Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[forummm]

Can someone please explain to me this whole "Pocahontas" thing between Trump and Warren?

I don't understand what you need explained.  Warren is famous for claiming minority status while attending graduate school, due to a fractional family background being Native American.  Pocahontas was a semi-famous historical figure.  She was a chieftain's daughter who married John Wolfe in 1614 & took the Christian name Rebecca.  Trump is mocking her history, because she's as white as a snowflake.

Is that what you were looking for?

I still don't quite understand your response.  I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not?  You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

Warren is 1/32 Cherokee. The Cherokee have accepted 1/32 Cherokee individuals of her age as members of the tribe. She was asked while on the faculty at Harvard (not a student) for any ethnic heritages to report for diversity tracking, so she checked the box that she was part native American. She also reported having that heritage to a law faculty association. She said (many years later) it was because she thought she could meet other people with similar heritage. When that turned out not to be the case she stopped checking that box. Opponents have said that she was trying to use that minority status to advance her career. The details are all fuzzy because it was a long time ago and you can't know exactly what was going on in her mind at the time.

[MDM]

I still don't quite understand your response.  I know who Pocahontas was. Does Warren actually have a fractional family background of Native American, or not?  You seem to say yes but then say she's 'white as a snowflake' suggesting no...

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

Google    Warren Cherokee    and draw your own conclusions.

[MrStash2000]

How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.

There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).

[Glenstache]

How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.

There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).

This was laid to rest years ago. In the current iteration, it is brought up as a convenient dog whistle for Trump. If we are lucky, we can look forward to more birther bullshit when Obama starts stumping for Clinton. Whatever will be kibble for his base and get more ink in the next news cycle. It may be effective, but it is disgusting.

That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?

[Yaeger]

How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.

There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).

This was laid to rest years ago. In the current iteration, it is brought up as a convenient dog whistle for Trump. If we are lucky, we can look forward to more birther bullshit when Obama starts stumping for Clinton. Whatever will be kibble for his base and get more ink in the next news cycle. It may be effective, but it is disgusting.

That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?

I don't believe anything a Presidential candidate says on the campaign trail. However, I do see the incredible amount of violence by outside of Trump rallies directed against his supporters that draws little attention. You don't see Trump supporters destroying personal property, engaging Hillary supporters with violence and threats, and clashing with police. You don't see violent protests at liberal gatherings at universities around the country, only against conservative speakers. If a bunch of Trump supporters cornered a woman as she was leaving a Hillary rally and pelted her with objects, shouted obscenities, and harassed her it'd be front page news. It has happened over and over to Trump supporters and no one cares.

In the end, to a lot of people, I think Trump represents the same thing Obama represented to the left in 2008. An outsider that promises change and hope towards a political system that to many is seen as hopelessly dysfunctional and no one championing conservative/Republican principles. There's a large segment of 'Republicans' that are socially liberal, but primarily vote based on economic freedoms and smaller government platforms and with a Republican majority in the House and Senate we still continue to expand government spending and increase the deficit. Trump isn't my candidate, I'm hopeful for a solid Libertarian ticket, but I'll vote Trump over Hillary and at the most pessimistic I hope a disastrous presidency forces change towards a smaller government.

[Jeremy E.]

How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.

There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).

Yep, Elizabeth Warren is a horrible person and Trump is a god, you've convinced me, I'm making a Trump Shrine as I type.
Here is a summary of Trumps plan, the reason I've now decided to vote for him,

1. He wants a trade reform with China, which I think will hurt both the United States and China's economies
2. His tax plan will reduce the highest tax bracket to 25%, and reduce corporate tax to a maximum of 15%. He also wants to let companies repatriate their corporate cash to the U.S. for a mere 10% tax rate and end the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. I think with this plan, we might get a decent bump from the repatriation of funds to the U.S. initially, but after that we will not be able to have enough tax revenue to sustain, and the debt we currently have will look small in comparison to how high it would go. We would probably have to make a big change quickly to try and recover/fix this horrible mistake, and it probably wouldn't go over well.
3. He wants to build a monstrous wall and claims Mexico will pay for it, I think it would be a horrible idea to get Mexico to pay for this wall(assuming they even would), their economy would take a huge hit and it would directly effect the United States economy. Trump also wants to triple the number of ICE officers. He also wants to deport over 11 million people living in the United States. All of the ways he plans on deporting them will be very expensive and hurt the U.S. Economy more. His entire immigration plan will be VERY expensive.

He wants to greatly increase spending while dramatically decreasing tax revenue and causing trade issues with China. I think this would destroy the US economy. So on second thought, fuck that Trump guy, I'm voting Gary Johnson.

[yuka]

That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?

I'm somewhere bouncing back and forth between conservative and libertarian at any given time, but I'll attempt an answer (an answer that assumes that a person is conservative first, not Republican first). I think many conservatives are saying no to Trump, some parting ways with the Republican party in the process, but at the same time trying to figure out what it looks like to stand up for their ideals in this cycle.

If you're pragmatic, who do you vote for? Is it better to pick the devil you know (Clinton)? She's some mixture of conservative (in the aspects of conservative that serve to protect those already in power) and progressive. On the other hand, Trump is unpredictable. While I don't expect any candidate to be telling the truth, I typically expect their campaign stances to correlate somewhat with their eventual actions in office. With Trump, you know that some of his actions will connect to what he says in his campaign only because he's said so many things all over the place, including contradicting himself, that it'd be impossible to avoid doing at least something he promised. So do you march to your eventual doom with Clinton, or play Russian roulette with Trump? Certainly the libertarian candidate isn't a pragmatic choice, as he's not going to win; he's a bad choice even if his platform did align with conservatives in some way. So you're left with game theory and trying to predict the actions of a group of people you don't trust except in that you trust they'll make many of the wrong choices if called upon.

If you're idealistic, what do you do? All three significant options are maybe even more terrible. You can't even rationalize that you were just voting against so-and-so if you're idealistic. Is saving an hour of your time (by not voting) idealistic? Maybe that's the only rational choice. Or you could try to start a fourth candidate, but few people are willing to throw themselves at such a thankless and impossible task just so that they have someone worth voting for.

If you meant to ask this of Republicans, then I'm figuring the faithful Republican looks at all the different garbage heaps running for office and says, 'well, I know I don't want the other team to win, so my hands are tied.'

For my part, nothing Trump says could make me vote for him, because what he says is about as relevant as his bowel movements when it comes to predicting his future plans. All I have to work with are his odious past actions against private property rights and his (sort-of) alliance with the maybe-less-bad party. It's possible Clinton could convince me to vote for him, but I'm doubtful of that happening.

[thd7t]

How dare you conservatives question the honorable Ms. Warren.

There is nothing shady about someone who is 1/32nd claiming to be Native American so that she can receive $400,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

This is just more misogyny from the Trump crowd. You cannot comprehend that a powerful women has achieved more than you can imagine in your lifetime. Especially one that is a minority because basically you are all fascist and Hitler (combined).

This was laid to rest years ago. In the current iteration, it is brought up as a convenient dog whistle for Trump. If we are lucky, we can look forward to more birther bullshit when Obama starts stumping for Clinton. Whatever will be kibble for his base and get more ink in the next news cycle. It may be effective, but it is disgusting.

That doesn't have anything to do with liking conservative ideas or not. To the point, how dare conservatives not stand up for their ideals and say no to Trump? Or do his supporters actually believe what he is saying (this week)?

I don't believe anything a Presidential candidate says on the campaign trail. However, I do see the incredible amount of violence by outside of Trump rallies directed against his supporters that draws little attention. You don't see Trump supporters destroying personal property, engaging Hillary supporters with violence and threats, and clashing with police. You don't see violent protests at liberal gatherings at universities around the country, only against conservative speakers. If a bunch of Trump supporters cornered a woman as she was leaving a Hillary rally and pelted her with objects, shouted obscenities, and harassed her it'd be front page news. It has happened over and over to Trump supporters and no one cares.

In the end, to a lot of people, I think Trump represents the same thing Obama represented to the left in 2008. An outsider that promises change and hope towards a political system that to many is seen as hopelessly dysfunctional and no one championing conservative/Republican principles. There's a large segment of 'Republicans' that are socially liberal, but primarily vote based on economic freedoms and smaller government platforms and with a Republican majority in the House and Senate we still continue to expand government spending and increase the deficit. Trump isn't my candidate, I'm hopeful for a solid Libertarian ticket, but I'll vote Trump over Hillary and at the most pessimistic I hope a disastrous presidency forces change towards a smaller government.

Does groping and pepper spring a 15 year old girl count as violence?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/29/girl-pepper-sprayed-groped-outside-wisconsin-trump-rally/82397848/

[beltim]

You don't see Trump supporters destroying personal property, engaging Hillary supporters with violence and threats, and clashing with police. You don't see violent protests at liberal gatherings at universities around the country, only against conservative speakers. If a bunch of Trump supporters cornered a woman as she was leaving a Hillary rally and pelted her with objects, shouted obscenities, and harassed her it'd be front page news. It has happened over and over to Trump supporters and no one cares.

Plenty of of violence happens at Trump rallies:

I find it interesting that all the talk is of Trump promoting violence, but the only violence we've seen to date is by the anti-Trump protesters....

Then you're not paying attention.

Trump has advocated violence against reporters, and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/

Trump advocates violence against protestors: "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you that" and offers to pay for the legal defense of his supporters who assault protestors.  Then his supporters commit assault in
Louisville, Kentucky
Tuscon, Arizona (at least two arrested)
Fayetteville, North Carolina
and many more.

[MDM]

Trump has advocated violence against reporters, and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/

Eh, those two seem overhyped. 

In the first there are many insults (e.g., "sleaze", "scum", etc.) but if there is "advocate violence" I missed it.

In the second, the prosecutor declined to press charges.  Having watched the video, it seems that if Lewandowski's actions were in fact criminal then the vast majority of subway riders at rush hour would also be headed to jail.  Much ado about nothing.

[golden1]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/mar/10/donald-trump-rally-black-man-sucker-punch-north-carolina-video

[Yaeger]

LOL at people comparing those events to the violence, disruption, and riots in protest. There's literally PAGES of these. Don't even try to justify these actions, there's never justification for violence at these rallies and the people that do are human garbage.

[forummm]

It's really interesting that the media is starting to use the word "lie" when referring to Trump. Usually traditional politicians will lie constantly and the media generally won't call them on it. And if they did, it would usually be in a pretty mild and timid way like "now can you explain more what you meant by XYZ because some people are saying QRS".

I guess the difference is that typical politicians at least try to have some truthiness to their lies so that they could talk their way out of it and confuse people who aren't well informed. But Trump just has no regard for playing that game. he just says whatever feels good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/opinion/lord-of-the-lies.html

[forummm]

I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM

[Yaeger]

I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM

It's because if you actually watch his speeches and listen to the conversations they're not blatantly racist, sexist, or overly crazy. However, if you watch the leftist media sources predominately you're not likely to actually watch his speeches and more likely to quote him out of context or intentionally smear him. The GOP got on him about this because his recent statement was so blatantly racist. I don't like Trump, but I prefer his honesty over the Democrat's subtle racism by pandering to black voters and never delivering meaningful change. Heck, it's arguable that Republicans have done more good for the minority groups than Democrats ever have.

However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.

[MoonShadow]

However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.

That is certainly part of his success.

[Glenstache]

I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM

It's because if you actually watch his speeches and listen to the conversations they're not blatantly racist, sexist, or overly crazy. However, if you watch the leftist media sources predominately you're not likely to actually watch his speeches and more likely to quote him out of context or intentionally smear him. The GOP got on him about this because his recent statement was so blatantly racist. I don't like Trump, but I prefer his honesty over the Democrat's subtle racism by pandering to black voters and never delivering meaningful change. Heck, it's arguable that Republicans have done more good for the minority groups than Democrats ever have.

However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

[nereo]

Is Trump alleging fraud? Or mocking that she has Native American blood? Is the legitimately questioning her heritage?

I think that he is mocking her claiming & getting subsidies intended for minorities as a result of a visually undetectable NA contribution to her genome.  I probably have more than she does, and I have never claimed that for monetary gain.  I have had employers claim it for their own reasons, though.   I can (and generally do) pass for a typical white guy with a slight sunburn, and I don't mention to people that I don't know well.  (I have had exactly 2 people guess by looking at me in my lifetime)  If I have any 'white privilege', so does Elizabeth Warren.  If he is mocking her NA heritage, I wouldn't be offended anyway; but I wouldn't count my opinion on this matter either, since I've spent exactly the same amount of time exposed to tribal culture as Elizabeth Warren, which is to say, none.

THanks for hte responses.  This article came up today about other republicans feeling a bit uncomfortable about Trump constantly calling Warren "Pocahontas".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-pocahontas-attack-leaves-fellow-republicans-squirming-again/2016/06/10/01805d22-2f1f-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

I'm still very confused why he's doing this.  I understand that his campaigning MO is to try to label his opponents unfavorably and repeat that at every opportunity ("Lyin' Ted' and "Crooked Hillary" and "Little Marco" and "Low-Energy Jeb") - but why he'd want to give Warren the name Pocahontas seems like its bound to backfire.  If he wants to push the idea that she used a trace amount of native blood to advance her career there has to be a more negative term to apply to her ("false-chief Warren" or something like that).  But in effect he's doing the opposite - he's annoying another ethnic group while simultaniously linking Warren to a historical figure that modern culture (e.g. Disney) has made into a heroine.  That's what I mean when I say "I really don't get this".  I also don't get the label "goofy" - as his insults go it's a pretty lame one.  I've often described myself as "a bit goofy and klutzy".  I couldn't ever imagine someone saying "oh, I can't vote for this person because (s)he is a bit goofy".

Also - when I filled out my college applications there were boxes to check if I was 1/16th native american, and often they were worded "do you consider yourself to be...".  I checked a box because a great-uncle who died before I was born was an alumni, along with members in the military.  I don't believe either of those relatives actually influenced my educational upbringing, but for whatever reason they counted towards my admissions score.
Trump also brags constantly about using the system to his advantage, including the bankruptcy laws. Why is it different for others to do the same?

[Cressida]

jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas

[Yaeger]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation? Interestingly, more Republicans voted in support of the major civil rights laws than Democrats in the 1960's. You credit Democrats for pulling down civil rights restrictions that other Democrats put up! I agree that fixing past mistakes is a step in the right direction, but fixing your own screw-ups doesn't make you the patron saint of equality.

Racism will always be a relevant issue, however the rampant acts of violence, destruction, and terrorism by the left on this issue is self-defeating. Ferguson, Baltimore, Trump rallies, and events in college campuses around the country are blurring the line between a desire to do social good and young people acting out and being violent under the guise of 'social justice'. People aren't buying it anymore, they're not sympathetic to these misguided children.

[Yaeger]

jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas

They talked about this stuff waaaay back in 2012. This isn't new and she's never been able to substantiate her claim. To link something by Vox (uhhh.. okay) that insists it's new and just based on some inherent racism/sexism/otherism is just false. He very well could be racist/sexist/whatever but this comment isn't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

[Cressida]

jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas

They talked about this stuff waaaay back in 2012. This isn't new and she's never been able to substantiate her claim. To link something by Vox (uhhh.. okay) that insists it's new and just based on some inherent racism/sexism/otherism is just false. He very well could be racist/sexist/whatever but this comment isn't.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

From the Vox article:

Trump is referring to a controversy Warren faced over her ancestry during her 2012 Senate campaign.

Maybe if you took more than two seconds to consider your responses, they'd be more coherent.

Now you're just going to move the goalposts and complain about something else, but I'm not interested. The controversy over Warren's heritage is a giant nothing. I think either link demonstrates this.

[nereo]

They talked about this stuff waaaay back in 2012. This isn't new and she's never been able to substantiate her claim. To link something by Vox (uhhh.. okay) that insists it's new and just based on some inherent racism/sexism/otherism is just false. He very well could be racist/sexist/whatever but this comment isn't.

But here he's calling a white woman "Pocahontas" and intending it to be an insult.  He's mocking her, but using the name of one the few widely recognizable historical native American women to do it.

[Yaeger]

Maybe if you took more than two seconds to consider your responses, they'd be more coherent.

Now you're just going to move the goalposts and complain about something else, but I'm not interested. The controversy over Warren's heritage is a giant nothing. I think either link demonstrates this.

It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.

Also, the Vox article left out several key points I pointed out in my source and is a clear attack on Trump, even though I feel he's justified in his comments about Warren. If you're going to link an article, make sure it's from a decent source. Vox isn't known for professional, unbiased journalism and isn't a credible source. Honestly, even right-wing news sources like Breitbart do a better job at providing evidence.

[nereo]

Maybe if you took more than two seconds to consider your responses, they'd be more coherent.

Now you're just going to move the goalposts and complain about something else, but I'm not interested. The controversy over Warren's heritage is a giant nothing. I think either link demonstrates this.

It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.

your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;

But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her...

Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.

[Yaeger]

your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;

It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.

[Rollin]

Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it (so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad), but I am simply shocked by the support that there is out there for Trump and for Clinton. No wonder there is so much disgust for the political system. We are out of control. Real TV and so so superficial, I just don't know why we are so shallow here.

I am also thinking that I am embarrassed for our country that we can have such ridiculous behavior supported by so many. Disheartening.

[nereo]

Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...

...then what's the point of participating?

[nereo]

your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;

It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.

Your argument contradicts itself. You link and article and say that it shows how Senator Warren is a proven liar.  Then I provide an excerpt from the same article you linked detailing how the authors can't conclude whether or not Warren has lied.  The references you are providing aren't supporting your assertions.

To me this seems a very hazy issue. 

[MoonShadow]

jesus. What a bunch of liars you people are.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11684776/elizabeth-warren-pocahontas

About what, exactly?

Also, I learned something...

It's true, Franke-Ruta learned, that Warren wouldn't meet the criteria to officially qualify as Cherokee. She only claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee, which is too little to qualify for citizenship in two of the three major Cherokee tribes. She also doesn't have a known direct ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls, which is a strict requirement for membership in the Cherokee Nation, or on the Baker Rolls, a requirement of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

I didn't even know that this was a requirement.  Wouldn't have mattered, though; I think I might have just found another family member that I didn't even know had American Indian blood, on the other side of my family.  Time for some research!

[Yaeger]

your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;

It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.

Your argument contradicts itself. You link and article and say that it shows how Senator Warren is a proven liar.  Then I provide an excerpt from the same article you linked detailing how the authors can't conclude whether or not Warren has lied.  The references you are providing aren't supporting your assertions.

To me this seems a very hazy issue.

No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.

[MoonShadow]

No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.

Actually, she probably can, because I'm pretty sure she wasn't a lawyer yet.  And that alone would explain why she stopped checking the box.  I think she should be given a bit of slack for what she did in her 20's, and just how much confirm-able evidence she may have had access to at the time.  I sure as hell don't want to be held to the stupid crap I did in my 20's.  On the flip side, if the left can call Rand Paul's self-described religious affiliations into question over a college prank (remember the whole Aqua-Budda thing?) then it's fair game for Trump.  Politics is a messy business.  If you have thin skin, you don't belong in the ring.

[nereo]

your source doesn't exactly make this seem like a clear-cut case of Warren lying, nor does it appear that she was employed because of an ethic claim.
From the article you linked;

It doesn't have to. The burden of proof is on Senator Warren to provide the statements about her motives and evidence that it didn't provide her any benefit. I think most people suspect that it did since she only did it when moving into highly competitive environments. I fully expect the accusations will continue until she comes clean and I hope that even liberal-leaning people push this issue.

Your argument contradicts itself. You link and article and say that it shows how Senator Warren is a proven liar.  Then I provide an excerpt from the same article you linked detailing how the authors can't conclude whether or not Warren has lied.  The references you are providing aren't supporting your assertions.

To me this seems a very hazy issue.

No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.

I'm not comfortable calling anyone 'Pocahontas' - particularly to attack someone else.  From what you and others have said, the label is designed to call someone dishonest while linking them to a historical figure of another minority.

[nereo]

No, there's real evidence that she did check forms claiming to be of Native American descent when applying to Harvard Law School and U of Penn Law School. The burden of proof rests on her as to the reason why she has claimed to be a part of that minority group for those two jobs and no others, and to provide the proof in support of that claim. She's a lawyer, she was an educated lawyer at the time, there's no reason she shouldn't be able to validate her actions. She can't feign ignorance. Until she does, feel free to call her a liar and 'Pocahontas" to your heart's content.

Actually, she probably can, because I'm pretty sure she wasn't a lawyer yet.  And that alone would explain why she stopped checking the box.  I think she should be given a bit of slack for what she did in her 20's, and just how much confirm-able evidence she may have had access to at the time.  I sure as hell don't want to be held to the stupid crap I did in my 20's.  On the flip side, if the left can call Rand Paul's self-described religious affiliations into question over a college prank (remember the whole Aqua-Budda thing?) then it's fair game for Trump.  Politics is a messy business.  If you have thin skin, you don't belong in the ring.

Here I tend to agree with you Moon Shadow - if we disqualified everyone for relatively minor things they did in their 20s hardly anyone would make the ballot.
From the sources given by Yeager and others, it seems that circumstances are hazy at best, and hardly border on criminal.  I told a girl once that I liked a sports team because of a sweatshirt she was wearing (I didn't, and she the sweatshirt was borrowed - she couldn't have cared less... about the team or me).

[MoonShadow]

I'm not comfortable calling anyone 'Pocahontas' - particularly to attack someone else.  From what you and others have said, the label is designed to call someone dishonest while linking them to a historical figure of another minority.

Ironically, Pocahontas wasn't her real name.  It was a kind of nickname, that translated something like "wild child" or "playful child".  It kinda makes me giggle inside thinking about that description applying to Warren.

[Cressida]

It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.

From Wikipedia:

Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[13][14] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[15][16][17] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[18] When Warren was 12, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[19] Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears.[20] When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant.[18][21]

In other words: Come on, dude. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.

Also, the Vox article left out several key points I pointed out in my source and is a clear attack on Trump, even though I feel he's justified in his comments about Warren. If you're going to link an article, make sure it's from a decent source. Vox isn't known for professional, unbiased journalism and isn't a credible source. Honestly, even right-wing news sources like Breitbart do a better job at providing evidence.

The Washington Post has a known right-wing bias. And as I stated, neither article demonstrates that this business over Warren's heritage is anything but a giant nothing.

Finally: Trump calling Warren "Pocahontas" is racist against *Native Americans*, not Warren. It's still racist.

[Rollin]

Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...

...then what's the point of participating?

To give an opinion. I didn't know that one had to read every post before participating. The reason I said "...so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad..." because I knew that someone (like you) would jump in with some inane comment (like yours). I guess you read past that part of my comment.

[Malaysia41]

I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Drumpf saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM

Two words: wolf pac:
wolf-pac.org

Yes I've posted that link before, but it's a drum worth beating.

side rant... the "unamerican" comments in the Joe S clip. Cringe. This flavor of name-calling does nothing but limit honest discussion. It's McCarthyism. It's ugly. A citizen shouldn't have to prove their level of patriotism to be heard, or for their ideas to be considered valid. /side-rant.

[Yaeger]

Actually, she probably can, because I'm pretty sure she wasn't a lawyer yet.  And that alone would explain why she stopped checking the box.  I think she should be given a bit of slack for what she did in her 20's, and just how much confirm-able evidence she may have had access to at the time.  I sure as hell don't want to be held to the stupid crap I did in my 20's.  On the flip side, if the left can call Rand Paul's self-described religious affiliations into question over a college prank (remember the whole Aqua-Budda thing?) then it's fair game for Trump.  Politics is a messy business.  If you have thin skin, you don't belong in the ring.

She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman. It's never been resolved from 2012 and it's a continual stain on her credibility. That's a big deal to some of us. I mean, you'd be pissed if Trump claimed to be a minority to gain an advantage even though he's clearly not. None of us should let these sleazy politicians get away with it.

From Wikipedia:

Warren was born on June 22, 1949,[13][14] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline (née Reed) and Donald Jones Herring.[15][16][17] She was their fourth child, with three older brothers.[18] When Warren was 12, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack—which led to many medical bills, as well as a pay cut because he could not do his previous work.[19] Eventually, this led to the loss of their car from failure to make loan payments. To help the family finances, her mother found work in the catalog order department at Sears.[20] When she was 13, Warren started waiting tables at her aunt's restaurant.[18][21]

In other words: Come on, dude. Stop pulling stuff out of your ass.

She was born middle class, but an experienced law professor in her late 30's working at Harvard isn't middle class. Rich even. A salary of $430,000 isn't going to land you in the poor house.

[thd7t]

Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...

...then what's the point of participating?

To give an opinion. I didn't know that one had to read every post before participating. The reason I said "...so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad..." because I knew that someone (like you) would jump in with some inane comment (like yours). I guess you read past that part of my comment.

You gave an opinion, but no legitimate criticism. Tell us what you don't like ( there is plenty not to like) and what you think should be done.

[nereo]

Haven't read the threads here and don't plan on it ...

...then what's the point of participating?

To give an opinion. I didn't know that one had to read every post before participating. The reason I said "...so for those of you that are offended by that, too bad..." because I knew that someone (like you) would jump in with some inane comment (like yours). I guess you read past that part of my comment.

I read your entire post (something you claim you haven't done) and it was a legitimate question, though I could have rephrased it a bit differently I suppose.  To be a bit more to the point - why in the world are you jumping into a 41 page thread if you aren't going to read what others have posted?  I understand if you'd say "I haven't read through all the posts" or "I've only read through the last few dozen posts"... but to say you haven't read the posts and don't plan to comes off as very rude.
Whether intended or not, you are suggesting that you don't want to listen to what others are saying but you want us to listen to you.  For emphasis, imagine you did this at a party - you saw a group of people who obviously have been involved in a heated and complex argument.  Would you just barge in and say "i don't know what any of you have said and I don't care to, but here's my opinion..."

[forummm]

I was wondering why the GOP was OK with Trump saying such crazy and racist and sexist and stupid stuff all the time and didn't make too much of a big deal about it. And most all of the officials have endorsed him. But then all the sudden they started speaking out about his comments about the "Mexican" judge. It was such an about face that it was odd. Here's an interesting theory as to why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KImBARCiCxM

It's because if you actually watch his speeches and listen to the conversations they're not blatantly racist, sexist, or overly crazy. However, if you watch the leftist media sources predominately you're not likely to actually watch his speeches and more likely to quote him out of context or intentionally smear him. The GOP got on him about this because his recent statement was so blatantly racist. I don't like Trump, but I prefer his honesty over the Democrat's subtle racism by pandering to black voters and never delivering meaningful change. Heck, it's arguable that Republicans have done more good for the minority groups than Democrats ever have.

However, I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. We've been beating the racism drum to such an extreme amount over the last 4-5 years that people are just sick and tired of groups like Black Lives Matter and leftist politicians saying racist things like "When you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor." The race card is played out, people don't care, and they are tired of it.

Are you telling me that you have watched his speeches, and specifically the content that people are objecting to, and you don't find them to be sexist, racist, or crazy? Really?

I actually have listened to many of his speeches and interviews and debate responses and read his tweets and retweets. And he basically says the same things over and over. And there is quite a bit of sexist, racist, and crazy. And a huge amount of blatant lying and contradicting what he just said days ago. He retweets white supremacists, says Mexican immigrants are rapists (but maybe "some" are good people), talks about defaulting on the national debt, talks about China inventing climate change, talks about how the unemployment rate is 47%, talks about women bleeding from their wherevers, etc. There's also a lot of nonsense about "winning" and "great deals" and how he's incredibly rich and amazing.

I think there's good reason to believe he's not actually a billionaire.

[forummm]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.

[music lover]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.

Congratulations...41 pages of stupidity and you may have set a new standard.

[Yaeger]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.

I think they're just better at hiding it and I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the Democrats aren't racist, even unintentionally. They're the party that continues to stoke the fire of racism in our politics because.. they care? Looking at all of the race riots in Democrat-controlled cities over the last few years demonstrates that despite all of the pandering for votes, Democrats do not improve the lives of the black community. I'm sure you'll find some Republican causes behind the epidemic of single motherhood since the 1960's.

Also, if old Democrats are the new Republicans, does that mean that Republicans can claim credit for all the 'great' progressive programs brought about by the old Democrat party in the last century? FDR, JFK, Johnson were really Republican, I knew it!

[Midwest]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.

Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely.  I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.

[Cressida]

She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:

But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

STOP LYING.

[Yaeger]

She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:

But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

STOP LYING.

The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/

[nereo]

She checked the boxes getting a professorship role at University of Penn and Harvard in her late 30's. She had never done it before in her previous jobs or during her 20s. You'd think an experienced lawyer being hired for a job that TEACHES other lawyers would be held to a higher standard than 20 year old kids getting their undergrad.

DUDE. From the *very article* you cited:

But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.

STOP LYING.

The article was older and she did admit to it. Why are you defending her so vehemently? I feel like I'm attacking your faith or something based on your reactions and it's puzzling.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/

I think where we are getting confused Yeager is that you cite a Washington Post article and say:

It shows that this U.S. Senator is a liar that misrepresented herself to gain minority status advantages as a rich white woman.

However, the article you cited doesn't support this.  Put another way, your evidence and conclusions don't match.

From the numerous articles posted in this thread and some google searching the best I can conclude is that there's uncertainty about Senator Warren's ancestry, and while there's the possibility that she may have claimed more than definitive genologies can verify, it doesn't appear to rise to the level of a criminal act.

I'll add that uncertainty and family lore surrounding one's family tree doesn't seem all that unusual to me; a large portion of my family was in eastern Europe during the start of WWII - according to conflicting family reports they either disappeared into Sweden, were absorbed into Communist Russia or died valiantly fighting the Nazi advancement.  I've tried to trace it but it's been a dead end. Knowing one's own heritage isn't always straightforward, and if there's a box to check and I've reason to believe it might apply to me, I check the box.

[forummm]

You mean like when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would be handing the south to Republicans for at least a generation? Clearly that was just pandering. Granted there are also some problems like Bill Clinton's crime bills from the 1990s (may not have intended to be racially biased, but the results were in many places). I think that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the modern Republican party has been more pro-active on race issues. it would be entertaining to see the sources and references, though.

Just because some "people" are tired of hearing about it, does not mean that race isn't a relevant issue anymore, or that their view is universally shared. And, as Moonshadow says, the people that are tired of hearing about race are a part of Trump's success.

You mean after Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws and southern Democrats enforced segregation?

And then stopped being Democrats because the Democrats decided to be against all that racist activity. So now they are Republicans and form the core of the Republican base.

Trump has said so some stupid things, but claiming the majority/core base of tRepublicans are racist is. Inaccurate to put it tpolitely.  I'm only considering him because Clinton may be worse.

I meant the southern Democrats, which was the context, changed parties and became the new base. The south is where the Jim Crow stuff was that the Democrats put an end to, so the officials (and many people) in the south changed parties or were replaced by Republicans. The south is the Republican base. I didn't say everyone was racist. Just that those people changed parties.

I think they're just better at hiding it and I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the Democrats aren't racist, even unintentionally.

Where did I saw the Democrats aren't racist? I think everyone is racist to some degree. We all prejudge people based on our experiences or the information fed to us. The difference among people is how we educate ourselves to overcome bad programming. We tend to colloquially call people racist when their racism eclipses a certain threshold (like acting on their beliefs or perpetuating negative stereotypes).What I said was that the Democrats decided to put an end to the racist activities of Jim Crow and the like, where government was enforcing racist policies.

Also, if old Democrats are the new Republicans, does that mean that Republicans can claim credit for all the 'great' progressive programs brought about by the old Democrat party in the last century? FDR, JFK, Johnson were really Republican, I knew it!

Northern Democrats are not the same as old school southern Democrats. And of course not everyone in a group is the same as everyone else in that group.