If President Warren & Democratic Congress passed this bill, would U B concerned?

[swampwiz]

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

I just have to think that this would mean a stock market crash as the profitability of American corporations would take a huge hit.

[SwordGuy]

The Dutch had (have?) something similar to this.  Regular Employees AND Shareholders get a say in how the company is run, not just Shareholders.

It has its good and bad points, but the Dutch were happy with it back when I used to work for a Dutch corporation in the 90s.   


I'll live with lower market returns for awhile if my fellow citizens get treated better by their employers.   Plus, the employees will have more interest in long term growth of the company which will nicely balance the machinations that sleazy management gets up to to manipulate corporate earnings to manipulate market results.   I think it might improve returns over the long haul.

[Prowlers]

Employees ALREADY have a big say on how companies are run.  That's why offices have things like chairs and air conditioners (all of which cost money).  Employers must compete for quality employees just like employees must compete to work for quality employers.

And if managers are "sleazy" why aren't employees?  Is there something about taking a management position that makes one sleazy?  I suppose "employees" are just angelic bastions of goodness...

To answer the OP, yes, I would be concerned.  This top-down, sounds-good paternalism is a recipe for mediocrity at best, disaster at worst.

[sokoloff]

Strongly oppose these provisions:

Warren also tacks on a couple of more modest ideas. One is to limit corporate executives’ ability to sell shares of stock that they receive as pay — requiring that such shares be held for at least five years after they were received, and at least three years after a share buyback. The aim is to disincentivize stock-based compensation in general as well as the use of share buybacks as a tactic for executives to maximize their one pay.

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

MOD EDIT: Race baiting isn't okay. Read the forum rules.

[scantee]

I wouldn’t be worried. It would a minor but positive change that would help to balance the concerns of workers and shareholders, who are way too heavily preferenced in outer current system. A number of countries have these codetermination laws and their societies haven’t collapsed the way the chicken littles would have you believe.

It’s humorous that all of the most pro-capitalist people I know believe we can’t change even one small thing about our current system, lest it collapse, turning society to chaos. If your system is that fragile, maybe it’s not as perfect as you believe it to be.

[DreamFIRE]

I won't even entertain the idea of a President Warren.

[Norioch]

This all sounds fine to me, and Warren is one of my favorite politicians and I'd love it if she ran for president. Everything I've ever seen from her indicates that she has no interest in leaving the Senate, though.

[Irregular Joe]

The model she proposed -- 40% of directors representing labor, not shareholders -- is similar to what's used in Germany, where boards of directors are 50 / 50 split between labor and shareholder representatives. Germany's doing fine under that system. They're the 4th largest economy in the world are are plenty capitalist, with companies like Adidas, Puma, DHL, Bayer, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, SAP, Allianz, and Bosch.   If it comes to pass, I wouldn't worry about the foundations of our economy.

That said, the reason shareholder value theory is so dominant in the US is because it makes equity capital cheaper and more efficient.   Providers of equity capital will demand a higher return if they don't have assurances that directors will be looking out for their interests.  There are many situations when stakeholder interests are in direct conflict. As an employee, for example, I want to be paid a lot more money.  I don't expect the board of directors to represent that interest.  If a director makes a terrible decision and loses shareholder money they could simply say 'oh but it helped bondholders/employees/the community' and it's a lot harder to hold them accountable.

This bill has no chance of passing in this Congress, so it's more of a display of Warren's idealism than a pragmatic law.  A lot of the ideas proposed would have significant unintended consequences that I would expect to be ironed out in a final bill. For example if you require longer holding periods for stock, CEOs will just demand more cash compensation to make up for it. If you discourage stock buybacks (a silly idea), companies will just pay more dividends.  And if you discourage both they'll just sit on cash and be more likely to waste it on vanity projects.  They're never going to pay employees more than the market rate by choice.

I think its telling that the most vocal advocates against the 'shareholder capitalism' approach are actually large corporations and their executives themselves, which is why it's striking to see Warren pick up this mantle.  Strange bedfellows. If you erode shareholder accountability by requiring them to represent diverse, often-conflicting interests, you remove pressure and a key mechanism from executives to follow through and act responsibly with other people's money.

[Bucksandreds]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

[PDXTabs]

It's not my favorite. I would much rather see a universal basic income.

With that said I would vote for President Warren any day before President Trump.

[TheAnonOne]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

Growth in essence is an expansion of the ability to provide certain goods and services. Productivity if you will.

If we lowered growth from 6% to 2% you might find that after a few decades we have lost immeasurable amounts of production capabilities. (Compound interest and all)

[use2betrix]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

When I worked in Alabama I had a gentleman come in my office and tell me he is quitting because “with how many kids he has, it’s not worth him losing his government benefits by working,” and he walked off the job and never came back.

We are enabling people like him. People like Bernie Sanders are the epitome of enabling people like that. All while I can work 70-80 hr weeks and get bumped into a higher tax bracket and pay an even larger amount of taxes? Granted - even then, I’m still not paying “enough” according to many democratic policies. Great policy - work harder, get punished by having to pay more to support those that don’t want to work as hard.

[SwordGuy]

And if managers are "sleazy" why aren't employees?  Is there something about taking a management position that makes one sleazy?  I suppose "employees" are just angelic bastions of goodness...

The ability to harm others by a sleazy employee is generally less than that of a sleazy manager.   Same reason I worry less about sleazy ex-politicians than sleazy ones in office who hold governmental authority...

[Norioch]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

It reveals a lot that you consider other people getting too much a bigger problem than other people not getting enough.

[use2betrix]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

It reveals a lot that you consider other people getting too much a bigger problem than other people not getting enough.

Yes - heaven forbid I feel slightly jaded when I work 700+ hrs of overtime in a 6 month period while people working 40 hrs a week are complaining that they can’t get by.

I am just not wired that way. To complain about my situation instead of working to improve it.

Someone making $15/hr working 50 hr weeks makes more than MMM and many people here spend in a given year.. let alone a couple with two working people..

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

Sooo she wants to preempt state law on corpoorate governance? Terrifying.  It’s scary that neither she nor Vox delves into this.

[sokoloff]

Sooo she wants to preempt state law on corpoorate governance? Terrifying.  It’s scary that neither she nor Vox delves into this.

Why would the party of “as large as possible” trifle themselves with something so pedestrian and antiquated as States’ Rights?

[Irregular Joe]

Sooo she wants to preempt state law on corpoorate governance? Terrifying.  It’s scary that neither she nor Vox delves into this.

The federal government has been heavily involved in setting corporate governance standards for almost a century, from the Securities Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Williams Act of 1968, Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 and Dodd Frank in 2010.  I disagree with her ideas, but I don't find them terrifying.

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

Sooo she wants to preempt state law on corpoorate governance? Terrifying.  It’s scary that neither she nor Vox delves into this.

The federal government has been heavily involved in setting corporate governance standards for almost a century, from the Securities Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Williams Act of 1968, Sarbanes Oxley in 2002 and Dodd Frank in 2010.  I disagree with her ideas, but I don't find them terrifying.

What she’s proposing is a complete preemption.  In other words, you’d be chartered with the federal government and not a state.  The legal implications of what she’s talking about go way beyond any of those statutes. 

[Bucksandreds]

Sooo she wants to preempt state law on corpoorate governance? Terrifying.  It’s scary that neither she nor Vox delves into this.

Why would the party of “as large as possible” trifle themselves with something so pedestrian and antiquated as States’ Rights?

Wait, were not talking about the GOP. The party of largest possible Federal deficit. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks

[jim555]

Not concerned.  Also, not going to pass.

[FIPurpose]

One of the big reasons this website exists is because being an employee sucks, play the game, become an investor.

Many European countries find a better balance. Employees are happier, and have a better work/life balance with plenty of time off.

[india dark ale]

First of all, she will never be president.

Secondly, this will not pass.

I am not concerned.

[onlykelsey]

I am a corporate lawyer and actually have a lot of thoughts on this bill, posting mostly to come back to this when I have time. 

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter is a related and interesting read.

[OurTown]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

[BicycleB]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

When I worked in Alabama I had a gentleman come in my office and tell me he is quitting because “with how many kids he has, it’s not worth him losing his government benefits by working,” and he walked off the job and never came back.

We are enabling people like him. People like Bernie Sanders are the epitome of enabling people like that. All while I can work 70-80 hr weeks and get bumped into a higher tax bracket and pay an even larger amount of taxes? Granted - even then, I’m still not paying “enough” according to many democratic policies. Great policy - work harder, get punished by having to pay more to support those that don’t want to work as hard.

You have a problem with people who are able to work, but not willing? I'm able to work, but not willing. I'm FIRE!

Your example is about people acting based on a trade off between govt benefits vs crappy jobs. The problem isn't caused by generous govt benefits. It's caused by crappy jobs. Based on reading the article, Warren's bill wouldn't create any new govt benefits that your arguably lazy beneficiary could take advantage of. It wouldn't expand any govt benefits or cost the taxpayer a penny for benefits. The only effect her bill would have on your example is to cause business to offer the guy a better job, which in turn might cause him to go work.

If you are concerned about govt benefits being more attractive than paid work, you should support this bill. It's the cheapest way for the taxpayer to wean beneficiaries such as you describe off the public teat and into the job market.

If this bill passed, I would be curious about the outcome and excited for the country. Hell, I might even go back to work!

[mm1970]

Give me lower growth if all people willing to work in this country get to be middle class. Wanting stock market returns at all cost means complicity in a system that causes working poverty.

How about those “able” to work? I have more of an issue with those “able” but not “willing” than those “willing” not being paid enough.

It reveals a lot that you consider other people getting too much a bigger problem than other people not getting enough.

Yes - heaven forbid I feel slightly jaded when I work 700+ hrs of overtime in a 6 month period while people working 40 hrs a week are complaining that they can’t get by.

I am just not wired that way. To complain about my situation instead of working to improve it.

Someone making $15/hr working 50 hr weeks makes more than MMM and many people here spend in a given year.. let alone a couple with two working people..

Are you paid for overtime?

Are you able to do that over time without significant hit to your health, life, kids, family?

I'm pretty much type A go go go but as I age, and slow down, and had children - I realized how not sustainable that was.  Sure I could get by on 4 hours of sleep in college while going to school full time plus ROTC plus PT jobs.  Sure I was able to work 70 hrs a week (nights) when I was in my 20s when the SHTF at work.  But I was stressed out, got sick, and got fat.   So...

I am concerned more about the millions who work hard for crap jobs and cannot pay the bills - because they can't find better jobs.
I'm concerned about the people who are unemployable.
I'm concerned about the fact that if you can't afford to live on 40 hours, the expectation is that everyone should work 60.
Yes, I'm concerned a small amount for the people who are "lazy" and "don't want to work", but really - how many are there?
I'm concerned about mothers who are incarcerated for writing bad checks, serve years in prison for it, and when they get out are not only unemployable, but also ineligible for food stamps and section 8 housing.  I mean, WTF?

[fattest_foot]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

I guess my question is why would employees be rewarded for the risk of capital taken by owners (stockholders)? When a company has a bad quarter, are we going to start taking benefits from the employees as well? Because that's the risk owners take; I'll give you capital to invest for a portion of the profits. When the company does have that bad quarter, the owners don't see a return on their risk/investment.

[Pigeon]

I wouldn’t be worried. It would a minor but positive change that would help to balance the concerns of workers and shareholders, who are way too heavily preferenced in outer current system. A number of countries have these codetermination laws and their societies haven’t collapsed the way the chicken littles would have you believe.

It’s humorous that all of the most pro-capitalist people I know believe we can’t change even one small thing about our current system, lest it collapse, turning society to chaos. If your system is that fragile, maybe it’s not as perfect as you believe it to be.

I agree completely.  Our current system is ridiculously weighted against employees. 

[FIPurpose]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

I guess my question is why would employees be rewarded for the risk of capital taken by owners (stockholders)? When a company has a bad quarter, are we going to start taking benefits from the employees as well? Because that's the risk owners take; I'll give you capital to invest for a portion of the profits. When the company does have that bad quarter, the owners don't see a return on their risk/investment.

And the risks that employees take on? Those don't count for anything? Or do you just consider them to hold little to no value?

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

I guess my question is why would employees be rewarded for the risk of capital taken by owners (stockholders)? When a company has a bad quarter, are we going to start taking benefits from the employees as well? Because that's the risk owners take; I'll give you capital to invest for a portion of the profits. When the company does have that bad quarter, the owners don't see a return on their risk/investment.

And the risks that employees take on? Those don't count for anything? Or do you just consider them to hold little to no value?

What risks do employeees take on?  They get paid an agreed upon amount for specific work.

[Jrr85]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

They already owe all sorts of duties to employees and customers, based in contract and statute (FLSA, Workers comp, ACA, Product liability, implied warranty of merchantability etc.).  This proposal is explicitly talking about taking a company and (without compensation?) saying 40% of the votes for control are going to be distributed not based on ownership, but given to workers, and then an ambiguous responsibility is going to be put on the 60% of the board controlled by owners such that they cannot just act in the best interest of the owners. 

I think it would be a painful and expensive transition regardless.  It could result in basically the status quo with a bunch of 60-40 votes.  It would result in board meetings having something like a union negotiation over every issue, with how productive or antagonistic that is being determined by the relationships between the board members.  Could be very destructive result if courts try to put teeth into the obligations to have split obligations to shareholders and employees. 

[FIRE@50]

Warren’s plan starts from the premise that corporations that claim the legal rights of personhood should be legally required to accept the moral obligations of personhood.

The entire bill strikes me as a silly attempt to take an extreme measure to protest the premise that corporations are persons. If she doesn't like that, then she should introduce legislation to make corporations different from persons.

Also, if workers want to be treated like shareholders, then should buy some shares.

[doneby35]

It's simple, don't elect anyone from the extreme left, and warren is quickly becoming one.

[effigy98]

Not worried, it's a no-op (no real change in shareholder value). Will reinvest money for R&D which over the long term will return the same or more vs buybacks.

[FIPurpose]

What's wrong with the bill?  Why shouldn't a corporate board of directors owe some kind of duty to employees and or customers?   Maybe not an outright fiduciary duty, like they owe to the shareholders, but possibly something like the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law, which essentially translates as the duty not to outright cheat you. 

What's wrong with Elizabeth Warren?  I find her very personable and intelligent.  She is willing to engage in real policy debate.  Hells bells, she was a personal finance author!  She's one of us.

I guess my question is why would employees be rewarded for the risk of capital taken by owners (stockholders)? When a company has a bad quarter, are we going to start taking benefits from the employees as well? Because that's the risk owners take; I'll give you capital to invest for a portion of the profits. When the company does have that bad quarter, the owners don't see a return on their risk/investment.

And the risks that employees take on? Those don't count for anything? Or do you just consider them to hold little to no value?

What risks do employeees take on?  They get paid an agreed upon amount for specific work.

Wut?

Employee risks:
Their health insurance is attached to employment
They potentially moved/ uprooted
The job is at will, so they can be fired at any moment.
Management can erode pay by not keeping up with inflation
Job benefits can be changed without any negotiation
Etc.

[Imma]

The Dutch had (have?) something similar to this.  Regular Employees AND Shareholders get a say in how the company is run, not just Shareholders.

It has its good and bad points, but the Dutch were happy with it back when I used to work for a Dutch corporation in the 90s.   


I'll live with lower market returns for awhile if my fellow citizens get treated better by their employers.   Plus, the employees will have more interest in long term growth of the company which will nicely balance the machinations that sleazy management gets up to to manipulate corporate earnings to manipulate market results.   I think it might improve returns over the long haul.

I haven't read the text of the proposal, but yes, employees have influence on decisions that are made by the board. It hasn't hurt the profitability of companies like Shell, Unilever or ING, to name a few. On the contary, these are all very stable, reliable companies for both investors and employees.

I believe many employees actually have good ideas that should be taken seriously. These days, a lot of shareholders are more interested in short-term big returns than long-term continuity. Employees have different priorities. Our system creates a good balance.

[mak1277]

I feel like the whole idea of board representation is way overblown.

First, the employees would only have rights to elect directors, correct?  So it's not like individual employees are going to be "represented".  It's still just a couple of directors in the room.

Second, I think the impact of boards in general is far less than most people think.  At any company that's functioning well, management is running the show, not the board.  They're in place to be consulted and rubber stamp management decisions.

Edit to add:  Rules prevent having directors who are not independent from sitting on key board committees (audit and compensation).  So the directors put in place by employees could not be actual employees if they want a say on, for example, CEO compensation. 

[FIPurpose]

I feel like the whole idea of board representation is way overblown.

First, the employees would only have rights to elect directors, correct?  So it's not like individual employees are going to be "represented".  It's still just a couple of directors in the room.

Second, I think the impact of boards in general is far less than most people think.  At any company that's functioning well, management is running the show, not the board.  They're in place to be consulted and rubber stamp management decisions.

I agree with you, but I think it does change the mindset of board member to "be there to represent the employees". While it might seem little, I think it can cause a huge culture shift in a company. Considering the typical Executive board, how many are there to represent the employees' interests? HR?

If everyone is already happy, then this wouldn't change much. This rule is obviously to help influence companies that regularly make short-sighted decisions at the detriment of the employee.

[mak1277]

I also wonder how this impacts a company where all employees are shareholders (through an ESOP, or other means).   

[FIPurpose]

I also wonder how this impacts a company where all employees are shareholders (through an ESOP, or other means).

Lol that'd almost make it like a senate/house split.

Everyone votes for both, but one is vote divided by employee count and the other by your invested interest.

I doubt ESOP's have a problem with employee/shareholder interest. They usually pay better/ have better employees compared to similar companies.

[GuitarStv]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

[mathlete]

In reality, special interests would beat this thing down into something more manageable.

Hypothetical, yeah, US corps would probably take a hit. I don't think it would be catastrophic though, because I don't think it would change the overall consensus that US equities are the place to go for consistent growth.

I think we have a tendency to freak out when big fiscal or tax reform is done to benefit the people. But the fact is that we just added about $1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years, most of which is passed directly to shareholders of public companies. No one gets real worked up about it (even "deficit hawks") because giving free money to shareholders is the status quo.

[sokoloff]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

[mathlete]

Yeah!! And where's that birth certificate anyway!?

:) :) :)

[GuitarStv]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

[GuitarStv]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

Again, I have to ask . . . how does claiming to be 1/32 of a particular race matter in any way?

[DreamFIRE]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

Again, I have to ask . . . how does claiming to be 1/32 of a particular race matter in any way?

We wouldn't want a dishonest president, would we?  lol

[MrUpwardlyMobile]

My question: if Warren were to become President in 2021, would she or would she not be the first Native American President?

Why is this a burning and important question to you?

Clearly, racist troll is trolling while racist. I'm infuriated to see this kind of crap in this forum.

Oh, get bent. She's as blond-haired, blue-eyed, 0% Native American as I am. Primary difference is I don't claim otherwise.

She claimed that her great great great grandmother was half Cherokee because that's what people in her family told her.  There aren't any records from that period to prove or disprove the claim.  How does it matter in any way if someone believes that they are 1/32 Native American?

My understanding is that the Cherokee tribes say that isn’t Cherokee.

Again, I have to ask . . . how does claiming to be 1/32 of a particular race matter in any way?

I think it has more to do about cultural appropriation and a longstanding grievance by Amer-Indian tribes that people of European descent can’t stop taking every last thing from them.  That said, I don’t particularly have feelings on this matter and don’t claim to be an expert. 

In my book she’s a crackpot extreme socialist whose public statements are not consistent with the principles this country was founded upon.