The Angry Bunch HAHAHAHAHAHA
Comments
-
- Hillary mentioned above wisely gave up her security clearance before having it revoked.
- Trump gained 5 points through the Kavanaugh theater. Tough way to do it, but at least it had a positive outcome.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Ok @Bill_Coley how about you tackle the issue of Justice Ginsberg and her judicial temperament which no liberal seems to want to touch?Welcome back to discussions of issues rather than me, reformed.
To my understanding, Justice Ginsburg gave three interviews in the period of July 7-11, 2016:
- July 7, to the AP, in which she said, among other things, she didn't want to think about the possibility of a Trump presidency.
- July 8, to The New York Times, in which she said, among other things, that when she thought of a potential Trump presidency, she thought of a saying of her late husband's: It's time to move to New Zealand.
- July 11, to CNN, in which she claimed, among other things, that Trump had an ego, and would say whatever came into his mind at the moment.
There's no doubt that Justice Ginsburg expressed partisan political views in those three interviews, views the likes of which we all know ALL Supreme Court justices have - some in support of the Trump presidency, others against it. While none of us expects Supreme Court justices not to have partisan political views, it was clearly inappropriate for Justice Ginsburg to declare hers in those interviews.
If the story of the Ginsburg "judicial temperament" display stopped there, her expression of partisanship, while clearly less angry and more mild-mannered than Kavanaugh's, could fairly be equated to his. But there was more to the Ginsburg display.
On July 14, 2016, multiple media outlets reported the justice's apology - not for having partisan political views, but having expressed them.
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
That means if Kavanaugh's judicial temperament as expressed in his partisan political views declared to the Senate Judiciary Committee is to remain approximately comparable to Justice Ginsburg's, then we need to see his public apology, his recognition that he in fact publicly declared his partisan political views, and that such a declaration was inappropriate. Where is that apology?
In his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed? I don't see it there. He admitted to having possibly been "too emotional" at times, and having "said a few things (he) should not have said," but nowhere in the article does he acknowledge that among the "things (he) should not have said" were his partisan political views.
So I think both Justice Ginsburg and then-judge Kavanaugh inappropriately expressed their partisan political views. I think Ginsburg's expression was more controlled and decent than Kavanaugh's, but it was inappropriate nonetheless. Where their two expressions differ, in my view, is that Ginsburg specifically identified her mistake - she admitted to a partisan political expression - whereas Kavanaugh copped only to a cover-all-bases "some things I should not have said" confession. In view of that difference, I contend, AT BEST Kavanaugh's "apology" was in no way better than Ginsburg's, and much more likely than not did not measure up to hers.
NOW it's your turn. Remember, reformed, we're talking about issues here, not about me.
Clearly you have double standards.
-
@reformed said:
Clearly you have double standards.Once again, reformed, you and I give other CD readers clear witness to our respective approaches to presenting our arguments.
- I offered a 400+ word analysis of both Ginsburg's and Kavanaugh's judicial temperaments that linked to sources, acknowledged the mistakes of the justice with whose decisions I very often agree, and drew a conclusion based on the presented evidence.
- You offered a five word conclusion.
In your previous post, you asked me to "tackle" an issue you believed "no liberal seems to want to touch." I did so, directly and substantively, and in the process gave you specific evidence and arguments to "tackle." With great confidence I say your single sentence headline missed the tackle.
I thought you wanted discuss issues, reformed. If you're serious about that, you're going to have to give me something more to work with than five word allegations of "double standards."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Clearly you have double standards.Once again, reformed, you and I give other CD readers clear witness to our respective approaches to presenting our arguments.
- I offered a 400+ word analysis of both Ginsburg's and Kavanaugh's judicial temperaments that linked to sources, acknowledged the mistakes of the justice with whose decisions I very often agree, and drew a conclusion based on the presented evidence.
- You offered a five word conclusion.
In your previous post, you asked me to "tackle" an issue you believed "no liberal seems to want to touch." I did so, directly and substantively, and in the process gave you specific evidence and arguments to "tackle." With great confidence I say your single sentence headline missed the tackle.
I thought you wanted discuss issues, reformed. If you're serious about that, you're going to have to give me something more to work with than five word allegations of "double standards."
Right, the only proper answer with regard to Ginsberg would be the same outrage you have against Kavanaugh. Really, it should be more so because she was not being accused of despicable acts without corroborating evidence.
The point is, a judge should not be required to show judicial temperament when they are the accused. They are not in a judicial capacity at that point and it is nonsense to argue that they should not be partisan when they are personally under accusation and defending themselves. NOTHING Kavanaugh said was inaccurate during the partisan points of his speech.
-
@reformed said:
Right, the only proper answer with regard to Ginsberg would be the same outrage you have against Kavanaugh.
I think judges/justices have every right in the world to their personal political views, and that those views most of the time probably coincide with their judicial philosophy. For example, I don't think it's much of a risk to contend that Kavaunaugh voted for Trump and Ginsburg for Clinton.
I also think it's inappropriate for judges/justices to express their personal political views. Such a restriction of their "free speech rights" comes with the territory in the same way that I can't express my personal politics in sermons or in other pastoral relationships with the people of my congregation. I don't get to do that.
Finally, I think there are degrees of inappropriateness when it comes to judges' and justices' expressions of their political views. For a sitting justice to reveal his or her views in a civil tone and a decent manner via answers to media outlet questions is less inappropriate than it is for a judge to reveal his or her views in an angry screed that includes unproven political accusations via prepared remarks to a Senate committee with whom he or she is interviewing for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
It's kind of like this: It's inappropriate for ten year children not to come to the dinner table when called there by their parents. It's even more inappropriate for them to refuse to come to the dinner table by yelling, screaming, and throwing household items around the house.
Really, it should be more so because she was not being accused of despicable acts without corroborating evidence.
So anyone accused of sufficiently despicable acts has the right to speak to others the way Kavanaugh did to Senator Klobuchar? You think he was wrong to apologize to her? to apologize for those things he thinks he shouldn't have said? It's okay to traffic in conspiracy theories as long as you're mad enough about something? If those ten year olds think it's despicable that their parents would call them to the dinner table when they're playing video games, they have the right to the outbursts of their choosing?
The point is, a judge should not be required to show judicial temperament when they are the accused. They are not in a judicial capacity at that point and it is nonsense to argue that they should not be partisan when they are personally under accusation and defending themselves.
So your argument is that Kavanaugh was "not in a judicial capacity" during his Senate committee hearing. Was Justice Ginsburg "in a judicial capacity" when she answered media outlet questions about her views regarding a potential Trump presidency?
NOTHING Kavanaugh said was inaccurate during the partisan points of his speech.
Here are some of the partisan points he made:
"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with...
1. "...apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election"
2. "...fear that has been unfairly stoked about (Kavanaugh's) judicial record"
3. "...revenge on behalf of the Clintons"
4. "...millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."You say there was "NOTHING... inaccurate" about any of them. How do you prove or disprove the existence of "apparent pent-up anger"? Where is the proof of revenge on behalf of the Clintons?
But even if they could be proven, it was wrong to take his denials into the political realm. Did Dr Ford accuse Trumpsters of covering up for Kavanaugh? Did she blame the GOP's decision to let someone else ask her questions at the hearing on their rampant chauvinism? No. She told her story and made her claims. She offered no accusations outside the truth of her assault as best she could remember it. She threw mud at no one other than the two people she accused of being in the room with her that night. No conspiracy theories. No political commentary. In my view, Kavanaugh should have done the same.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Right, the only proper answer with regard to Ginsberg would be the same outrage you have against Kavanaugh.
I think judges/justices have every right in the world to their personal political views, and that those views most of the time probably coincide with their judicial philosophy. For example, I don't think it's much of a risk to contend that Kavaunaugh voted for Trump and Ginsburg for Clinton.
I also think it's inappropriate for judges/justices to express their personal political views. Such a restriction of their "free speech rights" comes with the territory in the same way that I can't express my personal politics in sermons or in other pastoral relationships with the people of my congregation. I don't get to do that.
Finally, I think there are degrees of inappropriateness when it comes to judges' and justices' expressions of their political views. For a sitting justice to reveal his or her views in a civil tone and a decent manner via answers to media outlet questions is less inappropriate than it is for a judge to reveal his or her views in an angry screed that includes unproven political accusations via prepared remarks to a Senate committee with whom he or she is interviewing for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
It's kind of like this: It's inappropriate for ten year children not to come to the dinner table when called there by their parents. It's even more inappropriate for them to refuse to come to the dinner table by yelling, screaming, and throwing household items around the house.
Really, it should be more so because she was not being accused of despicable acts without corroborating evidence.
So anyone accused of sufficiently despicable acts has the right to speak to others the way Kavanaugh did to Senator Klobuchar? You think he was wrong to apologize to her? to apologize for those things he thinks he shouldn't have said? It's okay to traffic in conspiracy theories as long as you're mad enough about something? If those ten year olds think it's despicable that their parents would call them to the dinner table when they're playing video games, they have the right to the outbursts of their choosing?
When they are accused without any real evidence as part of a political circus? ABSOLUTELY.
The point is, a judge should not be required to show judicial temperament when they are the accused. They are not in a judicial capacity at that point and it is nonsense to argue that they should not be partisan when they are personally under accusation and defending themselves.
So your argument is that Kavanaugh was "not in a judicial capacity" during his Senate committee hearing. Was Justice Ginsburg "in a judicial capacity" when she answered media outlet questions about her views regarding a potential Trump presidency?
During that part of his hearing, no. He was not in a judicial capacity. He was a person accused. He was a defendant. And yes, Ginsberg was in a judicial capacity as her role had not changed to need to defend herself.
NOTHING Kavanaugh said was inaccurate during the partisan points of his speech.
Here are some of the partisan points he made:
"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with...
True
- "...apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election"
True
- "...fear that has been unfairly stoked about (Kavanaugh's) judicial record"
True
- "...revenge on behalf of the Clintons"
True
- "...millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
True
You say there was "NOTHING... inaccurate" about any of them. How do you prove or disprove the existence of "apparent pent-up anger"? Where is the proof of revenge on behalf of the Clintons?
Where have you been for the last two years under a rock? EVERY DAY we see proof of this by how the Democrats have conducted themselves.
But even if they could be proven, it was wrong to take his denials into the political realm. Did Dr Ford accuse Trumpsters of covering up for Kavanaugh? Did she blame the GOP's decision to let someone else ask her questions at the hearing on their rampant chauvinism? No. She told her story and made her claims. She offered no accusations outside the truth of her assault as best she could remember it. She threw mud at no one other than the two people she accused of being in the room with her that night. No conspiracy theories. No political commentary. In my view, Kavanaugh should have done the same.
Dr. Ford is irrelevant. She wasn't accused. She brought crazy allegations without proof. She should be gone after as well. He should press charges against her but he is taking the high road. And she shouldn't blame the GOP for having a PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD ask her questions. The fact that libers keep trumpeting that point is just stupid and shows how UNOBJECTIVE they are. Yes, she told a story alright with so many holes and inconsistencies it should never have seen the light of day. You cannot say it was the truth of her assault. We don't know that. She gave a story. That is all you can honestly say. That was pretty big mud to throw without evidence.
-
@reformed said:
When they are accused without any real evidence as part of a political circus? ABSOLUTELY.Your argument here is with Justice Kavanaugh, who upon resumption of the Senate hearing immediately apologized to Senator Klobuchar for his questions as to whether she'd ever drank so much that she blacked out or couldn't remember the previous night. In my view, his prompt apology supported his view that his outburst had been a product of emotion, not reason or respect. That you believe he was "ABSOLUTELY" within his rights to ask those questions to the Senator does not, in my view, suggest your response is the product of reason or respect.
During that part of his hearing, no. He was not in a judicial capacity. He was a person accused. He was a defendant. And yes, Ginsberg was in a judicial capacity as her role had not changed to need to defend herself.
I want to understand how you create judicial capacity carve-outs.
- At the hearing called to review his and Dr Ford's testitmonies, you believe Kavanaugh was NOT in his judicial capacity. Yes? But presumably you believe that at the previous hearing - in which he took questions about his judicial philosophy - he WAS in his judicial role?
- How about when he goes out to dinner with his family? Is he THEN in his judicial role? How about when he talks politics with a good friend?
- And Justice Ginsburg, is SHE in her judicial role when she's out for dinner, or at the opera, or talking politics with a good friend?
In your view, what exactly determines whether a judge/justice is in his or her judicial role?
True.... True.... True.... True.... True....
Proof?
You say there was "NOTHING... inaccurate" about any of them. How do you prove or disprove the existence of "apparent pent-up anger"? Where is the proof of revenge on behalf of the Clintons?
Where have you been for the last two years under a rock?
We're here to talk about issues, not about me.
EVERY DAY we see proof of this by how the Democrats have conducted themselves.
The point of my question was simply that what's "apparent" to me, might not be "apparent" to you. For example, it was "apparent" to me that Kavanaugh was not fit for the Supreme Court. But that was NOT "apparent" to you. So how do I PROVE that it was "apparent"? I don't have to because what's "apparent" is in the eye of the beholder. Hence, Kavanaugh's claim about "apparent pent-up anger" could not be subject to scrutiny.
Dr. Ford is irrelevant. She wasn't accused. She brought crazy allegations without proof. She should be gone after as well. He should press charges against her but he is taking the high road.
The fact that you consider the accomplished professional woman who came forward with allegations of her sexual assault to be "irrelevant" is more evidence why 60% of assault victims never report their assaults to law enforcement. Why report when the society around you will consider you "irrelevant"?
The fact is Dr Ford's allegations were central to the entire series of events that resulted in the second hearing.
BTW, it's worth noting that you never responded to the statistics to which I linked in THIS POST, stats that show only 2-10% of reports of sexual assault turn out to be false.
And she shouldn't blame the GOP for having a PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD ask her questions. The fact that libers keep trumpeting that point is just stupid and shows how UNOBJECTIVE they are.
If the GOP was so intent on having "a PROFESSIONAL IN THIS FIELD" ask the questions, why did they allow that "professional" to begin asking questions of Judge Kavanaugh, but then abruptly took over the questioning from her after one or two rounds, curiously, right after she zeroed in on his calendar entry that included some of the people Dr Ford alleged were at the party where she was assaulted?
Yes, she told a story alright with so many holes and inconsistencies it should never have seen the light of day. You cannot say it was the truth of her assault. We don't know that. She gave a story. That is all you can honestly say. That was pretty big mud to throw without evidence.
On multiple occasions, I have asked you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the subject of sexual assault. Your response here prompts me to ask you to do so yet again.
-
Today Senator Warren released the results of the DNA analysis of her ancestry conducted by one of the preeminent experts in the world, Stanford University's Carlos D. Bustamante. From the Boston Globe's article:
(Bustmante) concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. ...
There were five parts of Warren’s DNA that signaled she had a Native American ancestor, according to the report. The largest piece of Native American DNA was found on her 10th chromosome, according to the report. Each human has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
“It really stood out,” said Bustamante in an interview. “We found five segments, and that long segment was pretty significant. It tells us about one ancestor, and we can’t rule out more ancestors.”
He added: “We are confident it is not an error.”
Do you continue to call Sen Warren's claims "false," reformed? If so, on what basis? If DNA analysis from a world renowned expert isn't enough to demonstrate the truth of her claims, what would be?
The Globe article points out that in a July campaign rally in Montana, President Trump "offered to provide $1 million to (Warren's) charity of choice if she (took) the (DNA) test." Do you believe the president should now fulfill that offer?
EDIT: Turns out there is video to back up the Globe's reporting about Trump's million dollar offer (if you want skip less pertinent stuff, start viewing the video at about the 1:00 minute mark).
Turns out that the president's offer had a nuance or two: 1) He said he would make the offer during a presidential debate, were they to debate in the 2020 campaign; 2) He spoke of tossing her one of those DNA test kits sold on TV, not an analysis completed by one of the leading experts in the world. So, if the president wants to keep his money - and we all know he will - I guess he'll have an out.
-
Some people just want to be blind. I don't have time for idiots.
-
@reformed said:
Some people just want to be blind. I don't have time for idiots.To which post(s) are you responding with this reply?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Today Senator Warren released the results of the DNA analysis of her ancestry conducted by one of the preeminent experts in the world, Stanford University's Carlos D. Bustamante. From the Boston Globe's article:
(Bustmante) concluded that “the vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European, but he added that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.”
Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American. ...
There were five parts of Warren’s DNA that signaled she had a Native American ancestor, according to the report. The largest piece of Native American DNA was found on her 10th chromosome, according to the report. Each human has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
“It really stood out,” said Bustamante in an interview. “We found five segments, and that long segment was pretty significant. It tells us about one ancestor, and we can’t rule out more ancestors.”
He added: “We are confident it is not an error.”
Do you continue to call Sen Warren's claims "false," reformed? If so, on what basis? If DNA analysis from a world renowned expert isn't enough to demonstrate the truth of her claims, what would be?
The Globe article points out that in a July campaign rally in Montana, President Trump "offered to provide $1 million to (Warren's) charity of choice if she (took) the (DNA) test." Do you believe the president should now fulfill that offer?
EDIT: Turns out there is video to back up the Globe's reporting about Trump's million dollar offer (if you want skip less pertinent stuff, start viewing the video at about the 1:00 minute mark).
Turns out that the president's offer had a nuance or two: 1) He said he would make the offer during a presidential debate, were they to debate in the 2020 campaign; 2) He spoke of tossing her one of those DNA test kits sold on TV, not an analysis completed by one of the leading experts in the world. So, if the president wants to keep his money - and we all know he will - I guess he'll have an out.
On Elizabeth Warren, YES it is still false. What was her ORIGINAL claim Bill. It was about her listing herself as a minority. IT IS FALSE and the results only PROVE that point.
-
@reformed said:
Some people just want to be blind. I don't have time for idiots.General Statement
-
@reformed said:
On Elizabeth Warren, YES it is still false. What was her ORIGINAL claim Bill. It was about her listing herself as a minority. IT IS FALSE and the results only PROVE that point.Remember the genesis of this exchange. I offered the president's recurring reference to Sen Warren as "Pocahontas" as evidence of his racism. You then said it was only his "making fun of her false claims." But was it?
In a phone interview with NBC during the campaign, Mr Trump called Warren "a total fraud," a person who had "made up her heritage" - an action he called "very racist" - and a person who "used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career."
I know of no evidence that she used her heritage to advance her career. I know it's been claimed, but you as tell me when it comes to Dr Ford, claims aren't proof. Please provide links to proof that she used her heritage to advance her career.
And especially after today's report, there is no evidence that she "made up her heritage."
So FOR THE WAYS TRUMP USED "POCAHONTAS" - which you defended as "making fun of her false claims" - there is no proof, and in fact, at least part of his justification for using the term has now been proven false. Are you willing to acknowledge that at least one part of Trump's claims was false, and at least one part of Warren's claims was true?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
On Elizabeth Warren, YES it is still false. What was her ORIGINAL claim Bill. It was about her listing herself as a minority. IT IS FALSE and the results only PROVE that point.Remember the genesis of this exchange. I offered the president's recurring reference to Sen Warren as "Pocahontas" as evidence of his racism. You then said it was only his "making fun of her false claims." But was it?
In a phone interview with NBC during the campaign, Mr Trump called Warren "a total fraud," a person who had "made up her heritage" - an action he called "very racist" - and a person who "used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career."
I know of no evidence that she used her heritage to advance her career. I know it's been claimed, but you as tell me when it comes to Dr Ford, claims aren't proof. Please provide links to proof that she used her heritage to advance her career.
And especially after today's report, there is no evidence that she "made up her heritage."
So FOR THE WAYS TRUMP USED "POCAHONTAS" - which you defended as "making fun of her false claims" - there is no proof, and in fact, at least part of his justification for using the term has now been proven false. Are you willing to acknowledge that at least one part of Trump's claims was false, and at least one part of Warren's claims was true?
Then why is she trying to prove her heritage Bill?
-
@reformed said:
Then why is she trying to prove her heritage Bill?A couple of reasons come to mind: 1) The president and many other critics have claimed she "made up" her heritage. I, for one, understand wanting to set the record straight when someone falsely claims I made up something about myself (recall THIS POST of mine) 2) She's seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2020, in which case resolving the heritage question ASAP and with an objective DNA analysis from a globally-recognized expert makes perfect sense.
You didn't answer the question I posed: Are you willing to acknowledge that at least one part of Trump's claims about Warren's heritage was false, and at least one part of Warren's claims about her heritage is true?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Then why is she trying to prove her heritage Bill?A couple of reasons come to mind: 1) The president and many other critics have claimed she "made up" her heritage. I, for one, understand wanting to set the record straight when someone falsely claims I made up something about myself (recall THIS POST of mine) 2) She's seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2020, in which case resolving the heritage question ASAP and with an objective DNA analysis from a globally-recognized expert makes perfect sense.
You didn't answer the question I posed: Are you willing to acknowledge that at least one part of Trump's claims about Warren's heritage was false, and at least one part of Warren's claims about her heritage is true?
No and no. If she is claiming to be a minority and putting that on applications the no, her story is false. And my goodness, she has about as much claim to Native American as I have to being British because I live in the United States. It's nonsense.
-
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."
Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
-
Well, well well. As one who studied genetics, let me assure you that based on the generational data above, the DNA test proved that Warren is no more genetically akin to Pocahontas, and as a European likely less so, than any good upstanding Asian. She lied. You, @Bill_Coley, are wrong.
Trump is apparently more truthful than you and Warren added together*, Bill.
*With apologies to Warren
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
He didn't lie. The test DID NOT SHOW that she is an Indian. Here was Trump's quote:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."Unfortunately, that's not what the test showed so no, he did not lie. I guess you lied about the President.....AGAIN
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
He didn't lie. The test DID NOT SHOW that she is an Indian. Here was Trump's quote:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."Unfortunately, that's not what the test showed so no, he did not lie. I guess you lied about the President.....AGAIN
It's SO unlike you, reformed, not to quote ALL relevant portions of a text, speech, or video, so I'm surprised that you didn't quote the president from a bit earlier in the video:
- He says the purpose of those kits "they sell (on TV) for $2" (which is not their price) is to "learn your heritage." You and I both know that in the context of those DNA "kits," "heritage" refers to EVERY DETECTABLE STRAND of national, regional, or ethnic lineage, NOT simply to the most prominent one(s). If you insist that DNA heritage/lineage tests are only to detect the single most prominent line in a person's family tree, please provide links to sites that market them as such.
- The president then describes his response to a prospective presidential debate moment in which Sen Warren "proclaims her Indian [sic] heritage because her mother says she has high cheek bones. That's her only evidence." Warren's cheek bones comment was of course spoken in jest. And as of today, we have scientific evidence that she in fact has Native American lineage in her "heritage," a term that, recall, refers to all detectable strands of lineage, not simply to the most prominent one(s).
- In THAT context, the president offered the million dollars if the test "shows that (Warren's) an Indian [sic]."
So I contend that when the president referred to a test's showing that Warren was "an Indian" [sic] in context he meant if the test showed Native American lineage in her "heritage," the term much broader in scope to which he referred earlier in his speech. Further, Warren has never claimed to be primarily or significantly Native American. She claimed only that she had been told by her family that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. The findings of today's report, according to experts enlisted by Politifact who carefully reviewed them, are consistent with what she says her family has told her.
If you insist that Sen Warren has claimed to be principally or primarily or even prominently of Native American descent, please provide links to material that quotes her as saying so.
In the full context of his speech, I contend the president owes the charity of Sen Warren's choice $1 million. Unless of course, he didn't mean the stuff he said about her "heritage" before he made the offer. And far be it from him not to tell the truth.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
He didn't lie. The test DID NOT SHOW that she is an Indian. Here was Trump's quote:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."Unfortunately, that's not what the test showed so no, he did not lie. I guess you lied about the President.....AGAIN
It's SO unlike you, reformed, not to quote ALL relevant portions of a text, speech, or video, so I'm surprised that you didn't quote the president from a bit earlier in the video:
- He says the purpose of those kits "they sell (on TV) for $2" (which is not their price) is to "learn your heritage." You and I both know that in the context of those DNA "kits," "heritage" refers to EVERY DETECTABLE STRAND of national, regional, or ethnic lineage, NOT simply to the most prominent one(s). If you insist that DNA heritage/lineage tests are only to detect the single most prominent line in a person's family tree, please provide links to sites that market them as such.
- The president then describes his response to a prospective presidential debate moment in which Sen Warren "proclaims her Indian [sic] heritage because her mother says she has high cheek bones. That's her only evidence." Warren's cheek bones comment was of course spoken in jest. And as of today, we have scientific evidence that she in fact has Native American lineage in her "heritage," a term that, recall, refers to all detectable strands of lineage, not simply to the most prominent one(s).
- In THAT context, the president offered the million dollars if the test "shows that (Warren's) an Indian [sic]."
So I contend that when the president referred to a test's showing that Warren was "an Indian" [sic] in context he meant if the test showed Native American lineage in her "heritage," the term much broader in scope to which he referred earlier in his speech. Further, Warren has never claimed to be primarily or significantly Native American. She claimed only that she had been told by her family that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. The findings of today's report, according to experts enlisted by Politifact who carefully reviewed them, are consistent with what she says her family has told her.
If you insist that Sen Warren has claimed to be principally or primarily or even prominently of Native American descent, please provide links to material that quotes her as saying so.
In the full context of his speech, I contend the president owes the charity of Sen Warren's choice $1 million. Unless of course, he didn't mean the stuff he said about her "heritage" before he made the offer. And far be it from him not to tell the truth.
Classic Bill Coley literary gymnastics.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
He didn't lie. The test DID NOT SHOW that she is an Indian. Here was Trump's quote:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."Unfortunately, that's not what the test showed so no, he did not lie. I guess you lied about the President.....AGAIN
It's SO unlike you, reformed, not to quote ALL relevant portions of a text, speech, or video, so I'm surprised that you didn't quote the president from a bit earlier in the video:
- He says the purpose of those kits "they sell (on TV) for $2" (which is not their price) is to "learn your heritage." You and I both know that in the context of those DNA "kits," "heritage" refers to EVERY DETECTABLE STRAND of national, regional, or ethnic lineage, NOT simply to the most prominent one(s). If you insist that DNA heritage/lineage tests are only to detect the single most prominent line in a person's family tree, please provide links to sites that market them as such.
- The president then describes his response to a prospective presidential debate moment in which Sen Warren "proclaims her Indian [sic] heritage because her mother says she has high cheek bones. That's her only evidence." Warren's cheek bones comment was of course spoken in jest. And as of today, we have scientific evidence that she in fact has Native American lineage in her "heritage," a term that, recall, refers to all detectable strands of lineage, not simply to the most prominent one(s).
- In THAT context, the president offered the million dollars if the test "shows that (Warren's) an Indian [sic]."
So I contend that when the president referred to a test's showing that Warren was "an Indian" [sic] in context he meant if the test showed Native American lineage in her "heritage," the term much broader in scope to which he referred earlier in his speech. Further, Warren has never claimed to be primarily or significantly Native American. She claimed only that she had been told by her family that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. The findings of today's report, according to experts enlisted by Politifact who carefully reviewed them, are consistent with what she says her family has told her.
If you insist that Sen Warren has claimed to be principally or primarily or even prominently of Native American descent, please provide links to material that quotes her as saying so.
In the full context of his speech, I contend the president owes the charity of Sen Warren's choice $1 million. Unless of course, he didn't mean the stuff he said about her "heritage" before he made the offer. And far be it from him not to tell the truth.
Wow Bill. That is one slick weasel job.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
The new report regarding Sen Warren's DNA today allowed the president to burnish his reputation as a pathological liar. When pressed about his July offer to give $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice if she took a DNA test, today the president responded "I didn't say that. You better read it again."Mr. President, we can read it again and we can watch it again. Nothing will change the fact that you said you would offer $1 million to the charity of her choice if she took the test. Granted, you spoke of one of those inexpensive sold tests sold on TV that you would toss to her on a debate stage, not one conducted by a prominent expert in field, but we ALL know you offered $1 million to charity if she took a DNA test. Pay up, or acknowledge that you lied... yet again.
He didn't lie. The test DID NOT SHOW that she is an Indian. Here was Trump's quote:
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian."Unfortunately, that's not what the test showed so no, he did not lie. I guess you lied about the President.....AGAIN
It's SO unlike you, reformed, not to quote ALL relevant portions of a text, speech, or video, so I'm surprised that you didn't quote the president from a bit earlier in the video:
- He says the purpose of those kits "they sell (on TV) for $2" (which is not their price) is to "learn your heritage." You and I both know that in the context of those DNA "kits," "heritage" refers to EVERY DETECTABLE STRAND of national, regional, or ethnic lineage, NOT simply to the most prominent one(s). If you insist that DNA heritage/lineage tests are only to detect the single most prominent line in a person's family tree, please provide links to sites that market them as such.
- The president then describes his response to a prospective presidential debate moment in which Sen Warren "proclaims her Indian [sic] heritage because her mother says she has high cheek bones. That's her only evidence." Warren's cheek bones comment was of course spoken in jest. And as of today, we have scientific evidence that she in fact has Native American lineage in her "heritage," a term that, recall, refers to all detectable strands of lineage, not simply to the most prominent one(s).
- In THAT context, the president offered the million dollars if the test "shows that (Warren's) an Indian [sic]."
So I contend that when the president referred to a test's showing that Warren was "an Indian" [sic] in context he meant if the test showed Native American lineage in her "heritage," the term much broader in scope to which he referred earlier in his speech. Further, Warren has never claimed to be primarily or significantly Native American. She claimed only that she had been told by her family that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. The findings of today's report, according to experts enlisted by Politifact who carefully reviewed them, are consistent with what she says her family has told her.
If you insist that Sen Warren has claimed to be principally or primarily or even prominently of Native American descent, please provide links to material that quotes her as saying so.
In the full context of his speech, I contend the president owes the charity of Sen Warren's choice $1 million. Unless of course, he didn't mean the stuff he said about her "heritage" before he made the offer. And far be it from him not to tell the truth.
-
Elizabeth Warren's lies are a terrible insult to American Indians. 1/1024'th? Even Africans test at something like .8% Native American. NE Asians far higher. Shame on her. She is as European as a white woman can get. I wonder what she will do to make this right? What a mockery of Native Americans is made by those who defend her.
She duped UPenn, Harvard, employers, students, the American public and a lot of others along the way. Ther Cherokee Nation is very displeased. Now she should make restitution.
-
@GaoLu said:
Elizabeth Warren's lies are a terrible insult to American Indians. 1/1024'th? Even Africans test at something like .8% Native American. NE Asians far higher. Shame on her. She is as European as a white woman can get. I wonder what she will do to make this right? What a mockery of Native Americans is made by those who defend her.She duped UPenn, Harvard, employers, students, the American public and a lot of others along the way. Ther Cherokee Nation is very displeased. Now she should make restitution.
The amazing thing is the Fake News Media are saying this vindicates her when it actually vindicates everyone who has mocked her by calling her "Pocahontas"
-
Even the liberal media is rethinking their defense of Warren. From Huff Post:
What a Fraud.
Chuck Hoskin Jr., secretary of state of the Cherokee Nation, said Warren was “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” Hoskin said. “Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.”
He added, “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.”
-
It's a point I've made previously, but that evidently requires another mention: I'm happy to engage you gentlemen on issues, but in order for such engagement to take place, you're going to have to give me something other than insubstantial, inconsequential putdowns such as these.
Aha! Something of substance!
Sadly, writer French makes the same basic error I've heard and read from conservative media (and in the statement from the Cherokee nation) since the story broke earlier today: Contrary to the content and spirit of French's piece, Sen Warren does not and has never claimed tribal membership or that she is principally, primarily, or even prominently of Native American ancestry. She has claimed that from her family she learned that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. Today she said in a statement...
"I won't sit quietly for [President Donald Trump's] racism, so I took a test. But DNA & family history has nothing to do with tribal affiliation or citizenship, which is determined only—only—by Tribal Nations. I respect the distinction, & don't list myself as Native in the Senate."
That's it. She's made no claim of ancestry more ambitious than that. According to the experts in the of DNA analysis cited in my previous post, the results of the study by a Stanford University expert are consistent with Sen Warren's claim.
According to Carlos Bustamante, the Stanford professor, "In the senator’s genome, we did find five segments of Native American ancestry with very high confidence where we believe the error rate is less than one in a thousand.”
And remember, in a campaign interview with NBC, Mr Trump claimed Warren had "made up her heritage." She claimed that somewhere many generations back, she had Native American connections. Now she has a study from a prominent expert basically proving her correct. AND she also now has the political ammunition she'll need to respond to Trump when, as we all know he will, he continues his uninformed and juvenile Pocahontas rants.
@reformed said:
The amazing thing is the Fake News Media are saying this vindicates her when it actually vindicates everyone who has mocked her by calling her "Pocahontas"For the reasons stated above, your assertion is false.
@GaoLu said:
Elizabeth Warren's lies are a terrible insult to American Indians. 1/1024'th? Even Africans test at something like .8% Native American. NE Asians far higher. Shame on her. She is as European as a white woman can get. I wonder what she will do to make this right? What a mockery of Native Americans is made by those who defend her.For the reasons stated above, your claims are false.
She duped UPenn, Harvard, employers, students, the American public and a lot of others along the way. Ther Cherokee Nation is very displeased. Now she should make restitution.
Tell us whether you reach the same conclusion after you review the documents related to her claim.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
It's a point I've made previously, but that evidently requires another mention: I'm happy to engage you gentlemen on issues, but in order for such engagement to take place, you're going to have to give me something other than insubstantial, inconsequential putdowns such as these.
Aha! Something of substance!
Sadly, writer French makes the same basic error I've heard and read from conservative media (and in the statement from the Cherokee nation) since the story broke earlier today: Contrary to the content and spirit of French's piece, Sen Warren does not and has never claimed tribal membership or that she is principally, primarily, or even prominently of Native American ancestry. She has claimed that from her family she learned that her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee. Today she said in a statement...
"I won't sit quietly for [President Donald Trump's] racism, so I took a test. But DNA & family history has nothing to do with tribal affiliation or citizenship, which is determined only—only—by Tribal Nations. I respect the distinction, & don't list myself as Native in the Senate."
That's it. She's made no claim of ancestry more ambitious than that. According to the experts in the of DNA analysis cited in my previous post, the results of the study by a Stanford University expert are consistent with Sen Warren's claim.
According to Carlos Bustamante, the Stanford professor, "In the senator’s genome, we did find five segments of Native American ancestry with very high confidence where we believe the error rate is less than one in a thousand.”
And remember, in a campaign interview with NBC, Mr Trump claimed Warren had "made up her heritage." She claimed that somewhere many generations back, she had Native American connections. Now she has a study from a prominent expert basically proving her correct. AND she also now has the political ammunition she'll need to respond to Trump when, as we all know he will, he continues his uninformed and juvenile Pocahontas rants.
@reformed said:
The amazing thing is the Fake News Media are saying this vindicates her when it actually vindicates everyone who has mocked her by calling her "Pocahontas"For the reasons stated above, your assertion is false.
@GaoLu said:
Elizabeth Warren's lies are a terrible insult to American Indians. 1/1024'th? Even Africans test at something like .8% Native American. NE Asians far higher. Shame on her. She is as European as a white woman can get. I wonder what she will do to make this right? What a mockery of Native Americans is made by those who defend her.For the reasons stated above, your claims are false.
She duped UPenn, Harvard, employers, students, the American public and a lot of others along the way. Ther Cherokee Nation is very displeased. Now she should make restitution.
Tell us whether you reach the same conclusion after you review the documents related to her claim.
Right there in that last link, she claims minority status on those documents which is clearly a lie. She is not a minority. You lose.
-
@reformed said:
Right there in that last link, she claims minority status on those documents which is clearly a lie. She is not a minority. You lose.
I don't "lose" because I don't deny what the records say, AND because I depend on EVERYTHING the records say, not just a single entry "in that last link."
I don't think of CD threads as contests people win or lose, but since you raised the option:
- Does the fact that you have yet to engage the report of the Stanford University expert, or the experts who believe his findings are consistent with the claims Warren has made about what her family has told her, mean that you "lose" on that one? No.
- Does the fact that you have yet to engage the reality that Sen Warren does not and has never claimed tribal membership or that she is principally, primarily, or even prominently of Native American ancestry mean that you "lose" on that one? No.
- Does the fact that the best you could come up with as an initial response to one of my previous posts was "Classic Bill Coley literary gymnastics" mean you were a loser on that one? Well....
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Right there in that last link, she claims minority status on those documents which is clearly a lie. She is not a minority. You lose.
I don't "lose" because I don't deny what the records say, AND because I depend on EVERYTHING the records say, not just a single entry "in that last link."
I don't think of CD threads as contests people win or lose, but since you raised the option:
- Does the fact that you have yet to engage the report of the Stanford University expert, or the experts who believe his findings are consistent with the claims Warren has made about what her family has told her, mean that you "lose" on that one? No.
They agree she should list herself as a minority on documents? I don't think they said that did they?
- Does the fact that you have yet to engage the reality that Sen Warren does not and has never claimed tribal membership or that she is principally, primarily, or even prominently of Native American ancestry mean that you "lose" on that one? No.
It's right there on the documents Bill.
- Does the fact that the best you could come up with as an initial response to one of my previous posts was "Classic Bill Coley literary gymnastics" mean you were a loser on that one? Well....
No it sure doesn't. You have to go to great lengths to twist things to make it appear that your side is correct, but anybody with half a brain can see right through the smoke and mirrors.
