(01-14-2014 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 10:28 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  If America elects this woman as POTUS?...It deserves what it gets. Personally?...I don't believe for a second she will even win her own gang nomination.

Really? Who are they going to put against her in the primary process? There's nobody who wants (to my knowledge) to run, as Harry Reid likes the power he wields from the Senate floor, and even as the minority leader, Pelosi has no interest.

Who in the Democratic party is going to step up and go after her? Usually it's the keynote speaker from the previous convention as the first choice, but I don't see anyway the Dems are going to put Julian Castro up for the nomination, not when the most hes' done is San Antonio's mayor.

Cuomo comes to mind. Warren perhaps. Who saw a junior senator with a solid record of voting "present", formerly a "community organizer" (whatever the hell that is) this far out?

I recall the coronation of Hillary pretty clearly last time as well, until it didn't happen.

Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2008 Democrat convention, JMU, which is why I wasn't surprised he was a primary candidate (although people were warned about his "present" voting record, they just ignored it).

Cuomo I guess could be a primary runner, but I don't think he's got the pull to out-last the Clinton political machine.

People have suggested Warren, but she has no chance in hell. The moment they point out her lying to Harvard about her indian background to get special priviledges, and she's dead meat with anyone outside of the liberal Northeast, not even California would go for her.

Bloomberg

(01-14-2014 12:48 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 10:28 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  If America elects this woman as POTUS?...It deserves what it gets. Personally?...I don't believe for a second she will even win her own gang nomination.

Really? Who are they going to put against her in the primary process? There's nobody who wants (to my knowledge) to run, as Harry Reid likes the power he wields from the Senate floor, and even as the minority leader, Pelosi has no interest.

Who in the Democratic party is going to step up and go after her? Usually it's the keynote speaker from the previous convention as the first choice, but I don't see anyway the Dems are going to put Julian Castro up for the nomination, not when the most hes' done is San Antonio's mayor.

Cuomo comes to mind. Warren perhaps. Who saw a junior senator with a solid record of voting "present", formerly a "community organizer" (whatever the hell that is) this far out?

I recall the coronation of Hillary pretty clearly last time as well, until it didn't happen.

Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2008 Democrat convention, JMU, which is why I wasn't surprised he was a primary candidate (although people were warned about his "present" voting record, they just ignored it).

Cuomo I guess could be a primary runner, but I don't think he's got the pull to out-last the Clinton political machine.

People have suggested Warren, but she has no chance in hell. The moment they point out her lying to Harvard about her indian background to get special priviledges, and she's dead meat with anyone outside of the liberal Northeast, not even California would go for her.

We're in agreement for the most part, but I think Cuomo has been making a lot of intentional moves with some of the stuff he's pursued.

That aside, you asked who might step up to give it a go, so I tossed out the names I've heard. Warren is a complete lunatic in my opinion, that's why many on the left are simply in love with her. She may claim some of the Nader type vote, or whatever other fringe lefty we've endured of late. She was able to dodge the injun claims enough to win over a mod like Brown, so she appeals to someone.

I know it's gonna be a full court press for cankles, it's just a looooong time before that's settled, she may have a fight on her hands afterall.

From the day that John Kerry and John Edwards (the man John Kerry thought should be Vice-President of the United States) conceded their defeat (November 3, 2004), I thought that HRC would, basically, have to die in order to Not be the Democrats' nominee in 2008. In a way, I'm still sort of stunned that she wasn't. But give credit to Obama for having a plan and bringing it to fruition. It wasn't until the Wisconsin primary came in (February 19, 2008: pretty late in the game) that I finally realized Clinton was going to lose. My hunch is that Bill and Hillary didn't realize it before then, either.

So with that experience in mind, I hesitate to say that HRC is guaranteed to win the nomination this time around. But just looking at the alternatives, it really is hard to envision any other Democrat taking the nomination away from her. Joe Biden? Martin O'Malley? Brian Schweitzer? Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar? Seems doubtful right now, to say the least.

But let's check back in a year and see how things stand then.

I've been taking good notes on you posters for Hillary.


Oh, and we know who you really are

Is Bill on the list?

(01-14-2014 08:16 PM)memphisike Wrote:  Is Bill on the list?

Is Monica?
Was Vince Foster?

(01-14-2014 12:48 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 10:28 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-13-2014 10:37 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  If America elects this woman as POTUS?...It deserves what it gets. Personally?...I don't believe for a second she will even win her own gang nomination.

Really? Who are they going to put against her in the primary process? There's nobody who wants (to my knowledge) to run, as Harry Reid likes the power he wields from the Senate floor, and even as the minority leader, Pelosi has no interest.

Who in the Democratic party is going to step up and go after her? Usually it's the keynote speaker from the previous convention as the first choice, but I don't see anyway the Dems are going to put Julian Castro up for the nomination, not when the most hes' done is San Antonio's mayor.

Cuomo comes to mind. Warren perhaps. Who saw a junior senator with a solid record of voting "present", formerly a "community organizer" (whatever the hell that is) this far out?

I recall the coronation of Hillary pretty clearly last time as well, until it didn't happen.

Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2008 Democrat convention, JMU, which is why I wasn't surprised he was a primary candidate (although people were warned about his "present" voting record, they just ignored it).

Cuomo I guess could be a primary runner, but I don't think he's got the pull to out-last the Clinton political machine.

People have suggested Warren, but she has no chance in hell. The moment they point out her lying to Harvard about her indian background to get special priviledges, and she's dead meat with anyone outside of the liberal Northeast, not even California would go for her.

Not that I'm promoting Warren or anything, but she actually is part Native American isn't she. I realize that perception is the key here but I don't think she was incorrect about that. She has as much NA blood as many of those recognized as be NA tribal members.

Supposedly Warren's great-great-great grandmother on her mother's side was Cherokee, making her 1/32 Native American if her great-great-great grandmother was full-blooded. She also says that there are other ancestors that are NA, so she might be more than 1/32. The head of the Cherokee Nation right now is 1/32 Cherokee. Warren has a first cousin that is active in Cherokee affairs in Oklahoma as I understand it.

Just to be clear I'm not championing Warren as a candidate, I don't even think there is a chance she will run, but I think the whole NA heritage concept is an interesting one. If we all had DNA testing most of us would be very surprised. There is very little NA DNA in most members of tribes east of the Mississippi and not an insignificant amount of African DNA in a lot of us "lily white" folks.

Nope, that's the problem. There are ZERO records stating what ancestors were Indian. She basically has never proven it. THe Boston globe tried to produce a "marriage license" that claimed that, but it was a requote.

Quote:The Boston Globe immediately leapt to Warren's defense, quoting a genealogist who found a marriage license on which Warren's great-great-uncle scribbled that his mother, Warren's great-great-great grandmother, was a Cherokee. This is not part of the official marriage license.

In fact, the closest to proof says that Warren just flat out lied.

Quote:The census records for 1860 list the allegedly Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, as "white." Also, Warren's family isn't listed in the Cherokee registry. (... to be on the Cherokee list, proof is required.)

Do I think she has Cherokee blood? Yep.. but nowhere near enough to qualify for special status that she lied about to get various jobs and positions. But hey, she's a liar, lets put her in as a possible VP or Pres. Candidate.

(01-14-2014 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Not that I'm promoting Warren or anything, but she actually is part Native American isn't she. I realize that perception is the key here but I don't think she was incorrect about that. She has as much NA blood as many of those recognized as be NA tribal members.

Don't know Warren's ancestry, but do know this: (1.) No one has ever shown any evidence of her alleged Native American ancestry (unless "my grandfather once told me that his grandfather once told him he was part Indian" now counts as "evidence"); and (2.) if a GOP'er got caught in the same situation, the media would hound him/her with it every minute until they got off the political stage, or else were totally discredited outside of the GOP.

Quote:There is very little NA DNA in most members of tribes east of the Mississippi and not an insignificant amount of African DNA in a lot of us "lily white" folks.

1. Huey Long (1893-1935) is reported to have said "You could feed all the 'pure whites' in Louisiana with a nickel's worth of beans and a dime's worth of rice." Wise words.

2. The Choctaw reservation in Mississippi has about 5,000-5,500 people. I've met several of them and I would wager that their DNA is mostly Native American.

I'd have been far happier had Hillary beaten Obama back in 08.

(01-15-2014 10:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd have been far happier had Hillary beaten Obama back in 08.

How would she have been an improvement?

(01-15-2014 10:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd have been far happier had Hillary beaten Obama back in 08.

How would she have been an improvement?

Honestly? I don't think she would have done an Executive Order end-run around bills that she would have supported.

(01-15-2014 11:56 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 10:20 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'd have been far happier had Hillary beaten Obama back in 08.

How would she have been an improvement?

Honestly? I don't think she would have done an Executive Order end-run around bills that she would have supported.

I think she would have been even more aggressive with the EOs and the "recess" appointments than Obama has been. If she becomes president in 2017, you'll see what I mean.

(01-15-2014 08:37 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Nope, that's the problem. There are ZERO records stating what ancestors were Indian. She basically has never proven it. THe Boston globe tried to produce a "marriage license" that claimed that, but it was a requote.

Quote:The Boston Globe immediately leapt to Warren's defense, quoting a genealogist who found a marriage license on which Warren's great-great-uncle scribbled that his mother, Warren's great-great-great grandmother, was a Cherokee. This is not part of the official marriage license.

In fact, the closest to proof says that Warren just flat out lied.

Quote:The census records for 1860 list the allegedly Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith Crawford, as "white." Also, Warren's family isn't listed in the Cherokee registry. (... to be on the Cherokee list, proof is required.)

Do I think she has Cherokee blood? Yep.. but nowhere near enough to qualify for special status that she lied about to get various jobs and positions. But hey, she's a liar, lets put her in as a possible VP or Pres. Candidate.

I don't think Warren ever used the NA angle to get a position or promotion. I think Harvard used it to benefit the University as far as claiming diversity.

Often in years past there wasn't even an option on forms to designate NA. People were forced to check white or colored. There was also a tendency to pick white on things like marriage licenses, birth certificates and census forms to avoid some of the discriminatory factors in society. "Passing" wasn't limited to light complexion African Americans.

(01-15-2014 10:16 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 08:42 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Not that I'm promoting Warren or anything, but she actually is part Native American isn't she. I realize that perception is the key here but I don't think she was incorrect about that. She has as much NA blood as many of those recognized as be NA tribal members.

Don't know Warren's ancestry, but do know this: (1.) No one has ever shown any evidence of her alleged Native American ancestry (unless "my grandfather once told me that his grandfather once told him he was part Indian" now counts as "evidence"); and (2.) if a GOP'er got caught in the same situation, the media would hound him/her with it every minute until they got off the political stage, or else were totally discredited outside of the GOP.

Quote:There is very little NA DNA in most members of tribes east of the Mississippi and not an insignificant amount of African DNA in a lot of us "lily white" folks.

1. Huey Long (1893-1935) is reported to have said "You could feed all the 'pure whites' in Louisiana with a nickel's worth of beans and a dime's worth of rice." Wise words.

2. The Choctaw reservation in Mississippi has about 5,000-5,500 people. I've met several of them and I would wager that their DNA is mostly Native American.

It would be interesting to see what DNA testing would show. The closer to the eastern seaboard the tribe was found the more diluted the blood. If your ship wrecked off the coast and you made it to shore the locals were either going to kill you or adopt you. Customs involving sex were different so visitors got benefits. Disease wiped out much of the population of many tribes so blacks and whites were adopted into tribes in an effort to build it back up. In many cases being Native American has a lot more to do with the culture you grow up in than anything else.