Elizabeth Warren

Nancy Drawn, I completely agree with you. Thank you for your comment. In addition, I see Elizabeth Warren’s plan to read trans murder victims in the rose garden each week to be a positive. Trans murder victims are likely to be victims of hate crimes and calling attention to hate crimes of any form I feel is a positive and will be seen that way by Democratic voters and people likely to vote for a Democrat. As to stop putting trans women in male prisons that does not mean that they would be placed among women prisoners. There are close to 500 trans prisoners in Federal prisons and they could be put in their own faculty, which is a good compromise. More importantly, based on the behavior of Republican voters and Republican leaning voters they (Republicans) would like to turn things back to when white males ran the government, as Republicans vote predominately for white males. The maximum number of Republican women elected to congress was 30 in 2005 compared to 52 Democratic women in the same year. Since then the number of Republican women in congress decreased to 22 while at the same time the number of Democratic women increased to 105. This current congress has the record number of women due to the Democratic party. This is also the case in regard to minorities. Currently there are 53 black Democrats in congress compared to 2 black Republicans, 35 Hispanic Democrats compared to 8 Republicans, 17 Asian/Pacific Islander Democrats compared to zero Republican, 10 LGBTQ Democrats compared to zero Republican, 32 Jewish Democrats compared to 3 Republican, 3 Muslin Democrats compared to zero Republican, 2 Buddhist Democrats compared to zero Republican, 3 Hindu Democrats compared to zero Republican, 2 Unitarian Democrats compared to zero Republican. The Democratic party is not only the hope of Women for the future, but the hope of minorities for the future. I want the United States government to move in the direction of representing the whole diverse nation and not just white males who are less than half the population. Democrats vote for a candidate no matter what group the candidate belongs to, while Republicans predominately vote for white males. As to Elizabeth Warren saying she had Native American ancestry she was telling the truth as she knew it. She sited a family tradition to that effect and then the DNA text performed by an expert in Native American ancestry confirmed that. In adding to what Nancy Drawn wrote 37% of women in the US put off medical treatment because of cost while 22% of men do so. This is one reason why 58% of women support “Obamacare” compared to only 47% of men. The current administration wants to end “Obamacare” while the Democrats want to keep it and Elizabeth Warren wants to expand upon it. Elizabeth Warren also wants to reduce the Maternal Morality Rate which has been increasing in the US since at least 2000. Women are more in line with Democrats in regard to gun control with 70% of women supporting stricter gun control compared to 51% of men; 77% of women support a bill which would allow undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children to remain in the US legally, compared to only 67% of men who support that and 17% of women who oppose that and 52% of women oppose the border wall compared to 45% of men who oppose that and 35% of women who support that. Also 61% of women support new LGBT protections compared to only 40% of men.

Tom,

I'd hardly call Sanders woke. I'm also not necessarily happy when political types are pushed to "condemn" sentiments expressed by their workers/supporters that aren't considered of the moment.

Are a lot of Warren supporters hung up on her being a woman? I think there is certainly a group who are, like there was with Clinton. I see a lot of posts by American women saying what amounts to they will vote for her because she is a woman and it's time to get a woman in. And the language is no different that saying some people are hung up on who has a penis, maybe not what you ought to say on the radio but it gets the point across, I see worse here daily.
It seems like unnecessary hyperbole to me, and it may even be inaccurate, but in no way worth condemning and I think the drive to condemn in that way is not so far from the urge to control speech.

(Also, isn't that sort of comment just the epitome of lefty dudebro-ism? It makes me nauseous just how many disgusting misogynists are around living off their woke credit)

Though I think the reason she wouldn't shake his hand is because he has refused to condemn the words of one of his campaign field officers who said that Warren's supporters were all “hung up on vaginas” instead of voting for the best policies.

Warren's refusal to shake Sanders hand last night was not a good look.

A friend of mine did one of those ancestry things. He chose an American firm to do it as an american friend recommended them.
His results came back as having a small percentage of Native American. He's as British as you can get.
I think they add it in as a default.

She has no experience of Native American culture, living in a Native American community or experiencing anything remotely resembling the discrimination and disadvantaged which Native American people do

Well said TheTigersBride It's absolutely nauseating

Trump is not the cause of the political problems in the US. Despite his particular terrible policies.

Electing another person who will essentially maintain the status quo of global capitalism and identity essentialism will not reverse the problems that led to a president like Trump.

That's the problem with people focusing on oh, we should have just done x and Clinton would have got in. It would probably maintain things as they are in a certain sense, for a while longer, but all the time the cancer as it were is eating away at people and the various political institutions that democracy depends upon. Maybe it is difficult to imagine that someone might actually be worse than Trump but it is in fact possible. Maybe someone who was really a facist rather than a sort of narcissist, or someone who was clever and competent and charismatic and a good actor, rather than incompetent and lacking in real awareness. Just for example.
I do think Warren is more aware of the problems around the income gap and capitalism in a way that some of the other candidates are not. She hasn't managed to connect that to the identity politics, and I tend to think that suggests that her theoretical framework isn't that strong. But I might vote for her against a Trump while I would never have voted for Clinton.

The point sails way over some people's heads, I see.

For conservative, well off white women, with good health insurance, who don't believe men can magically become women by saying so, Trump might be a better option for them

This is what Democrats, Labour in UK, Labor in Australia don’t get. You need to look at the electorate you have, not the electorate you want, and let them think you’re relevant to them, not tell them they’re in the wrong if they don’t vote for you. Warren should be working out how to convince voters in Michigan, Florida and other swing states that she understands them and can give them what they need, and I can 100% guarantee that putting males in women’s prisons ain’t it.

The more I think about it the more the impeachment is a big mistake. He will be acquitted, because the Senate is bound to, and he will revel in it. I mean as awful as he is, if he stands up at one of his rallies and mocks Warren for the lunacy of wanting to put males in women’s prisons, I’m going to agree with him and many others who might be on the fence and registered to vote will remember it. I don’t think she’ll get the Democratic nomination as a result.

Trump is horrible and is bad for women. But in the long term will extreme identity politics be better for the US as a whole, including women? I honestly don't know and I have doubts about people who are certain it will.

I don't go along with "anything must be better than Trump". It's too simplistic for me. I go along with there must be a political stance that is better than Trump and is better than the extreme identity politics offered by Warren.

Well, Warren has been identifying as a woman of colour so it's hardly surprising that she's chill with men calling themselves women

Exactly. By surfing on the back of arguably America's least represented minority. She has zero chance of winning against Trump. The Democrats don't have one credible candidate who can appeal beyond the Beltway.

I don't disagree at all Nancy but you're assuming that people don't vote on self interest. For conservative, well off white women, with good health insurance, who don't believe men can magically become women by saying so, Trump might be a better option for them (on more than one front if he reduces their taxation too). See again the whole idea of the right believing women belong to one man and the left believing women belong to all men.

Also, I think the left loses voters when they are so contemptuous of women that they fail to acknowledge valid concerns. This is what happened to me last election - the utter dismissal of science and fact and really well argued concerns about a clash of rights - I just felt I couldn't in good conscience vote Lib Dem or Labour though I also couldn't vote Tory so I spoiled.

If enough Democratic voters just don't vote out of disgust at the way they're throwing women and children under the bus...... in certain situations that achieves as much for the Republicans as people actually voting for Trump.

When it comes to people like Warren, I'm not sure that Trump is the worst option.

Oh. My. God.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care what your position is on trans rights or on gender criticism--this is a ridiculous, anti-feminist position.

On women's rights alone, this is insane. Donald Trump's administration is separating women from their children and putting children in cages, where they are dying. They are trying to cut healthcare for millions of people which will make them die from things like breast cancer and cervical cancer. His judges are slashing women's right to choose, and state legislatures are literally talking about imprisoning women who try to leave the state to have an abortion and about putting doctors in jail for life for giving a woman an abortion. His Justice Department has redefined domestic violence to exclude coercive control or psychological abuse, which were included under Obama's DoJ.

All of this means tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of women will die.

And then there's the man himself. He has been accused of rape and/or sexual assault by nearly two dozen women. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations He openly brags about grabbing women's genitals whenever he wants to because he can. He ranks women by their appearance. He has been accused of bursting into teenage beauty queen's dressing rooms unannounced, sometimes when they were not fully dressed. He said that he couldn't have raped Jean Carroll because she was "not my type."

And you think Donald Trump is a better choice for women than Elizabeth Warren?

(This is leaving aside the environment, and corruption, and the poor, and the guns, and immigration, and calling white supremacists good people, and the bloody nuclear launch codes.)

FFS.

For example in the mid-90s I remember there was a black school board member who used to go around to classrooms to teach black history lessons. He used to claim Queen Charlotte as a black women, based on her supposedly having one moorish ancestor, a fair way back.

Those ancestry tests are not very reliable, but really, I don't think that is the point. It's more whether she in fact thought she did share that ancestry. It's not unusual for American families to have stories that include such ancestry, but in truth it's often quite diluted. It only takes a reliably few generations before that happens but family stories don't really account for that.

In any case for a number of years African-American ancestry has been deliberately declared on the basis of a one-drop rule, that approach isn't all that unheard of. A lot of these statements Warren made were not in the current political climate and attitudes to sharing ancestry were somewhat different - taking pride in Native ancestry, even having grown up in a seemingly white family, would not have been looked at the same way in the 80's or probably even the early 90s. There was a lot less emphasis on ideas like cultural appropriation and a lot more interest in finding even fairly far back minority ancestry in public figures.

Yes I am fairly sure that she turned out to have less native American ancestry than the average American.

She had a DNA test done which discovered a tiny proportion of Native American DNA. Many Americans have.

She has no experience of Native American culture, living in a Native American community or experiencing anything remotely resembling the discrimination and disadvantaged which Native American people do.

I'm not sure this backtrack does the job:

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.amp.html

What % American Indian though (and how much is enough to claim to be one?). Because she certainly doesn’t look much AI...

Warren's claim to be Native American is utterly disgraceful.

Yet another fantasist with a born to rule mentality.

America, you need to go back to having serious politicians as your commander in chief. All those hallowed ivy league universities and this is the best you can do?! Come on!

In 1984 Warren identified as Cherokee when submitting a recipe to a Native American cookbook. In 1986 she described her race as American Indian on a firm she filled in for the State Bar of Texas. Between 1986 and 1995, she reported herself as a minority law professor in her membership of the Association of American Law Schools.

In 1989, she began to be listed as Native American while working at the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1995 she approved her listing as Native American at Harvard Law School, which included her in its federal affirmative action forms until 2004. When she was appointed at Harvard she was hailed in the Harvard Crimson as their first female Native American tenured law professor.

In 2012, she said that "being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born".

Given all this, what part of my statement was misleading?

Grinitch

Not sure if you read this article about the Trans tactics - Relevant to the US if the issue isn’t mainstream.

Adoption of self ID is traditionally sneaked through - as in Ireland - without the general population generally being aware - particularly about the natural extended and predictable consequences.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp/

Well, Warren has been identifying as a woman of colour
she really hasn't. This is quite misleading.