![]() |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
|
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
TM |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
Trump is a liar who's never told the truth in his life and who is clearly hiding his taxes because of the dirt that would come out if he produced them. Makes no sense. TM |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
I don't dispute the fact that Elizabeth Warren is so far a superior being to Donald Trump that it is somewhat unfair to lump them in the same basket. Nonetheless, there is a symmetry here.
Warren asserts a fact. The fact is that she asserts a particular heritage.The veracity of that fact is, 100%, within her power to demonstrate and reveal. She has declined to do so. Under the evidence case of The Chimney Sweeper's Jewel, Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505, evidence under the exclusive power of a party, which goes unproduced, is construed against that party. Until she produces the evidence, she cannot claim that heritage. If Warren is utterly convinced of her Indian heritage, she should proffer the proposal I made, and back it up. Trump asserts a number of facts. Those facts are that his tax returns are in order, that he has no Russian investment complications, and that he has paid his taxes. The veracity of those facts are, 100%, within his power to demonstrate and reveal. He has declined to do so. For the reasons stated above, the evidence must be construed against him, and until he does I consider him a tax cheat. If Trump is utterly convinced of the propriety of his tax returns, he should proffer the proposal I made, and back it up. I part company with you about whether Ms. Warren's status as an Indian is irrelevant. I do believe she used that to her advantage early in her career. If she is not what she claims to be should anger (1) everyone and (2) particularly, people who have been discriminated against because of that heritage. In my view she doesn't get a pass on that. It is a form of, but worse than, resume padding. If she has lied about this you can overlook it if you wish. Many good people have done worse. Sure. I suspect you would agree that one should not, for example, claim entitlement to a scholarship set aside for African -Americans, or veterans, or the descendants of Holocaust victims, unless your heritage gives you the basis to claim the scholarship. She is not quite that blatant, but she's on the spectrum, and I don't care for it. |
Mueller takes rook
"Special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities for allegedly meddling in the 2016 presidential election, charging them with conspiracy to defraud the United States, the Department of Justice has announced.
In addition, three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft. Mueller has been investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election as well as any connections between Russia and Trump campaign associates." https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/polit...nce/index.html TM |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
|
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
Quote:
From Snopes: The legitimacy of Warren’s claims to Native American heritage has certainly been challenged by many critics, and it is true that while Warren was at U. Penn. Law School she put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list as Native American) in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools, and that Harvard Law School at one time promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. But specific evidence that she gained her position at Harvard (at least in part) through her claims to Native American heritage is lacking. Warren denied applying for special consideration as a person of Native American heritage during her career, and when the matter was examined in 2012 in response to Brown’s claims, people with whom Warren had worked similarly denied her ancestral background’s factoring into the professional opportunities afforded her: The former chairman of the American Association of Law Schools, David Bernstein, told the Herald that the group’s directory once served as a tip sheet for administrators. “In the old days before the Internet, you’d pull out the AALS directory and look up people,” he said. “There are schools that, if they were looking for a minority faculty member, would go to that list and might say, ‘I didn’t know Elizabeth Warren was a minority.' ”Warren said she didn’t know Harvard had used her heritage as proof of diversity until reading about the issue in the news, according to a Herald report. She also denied that she ever tried to gain a professional advantage through her lineage. Warren responded she was recruited for the positions and did not “apply” for them; and for the most part, her record did not indicate any identification as part of a minority group: The Globe obtained a portion of Warren’s application to Rutgers, which asks if prospective students want to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students. Warren answered “no.” For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.” But Penn’s 2005 Minority Equity Report identified her as the recipient of a 1994 faculty award, listing her name in bold to signify that she was a minority. The Herald has twice quoted Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, saying that the Democratic candidate’s heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. “It simply played no role in the appointments process,” he said. “It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty.” The Herald later quoted Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, saying, “I can state categorically that the subject of her Native American ancestry never once was mentioned.” https://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp _____________ So what's your issue? If anything, it sounds to me like her family either had Native American blood or she was told it did. If you're going to imply that she completely made up a connection to gain an advantage to get a job at Harvard, take your own medicine and prove it. But this shit about her having to take a DNA test to satisfy people who don't believe her is fucking ridiculous. Were you on the fence as to Obama until he actually produced his long form birth certificate too? Non-issue. Political garbage. TM |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
|
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
LessinChicago |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. Does she HAVE to take a DNS test? No. But the quotes about her silent acquiescence began with her claiming....somewhere... an American Indian heritage. I don't necessarily agree that she either is, or believed, she was Indian. The Obama birther issue did real damage. Did I believe it, absolutely not. Did it matter? Yes. Should he have put it to bed earlier? Yes. And as far as this being political garbage...of course it is, but the issue in the public eye is whether she lied or not. Fine. I withdraw the descendant of the Holocaust victim example. |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
TM |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Kerry was slandered by the right. Obama was slandered by the right. Lies do damage. That is my only point here. If you can definitively put an end to those lies with a fact based response, I believe it is wise to do so.
Trump's constant drumbeat of lies has a huge potential to defeat him and his enablers. Is there a false equivalence between Trump's lies and whatever is the truth about Warren? Yes. If she can put the allegation that she asserted minority status to gain a career advantage to rest, she'd be better off. In terms of running against Trump: The Democrats don't need to resort to fake news. You don't even have to mention his name. Picture a billboard campaign. Black background, White letters. Each one of these on a separate billboard: He lies to his wife. He lies to you. ...and Mexico will pay for it. He lied to the Army, and some poor kid went to Vietnam in his place. Biggest Inauguration Crowd Ever. There are some good Neo Nazis. I used the law brilliantly... to stiff my creditors. It was only locker room talk. |
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
|
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
Quote:
If it is a fact that she has Native American heritage, it is a fucking crime that Scott Walker implied that (i) she lied about it and (ii) she lied about it to gain a career advantage. Politically, it's the perfect claim because it plays on all those white fears that minorities are getting all these advantages that are denied to them. Ask yourself why the claim sticks with you so much. But do it in private. In short, anyone can make up whatever they like about me. I shouldn't have to prove that whatever they made up is completely false. And since she defeated Walker without having to do so, I think that's a good thing. The fact that you keep asserting that the liar-in-chief's constant racist harassment needs to be addressed by her is somewhat disturbing. He's the only asshole who is making this an issue. And he's an established, inveterate liar and bully. That should be enough. TM |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com