Parody Post on Twitter: Frm Donald Drumpf Friends, If you bought a #SUPERYACHT with your #MAGA tax break, DO NOT watch this video! Bitter harpy @AbigailDisney wants to make you feel guilty, just because we can no longer afford #Medicare and #SocialSecurity for the poors! #SundayMorning
Are YOU one of the 550,000 Voters on the Illinois Purge List? OCTOBER 12, 2018 Greg Palast We have the Illinois voter purge list. Are you on it?
The list contains a staggering 550,000 names, and was obtained after a formal complaint and notice of a federal lawsuit was filed by Greg Palast and Rev. Jesse Jackson.
So how often are these purge lists actually done or updated? This is one piece of information that I am missing on these “voter rights are being taken away!!” claim.
Let’s looks at the 550,000 which sounds like a lot until you also look at why these purge lists exist: people die, people move and people get incarcerated (taking away their right to vote which should be illegal but I digress).
Morality rate in the US sits around 734 per 100,000 people. The population of Illinois sits at 12.8 million, so roughly 93,000 people die in Illinois every year. If the list is updated every 4 years or so (once an election - these lists weren’t being brought up during the federal election so I am assuming this is when most lists get updated), this would account for 373,000 of the names removed.
Illinois does have a low incarnation number compared to other states, sitting around 43,000. Obviously, not all of those people would have been registered before the purge but it is safe to add at least a percentage of it to the number from the death rate.
Moving is harder to find information on but 100,000 in 4 years (25,000 per year or 0.002%) of the population isn’t that much of a stretch.
Would there be names removed which shouldn’t have been removed, more likely than not, people are human and do make mistakes but I am guessing it is in the low percentages here.
If people like Greg Palast are actually concerned about people’s right to vote, they should be out there with tablets going door to door or stopping people on the street to check if they are registered or not and registering them on the spot through dmv.org if they are not, and want to be.
Yeah I have little respect for these "academic" fields.
Funny, though. Stuff like this gets exactly zero traction in the 99.9% of the media outlets, but they stop the press every time Trump farts during golf.
It has little effect on the lives of people. The president has more.
I've long been immensely critical of a few strains of modern academic theory, particularly in gender studies and the general influence of postmodernism--fields that, as a liberal, I actually probably would call "leftist" as a group.
There is an atmosphere of contempt for people who are white, cis, conservative, heterosexual, male, Christian, and "Western," to the extent that it's become fashionable to paint each group as an evil oppressor. I've heard the very concept of violence of itself described as "masculine" for no stated reason.
There is a skepticism of basic principles of science like objectivity, evidence, and truth. I've even heard one accusation that science was evil because it committed "epistemic violence"--that is, the destruction of unproven or disproven theories.
There is an enthusiasm for fantastic theories and lofty ideas with no grounding in reality, as long as they support some aspect of a postmodern feminist ideology. A colorful theory made up out of thin air receives more attention and praise than a less exciting article supported by research.
The Areo Magazine article seems very well thought-out. You can tell that they weren't simply throwing together silly ideas and filling them with jargon to get them accepted; they designed each fake article to demonstrate a specific problem in academia today. They did prove what they intended to: there are circles in academia where ideology is so much more important than evidence that they will publish and in some cases praise fake articles with intentionally ridiculous claims inside them.
That being said, "wiping the floor" with one's political opponents is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is here for a friendly and open discussion of political issues and ideas. This is not a battleground for "winning" a debate against some political enemy.
These articles should be shared as a means of calling attention to a legitimate problem; not used to mock people we disagree with.
If people like Greg Palast are actually concerned about people’s right to vote, they should be out there with tablets going door to door or stopping people on the street to check if they are registered or not and registering them on the spot through dmv.org if they are not, and want to be.
@deltago Lets say Old Greg goes door to door and gets 1000 people willing to say they'll register and vote. What happens when the GOP decides to restrict voting rights?
What happens when they decide only people with a certain ID can vote and the place that gives the ID is only open on the fourth Thursday every two months and is 80 miles away from this neighborhood?
What happens when those 1000 people sign up to vote and then the GOP decides to wipe them from the voter rolls for "incomplete paperwork" or some other excuse? What will they do when the GOP closes polling stations in that neighborhood creating a 7 hour wait to vote? What good does knocking on doors do when the GOP refuses to protect voting machines from hacking and won't use paper ballots to keep track of what actually happened?
Guys like Greg are needed to keep an eye on these things. Guys like that are not necessarily endorsing candidate A or B, he is out there to protect the right to vote. Guys like that are playing the long game because that is what's needed. The GOP is playing the long game. They try different shenanigans to disenfranchise citizens and prevent voting - gerrymandering, voter purges, voter suppression, voter ID laws.
Some of it they get away with because: A- they rig the system (ala packing the Supreme Court like they just disenfranchised 50,000 indigenous voters in North Dakota)
Once again, I am only looking at the numbers that was provided and asked a question:
How often are these list actually purged like this?
Applying Hypothetical questions to a situation, even when those incidents have happened in the past in other jurisdictions, does not help the situation.
Making sure people who want to vote and are registered properly, IMO, is more effective, than throwing out one stat with no context behind it and painting the other party as bad for doing it. This is because if a Democrat gets elected, and it is their turn to purge the list of people who have died, moved, and incarcerated, they are going to look like hypocrites for doing it and the argument of “both parties are the same” gains traction.
If Greg here does a little more research and goes through the entire list and gives me a number of people who shouldn’t have been purged, then I may take his doom and gloom more seriously.
And once again, as I stated previously, I am all for voter reform. Here you only need a piece a mail and some form of ID (it doesn’t have to be photo), to cast a vote. You can even have a person vouch for you to cast a vote.
Which reminded me of a question I wanted to ask @semiticgod since he worked at shelters. Is it possible for homeless to vote in the US?
Our homeless shelter here take an active role in make sure those who are on the street that want to vote can, driving them to polls and vouching for them if they do not have proper ID.
@deltago: Yes, the homeless can vote, although a lot of them would have had trouble doing so given Texas voter ID laws. The homeless and the poor in general very seldom have passports or driver's licenses on hand, so getting the right documentation is hard (which, if we're being honest, is the whole point of those ID laws). We had people at the shelter who helped the homeless population register to vote.
Corey Stewart is an absolutely disgusting figure. He ran in the GOP Gubernatorial primary and nearly won it, and in doing so, pushed Ed Gillespie pretty far to the right to compete with his brand of conservatism.
That said, he's been an absolute gift to Democrats in Virginia. He's probably going to lose in his Senate race against Kaine by 10 to 15 %, and depress the GOP turn out in Virginia.
In this report of an interview with CBS Trump suggested that climate change may reverse (without saying how). I'm reminded of the story about King Canute trying in vain to order the tide not to come in. Although that story's often portrayed as reflecting the vanity of kings, in fact Canute was trying to make the point to his courtiers that the powers even of kings were insignificant compared to God's. It wouldn't surprise me though if Trump really believes that he has the power to command nature.
He also claimed that he had treated Christine Blasey Ford with great respect. His rationale for that statement was a telling one - when pressed by the interviewer on whether he really had shown respect he said: "You know what? I'm not going to get into it because we won. It doesn't matter. We won." That's symptomatic of the attitude that what matters is having power - since the victor can define whether power has been used wisely.
In this report of an interview with CBS Trump suggested that climate change may reverse (without saying how). I'm reminded of the story about King Canute trying in vain to order the tide not to come in. Although that story's often portrayed as reflecting the vanity of kings, in fact Canute was trying to make the point to his courtiers that the powers even of kings were insignificant compared to God's. It wouldn't surprise me though if Trump really believes that he has the power to command nature.
He also claimed that he had treated Christine Blasey Ford with great respect. His rationale for that statement was a telling one - when pressed by the interviewer on whether he really had shown respect he said: "You know what? I'm not going to get into it because we won. It doesn't matter. We won." That's symptomatic of the attitude that what matters is having power - since the victor can define whether power has been used wisely.
Actually what he is doing is saying the victor gets to define what reality is. I go back to the first thing this Administration focused on: insisting his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's. Despite aerial photography not only showing it wasn't bigger, it wasn't even a fraction of the size. I was told "this isn't a big deal, it's insignificant, it's a stupid side-show". No, it wasn't. It showed they were willing to spend 3 days insisting to the American public that something that was clearly not true, and was confirmed with visual evidence, was the opposite. It set the stage right out of the gate. It's next-level 1984 stuff. The only thing that is true is what Trump says, even though what he says can change in a matter of days or even hours.
Ok, so this is just too good. For YEARS the right-wing media in this country has been ripping on Elizabeth Warren for supposedly lying about her Native American ancestry. It is a full-blown scandal in conservative circles. Lo and behold, Warren has now released a DNA test that PROVES she wasn't lying. Moreover, Trump (who calls her "Pochahontas" in derivitive terms at every rally) once claimed he would donate $1 million dollars to charity if she proved it. He is now claiming he never said that. Go figure. But more importantly, it is example #546 that most of the shit you hear in right-wing media is utter horsehit.
Lol Warren is like 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American. Which means not Native American.
Harvard's first woman of color confirmed
Goalposts once again shifting from the truth of the claim to quibbling over the percentages. All she ever claimed was SOME Native American ancestry. Also, Warren didn't pick this fight, she is just finishing it. Trump said if she took a DNA test he would cough up a million for charity. Where is the money??
Lol Warren is like 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American. Which means not Native American.
Harvard's first woman of color confirmed
Goalposts once again shifting from the truth of the claim to quibbling over the percentages. All she ever claimed was SOME Native American ancestry.
Your goalpost, I believe, was that right wing media was horseshit but pretty much everything said about her was accurate. She is not even close to Native American, she is not a minority or diversity hire as she listed herself, nor is she a woman of color as she was billed by Harvard. She has no more than the average white American lol
Indigenous ancestry is more cultural than it is bloodline, especially with how decimated tribes are in North America.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
@WarChiefZeke You can say she isn't native American, but her ancestry is. Even the Chief of the Cherokee tribe is only 1/32nd Native American.
"Most tribes use their membership rolls dating back decades, requiring a direct descendant or blood quantum. Warren claims Cherokee and Delaware heritage — both of which use membership rolls to determine who qualifies for tribal citizenship, which Warren has never claimed. Cherokee Nation principal chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee by blood."
She's said her ancestry is Native American. And it is. The DNA Test said that her ancestry goes back between 6 and 10 generations, with an average of 8.
He should put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Now, he claims he never said it. But he's on tape saying it. Videotape that is, in front of a Rally.
Indigenous ancestry is more cultural than it is bloodline, especially with how decimated tribes are in North America.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
By cultural standards, she is even less Native American then the fraction of 1% dna would have you believe.
But yeah there is evidence she had used minority status a few times in life where it made her stand out and gave her an advantage, including on legal directories looked at by hiring Deans for nearly a decade. Her explanation of such also made no sense considering what she claimed would have been impossible.
Indigenous ancestry is more cultural than it is bloodline, especially with how decimated tribes are in North America.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
By cultural standards, she is even less Native American then the fraction of 1% dna would have you believe.
But yeah there is evidence she had used minority status a few times in life where it made her stand out and gave her an advantage, including on legal directories looked at by hiring Deans for over a decade. Her explanation of such also made no sense considering what she claimed would have been impossible.
This is not what the article says. It says she listed herself as either white, or didn't mention it at all. There's nothing in that article that says she claimed herself to be Native American, but that the school did.
Also the people who hired her said her race didn't factor into her hiring.
"The video also tackles the question of whether Warren's Native American heritage played any role in her professional advancement. That issue has been raised by the White House as well, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying during one briefing, "What most people find offensive is Sen. Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career." Warren's purported Native American heritage was touted by Harvard Law School when she was a professor there. But Warren's video includes testimonials from faculty at Harvard Law, the University of Houston, University of Pennsylvania Law School and UT Austin School of Law insisting Warren's professional advancement was not tied to it. "Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring," Jay Westbrook of the UT Austin School of Law says in the video. "Period." Her campaign has also published a lengthy archive of university documents to support these claims."
Indigenous ancestry is more cultural than it is bloodline, especially with how decimated tribes are in North America.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
By cultural standards, she is even less Native American then the fraction of 1% dna would have you believe.
But yeah there is evidence she had used minority status a few times in life where it made her stand out and gave her an advantage, including on legal directories looked at by hiring Deans for over a decade. Her explanation of such also made no sense considering what she claimed would have been impossible.
This is not what the article says. It says she listed herself as either white, or didn't mention it at all. There's nothing in that article that says she claimed herself to be Native American, but that the school did.
Also the people who hired her said her race didn't factor into her hiring.
"The video also tackles the question of whether Warren's Native American heritage played any role in her professional advancement. That issue has been raised by the White House as well, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying during one briefing, "What most people find offensive is Sen. Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career." Warren's purported Native American heritage was touted by Harvard Law School when she was a professor there. But Warren's video includes testimonials from faculty at Harvard Law, the University of Houston, University of Pennsylvania Law School and UT Austin School of Law insisting Warren's professional advancement was not tied to it. "Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring," Jay Westbrook of the UT Austin School of Law says in the video. "Period." Her campaign has also published a lengthy archive of university documents to support these claims."
"For more than a week, questions have swirled about whether Warren has Native American heritage and if she used minority status to advance her career. The controversy started after it emerged that Harvard had billed her as a Native American faculty member and that Warren had listed herself as a minority for nearly a decade in a commonly used legal directory."
"Warren has said she was proud of her Native American heritage and that she listed herself as a minority in the legal directory from 1986 through 1995, because she was hoping to connect with “people like me.’’ The directory, however, did not list her as someone with Native American heritage. It simply said “minority.’’ "
"Leonard P. Strickman, founding dean at Florida International University, one of the nation’s most diverse law schools, said deans often consult the Association of American Law Schools directory when seeking out minority applicants but look more at scholarship before making hires. "
It's pretty much inarguable she was listing herself as a minority to get noticed by employers looking for diversity hires.
@WarChiefZeke While schools may "often" consult with the directory, but how does that square with "But Warren's video includes testimonials from faculty at Harvard Law, the University of Houston, University of Pennsylvania Law School and UT Austin School of Law insisting Warren's professional advancement was not tied to it. "Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring," Jay Westbrook of the UT Austin School of Law says in the video. "Period." "
Indigenous ancestry is more cultural than it is bloodline, especially with how decimated tribes are in North America.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
I disagree. Despite the Selk'nam genocide, you still can find some Fuegians on south of Chile/south of Argentina, on Quebec, is not hard to find someone with 2-5% of Native American DNA; Here is an interesting article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680396/
Anyway, this is a problem with affirmative action; who much admixture someone needs to have to be considered "non white"? For example, Obama is 50% black, is he black? And someone 1/4? 1/8? 1/16? Also, geography can affect it too. For example, Gisele Bundchen, she is blonde, light eyed, fully german, born in a city that speaks Riograndenser Hunsrückisch german but this city is on south america. Can she use affirmative action by being "latina"?? If no, how much Amerindian DNA someone needs to have? If yes because is just a cultural group, this applies to for example Queen Maxima of Netherlands children? She is a blonde with 3 blonde daughters but was born in Argentina.
--------------------
That is the main problem with affirmative action based on race, leads to a racial tribunal or is useless since everyone can claim to be part of any race. Try help the poor regardless of religion, race or genre. Will be some cases where someone can be considered poor in a city and middle class in another but at least will not lead to a racial tribunal.
Comments
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/12/1803978/-Trump-s-tariffs-are-costing-Americans-1-4-billion-per-month-says-new-business-coalition
No Food, No FEMA: Hurricane Michael’s Survivors Are Furious
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-food-no-fema-hurricane-michaels-survivors-are-furious
Where is FEMA?
Parody Post on Twitter: Frm Donald Drumpf
Friends, If you bought a #SUPERYACHT with your #MAGA tax break, DO NOT watch this video! Bitter harpy @AbigailDisney wants to make you feel guilty, just because we can no longer afford #Medicare and #SocialSecurity for the poors! #SundayMorning
White House Considering More Family Separations on the Border
Brian Kemp's record shows poor Stewardship of Georgia's Election System
But all is not bad
Grand Jury Indicts Four White Supremacists Connected to Charlottesville Protest
https://hillreporter.com/grand-jury-indicts-four-white-supremacists-connected-to-charlottesville-protest-10211
Let’s looks at the 550,000 which sounds like a lot until you also look at why these purge lists exist: people die, people move and people get incarcerated (taking away their right to vote which should be illegal but I digress).
Morality rate in the US sits around 734 per 100,000 people. The population of Illinois sits at 12.8 million, so roughly 93,000 people die in Illinois every year. If the list is updated every 4 years or so (once an election - these lists weren’t being brought up during the federal election so I am assuming this is when most lists get updated), this would account for 373,000 of the names removed.
Illinois does have a low incarnation number compared to other states, sitting around 43,000. Obviously, not all of those people would have been registered before the purge but it is safe to add at least a percentage of it to the number from the death rate.
Moving is harder to find information on but 100,000 in 4 years (25,000 per year or 0.002%) of the population isn’t that much of a stretch.
Would there be names removed which shouldn’t have been removed, more likely than not, people are human and do make mistakes but I am guessing it is in the low percentages here.
If people like Greg Palast are actually concerned about people’s right to vote, they should be out there with tablets going door to door or stopping people on the street to check if they are registered or not and registering them on the spot through dmv.org if they are not, and want to be.
There is an atmosphere of contempt for people who are white, cis, conservative, heterosexual, male, Christian, and "Western," to the extent that it's become fashionable to paint each group as an evil oppressor. I've heard the very concept of violence of itself described as "masculine" for no stated reason.
There is a skepticism of basic principles of science like objectivity, evidence, and truth. I've even heard one accusation that science was evil because it committed "epistemic violence"--that is, the destruction of unproven or disproven theories.
There is an enthusiasm for fantastic theories and lofty ideas with no grounding in reality, as long as they support some aspect of a postmodern feminist ideology. A colorful theory made up out of thin air receives more attention and praise than a less exciting article supported by research.
The Areo Magazine article seems very well thought-out. You can tell that they weren't simply throwing together silly ideas and filling them with jargon to get them accepted; they designed each fake article to demonstrate a specific problem in academia today. They did prove what they intended to: there are circles in academia where ideology is so much more important than evidence that they will publish and in some cases praise fake articles with intentionally ridiculous claims inside them.
That being said, "wiping the floor" with one's political opponents is not the purpose of this thread. This thread is here for a friendly and open discussion of political issues and ideas. This is not a battleground for "winning" a debate against some political enemy.
These articles should be shared as a means of calling attention to a legitimate problem; not used to mock people we disagree with.
Lets say Old Greg goes door to door and gets 1000 people willing to say they'll register and vote. What happens when the GOP decides to restrict voting rights?
What happens when they decide only people with a certain ID can vote and the place that gives the ID is only open on the fourth Thursday every two months and is 80 miles away from this neighborhood?
What happens when those 1000 people sign up to vote and then the GOP decides to wipe them from the voter rolls for "incomplete paperwork" or some other excuse? What will they do when the GOP closes polling stations in that neighborhood creating a 7 hour wait to vote? What good does knocking on doors do when the GOP refuses to protect voting machines from hacking and won't use paper ballots to keep track of what actually happened?
Guys like Greg are needed to keep an eye on these things. Guys like that are not necessarily endorsing candidate A or B, he is out there to protect the right to vote. Guys like that are playing the long game because that is what's needed. The GOP is playing the long game. They try different shenanigans to disenfranchise citizens and prevent voting - gerrymandering, voter purges, voter suppression, voter ID laws.
Some of it they get away with because:
A- they rig the system (ala packing the Supreme Court like they just disenfranchised 50,000 indigenous voters in North Dakota)
B- we aren't paying attention.
How often are these list actually purged like this?
Applying Hypothetical questions to a situation, even when those incidents have happened in the past in other jurisdictions, does not help the situation.
Making sure people who want to vote and are registered properly, IMO, is more effective, than throwing out one stat with no context behind it and painting the other party as bad for doing it. This is because if a Democrat gets elected, and it is their turn to purge the list of people who have died, moved, and incarcerated, they are going to look like hypocrites for doing it and the argument of “both parties are the same” gains traction.
If Greg here does a little more research and goes through the entire list and gives me a number of people who shouldn’t have been purged, then I may take his doom and gloom more seriously.
And once again, as I stated previously, I am all for voter reform. Here you only need a piece a mail and some form of ID (it doesn’t have to be photo), to cast a vote. You can even have a person vouch for you to cast a vote.
Which reminded me of a question I wanted to ask @semiticgod since he worked at shelters. Is it possible for homeless to vote in the US?
Our homeless shelter here take an active role in make sure those who are on the street that want to vote can, driving them to polls and vouching for them if they do not have proper ID.
GOP Senate candidate uses neo-Nazi sympathizer to organize campaign meet-and-greet
https://www.salon.com/2018/10/14/gop-senate-candidate-uses-neo-nazi-sympathizer-to-organize-campaign-meet-and-greet_partner/
Corey Stewart is an absolutely disgusting figure. He ran in the GOP Gubernatorial primary and nearly won it, and in doing so, pushed Ed Gillespie pretty far to the right to compete with his brand of conservatism.
That said, he's been an absolute gift to Democrats in Virginia. He's probably going to lose in his Senate race against Kaine by 10 to 15 %, and depress the GOP turn out in Virginia.
Hopefully, he'll go away after he's voted down.
The #2 House Republican was just busted in nepotistic $7 million fraud contract scandal
https://washingtonpress.com/2018/10/14/the-2-house-republican-was-just-busted-in-nepotistic-7-million-fraud-contract-scandal/
Which involves Kevin McCarthy, R-CA.
RUDY GIULIANI SPREADS MESSAGE THAT "ANTI-CHRIST" GEORGE SOROS IS BEHIND KAVANAUGH PROTESTS
https://www.newsweek.com/giuliani-retweets-message-claiming-anti-christ-soros-behind-kavanaugh-1156584
VIOLENT FAR-RIGHT, PRO-TRUMP GROUP HITS NEW YORK STREETS, AND FOX NEWS SEES THEM AS VICTIMS
https://www.newsweek.com/violent-far-right-group-fox-news-victims-1168454
He also claimed that he had treated Christine Blasey Ford with great respect. His rationale for that statement was a telling one - when pressed by the interviewer on whether he really had shown respect he said: "You know what? I'm not going to get into it because we won. It doesn't matter. We won." That's symptomatic of the attitude that what matters is having power - since the victor can define whether power has been used wisely.
Harvard's first woman of color confirmed
More Americans believe Ford than Kavanaugh, according to new poll
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/more-americans-believe-ford-than-kavanaugh-according-to-new-poll
Donald Trump finally just said it: he doesn’t care if Kavanaugh’s accuser is telling the truth
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/14/17976620/donald-trump-ford-lesley-stahl-60-minutes-kavanaugh-accuser
WOMEN FOR TRUMP FOUNDER SAYS GOP IN DANGER BECAUSE WITCHES PUT A HEX ON BRETT KAVANAUGH
https://www.newsweek.com/witches-hex-brett-kavanaugh-amy-kremer-scary-conservatives-ritual-trump-1168948
New York Antifa Publishes Names, Workplaces of ‘Proud Boys’ Who Assaulted Protesters
https://gritpost.com/new-york-proud-boys/
Trump’s 60 Minutes interview once again reveals gross ignorance and wild dishonesty
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/14/17975644/trump-60-minutes-interview-transcript
Trump pledged million-dollar donation to charity if Elizabeth Warren could prove Native American heritage — which she just did
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/trump-pledged-million-dollar-donation-charity-elizabeth-warren-prove-native-american-heritage-just/
Trump White House Considering Forced Family Separation Policy once again.
I can claim follow my family tree right up Louis Riel but I do not consider myself indigenous. I do have third and fourth cousins who can claim the same thing, is just as white as I am, but was raised in the Métis culture (or their parents were). They can definitely claim to be of Métis descent even if they have 1/64 or whatever bloodline.
If Warren is an advocate for indigenous rights, it also shouldn’t matter what her skin colour is, only her actions.
Now if she used this claim just to further herself in life, attempt to fill a niche in the government that was being neglected and used it to get ahead all while ignoring the strife that indigenous tribes face today, then she should be called out for it.
"Most tribes use their membership rolls dating back decades, requiring a direct descendant or blood quantum. Warren claims Cherokee and Delaware heritage — both of which use membership rolls to determine who qualifies for tribal citizenship, which Warren has never claimed. Cherokee Nation principal chief Bill John Baker is 1/32 Cherokee by blood."
She's said her ancestry is Native American. And it is. The DNA Test said that her ancestry goes back between 6 and 10 generations, with an average of 8.
He should put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Now, he claims he never said it. But he's on tape saying it. Videotape that is, in front of a Rally.
But yeah there is evidence she had used minority status a few times in life where it made her stand out and gave her an advantage, including on legal directories looked at by hiring Deans for nearly a decade. Her explanation of such also made no sense considering what she claimed would have been impossible.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/10/records-shed-more-light-elizabeth-warren-minority-status/eE56vLDeZLvRpnAnqNqvGM/story.html
Also the people who hired her said her race didn't factor into her hiring.
"The video also tackles the question of whether Warren's Native American heritage played any role in her professional advancement. That issue has been raised by the White House as well, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying during one briefing, "What most people find offensive is Sen. Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career."
Warren's purported Native American heritage was touted by Harvard Law School when she was a professor there. But Warren's video includes testimonials from faculty at Harvard Law, the University of Houston, University of Pennsylvania Law School and UT Austin School of Law insisting Warren's professional advancement was not tied to it.
"Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring," Jay Westbrook of the UT Austin School of Law says in the video. "Period."
Her campaign has also published a lengthy archive of university documents to support these claims."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-native-american/index.html
"For more than a week, questions have swirled about whether Warren has Native American heritage and if she used minority status to advance her career. The controversy started after it emerged that Harvard had billed her as a Native American faculty member and that Warren had listed herself as a minority for nearly a decade in a commonly used legal directory."
"Warren has said she was proud of her Native American heritage and that she listed herself as a minority in the legal directory from 1986 through 1995, because she was hoping to connect with “people like me.’’ The directory, however, did not list her as someone with Native American heritage. It simply said “minority.’’ "
"Leonard P. Strickman, founding dean at Florida International University, one of the nation’s most diverse law schools, said deans often consult the Association of American Law Schools directory when seeking out minority applicants but look more at scholarship before making hires. "
It's pretty much inarguable she was listing herself as a minority to get noticed by employers looking for diversity hires.
"Her heritage had no bearing on her hiring," Jay Westbrook of the UT Austin School of Law says in the video. "Period." "
Anyway, this is a problem with affirmative action; who much admixture someone needs to have to be considered "non white"? For example, Obama is 50% black, is he black? And someone 1/4? 1/8? 1/16? Also, geography can affect it too. For example, Gisele Bundchen, she is blonde, light eyed, fully german, born in a city that speaks Riograndenser Hunsrückisch german but this city is on south america. Can she use affirmative action by being "latina"?? If no, how much Amerindian DNA someone needs to have? If yes because is just a cultural group, this applies to for example Queen Maxima of Netherlands children? She is a blonde with 3 blonde daughters but was born in Argentina.
--------------------
That is the main problem with affirmative action based on race, leads to a racial tribunal or is useless since everyone can claim to be part of any race. Try help the poor regardless of religion, race or genre. Will be some cases where someone can be considered poor in a city and middle class in another but at least will not lead to a racial tribunal.