Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[GMDino]

(02-07-2019, 10:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

Are telling me what other people what they think?

And anyone can see your post about her lie that came months later.

I guess that was because.....?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

Who is "they"?  Oh, Dill, here's that thing that happens all the time that you claim to have never seen.  Again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

It's absolutely subjective.  I agree with you regarding your assessment of the degree, but others would not.  You and I would both consider these others to be wrong but we couldn't use an objective criteria, other than numbers, to point to.  Warren's lie is rather significant, on which you and I both agree.  Dill doesn't even think it was a lie.  How can three people look at one scenario, two see on thing and one doesn't see anything?  Because it's a subjective opinion.

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

I was going to say the same thing, it's a friggen breaded pork cutlet, that's the extent of it.  The only real challenge is to not dry out the pork when you cook it. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-07-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's absolutely subjective.  I agree with you regarding your assessment of the degree, but others would not.  You and I would both consider these others to be wrong but we couldn't use an objective criteria, other than numbers, to point to.  Warren's lie is rather significant, on which you and I both agree.  Dill doesn't even think it was a lie.  How can three people look at one scenario, two see on thing and one doesn't see anything?  Because it's a subjective opinion.




I was going to say the same thing, it's a friggen breaded pork cutlet, that's the extent of it.  The only real challenge is to not dry out the pork when you cook it. 

First of all...veal or get outta here.   Secondly, there are several different kinds of schnitzel.  Wienerschnitzel, Jaggerschnitzel, one that begins with an R or an H.   Another one that begins with a Z.  

[Dill]

(02-07-2019, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who is "they"?  Oh, Dill, here's that thing that happens all the time that you claim to have never seen.  Again.

Perhaps you could define this "thing" that so far only you can see, and provide an example or two from another thread.

I don't get much from vague pointing. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 12:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps you could define this "thing" that so far only you can see, and provide an example or two from another thread.

I don't get much from vague pointing. 

Memory fading a bit?  I honestly don't care to explain, it's funnier to me if you claim not to know what's going on given the history of why I do it.  Back to the thread topic.

[Dill]

(02-07-2019, 12:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all...veal or get outta here.   Secondly, there are several different kinds of schnitzel.  Wienerschnitzel, Jaggerschnitzel, one that begins with an R or an H.   Another one that begins with a Z.  

That would be Zigeunerschnitzel.   Gypsy cut! 

Nowdays there could be mexican and vegan schnitzel too.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-07-2019, 12:49 PM)Dill Wrote: That would be Zigeunerschnitzel.   Gypsy cut! 

Nowdays there could be mexican and vegan schnitzel too.

Is that the one with like onions and peppers?

I do make what I think is a pretty damn good sauer braten. (Alton Brown's recipe) but I failed miserably at making spaetzel.

[Dill]

(02-07-2019, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Yes. Good point.  It is not "fake news" when the press is doing its job when it runs background checks on candidates.

(02-07-2019, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

I agree that when we are considering Warren on her own merits, this has nothing to do with Trump. But it will have something to do with Trump if she wins the Democratic nomination and I must choose between two "liars."

Then, as now, I have three questions regarding Warren.  One is, is she qualified? --i.e., does she know how government works?  Also, what are her values, what kind of policies would she work for, and what kind of people would she appoint to her cabinet?  Finally, what is her character? Is she honest? Can we trust her to do what she says? 

She fulfills the former two, but it is not clear to me yet that she fails the latter. To fail that, she would exhibit a tendency to lie or persist in a single really bad lie. Lots of people in the US select identity from some claimed or actual past heritage.  The question in her case is whether is 1) did she know she was NOT a Native American and claim she was, and 2) did she make this claim to advance her career?  She has publicly presented herself as having Native American heritage, as told by her parents. And there is even a bit of genetic evidence to support that. So long as she hasn't claimed membership in a tribe, I don't have a big problem with that. There is still no evidence that she applied for a job as a Native American and got it for that reason.  Rather, she appears to have been a rather brilliant law professor and researcher, who got her job that way.  

The only problem I see so far is that this personal claim to NA heritage may have been leveraged by Harvard and Texas to assess their own diversity quotas, perhaps denying a minority hire years after Warren was already hired.  Still waiting on that one.  That would be bad if she knew about it.

I don't think I am opening myself to charges of "hypocrisy" if I say Warren's record of lying seems, so far, not as "big an issue" as Trump's.  His lies affect policy, undermine US institutions, the way our Allies see us, advance the agendas of US adversaries, etc.

I do agree, though, that in the eyes of Trump voters and defenders, this distinction, this difference in degree, goes out the window if one or any Democratic candidate can be shown to have lied about something--hired an illegal immigrant or paid less taxes, or tweeted a gay slur 15 years ago and then denied it.  Hence the equivocating attack on standards as "subjective."

(02-07-2019, 08:42 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Yes, lies can be counted, and counts are quantifiable.  If I say that 50 lies is more than one, most would not call that "subjective" if we can get them to agree that fifty of anything is more than one of that thing.

Your reference to raking forest floors brings up the question of degree. I could throw in others, like the 3-5 million illegals voting in the last election.
It rather stretches credulity to suppose we can determine no degree of magnitude between those lies and the claim of a person with at least one NA ancestor to NA ancestry. 

This is not a simple matter though, as sometimes what counts as a lie, and whether one lie is "worse" than another, must be referred to or involve value judgments. There is always an opening for equivocation.

One of the reasons this era is termed "post truth" is precisely because people work so hard to deny any kind of standard or measure for judging policies and statements beyond "gut instinct."  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-07-2019, 01:33 PM)Dill Wrote:  .


I agree that when we are considering Warren on her own merits, this has nothing to do with Trump. But it will have something to do with Trump if she wins the Democratic nomination and I must choose between two "liars."

 


   

C'mon.  You're not choosing between the two if Warren wins the nomination.  You may choose between Warren and some other party, but you aren't weighing pros and cons of Warren V Trump.

[hollodero]

(02-07-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's absolutely subjective.  I agree with you regarding your assessment of the degree, but others would not.  You and I would both consider these others to be wrong but we couldn't use an objective criteria, other than numbers, to point to.

That's the point where I usually disagree with a more conservative standpoint. I say that in a non-judgmental way, but I feel conservatives often think in absolutes, whilst I do not.
In the end, I wouldn't be confident in claiming there's a big difference between zero known lies and one known lie (see Warren), but no difference can be objectively made between one lie and 5.000 lies. I still think the 4.999 additional lies matter and make one person a worse liar than the other. Counting the obvious or provable lies is objective criteria to me, at least good/objective enough to give me confidence in my opinion - confidence enough to claim my stance is reasonable, and someone else's stance is not (like folks that claim Obama was just as bad a liar as Trump for he said that one "keep your doctor" thing).
Since this is character evaluation and not so much an exact science, what can be seen, heard and read (and counted) is strong supporting evidence that does still count.

All that said while I of course still believe Trump doesn't matter one bit when assessing Warren's deed, which to me - and that is far more subjective - was a disqualifying one.

(02-07-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was going to say the same thing, it's a friggen breaded pork cutlet, that's the extent of it.  The only real challenge is to not dry out the pork when you cook it. 

Well, you can choose too much heat and then burn the breadcrumbs coat while the meat is still raw... which is why I use butter and oil to damp the heat down. And pork.
Which is all quite the sacrilege, for you're supposed to use veal and fry it in lard.

[Dill]

(02-07-2019, 02:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: C'mon.  You're not choosing between the two if Warren wins the nomination.  You may choose between Warren and some other party, but you aren't weighing pros and cons of Warren V Trump.

If you mean that I have already decided not to vote for Trump, you are right. 

But you are wrong if you say I don't/haven't weighed the pros and cons between Trump and Warren.  I do that with every candidate. If I have already decided against Trump, that only means I have already weighed the pros and cons.  

[Dill]

(02-07-2019, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Memory fading a bit?  I honestly don't care to explain, it's funnier to me if you claim not to know what's going on given the history of why I do it.  Back to the thread topic.

You always care to point and claim, never "honestly" to explain.  Until you do, it just looks like you can't.

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

So there is an "unquantifiable advantage" which accrues to anyone seeking public office while "claiming to be an oppressed minority"?   

I'll just leave that and move on to the less "subjective" question of whether there is any evidence Warren claimed NA identity to advance the career which positioned her for public office.

You claim Warren "flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career." But according to the records the Globe reporters found and the people they interviewed, she applied for graduate school, for her position at Texas, and at Penn, and her position at Harvard, as a white woman, not a native American.  She appears to have changed her ethnicity of record AFTER she was hired at U Penn, then changed it back after two years.  Same for Harvard; she changed her ethnicity of record years after the hire. Is that behavior more consistent with playing the minority card to get ahead or with the belief that "Mom told our family we had some NA ancestry, and I like that part of me"?

So there seems to be no evidence Warren claimed NA ancestry to "advance her career." Or are you arguing that inclusion in the cookbook was a public advantage?  I don't see a problem with someone self-identifying as NA to do that, especially if she actually has some NA ancestry, and if she believed stories she was told by her parents. Some Native Americans take issue with stuff like this, others do not. As DNA test availability is proving, lots of Americans are now surprised their ancestry is not quite what they thought.  Was GRR Martin lying when he told everyone for decades he was a quarter Italian--then found out he was a quarter Jewish?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/game-of-thrones-creator-george-r-r-martin-discovers-hes-a-quarter-jewish/

So at most we are talking about a "lie" NOT used to gain advantage, even if the advantage was not achieved.

No evidence, so whence comes the accusation she "flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career" taken up by so many on the right?  It appears to have started with her opponent in the 2012 MA senate race, Scott Brown, who said she got into Harvard as minority hire, a claim Trump later echoed.  It is also found on internet memes like this one:



At this point, after the record has been checked, and this meme and Brown are all the evidence we have that Warren
"lied to get into Harvard," is it reasonable to conclude that Brown lied, and that Trump is repeating that lie?

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: 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!"

Are you familiar with terms like "validity" and "fallacy," at least as they are used in logic? I have wondered on this before.

As far as I know, there are no thought police to prevent voters from comparing any candidates they want, anytime they want. And no logical obstacle.  So I could neither deem nor undeem the "validity" of that statement, however much I wanted to.  It was an observation. If it's not "valid" then you should be able to refute it, right?

This is more like "deeming it thus": "It is not a Trump compared to Warren situation until Warren wins the Democratic nomination."    
Also, a little kryptonite for the record: making ANY unsupported claim you honestly don't care to support is simply saying "I deem it to be thus."  

(02-06-2019, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: 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.

"Degree is always subject to interpretation" = "Degree is completely subjective."

Do those who prefer "insightful and nuanced" approaches see these statements as equivalent?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2019, 03:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's the point where I usually disagree with a more conservative standpoint. I say that in a non-judgmental way, but I feel conservatives often think in absolutes, whilst I do not.
In the end, I wouldn't be confident in claiming there's a big difference between zero known lies and one known lie (see Warren), but no difference can be objectively made between one lie and 5.000 lies. I still think the 4.999 additional lies matter and make one person a worse liar than the other. Counting the obvious or provable lies is objective criteria to me, at least good/objective enough to give me confidence in my opinion - confidence enough to claim my stance is reasonable, and someone else's stance is not (like folks that claim Obama was just as bad a liar as Trump for he said that one "keep your doctor" thing).
Since this is character evaluation and not so much an exact science, what can be seen, heard and read (and counted) is strong supporting evidence that does still count.

All that said while I of course still believe Trump doesn't matter one bit when assessing Warren's deed, which to me - and that is far more subjective - was a disqualifying one.

I think our disconnect here is that we both agree that there is an obvious difference between the two.  What I am pointing out is that this is still a subjective criteria and thus many will be able to claim equivalence.

(02-08-2019, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: You always care to point and claim, never "honestly" to explain.  Until you do, it just looks like you can't.

Always?  Oh my, a very firm, definitive declaration.  Also blatantly untrue.

(02-08-2019, 04:13 AM)Dill Wrote: So there is an "unquantifiable advantage" which accrues to anyone seeking public office while "claiming to be an oppressed minority"?   

I'll just leave that and move on to the less "subjective" question of whether there is any evidence Warren claimed NA identity to advance the career which positioned her for public office.

How could there be?  

Quote:You claim Warren "flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career." But according to the records the Globe reporters found and the people they interviewed, she applied for graduate school, for her position at Texas, and at Penn, and her position at Harvard, as a white woman, not a native American.  She appears to have changed her ethnicity of record AFTER she was hired at U Penn, then changed it back after two years.  Same for Harvard; she changed her ethnicity of record years after the hire. Is that behavior more consistent with playing the minority card to get ahead or with the belief that "Mom told our family we had some NA ancestry, and I like that part of me"?

Which begs the question, why did she vacillate on her ethnicity?  What possible reason would there be for doing so?

Quote:So there seems to be no evidence Warren claimed NA ancestry to "advance her career."

Again, how could there be?

Quote:Or are you arguing that inclusion in the cookbook was a public advantage?  I don't see a problem with someone self-identifying as NA to do that, especially if she actually has some NA ancestry, and if she believed stories she was told by her parents. Some Native Americans take issue with stuff like this, others do not. As DNA test availability is proving, lots of Americans are now surprised their ancestry is not quite what they thought.  Was GRR Martin lying when he told everyone for decades he was a quarter Italian--then found out he was a quarter Jewish?

Which brings us back to the question, if she thought she was NA then claim NA.  Why then would you apply alternatively as Caucasian?

Quote:So at most we are talking about a "lie" NOT used to gain advantage, even if the advantage was not achieved.

This sentence literally doesn't make sense.  At most it's a lie that wasn't used to gain an advantage if it it didn't succeed in gaining an advantage?  

Quote:No evidence, so whence comes the accusation she "flat out lied about her ethnicity to advance her career" taken up by so many on the right?  It appears to have started with her opponent in the 2012 MA senate race, Scott Brown, who said she got into Harvard as minority hire, a claim Trump later echoed.  It is also found on internet memes like this one:

Again, how could there be evidence of this?  Also, again, why did she keep changing her ethnicity.  If you believe you are a particular ethnicity why would you not continually list yourself as that ethnicity?  When this can be adequately explained your argument will either make more sense or be rendered invalid.

Quote:At this point, after the record has been checked, and this meme and Brown are all the evidence we have that Warren
"lied to get into Harvard," is it reasonable to conclude that Brown lied, and that Trump is repeating that lie?

About getting into Harvard, yes.  About lying to advance her career, no.  There's as much evidence that she lied to advance her career as there is that she did not.  Her apology for lying about her ethnicity would rather lend itself to a conclusion that she realizes she made an error.  One does not usually apologize for something if you've done nothing wrong, no? 

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill: I'll just leave that and move on to the less "subjective" question of whether there is any evidence Warren claimed NA identity to advance the career which positioned her for public office.

Again, how could there be?
Again, how could there be evidence of this? 

If there were no "evidence" of any wrongdoing, this thread would not exist. The question is about the quality of the evidence and what can be reliably inferred from it.  

It was the claim that Warren used her NA heritage to get a cushy job at Harvard that initiated the lying-to-advance-her-career charge. Thus for the it-says-so-on-the-internet crowd, there is plenty of "evidence" she did this in memes and statements by Brown and Trump, perhaps buttressed by "what everyone knows" about liberals and minority hiring.

But for others, a thousand racist memes could be no stronger than Brown's first hopeful guess, so not evidence at all.

However, if Warren marked the NA box on her applications to Texas, Penn an Harvard, that could be evidence that she used a claim to be NA to advance her career.   Further, if the 30+ faculty who went over her application at Harvard said they regarded her as an NA hire, and hired her with the goal of diversifying the faculty, that WOULD be evidence that the NA claim advanced her career.  Just as Brown/Trump say.  

But it appears that she did not do any of that.  It also appears she did not present herself as NA for any other job she got.

If there is "as much evidence she lied to advance her career as there is that she did not,"  then people should be able to present that other "as much" and explain how it did advance her career.  The cookbook won't do it. So far, there is evidence Penn and Harvard may have, after hiring, touted her as NA to their advantage.  The claim she "must have done it" because she identified as NA at some points in her career, is not itself evidence.

(02-08-2019, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which brings us back to the question, if she thought she was NA then claim NA.  Why then would you apply alternatively as Caucasian?

Also, again, why did she keep changing her ethnicity.  If you believe you are a particular ethnicity why would you not continually list yourself as that ethnicity?  When this can be adequately explained your argument will either make more sense or be rendered invalid.

A very good question.

Lots of people with hybrid or partial identities who can change their identification often do so at different points in their life, or in different legal/social contexts. In the U.S. this may be more true of people with NA ancestry than any other demographic, and especially since many NA people reject DNA quantum as a criterion of "Indianess." If she has primarily identified as Caucasian throughout her life, has no tribal affiliation, and no desire to squeeze out a possible diversity hire, then it makes sense to go with "C" when seeking jobs. But still keep telling people the story about her ancestry that her parents told her. Contribute to a cookbook.  Register as NA for the Texas bar. Not for Massachusetts.  The evidence we have is consistent with this; career advancement would show a different pattern--NA when applying for jobs.

(02-08-2019, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Her apology for lying about her ethnicity would rather lend itself to a conclusion that she realizes she made an error.  One does not usually apologize for something if you've done nothing wrong, no? 

A reasonable question.

I think she apologized to the Cherokee nation for taking a DNA test and for marking herself NA on a bar registration card. She has not apologized for "lying" about her ethnicity so far as I know. She still maintains that her parents told her stories of NA ancestry. She believed them. If you believe you have NA ancestry and you tell people what you believe, you are not lying. You could still apologize for the test, or even for being less NA than you thought, without apologizing for lying.

[hollodero]

(02-08-2019, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think our disconnect here is that we both agree that there is an obvious difference between the two.  What I am pointing out is that this is still a subjective criteria and thus many will be able to claim equivalence.

When something's "obvious", it isn't "subjective" to me, not in the context of debate. Hence those who claim equivalence are obviously wrong and I am not afraid to say so.
That many will claim equivalence sure is true. Many will even go further, there's still a big amount of people that dare to say "Trump never lied, show me ONE lie". But delusional people don't count and don't make an obvious distinction of degree just a subjective one amongst many. It ain't so.

I agree though that Warren is probably done. Even if the lieing turns out to be minor and maybe not that big of a deal (not that I'm saying that), she will still be caught up in all the scrutiny. I'd say democrats need someone squeaky clean to get those in the middle that are too susceptible for "they're all the same"-rhetorics.

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 01:57 PM)Dill Wrote: If there were no "evidence" of any wrongdoing, this thread would not exist. The question is about the quality of the evidence and what can be reliably inferred from it.  

It was the claim that Warren used her NA heritage to get a cushy job at Harvard that initiated the lying-to-advance-her-career charge. Thus for the it-says-so-on-the-internet crowd, there is plenty of "evidence" she did this in memes and statements by Brown and Trump, perhaps buttressed by "what everyone knows" about liberals and minority hiring.

But for others, a thousand racist memes could be no stronger than Brown's first hopeful guess, so not evidence at all.

However, if Warren marked the NA box on her applications to Texas, Penn an Harvard, that could be evidence that she used a claim to be NA to advance her career.   Further, if the 30+ faculty who went over her application at Harvard said they regarded her as an NA hire, and hired her with the goal of diversifying the faculty, that WOULD be evidence that the NA claim advanced her career.  Just as Brown/Trump say.  

But it appears that she did not do any of that.  It also appears she did not present herself as NA for any other job she got.

If there is "as much evidence she lied to advance her career as there is that she did not,"  then people should be able to present that other "as much" and explain how it did advance her career.  The cookbook won't do it. So far, there is evidence Penn and Harvard may have, after hiring, touted her as NA to their advantage.  The claim she "must have done it" because she identified as NA at some points in her career, is not itself evidence.


A very good question.

Lots of people with hybrid or partial identities who can change their identification often do so at different points in their life, or in different legal/social contexts. In the U.S. this may be more true of people with NA ancestry than any other demographic, and especially since many NA people reject DNA quantum as a criterion of "Indianess." If she has primarily identified as Caucasian throughout her life, has no tribal affiliation, and no desire to squeeze out a possible diversity hire, then it makes sense to go with "C" when seeking jobs. But still keep telling people the story about her ancestry that her parents told her. Contribute to a cookbook.  Register as NA for the Texas bar. Not for Massachusetts.  The evidence we have is consistent with this; career advancement would show a different pattern--NA when applying for jobs.

A reasonable question.

I think she apologized to the Cherokee nation for taking a DNA test and for marking herself NA on a bar registration card. She has not apologized for "lying" about her ethnicity so far as I know. She still maintains that her parents told her stories of NA ancestry. She believed them. If you believe you have NA ancestry and you tell people what you believe, you are not lying. You could still apologize for the test, or even for being less NA than you thought, without apologizing for lying.

I get your, CNN's, and other's desire to defend Warren at the cost of taking away opportunities for true minorities; but it's exactly what she did;according to this conservative site:
https://spectator.org/elizabeth-warren-finished-before-she-started/

Quote:“That still doesn’t mean that she gained anything from her decision to call herself a Native American on some documents,” Chris Cillizza 

Quote:writes at CNN.com. This seems a preposterous claim. Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School, not in the top 50 of U.S. News and World Report’s annual rankings. After examining the CVs of faculty at Harvard Law a few years back, I discovered that more than half of its professors and assistant professors received their law degrees from — where else? — Harvard Law. Outside of specialists who obtained degrees outside of the field of law, every professor and assistant professor at the school graduated from a law school within the top ten. A mere five graduated from a law school in the bottom half of the top ten. Harvard, which boasted of her as a minority faculty member, now insists that her pseudo-ethnicity played no role in her hiring. A laugh track did not accompany the avowal.

So a rational person has to look themselves in the mirror and decide did EW identify as NA to enhance here chances of employment or did she do it because of bedtime stories she was told. 

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get your, CNN's, and other's desire to defend Warren at the cost of taking away opportunities for true minorities; but it's exactly what she did;according to this conservative site:
https://spectator.org/elizabeth-warren-finished-before-she-started/

So a rational person has to look themselves in the mirror and decide did EW identify as NA to enhance here chances of employment or did she do it because of bedtime stories she was told. 

??? When I read your post, I assumed you had the smoking gun--something linking the NA heritage to employment.  But your link ain't it.

Your guy's argument is simply that most of Harvard's law faculty come from Harvard and other top 10 law firms.  Rutgers, where Warren identified as "C," is not even a top 50 school.  So she "must have" leveraged the NA identity.  Somehow.  How else could a rising star in tax law research get to the top?

And you charge her with taking away opportunities for true minorities--when she applied as a white woman, apparently. If she did, then there is a record. An application as NA. Other "true minority" applicants who were turned down when she was hired.  Still right there in the Dean's files.  If not, then this is only more must have somehow.

And your writer claims that by apologizing she has "continued the pattern of duplicity"?  Geezus--would a refusal to apologize have broken this "pattern of duplicity"?  You are a bias hunter, right?  No alarms going off here?

So a rational person has to look himself in the mirror and decide to wait for actual evidence she used her NA heritage to get a job, maybe include an interview with a "true minority" who applied at the same time and was turned down, or just go with the rightists who don't want her arguing tax policy and the wealth gap on the national stage.  Gosh. How to decide.

Lying matters to Democrats, so if that evidence surfaces before she gets on the debate stage, she is toast. If it doesn't, the top 1% has reason to worry. All the racist memes in the universe won't stop her from shifting the national debate on taxes and corporate malfeasance leftward by the end of 2019, before she goes down.  

Scarier still--this NEVER gets beyond "must have somehow," "real" NAs start rallying around her, the press tires of asking her about it, and more and more people think this all a tempest in a teapot while listening to her arguments. At that point, the apologetic white woman college professor image will damage her more.

While Trump, along with the head of the RNC, demands honesty and accountability from Warren, her brothers look themselves in the mirror and believe her "lies":  https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/09/15/elizabeth-warren-family-native-american-heritage

David Herring of Norman, Okla., one of Warren’s three brothers, said in an interview that even when he was a child his relatives were reluctant to talk about the family’s Native American heritage because “it was not popular in my family.’’ Only when he begged his grandparents, said Herring, did they finally explain to him: “Your grandfather is part Delaware, a little bitty bit, way back, and your grandmother is part Cherokee. It was not the most popular thing to do in Oklahoma. [Indians] were degraded, looked down on.’’

Warren’s brothers, Don, John, and David Herring, also issued a joint statement supporting their sister. “The people attacking Betsy and our family don’t know much about either. We grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family’s Cherokee and Delaware heritage. They’ve passed away now, but they’d be angry if they were around today listening to all this.’’