What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!! (3 Viewers)

Warren on sexism in the race:

Gender in this race, you know, that is the trap question for every woman. If you say, 'yeah, there was sexism in this race,' everyone says 'whiner,' and if you say, 'no, there was no sexism,' about a bazillion women think, 'what planet do you live on?
Click to expand...
Can believe this isnt getting more buzz. 

 
Just wondering who she thinks is being sexist. The DNC?  Wouldn't that be something. The voters?  More women vote than men. 

 
tonydead said:
Warren on sexism in the race:

Can believe this isnt getting more buzz. 
Click to expand...
She needs to come out and say she didn't connect with enough of the voters.  Are some people sexist?  Sure.  Is it the reason she didn't get the nomination in 2020 when Hillary got it in 2016?  Probably not.  

It's not like she's polling 1st or 2nd and the DNC is cutting her down.  

She wasn't a moderate.  She wasn't the farthest left.  She picked a spot somewhere between Biden and Bernie.  It was just a very nuanced spot to be.

 
Sinn Fein said:
But, Trump lies about EVERYTHING.  And, we shrug it off - its just "Trump being Trump."
Click to expand...
People have criticized Trump for lying before.

Some of the criticism of Warren is really stupid, or at least way overblown. Same with Buttigieg, Biden, and Bloomberg.

The notion that criticism -- even really dumb criticism -- is directed only at female candidates seems rather fanciful.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
This Politico article says Warren is being considered for Secretary of the Treasury in a Biden administration.  Hopefully Dems win an extra Senate seat so they can let her go.
Click to expand...
Dems don't need to win an extra seat. While it is typical for the governor of the state to appoint the replacement, MA legislature would just change the rules (again) to either require the governor to appoint someone from the same party or take that power away from him. 

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/about-warrens-senate-seat/

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Unless and until there are objective criteria for classifying people into different races, people should be free to identify however they want.
Click to expand...
The rush for identification comes from the left these days, so until you're prepared to take it up with identity politics writ large, I'm afraid you're just shouting into a tornado. Even taking on identity politics to be consistent in the matter seems a fool's errand. Much better these days, tactically, to try and break the pressure group rather than argue against its legitimacy. They're all legitimate in some people's eyes, so the free identification therefrom, even that which seemingly undermines the cause, will only be done in furtherance of it. 

Did that make sense? No. Nor does modern politics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Are you really saying you can’t see the distinction between these two situations?
Click to expand...
I understand that one is a nobody who it's easy to throw overboard, while the other is a political figure that people are invested in and feel the need to defend.  But that's not a very helpful distinction.  It's better to focus on what they have in common -- both people thought it was a good idea to fabricate their ethnic background, and they both carved out an academic career based at least in part on that fake identity.  That's a bad thing.

In a vacuum, I agree with MT that we should let people identify however they want, but that doesn't work well if race is used as a standard in hiring, which it obviously is in higher ed.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I understand that one is a nobody who it's easy to throw overboard, while the other is a political figure that people are invested in and feel the need to defend.  But that's not a very helpful distinction.  It's better to focus on what they have in common -- both people thought it was a good idea to fabricate their ethnic background, and they both carved out an academic career based at least in part on that fake identity.  That's a bad thing.

In a vacuum, I agree with MT that we should let people identify however they want, but that doesn't work well if race is used as a standard in hiring, which it obviously is in higher ed.
Click to expand...
We could all identify as black women, harmony ensues.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Are you really saying you can’t see the distinction between these two situations?
Click to expand...
I understand that one is a nobody who it's easy to throw overboard, while the other is a political figure that people are invested in and feel the need to defend.  But that's not a very helpful distinction.  It's better to focus on what they have in common -- both people thought it was a good idea to fabricate their ethnic background, and they both carved out an academic career based at least in part on that fake identity.  That's a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Well, I regard the comparison as pretty ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with the fact that Warren is well-known and I had never heard of Jessica Krug before a few days ago.  As best as I can tell:

Krug was just a total complete fraud from the start, living essentially a double life.  She grew up as a Jewish kid in the suburbs, was never given any indication that she was Black or Latin.  At some point she decided to make this whole thing up out of whole cloth.  Her entire academic career was in African-American studies and other related fields in which she deliberately and purposefully misrepresented herself to every person she met -- students, faculty, etc.  She changed her story multiple times, and talked about growing up in the projects, and apparently used her perch to actually criticize black kids for not being sufficiently race conscious.  There are videos of her from like just a few months ago with a fake Latina/black accent.  When she revealed herself a few days ago (because she was going to get caught), people were shocked to learn that she was actually white.  

By contrast, the evidence is pretty clear that Warren had been told this family story that she had a somewhat distant Cherokee relative.  She and her siblings grew up believing they were part Cherokee.  And it seems like this relative actually did exist, so it's not like the story was a total lie.  And honestly, tribal ancestry in this country is very different from black ancestry- -  many prominent leaders in the tribal community are significantly less than 50% Native American blood.  Yes, Warren did list herself as Cherokee in some places and it's possible that she could have received a leg up as a result.  But she wasn't running around calling herself Sitting Eagle, smoking a peace pipe and talking about rain dances and teaching classes in Native American History. That would have been the equivalent of what Krug was doing. She was a bankruptcy professor, and apparently a very good one that became well known due to her scholarship, not because she had described herself as Cherokee.  When her story broke back when she was running for Senate, people were surprised to learn that she had claimed Cherokee ancestry.  The people that she taught and worked with were generally supportive of her. 

Sure, I think Warren shouldn't have ever described herself that way, and I have no problem with people that are mildly critical of her over that decision.  But these things aren't always so simple, especially back then when people weren't generally allowed to identify as multiple races.  I've mentioned this before here but my kids are 1/4 black.  The older one is applying to college this year.   Is it fair for him to say he's black on his college applications?  On the one hand, if you think affirmative action is some attempt to correct past wrongs, maybe he should.  After all, his grandfather grew up in segregated Alabama, wasn't allowed to attend the University of Alabama, had to suffer through all sorts of discrimination and misfortune so that his children and grandchildren could have opportunities he didn't.  On the other hand, my kid doesn't identify as black, he doesn't look black, he hasn't really suffered racial discrimination, he's had lots of advantages that other kids of lots of races didn't.  So in some sense it feels like cheating for him to claim he's black.  But even that's a little complicated, because knowing everything that I've just said, would the colleges he's applying to actually want him to say he's black?  I think the answer to that is probably yes.  If he was your kid, what would you tell him to do and why?

Warren might have made some mistakes.  But putting her on the same level as Jessica Krug seems like an enormous stretch.  It's like when Trump defenders say stuff like "Obama lied too!"  Well, yeah, he wasn't always 100% honest about everything.  But it's just not anywhere near the same level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
By contrast, the evidence is pretty clear that Warren had been told this family story that she had a somewhat distant Cherokee relative.  She and her siblings grew up believing they were part Cherokee.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna land in the middle.  I don't think they're exactly the same, but closer than you indicate.

I think a big consideration when comparing the two is that Jessica Krug likely has legitimate psychological issues, while we assume Elizabeth Warren doesn't.

I am white, my parents told me when I was a kid that I had some American Indian in my family lineage.  When I was 8 I thought that was pretty cool.  As an adult it never remotely entered my thinking to identify as American Indian or to think that I should try to take advantage of the distant lineage to appropriate benefits that were intended for American Indians.  Elizabeth Warren knew what she was doing.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I've mentioned this before here but my kids are 1/4 black.  The older one is applying to college this year.   Is it fair for him to say he's black on his college applications?  On the one hand, if you think affirmative action is some attempt to correct past wrongs, maybe he should.  After all, his grandfather grew up in segregated Alabama, wasn't allowed to attend the University of Alabama, had to suffer through all sorts of discrimination and misfortune so that his children and grandchildren could have opportunities he didn't.  On the other hand, my kid doesn't identify as black, he doesn't look black, he hasn't really suffered racial discrimination, he's had lots of advantages that other kids of lots of races didn't.  So in some sense it feels like cheating for him to claim he's black.  But even that's a little complicated, because knowing everything that I've just said, would the colleges he's applying to actually want him to say he's black?  I think the answer to that is probably yes.  If he was your kid, what would you tell him to do and why?
Click to expand...
Wait, I have a follow up if anyone was planning to answer the question above about what my kid should do.

My ex-wife and I both went to elite schools where it is an advantage to apply as a legacy.  I regard this system as very unfair even though it works to my kid's benefit, at least at those two schools.  Should my kid tell schools that he is a legacy?  If your answer is that he should say he's a legacy, but should not say he's black, why?

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Wait, I have a follow up if anyone was planning to answer the question above about what my kid should do.

My ex-wife and I both went to elite schools where it is an advantage to apply as a legacy.  I regard this system as very unfair even though it works to my kid's benefit, at least at those two schools.  Should my kid tell schools that he is a legacy?  If your answer is that he should say he's a legacy, but should not say he's black, why?
Click to expand...
My son is 1/4 Japanese and he checked Caucasian on all his college applications. Of course, it’s not like checking that he was of Asian heritage would have helped in any way - probably would have hurt if anything.

Given that I know you in real life, and I’ve seen photos of your family, I’d mention the following:

1) I think your kids look biracial. They may not identify as Black, but do they identify as bi-racial?  Isn’t that an option on college applications?  My son, on the other hand, looks lilly white.  Hard to detect even a hint of Asian in him (except when he has a drink - he gets the Asian flush).

2) Your kids’ mom certainly identifies as Black, doesn’t she?  If so, your kids have grown up with that influence as part of their identity. Me, on the other hand, I’m biracial, but given my name (not Asian) and looks (not really Asian), I’m not viewed by others as Asian. 

In the end, your kids are biracial and they are legacies. There is nothing dishonest about them presenting themselves as such in their college applications. And while I appreciate the fact that you, and perhaps your son, have principles that lead you to question whether he should disclose certain facts (true facts) about himself on his application that give him an advantage that you and he may perceive to be unfair, in the end, I say you play the hand you are dealt. These attributes may be things that are sought after by the school for legitimate reasons (diversity, multi-generational commitment). As much as we want it to be, college admissions is not a pure meritocracy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
1) I think your kids look biracial. They may not identify as Black, but do they identify as bi-racial?  Isn’t that an option on college applications?  

2) Your kids’ mom certainly identifies as Black, doesn’t she?  If so, your kids have grown up with that influence as part of their identity. 
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah, if you're looking for it my kids look biracial a little.  But its not very apparent and they've said that people are surprised when they say they're part black.  Their mom identifies as Black at times but went to an almost all white rich prep school for high school, she isn't all that culturally black to be honest.

bigbottom said:
These attributes may be things that are sought after by the school for legitimate reasons 
Click to expand...
What makes something a legitimate reason?  I think this is part of the problem.  Because the schools want to say they're diverse.  So they're happy to call my kid black because it's better for their numbers.  So the school and my kid's incentives are aligned.  But what about 20 years from now when my kid decides to run for Congress?  And the media finds out he said was black on the application even though he totally looks and identifies as white?  Will that decision be scrutinized and criticized?  Why is it his responsibility to decide whether he's black enough to satisfy some unstated criteria?  

For what it's worth, I think the Warren thing is also about incentives being aligned.  The places where she was working wanted to list her as Native American so they could have a more diverse faculty.  It's not like she got there and they were disappointed that she wasn't Cherokee enough.  They knew what she looked like.  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I mean, yeah, if you're looking for it my kids look biracial a little.  But its not very apparent and they've said that people are surprised when they say they're part black.  Their mom identifies as Black at times but went to an almost all white rich prep school for high school, she isn't all that culturally black to be honest.

What makes something a legitimate reason?  I think this is part of the problem.  Because the schools want to say they're diverse.  So they're happy to call my kid black because it's better for their numbers.  So the school and my kid's incentives are aligned.  But what about 20 years from now when my kid decides to run for Congress?  And the media finds out he said was black on the application even though he totally looks and identifies as white?  Will that decision be scrutinized and criticized?  Why is it his responsibility to decide whether he's black enough to satisfy some unstated criteria?  

For what it's worth, I think the Warren thing is also about incentives being aligned.  The places where she was working wanted to list her as Native American so they could have a more diverse faculty.  It's not like she got there and they were disappointed that she wasn't Cherokee enough.  They knew what she looked like.  
Click to expand...
Well, I didn’t mean “legitimate” in the absolute sense - more like for reasons that are supported by a rational basis (to crib from constitutional jurisprudence).

But, yeah, I do see the concerns in the questions you raise. Not a simple solution really. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Wait, I have a follow up if anyone was planning to answer the question above about what my kid should do.

My ex-wife and I both went to elite schools where it is an advantage to apply as a legacy.  I regard this system as very unfair even though it works to my kid's benefit, at least at those two schools.  Should my kid tell schools that he is a legacy?  If your answer is that he should say he's a legacy, but should not say he's black, why?
Click to expand...
wow, this is a pretty interesting question/dilemma.

First, I think this highlights some of the issues many people have with race based preferences.  If we are doing it to "help", many people who don't need the help (because their parents are well to-do) will be helped, many people who need the help (because their parents are not well to-do) will not (because their parents are white).  We need some individual level ancestral grading scale if this is to be done properly.  What if my ancestors three generations ago were brilliant but my mom and dad were drug addicts and abusive and raised me in terrible conditions.  If it is being done in the name of diversity, I would be ok with that on a very small scale (% of population)

For you personally I dont think there is necessarily a right answer for what you do, much of it is really what you are comfortable with.  Although I question race based admissions policies, I do think that if they are going to exist then they should at least go to the people that need them (although again if you were 100% black and your wife was 100% black with Ivy league educations...would your son really need preferential treatment?).  Alternatively if it is for diversity, his is background/upbringing really "diverse"...sounds like not.  I think you bring up a good point, in todays racially charged politics, which are getting more tense...I think your son does run a risk of being questioned in the future if he were to seek a high profile public position.  Not saying thats wrong or right (or that it would come from the Right or Left for that matter), but that it is a legitimate consideration.

On the "legacy" front, I'm not really a fan, I'd prefer colleges just stick to merit based.  I do think personal experiences matter and personal recommendations matter, I would be ok with recommendations from past graduates being viewed favorably (but that would be one small, small element of acceptance).

Third, my mind can probably be changed on a lot of this.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I mean, yeah, if you're looking for it my kids look biracial a little.  But its not very apparent and they've said that people are surprised when they say they're part black.  Their mom identifies as Black at times but went to an almost all white rich prep school for high school, she isn't all that culturally black to be honest.

What makes something a legitimate reason?  I think this is part of the problem.  Because the schools want to say they're diverse.  So they're happy to call my kid black because it's better for their numbers.  So the school and my kid's incentives are aligned.  But what about 20 years from now when my kid decides to run for Congress?  And the media finds out he said was black on the application even though he totally looks and identifies as white?  Will that decision be scrutinized and criticized?  Why is it his responsibility to decide whether he's black enough to satisfy some unstated criteria?  

For what it's worth, I think the Warren thing is also about incentives being aligned.  The places where she was working wanted to list her as Native American so they could have a more diverse faculty.  It's not like she got there and they were disappointed that she wasn't Cherokee enough.  They knew what she looked like.  
Click to expand...
If you arent lying, then it is fair game.

Elizabeth Warren, at best, passed on a lie that she knew was false. 

There is literally zero evidence that Elizabeth Warren is part cherokee. 

She refers to family stories, but yet there are no stories. She doesnt even bother trying to present a narrative for where the lineage comes from, which of course anybody that ever considered themself legitimately having cherokee ancestry, to the point that you check the box, would know. She couldnt even come up with a legit recipe.

She presented DNA test results that do nothing but place her native american lineage to be on par with the average white american. Something she would inevitably have been made aware of by somebody on her team. Bustamante himself probably made her aware of this. 

There's a running joke in Indian country: If you meet somebody who you wouldn't necessarily think is Native, but they say they're Native, chances are they'll tell you they're Cherokee," said Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton, a spokesperson for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma,

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Infamous DNA video:  Includes Warren's brothers and other family members.
Click to expand...
That actually proves my exact point. 

There is absolutely nothing presented. Not even myth. Like one time my great great great great great grandpa negotiated a peace offering between two tribes. Or one time on the trail of tears...or so and so fought with the french....or whatever else. 

There is nothing ever presented.

Nobody white checks a box for an ethnic minority in an honest fashion without knowing this kind of stuff. 

The recipes are so important to showing what a sham this was because it is just proof of how little she knew about native americans. Multiple family members also contributed recipes and not a single one even resembles anything native. 

And this isnt the same as me being polish and german and knowing almost nothing about any of those relatives. I dont check any boxes.

Hell, I at least know how to make kishka and babka. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
So you’re basically saying that if your Polish and German ancestors got you stuff like better jobs and college admission, then you would learn some stories about them.  
Click to expand...
No. I am saying that people stating they are polish isnt the same as stating they are native american. 

Americans of polish descent arent checking a box. 

 
There's no doubt she's a highly intelligent individual that has accomplished more than I could have dreamed of but... 

I despise this person.  The undeserved, hyperbolic comments, about Powell today being the latest.  Once again she is the proverbial boy who cried wolf and one of the reasons she's so easily dismissed when law and order need her leadership the most.  

It's so frustrating. 

Sen. Warren calls Fed Chair Powell a 'dangerous man,' says she will oppose his renomination

 
2Squirrels1Nut said:
There's no doubt she's a highly intelligent individual that has accomplished more than I could have dreamed of but... 

I despise this person.  The undeserved, hyperbolic comments, about Powell today being the latest.  Once again she is the proverbial boy who cried wolf and one of the reasons she's so easily dismissed when law and order need her leadership the most.  

It's so frustrating. 

Sen. Warren calls Fed Chair Powell a 'dangerous man,' says she will oppose his renomination
Click to expand...


I would argue that highly intelligent people dont keep making the same mistake.

 
2Squirrels1Nut said:
There's no doubt she's a highly intelligent individual that has accomplished more than I could have dreamed of but... 

I despise this person.  The undeserved, hyperbolic comments, about Powell today being the latest.  Once again she is the proverbial boy who cried wolf and one of the reasons she's so easily dismissed when law and order need her leadership the most.  

It's so frustrating. 

Sen. Warren calls Fed Chair Powell a 'dangerous man,' says she will oppose his renomination
Click to expand...
Powell is getting between a rock and a hard place.  He's been a dove to the market for a long time, but that so called "transitory" inflation appears to be anything but that.  More and more business people I talk to are taking action and sitting some business cycles out due to rising costs.  Time will tell if this is pervasive or just in certain sectors.  These things have a way of cascading though and I doubt many of us here are old enough, at least in our business careers, to recall a time that inflation was a real threat.  I know I'm nearing 50 and it never has been for me the way it's appearing now.

 
2Squirrels1Nut said:
There's no doubt she's a highly intelligent individual that has accomplished more than I could have dreamed of but... 

I despise this person.  The undeserved, hyperbolic comments, about


Powell


today being the latest.  Once again she is the proverbial boy who cried wolf and one of the reasons she's so easily dismissed when law and order need her leadership the most.  

It's so frustrating. 

Sen.


Warren


calls Fed Chair


Powell


a 'dangerous man,' says she will oppose his renomination
Click to expand...
I don't get it. If she opposes his nomination should she just sit by quietly?

 
There is currently a major tug-of-war between Powell and Warren regarding banking oversight.

The Fed is by charter "independent" of the government in order to insulate it from short-term political pressures. As bank risks increase due to prolonged extremely loose monetary policies (e.g. markets overleverage, "shadow" banking, etc), Powell steadfastly refuses to increase bank oversight activities, saying that is Congress's job (he's right).

Warren wants Powell out and her girl Lael Brainard to be chair, which is why she is bashing Powell. Brainard would be more active overseeing banks. This would result in a much tighter fiscal and monetary policy linkage between gov't and Fed. With Warren, Brainard and Yellen all in bed together, Fed independence would be a joke.

Odds are Biden will still support a Powell renomination. Because if Warren gets her way and the Fed starts more actively overseeing banks, then it would risk big-time market turmoil and Joe surely doesn't want that heading into 2022 midterms.

 
Shula-holic said:
Powell is getting between a rock and a hard place.  He's been a dove to the market for a long time, but that so called "transitory" inflation appears to be anything but that.  More and more business people I talk to are taking action and sitting some business cycles out due to rising costs.  Time will tell if this is pervasive or just in certain sectors.  These things have a way of cascading though and I doubt many of us here are old enough, at least in our business careers, to recall a time that inflation was a real threat.  I know I'm nearing 50 and it never has been for me the way it's appearing now.
Click to expand...
We've been spoiled with historically low interest rates forever.  Even they doubled from here they would still be at historic lows.   

 
Stoneworker said:
There is currently a major tug-of-war between Powell and Warren regarding banking oversight.

The Fed is by charter "independent" of the government in order to insulate it from short-term political pressures. As bank risks increase due to prolonged extremely loose monetary policies (e.g. markets overleverage, "shadow" banking, etc), Powell steadfastly refuses to increase bank oversight activities, saying that is Congress's job (he's right).

Warren wants Powell out and her girl Lael Brainard to be chair, which is why she is bashing Powell. Brainard would be more active overseeing banks. This would result in a much tighter fiscal and monetary policy linkage between gov't and Fed. With Warren, Brainard and Yellen all in bed together, Fed independence would be a joke.

Odds are Biden will still support a Powell renomination. Because if Warren gets her way and the Fed starts more actively overseeing banks, then it would risk big-time market turmoil and Joe surely doesn't want that heading into 2022 midterms.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU 

It's as outrageous as when Trump was trying to muscle the Fed.  

 
2Squirrels1Nut said:
THANK YOU 

It's as outrageous as when Trump was trying to muscle the Fed.  
Click to expand...
No worries. And agreed re: Trump. 

For Ray Dalio fans, more coordination it is actually what he recommends when a country is at the end of a long-term debt cycle. At this point the Fed has basically zero monetary tools left for further stimulation.

So a country must then turn to fiscal policies, coordinated with monetary policy, to simultaneously keep the economy afloat, fight wealth inequality (caused by monetary policy-driven asset bubbles) and then deleverage the massive national debt. Great in theory but no way on this planet our incompetent and divided gov't could pull that off. We'll more likely end up with popped bubbles, massive inflation and currency devaluation.

What is needed is a big fiscal stimulus with monetary cooperation, Dalio said, and it isn’t happening yet though Washington has taken some steps. “Our biggest risk comes from the possibility that our elected officials (who are the ones who control fiscal policy) will handle it badly,” he wrote. “That’s because it’s tough enough to know  what to do during a big crisis and then do it boldly even when there aren’t divisive politics.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/16/bridgewaters-dalio-says-fed-has-done-all-it-can-targeted-fiscal-stimulus-needed.html

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
313
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
738
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top