Oh Lizzy Lizzy Lizzy. And to think you were the only socialist Democrat I complemented....

[Mr Spinkles]

Who, Princess Running mouth? Fauxcahontas? Lie-awatha? "Hunts at Whole Foods?"

Why should I think that she has said anything false to gain votes/approval by a specific minority group?

She didn't claim to have part-Cherokee ancestry in order to win votes. Her whole family has believed that going back decades, long before she ran for political office. Her political opponents made an issue out of it, as a distraction so they don't have to engage her in the areas of financial law, where she is an acknowledged expert. And as a cheap excuse to unleash what appears to be a lot of pent-up racism and childish name-calling.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the actual facts:
The facts: Elizabeth Warren and her Native American ties

Anything else?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Made me think...and I realized that no. We are NOT being demeaning to Native Americans. We are pointing out the hypocritical and demeaning nature of Warren's claim to be native American in a bid for sympathy (and the vote of Native Americans). By using the 'White" references and applying them to her, we are saying that she is the one who is being the racist here.

But that's not what happened, she wasn't going around saying vote for me because I'm Native American. It was only when she ran for Senate - successfully by the way - in 2012, that her opponents were trying to dig up dirt on her and they raised this issue. She - perhaps naively - responded by defending herself, rather than brushing it off and ignoring it, as the race-baiting / muck-raking that it was.

To wit:

Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984. ... "the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail ..."​

Source: The facts: Elizabeth Warren and her Native American ties

The central criticism that was made against her back in 2012 was NOT that she was claiming to be Native American in order to win votes. Because she patently wasn't. The central criticism against her, that she used minority status to get hired by law schools, turned out to have zero evidence behind it. Since that failed, it has been forgotten. But the criticism has evolved, and now focuses on her heritage ITSELF ... which if you think about it, is essentially racist and has provided neat cover to unleash pent-up racism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Pure deflection cuz they can't deal with her character
issues after making such a big deal of Trump's.
Even they cannot believe what they say.

Could you please explain / back up with actual evidence a specific character issue with Elizabeth Warren. Is it just the Cherokee ancestry thing, or is there another one?

The reason I don't make a big deal of Warren't character issues relative to Trump's is because Trump actually has enormous character issues. I don't see that so much with Warren.

Please enlighten me with relevant facts and / or articles.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you please explain / back up with actual evidence a specific character issue with Elizabeth Warren.

Wasn't "Crockajewea" a hint?

Whew!
I was worried you'd give me grief over post #3.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wasn't "Crockajewea" a hint?

Whew!
I was worried you'd give me grief over post #3.

So, your objection to her character rests solely on the question of her ethnic background? Anything else?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, your objection to her character rests solely on the question of her ethnic background? Anything else?

Actually, I don't object to her character.
(As pols go, she appears no worse than average.)
Sure, sure, she took improper advantage of diversity hiring.
So I have that criticism of it, but it doesn't rise to the level
of mattering when evaluating her suitability as Prez.
(Her agenda is significant. Her character is not.)

 

[dianaiad]

She didn't claim to have part-Cherokee ancestry in order to win votes. Her whole family has believed that going back decades, long before she ran for political office. Her political opponents made an issue out of it, as a distraction so they don't have to engage her in the areas of financial law, where she is an acknowledged expert. And as a cheap excuse to unleash what appears to be a lot of pent-up racism and childish name-calling.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the actual facts:
The facts: Elizabeth Warren and her Native American ties

Anything else?

Baloney. She knew she wasn't native American from the get go. She claimed to be Cherokee on her 1986 bar card, and her claim to be native American helped her greatly in her career as an academic.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Baloney. She knew she wasn't native American from the get go. She claimed to be Cherokee on her 1986 bar card, and her claim to be native American helped her greatly in her career as an academic.

We disagree. Please provide evidence for your claim.

Here is mine.

According to PolitiFact: The facts: Elizabeth Warren and her Native American ties

[T]there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career.
...
When applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status.
...
"I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012. "Nothing like that ever happened. That was absolutely not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off."
...
Asked about Warren’s minority status, Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Boston Globe that summer, "‘I don't think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference."
...
Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried, who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan and was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position, said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.

FactCheck agrees there is no evidence her ethnicity was used to get into school or to get a job. Source: Elizabeth Warren's 'Pocahontas' Controversy

She also had already had an extensive, respected academic career prior to 1986. She already had tenure several years prior to that. Not because she was Cherokee. Source: Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia

Warren began her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She then moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became an associate dean in 1980 and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981 and returned as a full professor two years later (staying from 1983 to 1987). She was a research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987[21] and was also a visiting professor at the University of Michigan in 1985.

Finally, her career subsequent to 1986 was based on actual, respected work she was doing in the field of bankruptcy law ... a subject that catapulted her to national prominence after the 2008 financial crisis and resulting wave of homeowner bankruptcies. In the years leading up to the financial crisis, she was a "high-impact" researcher, tied for third most-cited academic in her field of commercial / bankruptcy law. Here she is in the standings:

Source: Brian Leiter Law School Faculty Moves, 1995-2004

I haven't checked whether all 630 academic articles citing her work mentioned her Cherokee heritage ... but somehow I doubt it.

Especially since she had stopped checking that box decades prior.

She was an acclaimed academic in her field because of her on-the-ground fact-gathering research back in the 80's and 90's and 00's.

So ... putting this all together ... (1) no evidence of special treatment, (2) concrete evidence of academic merit, (3) she dropped it like 30 years ago. Finally (4) she clearly isn't using it to win votes - she wasn't accused of doing that in the beginning, and she isn't doing that today (see video below), contrary to your false assertion.

Of course, I admit this doesn't mean she is, in fact, Cherokee. I don't know, or care, but she appears to be not much more Cherokee than many Americans of white European descent. My guess is that she and her family believed they had some ancestry. Then she dropped it for many years. Then when confronted by political opponents, she reacted defensively and tried to rationalize it (why wouldn't she? It's her family).

Today, she is a lot more circumspect about it. She has repeatedly apologized / clarified that she is not a member of a tribe. Still, she maintains her sincerity about the oral history passed down in their family, which her family corroborates. Don't take my word for it - hear her tell it in her own words:

Her opponents want us to focus on her ethnicity. Not engage with her on substance. I wonder why?

 

[SoyLeche]

Her opponents want us to focus on her ethnicity. Not engage with her on substance. I wonder why.

It's more like they want to emulate their God and just call people names.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Actually, I don't object to her character.
(As pols go, she appears no worse than average.)

Gotcha. I figured when you said the following, it was pure hyperbole. Thanks for admitting it.

Pure deflection cuz they can't deal with her character
issues after making such a big deal of Trump's.
Even they cannot believe what they say.​

Sure, sure, she took improper advantage of diversity hiring.
So I have that criticism of it, but it doesn't rise to the level
of mattering when evaluating her suitability as Prez.
(Her agenda is significant. Her character is not.)

Well neither PolitiFact nor FactCheck agree that there is evidence that is the case. See post #28 above.

I recall in another thread, you cited a fact-checking website that said it couldn't prove Trump's bone spurs claim was false, and you chided me for jumping to conclusions.

Do you now approve of jumping to conclusions without evidence?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Wasn't "Crockajewea" a hint?

Whew!
I was worried you'd give me grief over post #3.

It's possible I misinterpreted your post #3. You were dismissing the criticism of Warren leveled in the OP, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Gotcha. I figured when you said the following, it was pure hyperbole. Thanks for admitting it.

Pure deflection cuz they can't deal with her character
issues after making such a big deal of Trump's.
Even they cannot believe what they say.​

Y'all are indeed deflecting from her Fauxcahontas problem.
Anti-Trumpers are still denying that she did anything intentionally wrong.
Had Trump pretended diversity hire status, would you be so forgiving?

Well neither PolitiFact nor FactCheck agree that there is evidence that is the case. See post #28 above.

I recall in another thread, you cited a fact-checking website that said it couldn't prove Trump's bone spurs claim was false, and you chided me for jumping to conclusions.

You're treating these things differently.
As I recall from your links, they only claim that there was no proof
she benefited from the claim of being an Indian. That doesn't speak
to her intent. But in Trump's case there appeared to be definite
benefit from bone spurs. It's unproven that he faked them.
You're still trying to use bone spurs to prove his poor character,
& with the open question about draft dodging being ethical.

And there's another difference.....
To dodge the draft is ethically fine with me.
But to fraudulently try to gain competitive advantage over others
is somewhat wrong. (The "somewhat" is because giving advantage
based upon race & gender is also dubious.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It's possible I misinterpreted your post #3. You were dismissing the criticism of Warren leveled in the OP, right?

Let's look at my post #3....
"That is such a serpentine & tenuous connection.
One giant nontroversy."
To call the OP's criticism of her a "nontroversy"
Is indeed dismissal. How could one read otherwise.

 

[tytlyf]

OP should be banned for continued trolling. OP does not realize how to use internet properly.

Kids, this should be a lesson of why it's dangerous to trust radical RW media.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Y'all are indeed deflecting from her Fauxcahontas problem.
Anti-Trumpers are still denying that she did anything intentionally wrong.
Had Trump pretended diversity hire status, would you be so forgiving?

You're treating these things differently.
As I recall from your links, they only claim that there was no proof
she benefited from the claim of being an Indian. That doesn't speak
to her intent. But in Trump's case there appeared to be definite
benefit from bone spurs. It's unproven that he faked them.
You're still trying to use bone spurs to prove his poor character,
& with the open question about draft dodging being ethical.

And there's another difference.....
To dodge the draft is ethically fine with me.
But to fraudulently try to gain competitive advantage over others
is somewhat wrong. (The "somewhat" is because giving advantage
based upon race & gender is also dubious.)

Okay, the first thing you said is patently untrue. If you draw different conclusions from the facts and disagree with what I say, fine. But how can you say I’m deflecting?

Did you not read my posts? I took this issue about whether she used her ethnicity inappropriately head on, in fact I pursued it.

I’m disagreeing with you and citing evidence. Deflecting would be if I said “Oh yeah, well what about Trump ....” which is not what I’ve done at all (intentionally).

You’ve had ample opportunity to bring forth your own evidence to support your claim that she used her ethnicity to get an unfair advantage. I’m waiting ....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let's look at my post #3....
"That is such a serpentine & tenuous connection.
One giant nontroversy."
To call the OP's criticism of her a "nontroversy"
Is indeed dismissal. How could one read otherwise.

Yes that’s what I thought originally. Thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, the first thing you said is patently untrue. If you draw different conclusions from the facts and disagree with what I say, fine. But how can you say I’m deflecting?

Did you not read my posts? I took this issue about whether she used her ethnicity inappropriately head on, in fact I pursued it.

I’m disagreeing with you and citing evidence. Deflecting would be if I said “Oh yeah, well what about Trump ....” which is not what I’ve done at all (intentionally).

You’ve had ample opportunity to bring forth your own evidence to support your claim that she used her ethnicity to get an unfair advantage. I’m waiting ....

I don't recall anyone asking me for evidence that she used her
claimed ethnicity for personal gain, so I hadn't planned to offer it.
(I didn't think her claim was in dispute.)
Is it necessary because you're claiming that she didn't?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes that’s what I thought originally. Thanks.

Does my correction of the criticism of Warren make me her supporter?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who, Princess Running mouth? Fauxcahontas? Lie-awatha? "Hunts at Whole Foods?"

Why should I think that she has said anything false to gain votes/approval by a specific minority group?

Heh.

You win.

I just read about how some libs/Dems are unhappy about Warren's nicknames, claiming that those of us who use us are being racist, attacking native Americans by using those demeaning adjectives.

Made me think...and I realized that no. We are NOT being demeaning to Native Americans. We are pointing out the hypocritical and demeaning nature of Warren's claim to be native American in a bid for sympathy (and the vote of Native Americans). By using the 'White" references and applying them to her, we are saying that she is the one who is being the racist here.

We wouldn't apply those names to anybody who actually IS native American, or legitimately associated with them. For instance, I'm about as Celtic "white" as I can get. My grandfather was adopted into the Nez Perce tribe when he was very little, but that's not me, and I married a man who was a whole lot more 'native American' than Warren could ever claim, and that's still NOT ME. I honor and respect native Americans, culture and genetics, and every once in awhil I wish I were more genetically linked, but anybody who called ME 'fauxcahantas" would get a punch in the nose. I'm not claiming honors I don't qualify for--and I don't qualify for them.

(gin) I'm fine with being a child of Vikings and Scots.

And THAT is the problem with Warren.

I'd say it's flat out childish.

But that's just me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't recall anyone asking me for evidence that she used her
claimed ethnicity for personal gain, so I hadn't planned to offer it.
(I didn't think her claim was in dispute.)
Is it necessary because you're claiming that she didn't?

Correct. That’s what I was trying to say (perhaps not clearly) in post #30. I refer you to post #28 where I said (to another poster) I disagree with this and laid out the evidence as I see it - with sources so you don’t have to take my word for it and you can form your own opinion.