02-08-2019, 11:31 AM
(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?
