Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[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.