The media really thinks that Clinton was a victim of the media treating her bad because of sexism lmaoo
I just can't take these people seriously. We live in separate universes with little to no overlap. This lady was practically handed the nomination on a silver platter.
The media really thinks that Clinton was a victim of the media treating her bad because of sexism lmaoo
I just can't take these people seriously. We live in separate universes with little to no overlap. This lady was practically handed the nomination on a silver platter.
It can be both, since we're talking about both the primary and the general election.
I don't think it's a secret that women are treated differently from men when it comes to politics. People have already documented that women are judged more harshly for expressing the same emotions, and I recall a study that found that people held a lower opinion of female politicians when reading an article that mentioned their appearance, even in a neutral fashion, a trend which did not apply to men. I don't know how much those attitudes impacted Clinton, but they do exist.
How did Warren benefit from her claims of Native American ancestry? Did she push aside any Native Americans in the process? Who are they? And are they more than 1/64 Native American? As we've mentioned before, the head of the Cherokee is only 1/32.
Currently, all I see is, "A 1/64 Native American woman might have had a small impact on people who might have been slightly more or slightly less than 1/64."
I do not see the scandal in that, especially because this was before she had a DNA test to verify it, especially because any other folks who claimed to be Native American--these hypothetical, nameless people she supposedly, somehow pushed out of unspecified opportunities--didn't take any DNA tests before they made their claims, either. I see no reason to believe that these unspecified people were any more Native American than her to begin with.
And when her DNA test showed that she was slightly less Native American than she thought? She apologized for it, just like the Cherokee asked her to.
I cannot take an accusation seriously if it's not even clear what the accusation is supposed to be. We don't know what the damage supposedly was, who was allegedly hurt, how it happened, or when it happened.
The media really thinks that Clinton was a victim of the media treating her bad because of sexism lmaoo
I just can't take these people seriously. We live in separate universes with little to no overlap. This lady was practically handed the nomination on a silver platter.
She lost because she was handed everything (including a Senate seat she didn't earn) due to her husband being a popular president. It didn't help that she has the charisma of a mushroom (sorry @lolien). Her screechy voice alone made her cringeworthy to me.
I'm glad she lost. Maybe the parties will learn not to 'groom' people and just let the cards play as they fall. I'd much rather vote for genuine people myself. Trump is an ass, but he is a 'genuine' ass...
I went back to OnTheIssues to look at Warren's record. Most of the stuff I agree with (I omitted things that I agreed with but were low priorities, as well as statements of principles rather than specific policies):
Financial crisis due to deregulation, not boom-bust cycle. (Apr 2014)
2008: Should have broken up bailed-out banks. (Apr 2017)
New regulatory regime to protect financial consumers. (Oct 2010)
Restrict corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration. (Aug 2016)
Advocates stiff punishment for corporate offenders. (Jan 2016)
Invest in public education & universal preschool. (Apr 2016)
Allow refinancing student loans; it's a crushing $1.2T. (May 2014)
Bank on Students Act: reduce student loan interest rates. (Apr 2014)
Invest in energy technology instead of subsidizing Big Oil. (Apr 2014)
Transition to green energy now for long-term growth. (Sep 2012)
Instead of voter suppression, do everything to help register. (Apr 2014)
Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers. (Feb 2015)
Supports gun control. (Aug 2011)
Obvious solution is universal single-payer healthcare. (Nov 2014)
Reduce size of standing army to reduce deficit. (Oct 2012)
End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act. (Oct 2013)
Make it easier for workers to organize. (Nov 2014)
Unions fight for their workers; not like corporate lobbyists. (Apr 2014)
End tax breaks to the already-rich and already-powerful. (Jan 2012)
Supports increasing tax rates. (Oct 2012)
Public spending on research is investing in ideas. (Apr 2017)
Push for spending on infrastructure. (Nov 2011)
Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection. (Mar 2014)
Strong safety net is needed now more than ever. (Apr 2016)
I only found a handful of things I disagreed with.
Unequivocally support Israel's qualitative military edge. (Jul 2016)
No UN membership for Palestine until two-state solution. (Jul 2016)
Opposes the outright legalization of marijuana. (Apr 2012)
Opposes a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012)
I think these are more important ways to judge a candidate. The best indicator of what a President would do in office is what policies the candidate has supported in the recent past.
The OnTheIssues article on Kamala Harris is much more sparse, but she seems fairly similar to Warren. On criminal justice reform, social safety nets, gun control, and taxes, I agree with her own most issues as well. The only position I saw that I disagreed with was her opposition to body cameras for police officers.
I'm glad she lost. Maybe the parties will learn not to 'groom' people and just let the cards play as they fall. I'd much rather vote for genuine people myself. Trump is an ass, but he is a 'genuine' ass...
This does seem a rather curious use of 'genuine' . Normally when you talk about people being genuine you mean they are honest and sincere. I'm not quite sure how that could possibly apply to Trump. I suppose if you stretch the definition a bit you can make it mean things like having a frank and direct manner. That might be a good thing if everything else is equal, but if direct means not thinking before you speak then I'd prefer someone a bit more thoughtful and reflective myself.
This idea that Trump is better because his ASTOUNDING level of corruption is so out in the open is insane. All it does is serve to innoculate him by virtue of being 10x worse than anyone has ever been and numbing the public to it. He didn't divest from his businesses. Literally EVERY payment being made to all of them, all around the world, is a potential bribe. He is offering ambassador positions to people who have memberships at Mar-a-lago. Mind you, these are not payments to his campaign, but to him PERSONALLY. He is running an international crime syndicate masquerading as the US government.
If someone murdered someone, we wouldn't give them brownie points for doing it in the middle of a restaurant where 100 people were witnesses and say "well shit, at least he didn't try to hide what he was doing".
She definitely did try to benefit from it. She listed herself as a minority on the AALS directory, something potential employers look at when hiring qualified candidates. Law schools that did hire her publicly touted her minority status. It's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to assume one of those positions would have otherwise gone to a qualified, actual minority candidate.
We'll never know for sure whether or not actual damages occurred but the intent seems pretty clear.
If she was a Republican this would be over for her. Any mention of her name in the press would be followed by ",who once tried to fraudulently claim minority status," but she could get over it eventually because they are all hoping everyone forgets.
I went back to OnTheIssues to look at Warren's record
Opposes a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012)
I think these are more important ways to judge a candidate. The best indicator of what a President would do in office is what policies the candidate has supported in the recent past.
I oppose a balanced budget amendment, both in practice (not strongly) and in principle (strongly).
In practice, because what is the national debt but a failure to adhere to a balanced budget. That huge debt should be paid off as part of ANY sort of balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it would unconstitutionally violate the 14th Amendment (The U.S. WILL (eventually) pay off all its debts).
In principle, because it inhibits flexibility. When you're getting 50 billion dollar hurricane seasons, a number that is only going to go up in the foreseeable future, you're going to need to budget for unforeseen events. A strict balanced budget amendment would not allow that. And if it was not strict, what's the point of a balanced budget amendment? It's like millions of people swearing they'll stick to a new diet in the new year, and break it by February.
I don't think it's a secret that women are treated differently from men when it comes to politics.
When it comes to this particular women, yes, she was definitely treated differently. She was treated as the pre-selected candidate by the DNC who acted as her personal PR firm. She was given debate questions before hand. The entire media apparatus was full on behind her. She was given center stage on national t.v to claim things like "nobody is more progressive than I am!" to absolutely no criticism whatsoever. She could not have been more favored if she was just handed the Presidency without an election.
To moan about sexism in media coverage of women especially democrat women is outrageously out of touch with reality, *especially* if you want to bring Clinton's name into it.
Besides all that I think Warren would buckle under the establishments pressure on some things. If there's anything we've seen from Trump is that there is a tremendous amount of pressure from inside of Washington to conform to certain norms on issues regardless of how the public feels, and typically these things involve occupation and war. To Trump's credit, despite his litany of other failures, he's kept us out of any major occupations or engagements so far, even going so far as to fight with his own staff to do so, but i'm not liking these statements on Venezuela. It's not up to us to select "legitimate" leaders.
I still think Tulsi of all the Democrats has enough strength of character to stand by her convictions.
If we have a quote from a law school saying that they wouldn't have accepted Warren if they knew she was less than 1/32 Native American, then we would know that she actually displaced another applicant. Then the damage would be established.
As for the intent... no. Elizabeth Warren's source for her claim was her mother, who told her she had Native American ancestry. Her mother apparently gave her wrong information. Warren's crime was believing her mother.
Just like I believed mine, when she said I had Irish ancestry.
Believing your mom when she tells you about your ancestry is not an unreasonable or dishonest thing to do. I did the exact same thing, and if that ended up benefiting me, then I would have profited from it--not because I went out of my way to tout myself as a minority, but because I believed my mom.
I'm going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no one in this thread has ever fact-checked any claims their parents made about their family history. Everyone of us would have believed our mothers, just like Warren did.
I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that a DNA test revealed that I did not have the ancestry that I said I did because my mother told me. You guys personally witnessed me doing the exact same thing as Elizabeth Warren--believing my mother, then retracting the claim when a DNA test proved otherwise.
I lost my previous comment, about the other Democratic candidates' positions on OnTheIssues and some other websites, but the short version is that I agreed with most of them on all of my primary issues: Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tulsi Gabbard. The only two candidates I felt were weaker choices for me were Cory Booker and Julian Castro, since I could not find strong support for campaign finance reform for either of them. Across the board, they supported higher taxes for the wealthy, a stronger social safety net, a single-payer healthcare system or at least Obamacare, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Support for prison reform, infrastructure spending, and R&D were also common themes. I didn't focus as much on my peripheral issues, like abortion and immigration, but they seemed pretty consistent on that theme as well.
Bernie Sanders was the only one who went as far as I did on several issues, from what I can tell. While most of the candidates had records of supporting unions and increasing the minimum wage, Sanders actually supported breaking up larger companies, a warm reminder of Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting.
As a Democrat, I like my options here. A lot of 2020 depends on the Congressional election results, but if we get a Democrat-heavy Congress and a President Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, Harris, Gillibrand, or Gabbard, we could see a stronger version of the McCain-Feingold Act. The Citizens United decision might still have to be overturned, a process which could take years, if not decades, but if any of these candidates won in 2020, we'd be on the way to getting money out of politics.
I guess I need to clarify my 'ass' statement due to the complexities of the English language (not being able to hear vocal inflections makes text a difficult medium for sarcasm sometimes). I meant that Trump is truly an ass and doesn't try to hide it, whereas Hillary tries to hide the fact that she's an ass (but failed miserably imho). I did fall into the trap of believing our current ass when he said he'd surround himself with the best advisors. Yeah, not so much...
@Balrog99: I got it. It's the difference between saying someone is a "genuine politician" and saying someone is a "genuine politician." The first one means they're honest; the second means they're dishonest!
By the way, why Tulsi Gabbard, @WarChiefZeke? Any particular reason she'd be better at withstanding institutional pressures? I've have thought Sanders.
If we have a quote from a law school saying that they wouldn't have accepted Warren if they knew she was less than 1/32 Native American, then we would know that she actually displaced another applicant. Then the damage would be established.
As for the intent... no. Elizabeth Warren's source for her claim was her mother, who told her she had Native American ancestry. Her mother apparently gave her wrong information. Warren's crime was believing her mother.
Just like I believed mine, when she said I had Irish ancestry.
Believing your mom when she tells you about your ancestry is not an unreasonable or dishonest thing to do. I did the exact same thing, and if that ended up benefiting me, then I would have profited from it--not because I went out of my way to tout myself as a minority, but because I believed my mom.
I'm going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no one in this thread has ever fact-checked any claims their parents made about their family history. Everyone of us would have believed our mothers, just like Warren did.
I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that a DNA test revealed that I did not have the ancestry that I said I did because my mother told me. You guys personally witnessed me doing the exact same thing as Elizabeth Warren--believing my mother, then retracting the claim when a DNA test proved otherwise.
Well, being Irish would have made you more genuine when celebrating St. Patrick's Day, but it wouldn't have been much help getting into college (maybe even a hindrance with the Irish stereotypes out there). I also seriously doubt you'd have been touting it to the press since nobody gives a shit if you're Irish or not anymore.
The DNA results aren't very meaningful to me either way. I already have no ties to England despite being majority English by ancestry, so learning I have Swedish ancestry doesn't add any strength to my equally nonexistent ties to Sweden. My culture isn't related to my DNA; it's just where I've lived and grown up. I'm American, Texan, and San Antonian, and culturally speaking, I can't tell the difference between myself and almost every nonwhite person I've met in my hometown.
One of the interesting things about living in the nation of immigrants is that, eventually, diversity becomes invisible.
She definitely did try to benefit from it. She listed herself as a minority on the AALS directory, something potential employers look at when hiring qualified candidates. Law schools that did hire her publicly touted her minority status. It's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to assume one of those positions would have otherwise gone to a qualified, actual minority candidate.
We'll never know for sure whether or not actual damages occurred but the intent seems pretty clear.
In general, I agree with this. Where I think we differ is I dont think it's inherently disqualifying. It puts her pretty low on my list for candidates in 2020, but miles ahead of Trump, who in addition to all of his myriad of ethical and moral failings, also now has policy and governmental ones.
Warren is probably tied with Gabbard with me. The major difference is - Gabbard is going to have more of an opportunity to rehabilitate herself in my eyes than Warren will.
When it comes to this particular women, yes, she was definitely treated differently. She was treated as the pre-selected candidate by the DNC who acted as her personal PR firm. She was given debate questions before hand. The entire media apparatus was full on behind her. She was given center stage on national t.v to claim things like "nobody is more progressive than I am!" to absolutely no criticism whatsoever. She could not have been more favored if she was just handed the Presidency without an election.
None of this means she wasnt a victim of sexism. As far as 2016 goes, she was born on third base and thought she hit a triple. In life, Trump was born on 3rd base and told everyone he hit a home-run...
Also, you think she wasnt criticized? Selective memory. I had DOZENS of arguments with real-life Bernie supporters about this during the primary. Most of those arguments were just trying to defend her against all of the ridiculous right-wing smears (Pizza-gate. Podesta's satanic emails, Seth Rich, etc).
What do you get when you mix an army veteran, animal lover and tattooed huntress – one fierce animal protector that will stop poachers in their tracks.
Kinessa Johnson served four years in the armed forces as a weapons instructor and mechanic before she used her extensive training to defend wildlife from poachers. Johnson took her experience and love for animals and headed to Africa, where she joined a team of other veterans at Veterans Empowered to Protect African Wildlife (VEPAW).
I love Kinessa Johnson!
I think you may be reading some old material. Her team was kicked out of Tanzania in 2015. At best, it looks like the whole thing was just a publicity stunt to hype a proposed reality show. When I limited my search for stories to those within the past year, they got very vague. No dates or places anymore, just saying she's in "Africa". That kind of reporting sets my Snopes sense tingling.
Also the stories from when they were in Tanzania are somewhat disturbing. Officially they were there to train game wardens, but they started posting to social media that they were going to "kill some bad guys" and posting pics of Johnson with various weaponry. I think it was all just hype, but the image of white mercenaries going to Africa to kill black people leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. There's some really nasty history around that sort of thing.[/quote]
No, I agree with you. That *is* disturbing, and I don't think I like her all that much any more. :P
By the way, why Tulsi Gabbard, @WarChiefZeke? Any particular reason she'd be better at withstanding institutional pressures? I've have thought Sanders.
She withstands a lot of pressure from her own party already, not being one to toe the party line despite the clear rewards for doing so. She has definitely been one to stand by her views, but also change them when she feels she has been wrong. That's a big mark of sincerity to me. I also found her story of her conversion on foreign policy issues to be convincing, and her statements on the issues with the state being the moral arbiter of another society to be spot on.
Besides having the right character for the job I also agree with her most on policy:
- she's willing to take the stances that for some reason are politically unpopular but morally correct, like recognizing the armenian genocide.
- she makes foriegn policy and environmental issues a big part of her platform rather than the constant race and gender pandering.
- her stance on the media is sound. She doesn't bash the whole institution but acknowledges they don't always report facts.
- she's the only democrat who has even hinted at abuses by big tech monopolies and intelligence agencies.
The Native American thing with Elizabeth Warren is a ridiculous non-issue. I fail to understand why being 1/64 Native American instead of 1/32 is such a scandal.
She didn't say she has Native American ancestry; she said she IS a Native American. I'm sorry, if you claim to be Irish, you have to expect someone might ask "oh, who in your family is Irish?" And your response that that should really be to name someone in your family who is Irish. Even if it's not totally true, you should have some explanation like "well, my great Aunt Jane claimed to be off the boat, she claimed there was a pooka in her basement and always hosted St. Patrick's Day parties. We're not totslly sure, she may just drink too much." Something like that. To lack anything like that, and yet claim to be Irish, would be weird and skeevy.
So Warren has this weird and skeevy thing hanging out there, and rather than saying "I was young and stupid, everyone raise your hand if you've never been young and stupid, I see no hands, okay let's move on," she tries to justify it with a DNA test! Which is honestly outrageous, not to mention politically idiotic. Her PR people should be fired, she should remain a wonderful senator, and maybe the next Democrat president will put her in charge of the CFPB where she was always meant to be. To send a candidate with a skeevy thing like that hanging around her into a tough general election would be stupid and unnecesarily risky.
I don't think her claiming to be Native American is skeevy. I think she was told when she was young that she had a Native American ancestor. She accepted that. She said that and when she did the DNA Ancestry test- it turned out to be correct- she *did* have a Native American ancestor- it was just further back than she thought. I remember at least two native Tribes saying that as long as someone was descended from a Mative American Ancestor, and claimed it, their tribes would accept them. The Cherokee had a problem with it, yes, but some tribes did not. And she did apologize... and she really does have native American in her ancestry. I don't see anything "Skeevy" about that.
She definitely did try to benefit from it. She listed herself as a minority on the AALS directory, something potential employers look at when hiring qualified candidates. Law schools that did hire her publicly touted her minority status. It's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to assume one of those positions would have otherwise gone to a qualified, actual minority candidate.
We'll never know for sure whether or not actual damages occurred but the intent seems pretty clear.
If she was a Republican this would be over for her. Any mention of her name in the press would be followed by ",who once tried to fraudulently claim minority status," but she could get over it eventually because they are all hoping everyone forgets.
Like how Trump claims to be Swedish, when he's actually German?
If we have a quote from a law school saying that they wouldn't have accepted Warren if they knew she was less than 1/32 Native American, then we would know that she actually displaced another applicant. Then the damage would be established.
As for the intent... no. Elizabeth Warren's source for her claim was her mother, who told her she had Native American ancestry. Her mother apparently gave her wrong information. Warren's crime was believing her mother.
Just like I believed mine, when she said I had Irish ancestry.
Believing your mom when she tells you about your ancestry is not an unreasonable or dishonest thing to do. I did the exact same thing, and if that ended up benefiting me, then I would have profited from it--not because I went out of my way to tout myself as a minority, but because I believed my mom.
I'm going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no one in this thread has ever fact-checked any claims their parents made about their family history. Everyone of us would have believed our mothers, just like Warren did.
I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that a DNA test revealed that I did not have the ancestry that I said I did because my mother told me. You guys personally witnessed me doing the exact same thing as Elizabeth Warren--believing my mother, then retracting the claim when a DNA test proved otherwise.
I know I'm adopted. 3/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish. The Adoption Agency told my mother and father that's what I was when they adopted me. The Italian is easy to believe, because I look VERY Italian, so much so that people told me I looked like my adopted Dad, who was 100% Italian. The Irish, I have no idea about.
She definitely did try to benefit from it. She listed herself as a minority on the AALS directory, something potential employers look at when hiring qualified candidates. Law schools that did hire her publicly touted her minority status. It's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to assume one of those positions would have otherwise gone to a qualified, actual minority candidate.
We'll never know for sure whether or not actual damages occurred but the intent seems pretty clear.
If she was a Republican this would be over for her. Any mention of her name in the press would be followed by ",who once tried to fraudulently claim minority status," but she could get over it eventually because they are all hoping everyone forgets.
Like how Trump claims to be Swedish, when he's actually German?
If we have a quote from a law school saying that they wouldn't have accepted Warren if they knew she was less than 1/32 Native American, then we would know that she actually displaced another applicant. Then the damage would be established.
As for the intent... no. Elizabeth Warren's source for her claim was her mother, who told her she had Native American ancestry. Her mother apparently gave her wrong information. Warren's crime was believing her mother.
Just like I believed mine, when she said I had Irish ancestry.
Believing your mom when she tells you about your ancestry is not an unreasonable or dishonest thing to do. I did the exact same thing, and if that ended up benefiting me, then I would have profited from it--not because I went out of my way to tout myself as a minority, but because I believed my mom.
I'm going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no one in this thread has ever fact-checked any claims their parents made about their family history. Everyone of us would have believed our mothers, just like Warren did.
I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that a DNA test revealed that I did not have the ancestry that I said I did because my mother told me. You guys personally witnessed me doing the exact same thing as Elizabeth Warren--believing my mother, then retracting the claim when a DNA test proved otherwise.
I know I'm adopted. 3/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish. The Adoption Agency told my mother and father that's what I was when they adopted me. The Italian is easy to believe, because I look VERY Italian, so much so that people told me I looked like my adopted Dad, who was 100% Italian. The Irish, I have no idea about.
Comments
I just can't take these people seriously. We live in separate universes with little to no overlap. This lady was practically handed the nomination on a silver platter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-sexist-will-the-medias-treatment-of-female-candidates-be-rule-out-not-at-all/2019/02/15/117158e4-2fcb-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9dba1b195832
It can be both, since we're talking about both the primary and the general election.
How did Warren benefit from her claims of Native American ancestry? Did she push aside any Native Americans in the process? Who are they? And are they more than 1/64 Native American? As we've mentioned before, the head of the Cherokee is only 1/32.
Currently, all I see is, "A 1/64 Native American woman might have had a small impact on people who might have been slightly more or slightly less than 1/64."
I do not see the scandal in that, especially because this was before she had a DNA test to verify it, especially because any other folks who claimed to be Native American--these hypothetical, nameless people she supposedly, somehow pushed out of unspecified opportunities--didn't take any DNA tests before they made their claims, either. I see no reason to believe that these unspecified people were any more Native American than her to begin with.
And when her DNA test showed that she was slightly less Native American than she thought? She apologized for it, just like the Cherokee asked her to.
I cannot take an accusation seriously if it's not even clear what the accusation is supposed to be. We don't know what the damage supposedly was, who was allegedly hurt, how it happened, or when it happened.
The criticism is just so vague.
She lost because she was handed everything (including a Senate seat she didn't earn) due to her husband being a popular president. It didn't help that she has the charisma of a mushroom (sorry @lolien). Her screechy voice alone made her cringeworthy to me.
I'm glad she lost. Maybe the parties will learn not to 'groom' people and just let the cards play as they fall. I'd much rather vote for genuine people myself. Trump is an ass, but he is a 'genuine' ass...
We already did, Andrew Jackson...
This does seem a rather curious use of 'genuine'
If someone murdered someone, we wouldn't give them brownie points for doing it in the middle of a restaurant where 100 people were witnesses and say "well shit, at least he didn't try to hide what he was doing".
We'll never know for sure whether or not actual damages occurred but the intent seems pretty clear.
If she was a Republican this would be over for her. Any mention of her name in the press would be followed by ",who once tried to fraudulently claim minority status," but she could get over it eventually because they are all hoping everyone forgets.
I oppose a balanced budget amendment, both in practice (not strongly) and in principle (strongly).
In practice, because what is the national debt but a failure to adhere to a balanced budget. That huge debt should be paid off as part of ANY sort of balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it would unconstitutionally violate the 14th Amendment (The U.S. WILL (eventually) pay off all its debts).
In principle, because it inhibits flexibility. When you're getting 50 billion dollar hurricane seasons, a number that is only going to go up in the foreseeable future, you're going to need to budget for unforeseen events. A strict balanced budget amendment would not allow that. And if it was not strict, what's the point of a balanced budget amendment? It's like millions of people swearing they'll stick to a new diet in the new year, and break it by February.
When it comes to this particular women, yes, she was definitely treated differently. She was treated as the pre-selected candidate by the DNC who acted as her personal PR firm. She was given debate questions before hand. The entire media apparatus was full on behind her. She was given center stage on national t.v to claim things like "nobody is more progressive than I am!" to absolutely no criticism whatsoever. She could not have been more favored if she was just handed the Presidency without an election.
To moan about sexism in media coverage of women especially democrat women is outrageously out of touch with reality, *especially* if you want to bring Clinton's name into it.
I still think Tulsi of all the Democrats has enough strength of character to stand by her convictions.
As for the intent... no. Elizabeth Warren's source for her claim was her mother, who told her she had Native American ancestry. Her mother apparently gave her wrong information. Warren's crime was believing her mother.
Just like I believed mine, when she said I had Irish ancestry.
Believing your mom when she tells you about your ancestry is not an unreasonable or dishonest thing to do. I did the exact same thing, and if that ended up benefiting me, then I would have profited from it--not because I went out of my way to tout myself as a minority, but because I believed my mom.
I'm going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no one in this thread has ever fact-checked any claims their parents made about their family history. Everyone of us would have believed our mothers, just like Warren did.
I specifically mentioned earlier in this thread that a DNA test revealed that I did not have the ancestry that I said I did because my mother told me. You guys personally witnessed me doing the exact same thing as Elizabeth Warren--believing my mother, then retracting the claim when a DNA test proved otherwise.
Bernie Sanders was the only one who went as far as I did on several issues, from what I can tell. While most of the candidates had records of supporting unions and increasing the minimum wage, Sanders actually supported breaking up larger companies, a warm reminder of Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting.
As a Democrat, I like my options here. A lot of 2020 depends on the Congressional election results, but if we get a Democrat-heavy Congress and a President Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, Harris, Gillibrand, or Gabbard, we could see a stronger version of the McCain-Feingold Act. The Citizens United decision might still have to be overturned, a process which could take years, if not decades, but if any of these candidates won in 2020, we'd be on the way to getting money out of politics.
Well, being Irish would have made you more genuine when celebrating St. Patrick's Day, but it wouldn't have been much help getting into college (maybe even a hindrance with the Irish stereotypes out there). I also seriously doubt you'd have been touting it to the press since nobody gives a shit if you're Irish or not anymore.
One of the interesting things about living in the nation of immigrants is that, eventually, diversity becomes invisible.
In general, I agree with this. Where I think we differ is I dont think it's inherently disqualifying. It puts her pretty low on my list for candidates in 2020, but miles ahead of Trump, who in addition to all of his myriad of ethical and moral failings, also now has policy and governmental ones.
Warren is probably tied with Gabbard with me. The major difference is - Gabbard is going to have more of an opportunity to rehabilitate herself in my eyes than Warren will.
None of this means she wasnt a victim of sexism. As far as 2016 goes, she was born on third base and thought she hit a triple. In life, Trump was born on 3rd base and told everyone he hit a home-run...
Also, you think she wasnt criticized? Selective memory. I had DOZENS of arguments with real-life Bernie supporters about this during the primary. Most of those arguments were just trying to defend her against all of the ridiculous right-wing smears (Pizza-gate. Podesta's satanic emails, Seth Rich, etc).
I think you may be reading some old material. Her team was kicked out of Tanzania in 2015. At best, it looks like the whole thing was just a publicity stunt to hype a proposed reality show. When I limited my search for stories to those within the past year, they got very vague. No dates or places anymore, just saying she's in "Africa". That kind of reporting sets my Snopes sense tingling.
Also the stories from when they were in Tanzania are somewhat disturbing. Officially they were there to train game wardens, but they started posting to social media that they were going to "kill some bad guys" and posting pics of Johnson with various weaponry. I think it was all just hype, but the image of white mercenaries going to Africa to kill black people leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. There's some really nasty history around that sort of thing.[/quote]
No, I agree with you. That *is* disturbing, and I don't think I like her all that much any more. :P
She withstands a lot of pressure from her own party already, not being one to toe the party line despite the clear rewards for doing so. She has definitely been one to stand by her views, but also change them when she feels she has been wrong. That's a big mark of sincerity to me. I also found her story of her conversion on foreign policy issues to be convincing, and her statements on the issues with the state being the moral arbiter of another society to be spot on.
Besides having the right character for the job I also agree with her most on policy:
- she's willing to take the stances that for some reason are politically unpopular but morally correct, like recognizing the armenian genocide.
- she makes foriegn policy and environmental issues a big part of her platform rather than the constant race and gender pandering.
- her stance on the media is sound. She doesn't bash the whole institution but acknowledges they don't always report facts.
- she's the only democrat who has even hinted at abuses by big tech monopolies and intelligence agencies.
I would vote Tulsi over Trump most likely.
I don't think her claiming to be Native American is skeevy. I think she was told when she was young that she had a Native American ancestor. She accepted that. She said that and when she did the DNA Ancestry test- it turned out to be correct- she *did* have a Native American ancestor- it was just further back than she thought. I remember at least two native Tribes saying that as long as someone was descended from a Mative American Ancestor, and claimed it, their tribes would accept them. The Cherokee had a problem with it, yes, but some tribes did not. And she did apologize... and she really does have native American in her ancestry. I don't see anything "Skeevy" about that.
Like how Trump claims to be Swedish, when he's actually German?
I know I'm adopted. 3/4 Italian, 1/4 Irish. The Adoption Agency told my mother and father that's what I was when they adopted me. The Italian is easy to believe, because I look VERY Italian, so much so that people told me I looked like my adopted Dad, who was 100% Italian. The Irish, I have no idea about.
Do you feel lucky? If yes then you're Irish!