I obviously think she lied like crazy regarding this whole thing and think she is still playing games, but if i liked her before this and planned to vote for her there is no way this would disqualify her for me.As someone who would have voted Warren over HRC or Trump, this disqualified her. It just shows she has no common sense and Republicans will ride it to another win if she faces Trump. She is toast on the presidential front.
Well "people" didn't vote to confirm Kavanaugh so not exactly apples to apples here.So Kavanaugh lies under oath, and Congress approves his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. Elizabeth Warren may have "stretched" her Native American ancestry, but backs up her claims with a DNA test, and people deem her unsuitable for a term-limited presidential bid.
Sounds good.
I doubt that there is an argument if Warren was a "R".Unfortunately, my take on this is most people in here on both sides would be arguing differently if Warren was a “R” and not a “D”. It’s really discouraging to see.
Indeed, that is certainly one way to spin this.So Kavanaugh lies under oath, and Congress approves his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. Elizabeth Warren may have "stretched" her Native American ancestry, but backs up her claims with a DNA test, and people deem her unsuitable for a term-limited presidential bid.
Sounds good.
It's not really spin. It's fairly clear at this point that different people in politics are held to different standards when it comes to truthfulness- not to mention consistency, transparency, guilt-by-association, and several other lines of criticism. Whatever you might think of Warren's behavior on the issue of her heritage, there's no doubt that Trump, Kavanaugh and friends tell bigger, bolder and more damaging lies about themselves and the world on a daily basis.Indeed, that is certainly one way to spin this.
Pretty much.So Kavanaugh lies under oath, and Congress approves his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. Elizabeth Warren may have "stretched" her Native American ancestry, but backs up her claims with a DNA test, and people deem her unsuitable for a term-limited presidential bid.
Sounds good.
That goes for any post in the PSFUnfortunately, my take on this is most people in here on both sides would be arguing differently if Warren was a “R” and not a “D”. It’s really discouraging to see.
The guy that hates whataboutisms with a bunch of whataboutisms.It's not really spin. It's fairly clear at this point that different people in politics are held to different standards when it comes to truthfulness- not to mention consistency, transparency, guilt-by-association, and several other lines of criticism. Whatever you might think of Warren's behavior on the issue of her heritage, there's no doubt that Trump, Kavanaugh and friends tell bigger, bolder and more damaging lies about themselves and the world on a daily basis.
The only questions for non-Trumpers are whether we want to hold our public servants to a higher standard than Trumpers do, and if so what that standard should be. How do you balance the desire for high standards for public service with the fact that at some point you're shooting yourself in the foot with double standards?
I found him unsuitable, Trump too. I am not partisan when it comes to these things.So Kavanaugh lies under oath, and Congress approves his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. Elizabeth Warren may have "stretched" her Native American ancestry, but backs up her claims with a DNA test, and people deem her unsuitable for a term-limited presidential bid.
Sounds good.
This was to help get a job at Harvard right, pretty despicable. Just call it as I see it.I obviously think she lied like crazy regarding this whole thing and think she is still playing games, but if i liked her before this and planned to vote for her there is no way this would disqualify her for me.
"Politician lied in the 80's and refuses to own up to it" pretty much describes every long term politician there is.
The reason she is likely finished as a presidential hopeful is because of misleading statments like this. No matter how many times it could/would be shown that she gained no favor or advantage, there is a sizable subset of the population that will continue to believe so regardlessThis was to help get a job at Harvard right, pretty despicable. Just call it as I see it.
And you are calling it wrong IMOThis was to help get a job at Harvard right, pretty despicable. Just call it as I see it.
She already had the job.This was to help get a job at Harvard right, pretty despicable. Just call it as I see it.
Agreed. Not because she released the results, because she released them and didn't come out with "So, I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual. I do have a relative who was Native American. Cherokee? I'll never really know, though obviously I'm not part of the Cherokee nation. The fact is, this is a big melting pot and all of our families emphasize one part of their history over another - mine emphasized the Native American part. Which was pretty progressive and crazy for the time - telling us we had Native blood in the 1940s and 1950s wasn't some gift of diversity, it was a way of making sure we understood how alike we were - with our privileged neighbors and our less privileged neighbors who couldn't get ahead because of how obviously they shared that genetic link with us, but we could because it wasn't obvious to look at us. It's crazy, I'm 70 years old and because of all of this I just learned what lesson my parents were trying to teach me. I'm glad the lesson stuck even before I knew what it was."As someone who would have voted Warren over HRC or Trump, this disqualified her. It just shows she has no common sense and Republicans will ride it to another win if she faces Trump. She is toast on the presidential front.
I disagree strongly with this. If a Republican pulled something like this, it would be widely denounced as racist. Unfairly so IMO, but there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that that's how the narrative would go.I doubt that there is an argument if Warren was a "R".
Yes, but that narrative would be from Dems. R’s wouldn’t give a flip.I disagree strongly with this. If a Republican pulled something like this, it would be widely denounced as racist. Unfairly so IMO, but there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that that's how the narrative would go.
Oh yes of course. Everybody would reverse position on this.Yes, but that narrative would be from Dems. R’s wouldn’t give a flip.
My grandfather was born in Norway and I have an oval face (as opposed to round) which is a feature most (although not all) people of Scandinavian descent share. I also have a prominent jaw, another common feature of Scandinavian men. As I would fit in fine is Oslo I don't think it is racist to say I look Scandinavian and I don't have an issue with Warren's quote.Warren quote: "had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do". Yeah, that's not racist and that's someone I'd be wanting to defend here.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1051895351282679808
This is where I am at - half-truths, partial truths, etc. are all pretty standard when crafting a political persona. If, and that is a big IF, she used this claim to get an advantage in a hiring process then I find it despicable. Those protections are there to help even the playing field and if misused through false claims that is a pretty vile act that cuts against the intent of those considerations.The reason she is likely finished as a presidential hopeful is because of misleading statments like this. No matter how many times it could/would be shown that she gained no favor or advantage, there is a sizable subset of the population that will continue to believe so regardless
Yet if someone references "big lips" regarding a Serena Williams cartoon that's considered racist. Or pretty much any other stupid stereotype about a set of people.squistion said:My grandfather was born in Norway and I have an oval face (as opposed to round) which is a feature most (although not all) people of Scandinavian descent share. I also have a prominent jaw, another common feature of Scandinavian men. As I would fit in fine is Oslo I don't think it is racist to say I look Scandinavian and I don't have an issue with Warren's quote.
I have seen so many good responses from people on how she could have handled it. At first I was okay with how she handled this, but have been shown on this board that I was wrong in my initial belief and agree this response would have been great. I think the democrats need a nominee who handles things like this in way like this that is as a natural byproduct of who they are.Henry Ford said:Agreed. Not because she released the results, because she released them and didn't come out with "So, I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual. I do have a relative who was Native American. Cherokee? I'll never really know, though obviously I'm not part of the Cherokee nation. The fact is, this is a big melting pot and all of our families emphasize one part of their history over another - mine emphasized the Native American part. Which was pretty progressive and crazy for the time - telling us we had Native blood in the 1940s and 1950s wasn't some gift of diversity, it was a way of making sure we understood how alike we were - with our privileged neighbors and our less privileged neighbors who couldn't get ahead because of how obviously they shared that genetic link with us, but we could because it wasn't obvious to look at us. It's crazy, I'm 70 years old and because of all of this I just learned what lesson my parents were trying to teach me. I'm glad the lesson stuck even before I knew what it was."IC FBGCav said:As someone who would have voted Warren over HRC or Trump, this disqualified her. It just shows she has no common sense and Republicans will ride it to another win if she faces Trump. She is toast on the presidential front.
It was allegedly a quote from her aunt when she was a kid.Ramblin Wreck said:Warren quote: "had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do". Yeah, that's not racist and that's someone I'd be wanting to defend here.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1051895351282679808
Now write a similar sentence about a minority group to which you don't belong.squistion said:My grandfather was born in Norway and I have an oval face (as opposed to round) which is a feature most (although not all) people of Scandinavian descent share. I also have a prominent jaw, another common feature of Scandinavian men.
Why would he do that?Now write a similar sentence about a minority group to which you don't belong.squistion said:My grandfather was born in Norway and I have an oval face (as opposed to round) which is a feature most (although not all) people of Scandinavian descent share. I also have a prominent jaw, another common feature of Scandinavian men.
Yeah, I honestly was heavily on the fence, and in fact supportive of her statement that the test shows Native DNA is in her family... but the surrounding circumstances are enough that she should have handled it very differently. It appears I was wrong in my belief she was presidential material.I have seen so many good responses from people on how she could have handled it. At first I was okay with how she handled this, but have been shown on this board that I was wrong in my initial belief and agree this response would have been great. I think the democrats need a nominee who handled it this way as a natural byproduct of who they are.
I agree on all of that. It is too bad because I love her political stances, but those political stances are not enough for me.Yeah, I honestly was heavily on the fence, and in fact supportive of her statement that the test shows Native DNA is in her family... but the surrounding circumstances are enough that she should have handled it very differently. It appears I was wrong in my belief she was presidential material.I have seen so many good responses from people on how she could have handled it. At first I was okay with how she handled this, but have been shown on this board that I was wrong in my initial belief and agree this response would have been great. I think the democrats need a nominee who handled it this way as a natural byproduct of who they are.
I get weird responses like that from Ivan all the time.Why would he do that?
Describing fairly racist stuff your aunts and uncles said about your extended family when you were growing up doesn't make you a racist.Now write a similar sentence about a minority group to which you don't belong.
Bait or trolling?I get weird responses like that from Ivan all the time.Why would he do that?
Agreed.Describing fairly racist stuff your aunts and uncles said about your extended family when you were growing up doesn't make you a racist.
I think this is going too far. This was a mis-step, but presidential candidates mis-step from time to time.Yeah, I honestly was heavily on the fence, and in fact supportive of her statement that the test shows Native DNA is in her family... but the surrounding circumstances are enough that she should have handled it very differently. It appears I was wrong in my belief she was presidential material.
She did not mention her Native American heritage when applying at Harvard, and several people at Harvard who interviewed her stated that her ancestry was not a factor in her hiring.IC FBGCav said:This was to help get a job at Harvard right, pretty despicable. Just call it as I see it.
It's gone on too long now. It's been a six year misstep and she couldn't admit it was a misstep at her big "AHA!" moment. That's not good.I think this is going too far. This was a mis-step, but presidential candidates mis-step from time to time.
I think sometimes both. One of the last times I responded to him recently, his rejoinder was something snarky about Twitter instead of seriously answering the point I raised. Not so long ago, he asked me to put him on ignore, but obviously didn't do the same with me.Bait or trolling?
There is no if. SHE DID GET ANY ADVANTAGE IN THE HIRING PROCESSMr. Know-It-All said:If, and that is a big IF, she used this claim to get an advantage in a hiring process then I find it despicable. Those protections are there to help even the playing field and if misused through false claims that is a pretty vile act that cuts against the intent of those considerations.
There is no if. SHE DID NOT GET ANY ADVANTAGE IN THE HIRING PROCESSMr. Know-It-All said:If, and that is a big IF, she used this claim to get an advantage in a hiring process then I find it despicable. Those protections are there to help even the playing field and if misused through false claims that is a pretty vile act that cuts against the intent of those considerations.
There is no "NOT".There is no if. SHE DID GET ANY ADVANTAGE IN THE HIRING PROCESS
I for one know I am able to have multiple thoughts at once.Let's keep this issue front and center guys...very import stuff here in the wake of everything else related to lying and deceit in our current political landscape.
1. people can think about many things at onceLet's keep this issue front and center guys...very import stuff here in the wake of everything else related to lying and deceit in our current political landscape.
Warren PERSONNEL DOCUMENTSShe needs to release her Harvard hiring docs. She has been unwilling to do so.
Actually it proved she was Native Americanbest part about this gigantic self own is that she went through the process of getting a DNA test that actually proved she WASN'T Native American, then crowed about all this proof. She was so thin skinned and stupid that she revealed herself to be weak. Not exactly leadership material.
this would be like CSTU coming back to the FFA in a few years and bragging about all the bets he didn't pay off
Thanks for the hot take. The DNA test showed that she likely had Native ancestry that was consistent with her family story.best part about this gigantic self own is that she went through the process of getting a DNA test that actually proved she WASN'T Native American, then crowed about all this proof. She was so thin skinned and stupid that she revealed herself to be weak. Not exactly leadership material.
this would be like CSTU coming back to the FFA in a few years and bragging about all the bets he didn't pay off