"Pocahontas" Pwns President

ml1 said:

Anyone who is condemning Elizabeth Warren for allegedly using Native American heritage to advance herself is being nakedly partisan.  I doubt that even one person who is criticizing her now would have supported her for president otherwise.

That’s not the only line of criticism, however. There’s the likes of this:

Elizabeth Warren Falls for Trump’s Trap—and Promotes Insidious Ideas About Race and DNA (The New Yorker)

And this:

dave23 said:

She wasn't ever going to get far. And if this is indicative of how she would run a campaign, good riddance.

And this:

Smedley said:

It's not sinister. That was never my point. My point was this whole situation raises valid concerns about a potential presidential candidate's judgement and honesty. Which is why this is a story. And at this critical juncture, the Democrats have to be focused on winning in 2018 and then in 2020, not on sideshow stuff like this.

theres plenty to criticize regarding any presidential candidates judgments and policies without resorting to the absolute minutiae that is this tempest in a teapot.   

I never believed that EW was running for president, she never expressed that ambition and her current role seems to fit her perfectly.  

This is a story only because its a racist dog whistle, not because she may or may not have checked a box on a form somewhere.  

hoops said:

I never believed that EW was running for president, she never expressed that ambition and her current role seems to fit her perfectly.  

From last month:

Warren says she will ‘take a hard look at running for president’ (Boston Globe)

She's running. I'll be shocked if she doesn't run. Nobody says they're running until they are. 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Anyone who is condemning Elizabeth Warren for allegedly using Native American heritage to advance herself is being nakedly partisan.  I doubt that even one person who is criticizing her now would have supported her for president otherwise.

That’s not the only line of criticism, however. There’s the likes of this:
Elizabeth Warren Falls for Trump’s Trap—and Promotes Insidious Ideas About Race and DNA (The New Yorker)
And this:

dave23 said:

She wasn't ever going to get far. And if this is indicative of how she would run a campaign, good riddance.

And this:

Smedley said:

It's not sinister. That was never my point. My point was this whole situation raises valid concerns about a potential presidential candidate's judgement and honesty. Which is why this is a story. And at this critical juncture, the Democrats have to be focused on winning in 2018 and then in 2020, not on sideshow stuff like this.

 Is there any example of someone who changed her mind about Warren due to this latest event?

South_Mountaineer said:

 Is there any example of someone who changed her mind about Warren due to this latest event?

That’s a tall order, unless someone just comes out and says so. I guess we can keep our ears and eyes open.

Boston conservative radio host Howie Carr tried to obtain some of Warren's genetic material. 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/18/elizabeth-warren-dna-test-was-long-term-strategy-based-politics-not/WL08qeKj21HddHYM7wFxLL/story.html

DaveSchmidt said:

hoops said:

I never believed that EW was running for president, she never expressed that ambition and her current role seems to fit her perfectly.  

From last month:
Warren says she will ‘take a hard look at running for president’ (Boston Globe)

 this is why I love MOL.   Make an ignorant statement and the research is done for you.    

I still believe after taking that hard look, she'll figure out she's not going to be the best candidate or at least the nomination winner.  

ridski said:

nohero said:

ridski said:
While I have no doubt you're all correct about Harvard and student diversity, Warren was never a student at Harvard.

 Rutgers Newark Law, actually.

 Among other places. But she was never a student at Harvard, so her “case” doesn’t really demonstrate the ability or lack thereof of Harvard’s socioeconomic diversity metrics tracking. She was on a list, they saw her name on it, they used her being on that list to promote themselves, and she went along with it.

 I realize that most people are interested in this as a political story or a DNA-testing story, but what interests me about it is what it reveals about affirmative action.  

I know that Warren was never a student at Harvard or Penn and the evidence says that she didn't use her Native American fractional ancestry to gain her professorships, but Harvard and Penn claimed her as a Native American without any qualifier.  That someone like Warren could have used remote minority ancestry to benefit from a program that was originally intended to remedy the legacy of American exploitation and racism doesn't seem right to me.

The most common criticism of affirmative action is that it is unfair to advantage an affluent person from an underrepresented minority over a low-income Asian-American or white person, but another criticism is that many of the beneficiaries of affirmative action aren't people whose ancestors were ever victims of American racism or even bona fide members of the minority group they claim to be part of.  

Other people are interested in this because of what it says about Warren's political acumen, or what tribal membership means or as an example of how aggressive Republicans will be against Warren, but the above is why this case interests me.

Runner_Guy said:

The most common criticism of affirmative action is that it is unfair to advantage an affluent person from an underrepresented minority over a low-income Asian-American or white person, but another criticism is that many of the beneficiaries of affirmative action aren't people whose ancestors were ever victims of American racism or even bona fide members of the minority group they claim to be part of.  

Other people are interested in this because of what it says about Warren's political acumen, or what tribal membership means or as an example of how aggressive Republicans will be against Warren, but the above is why this case interests me.

Who are the many beneficiaries of affirmative action whose ancestors weren’t ever victims of American racism? Who are the many who aren’t “bona fide” members of the minority group they claim?

And how many affluent minorities are taking spots away from low-income applicants, compared with the affluent whites who are?

The above are questions that interest me.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Anyone who is condemning Elizabeth Warren for allegedly using Native American heritage to advance herself is being nakedly partisan.  I doubt that even one person who is criticizing her now would have supported her for president otherwise.

That’s not the only line of criticism, however. There’s the likes of this:
Elizabeth Warren Falls for Trump’s Trap—and Promotes Insidious Ideas About Race and DNA (The New Yorker)
And this:

dave23 said:

She wasn't ever going to get far. And if this is indicative of how she would run a campaign, good riddance.

And this:

Smedley said:

It's not sinister. That was never my point. My point was this whole situation raises valid concerns about a potential presidential candidate's judgement and honesty. Which is why this is a story. And at this critical juncture, the Democrats have to be focused on winning in 2018 and then in 2020, not on sideshow stuff like this.

True, it's a different criticism. But I doubt these are people who were looking forward to a Warren presidential run previously.  Mainly because in the grand scheme of political things, Warren's actions are incredibly trivial.  Compare what she's being criticized for doing to the incredible dishonesty of the president.  Or even Lyin' Ted Cruz.

And the criticism from the left is just more evidence of liberals shooting themselves (or their candidates) in the foot.  Some of the criticism is not because they themselves think Warren committed a serious mistake, but because they think other people will think it is a serious mistake.

And some of it is just concern trolling from the usual corners.

I'll repeat it -- this is just one more example of the trivial nonsense that dominates our political discourse.  Instead of asking ourselves what a Warren campaign would mean for working people, for how businesses are regulated, what would it mean for the environment, we're talking about whether or not she was listed as Native American on some dusty volume on a law school shelf, a volume that hardly anyone likely even opened.

And in November, 2020 Democrats will be asking themselves how Trump managed to beat their candidates twice.

ml1 said:

Mainly because in the grand scheme of political things, Warren's actions are incredibly trivial. 

 What’s not so trivial, to me, and possibly to others, is how someone handles whatever situation he or she ends up in. How did Obama handle the questions about Jeremiah White? How did Kavanaugh handle the Blasey Ford hearing? How did Warren handle, now or years ago, the dispute over her Native American heritage? In the grand scheme of political things, that’s not for nuthin’.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Mainly because in the grand scheme of political things, Warren's actions are incredibly trivial. 

 What’s not so trivial, to me, and possibly to others, is how someone handles whatever situation he or she ends up in. How did Obama handle the questions about Jeremiah White? How did Kavanaugh handle the Blasey Ford hearing? How did Warren handle, now or years ago, the dispute over her Native American heritage? In the grand scheme of political things, that’s not for nuthin’.

 do you consider it disqualifying for the office of the presidency?  would you have been a strong supporter otherwise?

ml1 said:

 do you consider it disqualifying for the office of the presidency?  would you have been a strong supporter otherwise?

To the first question, no. I weigh it, though.

To the second: I don’t know. It’s early yet.

Women are treated differently in the public eye than men. There is a lot of baggage, persistent archetypes that follow women, anything seems to slide off a man. A woman has to deal with that in her nature she is untrustworthy, a seductress, an architect of a man's demise. Look how Trump has been treated and how Hillary Clinton was or for that matter Bill Clinton. Hillary was demonized, but a guy is a guy. 

On the other topic, it would be interesting to see how race weighed against social economic status in college acceptance. Completely anecdotal, a family member's child was rejected from every Ivy league. He is white, his mom (who worked as a cashier) raised him by herself because his dad is a drug addict, and they live in a crappy town outside Detroit. He scored something crazy on both the SAT and ACT, all A's, and involved socially with school. They applied to other schools, and it worked out. I do wonder if he was not a white male if the outcome would have been different. I know this kid, his life has not been easy - but then he puts he is a white male and does the rest all go away. 

I guess it comes down to the fact that no one wants to be labeled and have their subjectivity taken away. If someone comes from a low SES (which obviously may relate to race but not necessarily so), they most likely have not had the perks of someone who is from a high SES and should be given more. 

I guess the issue is appropriation.  But instead of cultural appropriation it is identity appropriation.  She isn’t a woman who “passes” for white living with family who faced discrimination due to their heritage.  She wasn’t raised with Native American being her culture, with the exception of family lore without any real heritage.  Sure, the DNA does seem to support that family lore, but the ancestor is so far removed from her that it has no real bearing on her identity as a white woman in American society.  And that is why it will be problematic during an election.  If enough people who do face real discrimination on a regular basis look at this white woman going on about her Native American heritage, they may just say “**** it” and stay home from the polls

No candidate is perfect, but pretending to have a heritage or to be a race you’re not when it is obvious that society has seen and treated you as a privileged race your entire life is a real issue.  

spontaneous said:
I guess the issue is appropriation.  But instead of cultural appropriation it is identity appropriation.  She isn’t a woman who “passes” for white living with family who faced discrimination due to their heritage.  She wasn’t raised with Native American being her culture, with the exception of family lore without any real heritage.  Sure, the DNA does seem to support that family lore, but the ancestor is so far removed from her that it has no real bearing on her identity as a white woman in American society.  And that is why it will be problematic during an election.  If enough people who do face real discrimination on a regular basis look at this white woman going on about her Native American heritage, they may just say “**** it” and stay home from the polls


No candidate is perfect, but pretending to have a heritage or to be a race you’re not when it is obvious that society has seen and treated you as a privileged race your entire life is a real issue.  

So your suggestion is that she should have been silent when Trump mocked her, taunted her to take a DNA test, and boasted that he had shown her to be a liar.

Warren’s identity and trustworthiness were fodder back in 2012...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes/

mtierney said:
Warren’s identity and trustworthiness were fodder back in 2012...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes/

 Yes, we all know that.  The Republicans were jerks about it back then, and that's why Trump has continued being a jerk about it in the present day.  By the way, when will Trump the deadbeat blowhard pay off, or is he going to run away from yet another debt?

Robert_Casotto said:
If anyone is following the Harvard discrimination trial, it came out that Asian males need an appr. 25% better SAT score (1380) than their black and hispanic colleagues (1100) to get a look.


Legacies and athletic recruits are certainly a significant issue affecting that as well.


Of course, a completely separate issue from Sitting Bull **** claiming she’s a Cherokee.

 The source of this suit is what taints it. This is the same UT Austin-suing white guy who's been fighting college admissions practices for years. Asians are simply his latest inroad, a "useful" group for him.

I taught AP HS seniors for decades and have heard all the stories of "discrimination," all the tales of "how to get in" and "who gets left out." I'm currently in touch with a mom who swears her kid would be better off if he weren't white. Imagine, in this culture, whiteness being a drawback. For this mom, it's Indian-Americans. Everyone's got their "competitor," depending on their biases.

In a twist on the old Groucho Marx line, why would one want to be a member of a club with such awful left-leaning practices? Go to Pepperdine. Go to Liberty University. Hillsdale anyone? Need an Ivy? Dartmouth is probably less awful. So is Cornell.

I won't live that long but I'm positive that, if this Asian suit is a winner, within a generation white folks will be complaining about being passed over for Asian students who, for whatever reasons, do considerably better on standardized tests, which seem to be the be-all-and-end-all of purists who oppose admissions practices.

Selective schools try to create a class of diverse students whose very proximity to one another creates learning -  cello players, linebackers, farm boys/girls.

If there's any argument that's a worthy target, it's legacies. Some folks can buy their way in. Meanwhile, the Harvard endowment is in the gazillions.

Any kid who has the chops to even think about Harvard will do just fine in life. They don't need the brand name. 

Not your decision to make, though, right?

GL2, since breal calls you on it, are you willing to give up trying to decide yourself who gets into Harvard?

breal said:
Not your decision to make, though, right?

 No. The decision belongs to the private university. That's my point. 

DaveSchmidt said:
GL2, since breal calls you on it, are you willing to give up trying to decide yourself who gets into Harvard?

 Not sure I understand the question. Are you suggesting that I am arguing that I decide?

Let's also consider that Brett "I worked my *** off" Kavanaugh is a legacy.

Wanna get in? Buy a building on campus. Why isn't the suit about purchasing admission? That seems clearer cut, in terms of fairness.

So I do have one beef with admission policies. 

nohero said:

mtierney said:
Warren’s identity and trustworthiness were fodder back in 2012...
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes/

 Yes, we all know that.  The Republicans were jerks about it back then, and that's why Trump has continued being a jerk about it in the present day.  By the way, when will Trump the deadbeat blowhard pay off, or is he going to run away from yet another debt?

 Actually, I didn’t know or just do not remember that issue. I kept reading or hearing remarks about cold omelets and crab and mayo and crab. Google offered up the POW Wow Chow cookbook.  

How did that title pass PC inspection? Sounds a tad offensive to 2018 sensitivities.

GL2 said:

In a twist on the old Groucho Marx line, why would one want to be a member of a club with such awful left-leaning practices? Go to Pepperdine. Go to Liberty University. Hillsdale anyone? Need an Ivy? Dartmouth is probably less awful. So is Cornell.

Thoughful post, but this excerpt rings to me like the argument that there are plenty of other cake shops if the one with the Caravaggio of Icing refuses to serve you. And I think the reasons to want to go to Harvard, regardless of one’s opinions of its political or cultural climate, are pretty obvious.

GL2 said:

Robert_Casotto said:
If anyone is following the Harvard discrimination trial, it came out that Asian males need an appr. 25% better SAT score (1380) than their black and hispanic colleagues (1100) to get a look.


Legacies and athletic recruits are certainly a significant issue affecting that as well.


Of course, a completely separate issue from Sitting Bull **** claiming she’s a Cherokee.

 The source of this suit is what taints it. This is the same UT Austin-suing white guy who's been fighting college admissions practices for years. Asians are simply his latest inroad, a "useful" group for him.
I taught AP HS seniors for decades and have heard all the stories of "discrimination," all the tales of "how to get in" and "who gets left out." I'm currently in touch with a mom who swears her kid would be better off if he weren't white. Imagine, in this culture, whiteness being a drawback. For this mom, it's Indian-Americans. Everyone's got their "competitor," depending on their biases.

Why is the suit "tainted" by who brought it?  

If an individual or organization opposed race-based affirmative action in the past, then why is it surprising if they oppose it now.  That's called consistency.

Since a majority of the public opposes race-based affirmative action, and a large minority of African-Americans, I don't see anything illegitimate about opposing it in a court of law.

Yes, proponents of race-based affirmative action see Asians being "used," if they oppose affirmative action, but Asians who themselves oppose affirmative action see themselves being helped.

Your attitude that Asians can't oppose race-based affirmative action, and if they fight it they are "being used," is patronizing.

You don't get to decide how other people feel about something and you don't get to decide if they have a right to sue or not.

Harvard’s Admissions Process, Once Secret, Is Unveiled in Affirmative Action Trial

A federal trial that began this week accusing Harvard of stacking the deck against Asian-American applicants is providing a rare glimpse into the secretive selection process at one of the country’s most elite universities. It is as if those sitting on the wood benches before Judge Allison D. Burroughs of Federal District Court in Boston have been invited inside the inner sanctum of the Harvard Office of Admissions and Financial Aid.

There is the longtime dean of admissions, William Fitzsimmons (Harvard Class of 1967), on the stand, grilled on whether rural students receive a leg up over urban students. They do.

There on a big screen are his emails with the university’s fund-raisers, suggesting special consideration for the offspring of big donors, those who have “already committed to a building” or have “an art collection which could conceivably come our way.”