Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[GMDino]

Just wanted to come back ask what we are outraged about now?

That she lied or that she lied about her race?   

Y'all are funny.

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 07:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just wanted to come back ask what we are outraged about now?

That she lied or that she lied about her race?   

Y'all are funny.

LOl some of us are still wondering whether she lied. 

That may be part of the outrage.  

Anyway whatabout Justin Fairfax.  Why isn't anyone talking about HIM!!

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...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.

They do vote, though. And their votes count.

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? 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.’’
 

Did you look in the mirror and answer the question posed or just type a lot in random bold font?

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 07:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just wanted to come back ask what we are outraged about now?

That she lied or that she lied about her race?   

Y'all are funny.

I think the only one in this thread that has expressed anything close to outrage is Pat; when he asked can she just quit now.

Myself and a couple others have enjoyed the hilarity of the issue, a couple others have tried to excuse or mitigate the situation with whataboutisim, and few have just remained silent. So I guess you should ask Pat why the outrage on your return trip. 

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you look in the mirror and answer the question posed or just type a lot in random bold font?

You posed a question. I thought you were serious and answered it.

What stops you from reading my post?  

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 09:20 PM)Dill Wrote: You posed a question. I thought you were serious and answered it.

What is stopping you from reading my post?  

I read your post. And there was nothing enlightening or original.

So what did you come up with when you looked in the mirror and ask yourself the question posed?

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I read your post. And there was nothing enlightening or original.

So what did you come up with when you looked in the mirror and ask yourself the question posed?

Go back and locate the emoticon. I put it there to help you find the answer.

If Warren believed she had NA heritage, she wasn't lying.

Without proof she used NA heritage to get a job, and in the face of proof she didn't, it is slander or outright lying to claim she did.

Your link doesn't meet any standard of proof which could overturn the above mentioned points,

but you proceed as if it did. 

You don't really have anything to say about the Warren case until you address the evidence.

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 09:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Go back and locate the emoticon. I put it there to help you find the answer.

If Warren believed she had NA heritage, she wasn't lying.

Without proof she used NA heritage to get a job, and in the face of proof she didn't, it is slander or outright lying to claim she did.

Your link doesn't meet any standard of proof which could overturn the above mentioned points,

but you proceed as if it did. 

You don't really have anything to say about the Warren case until you address the evidence.

I didn't state a rational person must decide if EW was NA; nor to provide and standard of proof.

I simply stated a rational person must decide why she did it.

I'll place you in the population that she really thought NA was the most accurate way to identify herself and in no way did so to gain an advantage (as you refuse to provide an actual answer). I'll wait for some to give you a class on "white privilege" and how EW bastardized it. They'll be along any second I'm sure.

[GMDino]

(02-08-2019, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you look in the mirror and answer the question posed or just type a lot in random bold font?

Classic bfine.  Always good to bring back the call backs.  

(02-08-2019, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the only one in this thread that has expressed anything close to outrage is Pat; when he asked can she just quit now.

Myself and a couple others have enjoyed the hilarity of the issue, a couple others have tried to excuse or mitigate the situation with whataboutisim, and few have just remained silent. So I guess you should ask Pat why the outrage on your return trip. 

You spelled "we tried to accuse you of something that you never said and said we didn't do that" wrong.

Also I didn't mention ANYONE by name.  So not sure why you felt like telling me what OTHER people "expressed".

(02-08-2019, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't state a rational person must decide if EW was NA; nor to provide and standard of proof.

I simply stated a rational person must decide why she did it.

I'll place you in the population that she really thought NA was the most accurate way to identify herself and in no way did so to gain an advantage (as you refuse to provide an actual answer). I'll wait for some to give you a class on "white privilege" and how EW bastardized it. They'll be along any second I'm sure.

If she believed it she did it because she thought it was true.  If she didn't believe it she lied just to try and help herself in some fashion.

Pretty simple.

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2019, 10:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Classic bfine.  Always good to bring back the call backs.  


You spelled "we tried to accuse you of something that you never said and said we didn't do that" wrong.

Also I didn't mention ANYONE by name.  So not sure why you felt like telling me what OTHER people "expressed".


If she believed it she did it because she thought it was true.  If she didn't believe it she lied just to try and help herself in some fashion.

Pretty simple.

To the bold:




Which is why I said a rational person would have to decide for themselves why he/she thinks she did it.

As to the rest:

Feeble at best. 

Asking someone again to answer a question he/she chose not to answer but is still compelled to post is not whatever you suggested it was.

Of course you didn't mention anyone by name. You asked a question and I tried to help you answer it, by providing the name of the only poster that could be classified as "outraged". Are you trying to tell me you really weren't perplexed?

[GMDino]

(02-08-2019, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To the bold:




Which is why I said a rational person would have to decide for themselves why he/she thinks she did it.

As to the rest:

Feeble at best. 

Asking someone again to answer a question he/she chose not to answer but is still compelled to post is not whatever you suggested it was.

Of course you didn't mention anyone by name. You asked a question and I tried to help you answer it, by providing the name of the only poster that could be classified as "outraged". Are you trying to tell me you really weren't perplexed?

As to the bold...yeah, there are two options, as described.

Maybe you just want to keep up the charade as a distraction from something?  I dunno what you think.

"feeble"

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 09:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't state a rational person must decide if EW was NA; nor to provide and standard of proof.

I simply stated a rational person must decide why she did it.

I'll place you in the population that she really thought NA was the most accurate way to identify herself and in no way did so to gain an advantage (as you refuse to provide an actual answer). I'll wait for some to give you a class on "white privilege" and how EW bastardized it. They'll be along any second I'm sure.

 Again, you just don't seem to be reading my posts. Or why would you claim to see "nothing original" in them, then post a link whose points are already refuted, and perceive bolding of main ideas as "random"?

Explain why what I have already written about "why she did it" doesn't count as an answer.  Here is what I wrote in Post #177. 

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.

We cannot get inside her head. We can only follow her behavior.  If you are trying to claim NA to "gain an advantage," that's not how you do it.

So I can look in the mirror just fine after that explanation. I could not if I steadily ignored contrary evidence while positioning myself as a straight shooter whose questions no one will answer.  Deja vu. 

[Dill]

(02-08-2019, 10:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: As to the bold...yeah, there are two options, as described.

Maybe you just want to keep up the charade as a distraction from something?  I dunno what you think.

"feeble"

LOL Demanding "actual" answers to look-in-the-mirror questions shifts discussion away from the factual record, that's for sure.  Especially when said questions are built upon assumptions those called to answer may not accept.  Answering the question from different assumptions is then cast as not answering. From then on its all about the integrity, or lack thereof, of people who "won't answer"; or, as you and I are doing here, disputing the framing itself as a dodge--a way to assume the high ground without earning it.  Either way, we are no longer talking about the facts of the case. 

We've seen the tactic before.  Will we still see it again in the future, now that it has bee so thoroughly exposed?

[*michaelsean*]

Elizabeth did her own version of lock her up saying Trump may not be a free man in 2020. Looks like it's on.

[Dill]

(02-11-2019, 06:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Elizabeth did her own version of lock her up saying Trump may not be a free man in 2020.  Looks like it's on.

Be good for the country if she stops apologizing and starts hammering corporate control and the swamp.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-11-2019, 06:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Be good for the country if she stops apologizing and starts hammering corporate control and the swamp.

I didn't know she apologized.  I took it as tongue in cheek as there is no way you could prosecute him by 2020.  Probably take a year just to decide if you can prosecute a sitting President.  

[Dill]

(02-11-2019, 06:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't know she apologized.  I took it as tongue in cheek as there is no way you could prosecute him by 2020.  Probably take a year just to decide if you can prosecute a sitting President.  

She apologized to the Cherokee Nation for the DNA test and presenting herself as NA without tribal affiliation. 

I don't know how tongue in check the Trump comments were.  Maybe she thinks he could be impeached?  Once out of office then it looks like he could be subject to some of the charges placed on Cohen.

Hope she is not becoming like him.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-11-2019, 06:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Elizabeth did her own version of lock her up saying Trump may not be a free man in 2020.  Looks like it's on.

Trump's bringing quite a few "down to his level". 

[GMDino]

(02-11-2019, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump's bringing quite a few "down to his level". 

Nah.  People make fun of his "lock her up" chants all the time.  Only him and his supporters don't get the joke.