Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[*michaelsean*]

(02-06-2019, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well stated, sir.  Seeing as you're not me maybe he'll actually internalize the point being made.  I knew there was a reason we keep you around.

The schnitzel recipes.

[GMDino]

(02-06-2019, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You never directly said it, no.  It is interesting that you, again, bring up Trump.  It's almost as if you're trying to excuse or obscure Warren's falsehoods by continuously bringing him up.

If I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............

(02-06-2019, 01:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, it is, sure. But so is accusing said people of whataboutism and then using said whataboutism oneself. And while I agree that Trump is way, way, way worse with his lieing, he can't be an excuse, or work as a relativization, for those that rightfully slammed him for it.

From the outside, it's a bit tough to determine who's more hypocritical when people start pointing to Trump to defend Warren.

Again that's why I didn't say he was an excuse for her lying..just that Trump supporters who attack her for that lie conveniently ignore all of DJT's lies.

I never said it was okay for her to lie too.  

(02-06-2019, 01:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a term for the syndrome; we're just not allowed to mention it.

Fee free.  It doesn't mean what you want it to mean.  

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 01:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, it is, sure. But so is accusing said people of whataboutism and then using said whataboutism oneself. And while I agree that Trump is way, way, way worse with his lieing, he can't be an excuse, or work as a relativization, for those that rightfully slammed him for it.

From the outside, it's a bit tough to determine who's more hypocritical when people start pointing to Trump to defend Warren.

I agree that a reference to Trump should not relativize a Warren lie, as in make it ok--but if one digs up her lie in hopes of diminishing her candidacy in an election, at some point, the question of scale and degree has to arise. 

If some voters embrace the mother of all flat-out liars, then identify a possible-lie-depending-on-how-you-look-at-it told by said mother's political opponent as if lies were now disqualifying or equivalating--it's ok to make the double standard an issue, isn't it? 

Further, people who claim to support neither Trump nor Warren can still uphold that double standard if they keep the focus on Warren and never rise to the larger question of fitness for office, as it applies to all candidates, including the current officeholder.

Seems to me that is what the discussion ought to be about, even if the starting point is Warren's one lie-if-you-look-at-it-the-right-way. We are only talking about politicians' lies because we are evaluating the character of actual leaders and their fitness to lead.  Fine if people who examine Warren's claims dig up whatever dirt they can, but whatever they find has to be eventually assessed in that larger context, in which comparison with other candidates' dirt is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism, nor relativizing one or the other.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree that a reference to Trump should not relativize a Warren lie, as in make it ok--

But you'll use the rest of your post to apparently do exactly that.

Quote:but if one digs up her lie in hopes of diminishing her candidacy in an election, at some point, the question of scale and degree has to arise.

 
Not really, but please do explain further.

Quote:If some voters embrace the mother of all flat-out liars, then identify a possible-lie-depending-on-how-you-look-at-it told by said mother's political opponent as if lies were now disqualifying or equivalating--it's ok to make the double standard an issue, isn't it? 

There are two glaring issues with this point.  One it is a false comparison as this is not a comparison between Trump and Warren.  It's a comparison between Warren and every other person running for the Democratic nomination.  Secondly, double standards cut both ways.  A person who lambastes Trump for lying cannot then defend Warren without engaging in the exact same hypocrisy you're pointing out for a Trump supporter who claims Warren's decades long lie disqualifies her.  You're effectively attempting to argue degree, which is completely subjective.

Quote:Further, people who claim to support neither Trump nor Warren can still uphold that double standard if they keep the focus on Warren and never rise to the larger question of fitness for office, as it applies to all candidates, including the current officeholder.

The focus is on Warren in this thread because that's what the thread's topic is.  If you think the focus is on Warren over Trump in 99% of other locations then you're completely delusional.

Quote:Seems to me that is what the discussion ought to be about, even if the starting point is Warren's one lie-if-you-look-at-it-the-right-way.

Yeah, you're not trying to "relativize" Warren's lie at all.  Face it, she flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career and then lied about lying about it for decades afterwards.  There is no "if you look at it the right way" here.  You honestly destroy any point you tried to make in this post with this one sentence.

Quote:We are only talking about politicians' lies because we are evaluating the character of actual leaders and their fitness to lead.  Fine if people who examine Warren's claims dig up whatever dirt they can, but whatever they find has to be eventually assessed in that larger context, in which comparison with other candidates' dirt is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism, nor relativizing one or the other.

It absolutely is, but, again, you're not trying to "relativize" Warren's lie.  In any event, as I've already explained, it is not a Trump compared to Warren situation until Warren wins the Democratic nomination.  Until that time it's a Warren versus everyone else running for the Dem spot comparison.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2019, 02:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............

I didn't tell you what you meant, I said exactly what I said.  Or are you trying to tell me what I meant?

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But you'll use the rest of your post to apparently do exactly that.

Not really, but please do explain further.

There are two glaring issues with this point.  One it is a false comparison as this is not a comparison between Trump and Warren.  It's a comparison between Warren and every other person running for the Democratic nomination.  Secondly, double standards cut both ways.  A person who lambastes Trump for lying cannot then defend Warren without engaging in the exact same hypocrisy you're pointing out for a Trump supporter who claims Warren's decades long lie disqualifies her.  You're effectively attempting to argue degree, which is completely subjective.

The focus is on Warren in this thread because that's what the thread's topic is.  If you think the focus is on Warren over Trump in 99% of other locations then you're completely delusional.

Angry scattershot, but I'll risk a brief reply. 

No one argued this or any thread should not focus on Warren.  My point was that lying attributed to candidates for the same office eventually requires a type of comparison of candidates and lies which is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism nor--I shall now add--"the exact same hypocrisy" or whatever.  And the comparative requirement is not limited to only Warren and those running for Democratic nomination.  It's a "Trump vs Warren" comparison any time a voter wishes to make it so.

My point was also that people claiming to support neither Trump nor Warren can further a double standard in judgment by creating as much fuss about Warren as possible, fodder for bothsidesism--to the point where some can confidently term differences between the candidates (and standards for measuring them) "completely subjective."

If lies can be counted, and if some have demonstrably less basis and more deleterious effects than others, then degree of lying is not "completely subjective." 

(02-06-2019, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, you're not trying to "relativize" Warren's lie at all.  Face it, she flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career and then lied about lying about it for decades afterwards.  There is no "if you look at it the right way" here.  You honestly destroy any point you tried to make in this post with this one sentence.

It absolutely is, but, again, you're not trying to "relativize" Warren's lie.  In any event, as I've already explained, it is not a Trump compared to Warren situation until Warren wins the Democratic nomination.  Until that time it's a Warren versus everyone else running for the Dem spot comparison.  

And a question: How do you "look the right way" at this Boston Globe article?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-06-2019, 08:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Angry scattershot, but I'll risk a brief reply.

It's very odd that you got "angry" from anything in my response.  Perhaps you're projecting?  

Quote:No one argued this or any thread should not focus on Warren.  My point was that lying attributed to candidates for the same office eventually requires a type of comparison of candidates and lies which is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism nor--I shall now add--"the exact same hypocrisy" or whatever.  And the comparative requirement is not limited to only Warren and those running for Democratic nomination.  It's a "Trump vs Warren" comparison any time a voter wishes to make it so.

Ahh, a superb counter, "the argument is valid because I deem it to be thus!"

Quote:My point was also that people claiming to support neither Trump nor Warren can further a double standard in judgment by creating as much fuss about Warren as possible, fodder for bothsidesism--to the point where some can confidently term differences between the candidates (and standards for measuring them) "completely subjective."

Degree is always subject to interpretation, to claim otherwise would be a logical fallacy.  Of course, using your previously expressed, "the argument is valid because I deem it to be thus" standard this would be perfectly true.  Others may prefer a more insightful and nuanced approach, but to each their own.

Quote:If lies can be counted, and if some have demonstrably less basis and more deleterious effects than others, then degree of lying is not "completely subjective." 

Of course it is, when the question is what does the lie say about the character of the person uttering it.  Merely lacking the power to make one's lie more impactful does not mitigate the lie.  But, again, you're not "relativizing" for Warren right?

Quote:And a question: How do you "look the right way" at this Boston Globe article?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

A lie used to gain an advantage is still a lie whose purpose was to gain advantage.  If said advantage was not achieved this does not mitigate the intent of the lie.  An interesting aside, was she seen as a "white woman" when she submitted a recipe for the "Pow Wow Chow" cookbook?  Did the Boston globe cover the unquantifiable advantage that claiming to be an oppressed minority gave Warren in her quest for public office?  Lastly, is lying and covering for said lie for decades indicative of a person's character regardless of whether they, subjectively, benefited from said lie?

I await your brief reply to my latest, "angry scattershot" post. 

[GMDino]

(02-06-2019, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't tell you what you meant, I said exactly what I said.  Or are you trying to tell me what I meant?

You told me what I "didn't say" is what I meant.

Own it.

And have a great night!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 12:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: You told me what I "didn't say" is what I meant.

Are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Quote:Own it.

I just did

Quote:And have a great night!

You do the same!

[GMDino]

This will be my last foray in this thread of explaining...because I believe this is nothing more than an attempt at distraction to avoid the discussion on your part.

(02-06-2019, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't tell you what you meant, I said exactly what I said.  Or are you trying to tell me what I meant?

(02-06-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, your point was very clear.  It also avoids the actual topic of the thread, which is Warren lying about her ethnicity for professional gain.

(02-06-2019, 01:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While you are certainly correct that a Trump supporter is being hypocritical for calling out Warren for lying it does not change the fact that Warren lied.  It is, as stated, up to the individual to decide how much that lie is reflective of her general character, especially as she denied the lie until very recently, which doesn't show much contrition on her part.

(02-06-2019, 01:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I never, ever said it did.

Thanks for agreeing.

As an aside to your last sentence: If only we ever saw contrition from DJT.

(02-06-2019, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You never directly said it, no.  It is interesting that you, again, bring up Trump.  It's almost as if you're trying to excuse or obscure Warren's falsehoods by continuously bringing him up.

(02-06-2019, 02:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 01:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: This will be my last foray in this thread of explaining...because I believe this is nothing more than an attempt at distraction to avoid the discussion on your part.

Oh my, you're going to be embarrassed when people actually read the entire thread. Projection is an ugly thing, own it girl.

[hollodero]

(02-06-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree that a reference to Trump should not relativize a Warren lie, as in make it ok--but if one digs up her lie in hopes of diminishing her candidacy in an election, at some point, the question of scale and degree has to arise. 

Digging up the lie also can be called journalism. That it's diminishing her candidacy is on her, not on the digger.
Trump lies on a far bigger scale, sure, and devout Trump voters calling her a liar and hence unfit for office look ridiculous indeed. I don't argue that.

(02-06-2019, 04:42 PM)Dill Wrote: If some voters embrace the mother of all flat-out liars, then identify a possible-lie-depending-on-how-you-look-at-it told by said mother's political opponent as if lies were now disqualifying or equivalating--it's ok to make the double standard an issue, isn't it?

Yes.
Then again, when someone else called said Trump voter all kinds of stuff because of his constant lies and now doesn't see that big of an issue with Warren, he opens himself up to critizism of hypocrisy.
That whole "holier than you"-lines - which I do believe are warranted - would go out the window in the eyes of said Trump voters, and to a degree I couldn't really blame them.
Warren's lie is not a minor issue and to me is disqualifying. And sure, Trump's baggage was even way more disqualifying, but this is about the democratic side, not the republican side. That it is disqualifying has nothing to do with Trump. If it had, Trump would have sustainably lowered the standard.

(02-06-2019, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're effectively attempting to argue degree, which is completely subjective.

That's where I would disagree. I don't think it's completely subjective, and to a certain extent lies and amount of lies can be measured. Trump is said to have told what, 8.000 demonstrable lies now while in office, or to say 10-15 lies or falsehoods per day (maybe the numbers are questionable, the statement behind it is not) and remains far less trustworthy than Warren, and I would consider it strange to see it differently.
He actually makes up anything on the fly... like how Finland told him to rake the forest floors. This is pathological and Warren is not in the same spheres.

(02-06-2019, 02:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The schnitzel recipes.

1. Buy a schnitzel.
2. Cook the damn schnitzel.

[BmorePat87]

Can she drop out now?

[CJD]

(02-06-2019, 02:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............



Again that's why I didn't say he was an excuse for her lying..just that Trump supporters who attack her for that lie conveniently ignore all of DJT's lies.

I never said it was okay for her to lie too.  


Fee free.  It doesn't mean what you want it to mean.  

In my short time visiting this particular subforum (P&R) I've found that you and I agree on a lot of things, GMDino.

However, I agree with the idea that bringing up Trump's lies when discussing Warren's "lies" (I am not even certain what she lied about. The last I heard, she did have a small amount of native American heritage, so I dunno if what she said is a lie or more just an exaggeration) is a logical fallacy called "Whataboutism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism.

It probably has a more official title in terms of the logical fallacy discussion group.

But I don't think we, as Trump opposers, need to call out Trump's constant lying as some sort of argument supporting Warren.

Lies are bad regardless of side of the political spectrum you fall on. If Warren lied, she needs to be held accountable for those lies just like Trump does. 

The fact that Trump supporters expressly do NOT hold Trump accountable to his lies does not mean we should start not holding Warren accountable either (I'm not saying you said we should, just taking the next logical step in the discussion preemptively).

I think we can all agree that politicians who lie are bad. I think we can all also agree that the scale of the lie is important. But I don't think we should excuse Warren's lies (not saying you are doing this necessarily) simply because Trump lies more or lies in a way that is much more damaging to the country.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2019, 09:51 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: In my short time visiting this particular subforum (P&R) I've found that you and I agree on a lot of things, GMDino.

However, I agree with the idea that bringing up Trump's lies when discussing Warren's "lies" (I am not even certain what she lied about. The last I heard, she did have a small amount of native American heritage, so I dunno if what she said is a lie or more just an exaggeration) is a logical fallacy called "Whataboutism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism.

It probably has a more official title in terms of the logical fallacy discussion group.

But I don't think we, as Trump opposers, need to call out Trump's constant lying as some sort of argument supporting Warren.

Lies are bad regardless of side of the political spectrum you fall on. If Warren lied, she needs to be held accountable for those lies just like Trump does. 

The fact that Trump supporters expressly do NOT hold Trump accountable to his lies does not mean we should start not holding Warren accountable either (I'm not saying you said we should, just taking the next logical step in the discussion preemptively).

I think we can all agree that politicians who lie are bad. I think we can all also agree that the scale of the lie is important. But I don't think we should excuse Warren's lies (not saying you are doing this necessarily) simply because Trump lies more or lies in a way that is much more damaging to the country.

And where I disagree, and you can reread what I have said, is that I never said I supported Warren.  Or that his lies made her lie okay.

I responded a Trump supporter that willfully ignores all of DJT's lies and posts about Warren's.  The sad thing is they talk about that one lie because they are defending Trump from accusations of bullying because he calls her "Pocahontas".  If they keep harping on "she lied" then it lessens the blow (to them) that he is the bully when his wife claims to be the most bullied person ever.  However NOW they want to use my response as "whataboutism".

And it's okay.  We all know they support Trump and what he says and does.  It's always "the other side" that is lying and bullying.

[GMDino]

When people point to Warren lying as a good enough reason for the POTUS to call her names, and then you point out that if that is true then it's okay to call Trump a liar and other names, but they turn that into you saying "Oh, so if Trump lies Warren's lies are okay?!?!1?!?!?!!11?!?!"  

There is the disconnect.

[*bfine32*]

(02-07-2019, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: And where I disagree, and you can reread what I have said, is that I never said I supported Warren.  Or that his lies made her lie okay.

I responded a Trump supporter that willfully ignores all of DJT's lies and posts about Warren's.  The sad thing is they talk about that one lie because they are defending Trump from accusations of bullying because he calls her "Pocahontas".  If they keep harping on "she lied" then it lessens the blow (to them) that he is the bully when his wife claims to be the most bullied person ever.  However NOW they want to use my response as "whataboutism".

And it's okay.  We all know they support Trump and what he says and does.  It's always "the other side" that is lying and bullying.

So someone is a hypocritical "Trump supporter" when they don't squeal everytime Trump runs his mouth. They're not "supporting" the lie; they're just remaining silent. But others are rational bystander when they remain silent (at best) or even arrempt to mitigate( with whataboutism) Warren's lie.

You might not be looking through a clear lens. 

[CJD]

(02-07-2019, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: And where I disagree, and you can reread what I have said, is that I never said I supported Warren.  Or that his lies made her lie okay.

I responded a Trump supporter that willfully ignores all of DJT's lies and posts about Warren's.  The sad thing is they talk about that one lie because they are defending Trump from accusations of bullying because he calls her "Pocahontas".  If they keep harping on "she lied" then it lessens the blow (to them) that he is the bully when his wife claims to be the most bullied person ever.  However NOW they want to use my response as "whataboutism".

And it's okay.  We all know they support Trump and what he says and does.  It's always "the other side" that is lying and bullying.

Well yea.

I mean, there's no doubt that the average Trump supporter is delusional. But for that reason, I think it's important to draw a clear line. Conservatives may excuse lying, but liberals should not. If a liberal is caught blatantly lying, they should be held accountable for it, even if the conservatives refuse to respond in kind to their idiot man baby of a president.

You know, the 2016 election really did change my view of politics. Before 2016, if you asked, I probably would have said that I preferred the democratic nominee to be someone who I agree with on policy and politics. Their viewpoint on healthcare or international relations or energy etc.

But after living through the ***** nightmare that was Hillary Clinton (and her shameful attempts at relating to young voters) it occurred to me that Democratic voters do not seem to respond to policy. They seem to respond to likability. That's what got Obama elected, Clinton and even Carter. When you look at the democratic presidents since the civil rights debacle (I won't say ideological flip, because I know that triggers conservatives), you really can't find a democratic president that could be categorized as "unlikable, but efficient" the way that Hillary was often portrayed. And I think Warren would potentially fall into that same categorization. You don't meet many "Warren fanatics" after all.

So, while I agree with Warren on a lot of issues, I'd prefer she drop out of the race (because if she doesn't, the DNC might force her down our throats like they did Hillary). If you want young people to vote, you need a charismatic nominee, especially when that nominee is going to be running against a President with one of the most ravenous and seemingly willfully ignorant bases that I have ever seen in my life.

And this media spin of Warren lying is only going to make it worse for her.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2019, 10:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So someone is a hypocritical "Trump supporter" when they don't squeal everytime Trump runs his mouth. They're not "supporting" the lie; they're just remaining silent. But others are rational bystander when they remain silent (at best) or even arrempt to mitigate( with whataboutism) Warren's lie.

You might not be looking for a clear lens. 

Perfectly clear:  You use Warren's lie (that I have not denied nor defended) to defend Trump from being a name calling bully.  And that is exactly what happened when you posted about it in the thread titled "Trump mocks Warren".


Pointing out that someone lying isn't an excuse for bad behavior is just correct.

As I said "Can we not vote for someone who lied now?"  

So you can continue to defend the POTUS being a name calling bully while I will continue to point out that there is no defense for it.

Carry on and maybe buy some windex yourself. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-07-2019, 10:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: Perfectly clear:  You use Warren's lie (that I have not denied nor defended) to defend Trump from being a name calling bully.  And that is exactly what happened when you posted about it in the thread titled "Trump mocks Warren".


Pointing out that someone lying isn't an excuse for bad behavior is just correct.

As I said "Can we not vote for someone who lied now?"  

So you can continue to defend the POTUS being a name calling bully while I will continue to point out that there is no defense for it.

Carry on and maybe buy some windex yourself. 

Folks on both sides of the issue in this forum see your fallacy and a few have had the even-handedness to point it out rather than remain silent (the silent ones are not "supporting" it mind you) and you have the audacity to tell others in this thread to "own it". 

Anyone can easily go back to my initial post in this very thread (#4) and see how I "supportred" POTUS in this matter.