bad.
    sounds like a lovely chap right enough
    Probably not a total tragedy that the line has died out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 15,256

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
    His name was actually 'Lewis,' 'Loulou' was his nickname.

    I think it's a bit unfair to suggest everyone called Lewis is a predatory and insatiable rapist and paedophile. I mean, I'm not Hamilton or Clive's hugest fan, but I don't think they're quite that bad.
    sounds like a lovely chap right enough
    Probably not a total tragedy that the line has died out.
    His descendants are still alive, actually.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,238
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    I really don’t see Pocahontas being a serious candidate. She is far too old, made herself look ridiculous with the Indian nonsense and is far too left wing to win a mainstream election. Tbh it’s time she retired altogether.

    Trump would eat her for breakfast.

    Just what the US needs! Another 70+ President!

    Not ageist (I'm nearer her age then the vast majority of US voters) - but it strikes me that the US needs new answers, not old ones....
    Come on Carlotta, bigotry on grounds of age doesn’t sit well with you. Gladstone was introducing new bills in his 80s, while Pitt the Younger did a good job despite being in his 20s. Character, intelligence and policies should trump age everytime.
    TBF, most of Gladstone's really useful work was done and dusted by the time he was 63. At 82, all he was really doing was adding as a bed-blocker for Harcourt or Asquith.
    I was just reading what a ghastly man was Harcourt 's son, "Lulu."
    With a name like that what would you expect
    His name was actually 'Lewis,' 'Loulou' was his nickname.

    I think it's a bit unfair to suggest everyone called Lewis is a predatory and insatiable rapist and paedophile. I mean, I'm not Hamilton or Clive's hugest fan, but I don't think they're quite that bad.
    sounds like a lovely chap right enough
    Probably not a total tragedy that the line has died out.
    His descendants are still alive, actually.
    Male line I mean. The Harcourt Viscountcy is extinct, I believe.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,936
    edited December 2018
    Happy New Year to everyone

    (Even Brexiteers)

    :D :D :D

    Anyway, it is time to pop a cork or two and slave over the cooker.
This discussion has been closed.