No. Look, the form on which she filed asked for her Self identification. You can self identify as any race you want to. Perfectly 100% legal and ethical. Now, she never claimed to be a legal member of a Federally recognized tribe- if she had, that would be fraud.
You can identify as any race you want, but you look dumb when you identify with races without any evidence of any real genetic or cultural association. In short, fraud.
Nah, she’s toast.
So…when Bernie Sanders enters the Democratic primary and signs the required form stating that he is a Democrat, you will regard that as 100% ethical? Good to know.
As there will clearly never be a candidate pure enough for some, and that they are not totally overlapping groups, let’s just go ahead and let the Republicans run every election up and down the ballot unopposed. Then there’s no possibility of having a Democrat in office that might have done something wrong or upset someone.
Yes, that’s certainly the only appropriate response whenever anyone criticizes any Democrat for any reason.:rolleyes: Evaluating criticisms on a case-by-case basis, or using critical thinking and independent judgment to form opinions about the merit of the criticisms must be avoided at all costs!
Critical thinking is anathema to the zero tolerance parts of the party. Context and nuance can’t be taken into account.
Nope, she was believing what her Mother and grandmother told her. Not fraud.
Let’s set aside the question of fraud and ask ourselves how it reflects on the judgment and intelligence of someone who, knowing they’re maybe 1/32nd native and likely less than that, and knowing she observes none of the culture or religion of Native Americans, identifies her own race as “American Indian” . In handwriting, on an application form to a professional society. I hesitate to say it’s stupid… but it’s stupid and self-serving.
You can believe what your grandparents told you, but a grown woman ought to know it doesn’t give her license to use another ethnic group as social ornamentation.
Meh. It’s a much smaller issue than Hillary’s emails or Trumps tax returns. Both had teeth.
It’s small, but it’s real- unlike 90% of the shit thrown at Clinton- such as uranium, Libya, Vince foster, and much more.
Bigger than “I can see Russia from my house!” (which isnt a real quote, actually it was ““They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”:”, which is technically true but has absolutely no bearing on her knowledge of international relations- in fact just the opposite).
So yeah, Warren dug this hole herself, and if she had just STFU about her DNA test and Trumps bogus “bet”, it wouldn’t be a issue. That does show a lack of wisdom. What she did in college etc, is no biggie. But that DNA test!
But by no means does it disqualify her.
If we exclude Trump from the process of averaging what disqualifies people, which any thinking person ought to do, then it kinda could be emphatically disqualifying.
I mean, if she’s the only choice compared to Trump, I would definitely vote for her for 8 days out of the next week, for the next 2 terms, without holding my nose for a second.
But we do have other choices and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. (Nobody asked, but I like Kamala Harris a lot).
The real problem with Elizabeth Warren is that she is an authoritarian scold. Her Consumer Finance Protection Board was intentionally set up so that it could avoid any accountability to Congress, even to the point where it got its funding from the Fed so Congress couldn’t pull its funds. She never met a law she didn’t like.
As a politician, she’s terrible. She comes across poorly on camera, and from what I hear she’s a terrible retail politician.
She’s also going to rile up the Republican base and motivate them to get out the vote. She’s also old. If she runs against Trump, he’ll destroy her.
And the Native American thing is not going away. The picture of her on the right is that of a woman who advocated for affirmative action, then used a tiny fraction of minority ancestry to take advantage of that system by falsely claiming to be something she’s not - perhaps at the expense of an actual member of that minority.
That’s a pretty vile thing to do, if true. And of course it may not be, but do you think that’s going to be believed by her opponents, especially since there is now documentary evidence of her signing herself as an American Indian.
By ‘her opponents’, the first ones are going to be other Democrats in the primaries. So the attacks are going to be friendly fire. The Republicans get to sit back and watch the Democrats set the tone for the attacks.
Warren is simply not electable. She’s a policy wonk with no personality and no executive experience, even aside from all her other issues.
At this point in time, I have to say Joe Biden is probably the most electable candidate, but there are lots of new faces in the race, and we haven’t really seen them perform under the lights yet. Maybe there’s another Bill Clinton waiting in the wings, ready to wow everyone.
An interesting turn of phrase. Is there any difference in meaning between “authoritarian scold” and “strong leader”?
Also, it’s considerably less meaningful coming from a libertarian. The CFPB has been the rare government agency which unambiguously and effectively stands up for the little guy, and is absolutely praiseworthy.
Just to be on the safe side, you better hide the mollyfocking cigars…
Ovaries?
Well, neither “authoritarian” nor “scold” mean “leader”, so there’s that. Warren hasn’t really led any organization but could be fairly described as “scolding” various people and organizations in some of her speeches.
If you’re trying to say “scold” is being applied in a sexist manner, maybe just say that and leave being clever about it to others.
Just a theory here: most peoples’ earliest memories of literally being scolded - as children - involve teachers, who are, at the early childhood level, disproportionately female. And so Warren comes off like one of those teachers to a lot of people.
Does Warren ever have any sense of humor when she talks? Not a rhetorical question - I’ve seen many clips of her talking, but can’t remember any kind of humor. If the answer is no, that’s not a good thing.
Defrauding whom, exactly?
Self-identifying as an American Indian on that form didn’t get her any additional benefits, or increase the likelihood that she would. And it wasn’t a form that was supposed to be publicly disclosed.
So, who was she defrauding? And how?
Thank you. I prefer interesting turns of phrase. I find that when writing it’s much better to have interesting turns of phrase than uninteresting ones.
And what am I, a dictionary? If you don’t know thr diference, you should look it up.