Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Badger]

13 minutes ago, mojo_bones said:

Again until I was in my late 20s I believed I was 1/4 German. My entire family believed we were 1/4 German. If you had asked me in a job interview I would have said I was part German. Is that a lie? This is EXACTLY what happened with Senator Warren. Her family members have said that was the same story they were all told as well. So she believed she was part native American when she listed it as such. From all evidence this was what she believed at the time and was not an intentional lie. Contrast this with Trump claiming his dad gave him a small loan to get started and nothing more. This is an intentional lie used to hide his true family history. How on earth can you say Warren's situation is more damaging to her credibility that Trump's? That is the point.

 

If I ever rob the local gas station, I'll use the "other people got away with it" excuse and see how it works.

 

But, yeah, sure, Trump should be called on it.  On the other hand, the media was too busy calling him out on everything else, and ran out of time.  I mean people are literally blaming him for Smollett's scam.  As much as I hate Trump, myself.  I literally don't know where to go with this some of this bull. 

 

In any case, I've been called on conservative/liberal politican comparison here similar to this, several times in the past by other posters.

 

[mojo_bones]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

The left calls people who wear the wrong hat racist without knowing anything else about them.  But, since you love making this comparison:  What would happen to a conservative who claimed Native American heritage remarking on the family's "high cheekbones", to only find out they had little to no said heritage.  If you don't think they would be called racist, by every liberal in the news circuit, then fooling yourself is one's choice I suppose.  I've seen conservatives called racist over the last decade for much much less.

 

 

Saying that "the liberals in the news would do it" or "the left does it" is not a very good defense. Two wrongs and all that. We are a country of mutts. We are a country that has romanticized different backgrounds at different times and in different regions resulting in family histories claiming those backgrounds. Those myths are passed down from generation to generation and taken as fact. There is a significant populace in this country who believe they are something they are not. The idea that not knowing your history or being misled about your history is worse than purposely making up your history is what I am talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

Yet 

for some reason, we seem unwilling to allow female candidates the same human moral frailty.  

 

Who's "we"? Americans have criticized all of the above male politicians. The right to speak out against our leaders is fairly well ingrained. Nobody's being unfair to Warren because she's a woman. She's catching flak because of her own actions and because of her seriously flawed and insincere attempts at damage control.

 

As far as I'm personally concerned, I think she needs to make amends for her actions, but if she gets her party's nomination, I'll still vote for her. In fact, she's fairly high up on my list of preferred candidates for the Democrats.

 

 

[mojo_bones]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

If I ever rob the local gas station, I'll use the "other people got away with it" excuse and see how it works.

 

I really don't get your point here. It is not illegal to believe a story.  I was not trying to commit a crime by believing I was 1/4 German. My mother was not trying to commit a crime when she told me I was 1/4 German. It is what she was told so it is what she told her kids. To compare this to a crime seems a bit excessive.

[Pattern Ghost]

8 minutes ago, mojo_bones said:

The idea that not knowing your history or being misled about your history is worse than purposely making up your history is what I am talking about.

 

One thing to consider in this: Even if she believed she was part Native American sincerely, as a law professor she should have damned well been aware that checking off her race on a government form is attesting that one is a member of a tribe. Harvard Law represented her in its reports to the government as a Native American for six years running. She claims that she didn't know about this, but when she checked the box to apply as a law professor (not a student entering college, but as someone already versed in the law), she should have known. The only explanations for this are that she was acting in ignorance (unlikely, she seems to be highly capable), or to take advantage of her heritage without meeting the legal requirements.

[Pattern Ghost]

Here's an interesting and detailed blog post on DNA testing for Native American ancestry.

 

 

[mojo_bones]

2 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

One thing to consider in this: Even if she believed she was part Native American sincerely, as a law professor she should have damned well been aware that checking off her race on a government form is attesting that one is a member of a tribe. Harvard Law represented her in its reports to the government as a Native American for six years running. She claims that she didn't know about this, but when she checked the box to apply as a law professor (not a student entering college, but as someone already versed in the law), she should have known. The only explanations for this is that she was acting in ignorance (unlikely, she seems to be highly capable), or to take advantage of her heritage without meeting the legal requirements.

Again, there is absolutely no way Trump didn't make up his family history intentionally. So even if Warren flat out lied about this*  why is it that only Warren's "lie" on this subject is ever talked about anywhere?  If it is not a double standard, than what is it?  It is almost impossible to find a recent article about Senator Warren that does not mention this subject. Only one newspaper did a full article on Trump's story about a small loan from his father. It was discussed for maybe a week and it was never a subject anyone raised with Trump directly. If it is a big deal for one why not for the other? If is something that needs to be scrutinized to see if she is "fit for the office" how is it that it was never an important matter for Trump for the exact same office?  To put it simply- even if she lied why is now a bigger deal then it was just a few years ago?  Why would this one lie be a deal breaker when compared to the other politicians?

 

 

* There are plausible explanations for her actions.Many do not like them but they are there. Her story is not uncommon in America.

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

But it seems they never held Trump accountable. He has told these stories often and it was never made into media outrage story.

 

It was made into media outrage story, by the media who chose to cover it. The people who support Trump don't believe it or don't care. The people who would have been outraged have been bombarded by so much outrageousness from the man, either that one thing gets lost in the avalanche, or they've just become numb to outrage in relation to his antics.

[Pattern Ghost]

20 minutes ago, mojo_bones said:

Again, there is absolutely no way Trump didn't make up his family history intentionally.

 

Again, this isn't about Trump. That's a facetious argument. It's whataboutism.

 

Go back and read my posts without reading into them as if I'm the media or representing the media. There is NOTHING that makes Warren in the right in this. And what she has done is far from harmless. The tribes have a very legitimate beef with her, as pointed out in an earlier article which you apparently either didn't read or disregarded.

 

You need to quit beating the "Trump is worse" drum in defense of Warren. Nobody's picking on Warren. She put herself into this situation.

[Pattern Ghost]

I mentioned her being listed by Harvard as Native American in a prior post, but forgot to link the source. Here it is.

[Pattern Ghost]

24 minutes ago, mojo_bones said:

* There are plausible explanations for her actions.Many do not like them but they are there. Her story is not uncommon in America.

 

AGAIN: If you check a box that says "Native American" on a form for an employer, it's for the employer to report equal opportunity stats to the government, and THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP. She was a law professor, she should have known this. So your defense of her is basically that she's an incompetent lawyer? How is it that an educated lawyer who had a "meteoric" rise in her career according to some, didn't know that, when I've known it since I was a child?

[Old Man]

13 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

AGAIN: If you check a box that says "Native American" on a form for an employer, it's for the employer to report equal opportunity stats to the government, and THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP.

 

I'm going to have to ask for a cite on this.  It's a purely voluntary checkbox on a form with no enforcement ramifications of which I am aware.  Especially since there is a substantial percentage of the citizenry that couldn't possibly have known with any certainty what their genetic background is.  People whose families fed them misinformation.  People who were adopted.  People whose parents immigrated from foreign countries, or were forcibly immigrated from foreign countries.  People whose records were lost.  I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of.

[Pattern Ghost]

19 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

I'm going to have to ask for a cite on this.  It's a purely voluntary checkbox on a form with no enforcement ramifications of which I am aware.  Especially since there is a substantial percentage of the citizenry that couldn't possibly have known with any certainty what their genetic background is.  People whose families fed them misinformation.  People who were adopted.  People whose parents immigrated from foreign countries, or were forcibly immigrated from foreign countries.  People whose records were lost.  I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of. 

 

The information is collected for the EEO-1 report. Here's the EEO-1 instruction booklet. Here's the quote regarding tribal affiliation being required for claiming Native American status for reporting purposes:

 

Native American or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino) - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

 

I'm not digging up any actual law saying someone has to follow the instructions for reporting. It may even be more regulatory. But in any other things requiring minority status, like minority business owner status for government programs, etc., anyone claiming Native American status is required to have a tribal affiliation. It is not the same as claiming race. See the USA Today article I linked above for an explanation of why a quantum of blood definition of Native American as a race is politically bad for the tribal nations.

[csyphrett]

How long ago is six generations?

 

First, the Cherokee Nation revealed that Warren had contacted tribal leaders and apologized for touting the results of her DNA test as evidence of her Native American ancestry. Then on 5 February, the Washington Postreported that Warren had issued a significantly expanded statement, apologizing for describing herself as Native American for many years:

[Starlord]

*Silently wonders if Trump can even spell the word 'apologize'*

[csyphrett]

8 minutes ago, Starlord said:

*Silently wonders if Trump can even spell the word 'apologize'*

i don't think he can spell his real name

CES

[mojo_bones]

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Again, this isn't about Trump. That's a facetious argument. It's whataboutism.

 

Go back and read my posts without reading into them as if I'm the media or representing the media. There is NOTHING that makes Warren in the right in this. And what she has done is far from harmless. The tribes have a very legitimate beef with her, as pointed out in an earlier article which you apparently either didn't read or disregarded.

 

You need to quit beating the "Trump is worse" drum in defense of Warren. Nobody's picking on Warren. She put herself into this situation.

I apologize if you are reading my posts as saying you personally are part of the media or somehow representing them. The point remains. This was a complete non issue for previous candidates. What you see as "whataboutism" I see as a reasonable question.  From the perspective of a presidential nomination, Warren's "lie" is pointed to as why she could never win a general election against Trump. So it is perfectly reasonable to make a comparison between the two potential candidates (Trump v Warren). And when comparing the two handling their own personal stories how do they compare?  One candidate who has again apologized and has a plausible reason or why it happened and the other who has not apologized, continued to tell the same story well after even the public knew it was false and has no possible explanation for the lies. If I were to talk about Bush or Romney or Clinton in caparison to Warren then the argument for whataboutism would be applicable. But here it is literally the comparison we will possibly be asked to make in the near future.

[Badger]

11 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

I really don't get your point here. It is not illegal to believe a story.  I was not trying to commit a crime by believing I was 1/4 German. My mother was not trying to commit a crime when she told me I was 1/4 German. It is what she was told so it is what she told her kids. To compare this to a crime seems a bit excessive.

 

Ok, telling your friends you were German=saying you're Native American on your resume.  

 

first off, generally in our country's social climate. we don't differenatiate all that often between German white and Irish white and Scottish white, etc.  It simply doesn't have the same connotations.  But, regardless this is arguably the minor point in this conversation.

 

 

Their is something very different between telling your friends about your rumored heritage, and telling a potential boss about your rumored heritage.  

 

And yes, I did mention the high cheekbone comment (and Pow-Wow Chow should also be mentioned).  because anybody with a combination of even mild racial sensitivity towards stereotypes and are not completely blind by political bias should at least friggin cringe a little over.   

[Badger]

11 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

Again, there is absolutely no way Trump didn't make up his family history intentionally. So even if Warren flat out lied about this*  why is it that only Warren's "lie" on this subject is ever talked about anywhere?  If it is not a double standard, than what is it?  It is almost impossible to find a recent article about Senator Warren that does not mention this subject. Only one newspaper did a full article on Trump's story about a small loan from his father. It was discussed for maybe a week and it was never a subject anyone raised with Trump directly. If it is a big deal for one why not for the other? If is something that needs to be scrutinized to see if she is "fit for the office" how is it that it was never an important matter for Trump for the exact same office?  To put it simply- even if she lied why is now a bigger deal then it was just a few years ago?  Why would this one lie be a deal breaker when compared to the other politicians?

 

 

* There are plausible explanations for her actions.Many do not like them but they are there. Her story is not uncommon in America.

 

Her story is not uncommon, yes.

 

Using it on resume however is.

[Badger]

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

It was made into media outrage story, by the media who chose to cover it. The people who support Trump don't believe it or don't care. The people who would have been outraged have been bombarded by so much outrageousness from the man, either that one thing gets lost in the avalanche, or they've just become numb to outrage in relation to his antics.

 

Thank you, that was what I was trying to point out, last night.  We have had an absolute flood of stuff,  whether it be real or imagined*, that has been covered over Trump's atrocities.  That there might not have simply been time to cover, before the next explosion.

 

*actually not trying to say one way or another, I do feel the media gets a little overzealous in the Trump blame game at times, but that still doesn't give cover for him from my judgement.

[Badger]

9 hours ago, csyphrett said:

How long ago is six generations?

 

First, the Cherokee Nation revealed that Warren had contacted tribal leaders and apologized for touting the results of her DNA test as evidence of her Native American ancestry. Then on 5 February, the Washington Postreported that Warren had issued a significantly expanded statement, apologizing for describing herself as Native American for many years:

 

Simply depends on when the kids are born.  Going back a mere 4 generations for me, and I find a great-great grandfather who died in the Civil War.  Because my mother was 35 (well 34 and 10 months), when I was born, and her father was 48 when she was.  The gap is probably larger than most.

 

The concrete part is that 6 generations ago, you would have been given 64 different DNA contributions.  This would be below 2%.  And keep in mind they said 6-10 generations.  So, 6 is the absolutely most positive possibility.   As far a 10 generations, considering her year of birth, and we assume an average of 30 years per generation, we would have about 1-2 generations after the Mayflower.  Even an average of 25, would get her around 1700.  

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

The point remains.

 

I think we're at an impasse. You seem to be willing to excuse what Warren did as a little white lie, while I see it as having farther reaching consequences. You seem to think that it's important to compare what Warren did to what Trump did, as if it's necessary to point out that she's the (far) lesser of two evils, while I think we already all know that, and I've already stated my position on it.

 

But if you want to do a comparison: Which family story hurt more people, Warren's or Trump's?

[archer]

12 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

I'm going to have to ask for a cite on this.  It's a purely voluntary checkbox on a form with no enforcement ramifications of which I am aware.  Especially since there is a substantial percentage of the citizenry that couldn't possibly have known with any certainty what their genetic background is.  People whose families fed them misinformation.  People who were adopted.  People whose parents immigrated from foreign countries, or were forcibly immigrated from foreign countries.  People whose records were lost.  I'm sure there's more I haven't thought of.

 

 

I'll add to Pattern ghost's response.

 

The information about whether you're a Native American or not is collected for federal filing purposes (EEOC).

 

18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed prior to 1996 revisions provided:

 

Quote

“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

 

When she was making the claim that she was a Native American to the University of Pennsylvania she would have been under that version of the statute.

 

She for most of her time at Harvard would have been covered under 18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed 1996 and later which provided:

 

Quote

 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

 

 

In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which brings into play that niggling part of the law which states "knowingly and willfully". So did she knowingly and willfully lie?

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/02/06/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-identifying-as-native-american-on-texas-bar-registration-card/

 

This article shows that in her personnel forms at the University of Texas in 1981, 1985, and 1988 that she Identified herself as being white.

 

That article also shows a picture of her hand-written registration card to the State Bar of Texas in 1986 where she claimed to be an "American Indian".

 

Association of American Law Schools Directory listed her has a minority from 1986 until 1995 when she gained tenure at Harvard (and could no longer be easily fired) and changed her status in the directory. Before the age of the internet, potential employers would have to pull out the AALS Directory to find out details about applicants and various things about them such as whether they had minority status or not. (as stated in a Boston Globe article which interviewed the former chairman of the AALS)  https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

 

After she was gained tenure at Harvard then stopped claiming to be a minority with the AALS, that school touted her as being a Native American minority employee in such places as this 1998 Harvard Crimson article talking about the " painfully slow process of bringing professors of minority ethnicities to the Harvard University faculty".  https://web.archive.org/web/20120504004530/http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/

 

If I were to be prosecuting this case, I would point to Warren changing her status to "American Indian" when taking the bar exam then getting her first job at the University of Pennsylvania which reported her as a Native American, getting her next job, Harvard, as a Native American. Then I'd point to her changing her status in 1995 in the AALS Directory to no longer being listed as a minority without notifying Harvard which continued to falsify reports to the federal government by listing her as a Native American.

 

I probably wouldn't get a conviction because famous politicians are rarely taken to trial. But I personally take all of that history of her intentionally, repeatedly changing her status whenever it is an advantage to her as being "knowingly and willfully" falsifying and concealing.

 

Here's a nice piece of additional reading https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05/its-elizabeth-warrens-and-harvards-federal-filings-stupid/

And a bunch of links to articles and analysis about the controversy https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/#cite-note-3

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

The concrete part is that 6 generations ago, you would have been given 64 different DNA contributions.  This would be below 2%.  And keep in mind they said 6-10 generations.  So, 6 is the absolutely most positive possibility.   As far a 10 generations, considering her year of birth, and we assume an average of 30 years per generation, we would have about 1-2 generations after the Mayflower.  Even an average of 25, would get her around 1700.   

 

Her DNA test is basically inconclusive, and 23andMe has the best test for Native American ancestry according to the article I linked earlier. The reference populations don't actually pin anyone down to a North American tribe, either. They're either South American populations or a much broader Asian-based reference population. (I don't fully understand the Asian-Native American group. I get the idea that it's very, very broad.) We also don't know which of the two reference groups she was identified with. In the video she made, the 23andMe guy (they put his university affiliation, but he works for the company) said "Native American." If that's the actual group, she has zero evidence of Cherokee or other NA tribal ancestry. It also doesn't mean she doesn't have any Native American ancestor. It's also possible that she does, but that she didn't happen to get any DNA passed down.

 

But at the end of the day, none of that matters. Even if she knew for a fact, and could prove that she had a Native American ancestor through exhaustive documentation . . . she shouldn't have done what she did. Not to mention the casual racism and cultural appropriation. I've seen people called out for cultural appropriation (by Warren supporters in my wife's family) for: wearing corn rows as a non-African descended person; having a Buddha garden statue when not Buddhist; wearing a Frida Khalo t-shirt without understanding Frida's art from a Latino perspective .  . . and all kinds of silliness that amounts to simply connecting to a culture on an aesthetic level. "I like your style" is racist. False claims of persecution and claiming a people's heritage for political and social climbing, and doing political damage to a people by using a quantum of blood standard to prove her "race"  . . . those aren't serious enough to draw comment from any Liberals as anything greater than a little white lie.

 

Warren has also harmed her entire party by looking like a hypocrite who doesn't really care about people of color past getting their votes come election time. The press on the Right has called her on this, and so have people of color. I have no idea as to the extent that it may erode the Democrat's minority voter base, but I can't imagine it's helpful.

[Badger]

1 minute ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Her DNA test is basically inconclusive, and 23andMe has the best test for Native American ancestry according to the article I linked earlier. The reference populations don't actually pin anyone down to a North American tribe, either. They're either South American populations or a much broader Asian-based reference population. (I don't fully understand the Asian-Native American group. I get the idea that it's very, very broad.) We also don't know which of the two reference groups she was identified with. In the video she made, the 23andMe guy (they put his university affiliation, but he works for the company) said "Native American." If that's the actual group, she has zero evidence of Cherokee or other NA tribal ancestry. It also doesn't mean she doesn't have any Native American ancestor. It's also possible that she does, but that she didn't happen to get any DNA passed down.

 

But at the end of the day, none of that matters. Even if she knew for a fact, and could prove that she had a Native American ancestor through exhaustive documentation . . . she shouldn't have done what she did. Not to mention the casual racism and cultural appropriation. I've seen people called out for cultural appropriation (by Warren supporters in my wife's family) for: wearing corn rows as a non-African descended person; having a Buddha garden statue when not Buddhist; wearing a Frida Khalo t-shirt without understanding Frida's art from a Latino perspective .  . . and all kinds of silliness that amounts to simply connecting to a culture on an aesthetic level. "I like your style" is racist. False claims of persecution and claiming a people's heritage for political and social climbing, and doing political damage to a people by using a quantum of blood standard to prove her "race"  . . . those aren't serious enough to draw comment from any Liberals as anything greater than a little white lie.

 

Warren has also harmed her entire party by looking like a hypocrite who doesn't really care about people of color past getting their votes come election time. The press on the Right has called her on this, and so have people of color. I have no idea as to the extent that it may erode the Democrat's minority voter base, but I can't imagine it's helpful.

 

You are right.  I was pointing out how far back 6 generations would be, in general.  And that if we were to take Warren at 10 generations back as having a Native American, how far into history that could hypothetically be.   I wasn't trying to imply anything beyond that.  (I am not the most eloquent in wording at times, so I know I twist my intent at times. )