Is The Political Future Of Elizabeth Warren Over?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

She has publicly admitted she is not a person of color and that she claimed to be one for purposes of preferential treatment at schools. A false statement and a thing of consideration of value. The two elements of fraud.

I'd like to see the quotes you are referring to, and that she KNOWINGLY made a wrongful claim. I still don't see why she isn't "a person of colour" to use the weird American phrasing. Does she have native American ancestry or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

....his own experience of "buying" her and Hillary showing up to a Trump event (party). Ergo he took part in the corruption he leveled at Hillary.

It then becomes a question of wanting the
one who buys or the one who is bought?
The former is more independent.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

IOW you can’t refute the argument so attack the person.

IOW the hypocrisy and lack of self awareness is noteworthy.

 

[Shad]

Without evidence she materially benefited from something she wasn't entitled to, I really don't think it does matter.

Lack of evidence does not mean this situation is irrelevant. There is no evidence of the attack on Smollett yet the police are still investigating and the media is still writing about it.

I don't think of ancestry in terms of exact fractions or percentages. Like I say, that's a very American thing. Here, people tend to say "I have an Irish ancestor" or "my grandmother was Chinese" without worrying too much about whether the relevant ancestor was full blood or not.

When a form only has a number of demographics to check do you check the one you are not even 10% or 25% of or the one that you are 99% or 75% of? Again simple math.

So it may be cultural, but to me this whole Warren thing seems like a beat up. If she has ANY Native American ancestry, I'm happy to call her Native American if that's what she wants to he thought of as.

Cultural and historic really.

She should have keep it private or her life private. Her choice, her folly.

 

[Shad]

It then becomes a question of wanting the
one who buys or the one who is bought?
The former is more independent.

Sure. Horrible choice to make though but that is what the party system has offered.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Lack of evidence does not mean this situation is irrelevant. There is no evidence of the attack on Smollett yet the police are still investigating and the media is still writing about it.



When a form only has a number of demographics to check do you check the one you are not even 10% or 25% of or the one that you are 99% or 75% of? Again simple math.



Cultural and historic really.

She should have keep it private or her life private. Her choice, her folly.

Lack of evidence doesn't make something irrelevant, it may make it something that never happened, though.

I'd have to see the particular form, I guess. I can't for the life of me imagine a form asking for specific ancestry percentages, outside of some highly specific medical histories.

I still don't see the issue, myself.

 

[Shad]

Lack of evidence doesn't make something irrelevant, it may make it something that never happened, though.

Wrong. You are confusing a lack of evidence with there being no evidence at all. A lack of evidence can be due to a lack of methodology or technology.. For example disease. At one point there was a lack of evidence regarding the cause of a number of diseases. For some this led them to claim all sorts of nonsense like infliction by God. Yet as we progressed evidence was discovered and the theist nonsense died quickly in modern medicine.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I'd have to see the particular form, I guess. I can't for the life of me imagine a form asking for specific ancestry percentages, outside of some highly specific medical histories.

I was talking about forms which have demographic checks. A number do request information like race

I still don't see the issue, myself.

It goes into judgement and well she is horrible at math.

 

[Shaul]

I'd like to see the quotes you are referring to, and that she KNOWINGLY made a wrongful claim. I still don't see why she isn't "a person of colour" to use the weird American phrasing. Does she have native American ancestry or not?

Elizabeth Warren has publicly stated on several occasions that she is not a “person of color”. For example, “U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren admitted she is “not a person of color” in a speech to a group of largely black students Friday, as she continues to deal with the fallout from her claims of Native American ancestry.”
Elizabeth Warren: “I am not a person of color” – Boston Herald

 

[Shaul]

IOW the hypocrisy and lack of self awareness is noteworthy.

Feel free to show any instance where I have falsely claimed to be a Native American to unwarrantedly use affirmative action programs as Elizabeth Warren has.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Feel free to show any instance where I have falsely claimed to be a Native American to unwarrantedly use affirmative action programs as Elizabeth Warren has.

Nice attempted deflection. Oh wait, no it wasn't, it was shallow and artless.

 

[Nous]

Trustworthy_not

So you don't argue that Warren did anything illegal, unethical or unscientific by listing her race as Native American on the Texas State Bar registration card, but you claim that she somehow destroyed your trust in her. Exactly how did her listing her race as Native American on that card destroy your trust in her?

 

[Nous]

Still horrible at math I see.

You're horrible at math? I'll take your word for it.

 

[Nous]

In post #12 here, I noted that Senator Warren did nothing illegal, unethical or unscientific by listing herself as Native American on the Texas State Bar registration card. Oddly, this seems to have riled a lot of people on this thread.

Thus, if you claim or otherwise believe that Warren did do something illegal, unethical or unscientific by so referring to herself, please say so and cite the law, ethical rule or scientific fact that she violated or that her designation is contrary to.

And if you cannot cite any such law, ethical rule or scientific fact, then please explain why you are so upset by the fact that I noted.

Actually I did. Perhaps you missed it.

Quote it. I didn't see it

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't argue that Warren did anything illegal, unethical or unscientific by listing her race as Native American on the Texas State Bar registration card....

It was precisely "unscientific" because she had no scientific basis.
She didn't have DNA evidence of being Indian.
She didn't even live with or like them.
Moreover, she did have evidence that she was mostly non-Indian.

 

[columbus]

It was precisely "unscientific" because she had no scientific basis.
She didn't have DNA evidence of being Indian.
She didn't even live with or like them.
Moreover, she did have evidence that she was mostly non-Indian.

The thing is, nobody had much scientific evidence back then. You couldn't just send off for a DNA kit. About all anybody had to go on was family stories.
And she wasn't claiming anything like tribal membership or anything.

Why is this important? The people most outraged seem to be people who wave away the rather more dramatic frauds when it's Trump.
That is the only reason I brought up Trump. The hypocrisy of talking about this as a big deal, but Trump's birtherism was just playing the system because he's smart.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is, nobody had much scientific evidence back then. You couldn't just send off for a DNA kit. About all anybody had to go on was family stories.
And she wasn't claiming anything like tribal membership or anything.

Then I'd expect you to agree with me that her claim was unscientific.

Why is this important?

It isn't important at all.
But it is entertaining.

 

[esmith]

If I was a bit interested the Dem's primary season it could be the most hilarious Chinese fire drill we have seen in a long time.
But I have a lot more interesting things to do than watch this.
However, it will not stop me from commenting on it if I come across some good ones. I do watch the evening news.

 

[metis]

If I was a bit interested the Dem's primary season it could be the most hilarious Chinese fire drill we have seen in a long time.

Couldn't possibly be any more "hilarious" than 2016 that resulted in the wackiest of the wacky getting elected. The "funny" thing is that Trump's simply not a conservative, thus showing that most of those that call themselves Republicans are simply CINO's.

IOW, it's more about blind hero-worship than actual political and economic conservatism.

 

[Shad]

You're horrible at math? I'll take your word for it.

Which is greater 1/4 of 1 or 3/4 of 1? Warren, and you, are horrible at math. Try again.

 

[Shad]

The thing is, nobody had much scientific evidence back then. You couldn't just send off for a DNA kit. About all anybody had to go on was family stories.

DNA testing was available as a commercial product as far back as the 80s. She had almost 40 years to verify it. She didn't bother until Trump trolled her on Twitter and she scored an own-goal

And she wasn't claiming anything like tribal membership or anything.

Except she identified using a tribal identification ie Cherokee.

Why is this important? The people most outraged seem to be people who wave away the rather more dramatic frauds when it's Trump.

It shows that leftist play the race card when it supports X then ignores it when it does not.