Jump to content

mtutiger

Media Meltdowns

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

What does ewsieg want? Democrats like the half dozen Democratic candidates better than Tulsi.

I simply am surprised by what appears to be a hit job against her that has become DNC talking points.  I will say I felt better when at least one side of the political spectrum advocated peace through discussion, rather than what I guess is being explained as peace through criticism, but definitely not doing anything to actively assist with regime change.  Sounds about as solid as Trumps China trade war, but hey, nothing else has worked so sign me up for this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect everyone I have personally interacted with - including everyone on this board , have either mischaracterized (intentionally or otherwise), or outright lied, about more things (both in substance and frequency) than what is being pointed out about Warren right now in this thread.

So I am clear, and this is an honest question, what is the ****ing standard expected here WRT not ever having made a statement that is inaccurate or potentially misleading?

Spoiler alert:  I will guarantee there are other lies or inaccuracies (intentional or otherwise) that Elizabeth has told.  And I am sure every other candidate has lied or mischaracterized similarly as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

What does ewsieg want? Democrats like the half dozen Democratic candidates better than Tulsi.

At the end of the day, this is a lot of what it comes down to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can either support someone who supports Assad, or not.   Tough choice.  Guess I better explain that one very thoroughly or I'll be accused of supporting Saddam baselessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the only options are apparently now either Tulsi's positions or regime change. 

Talk about a false choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

This thread has been a series of false choices for several pages.

The past three years have been a series of false choices for those who criticize the President too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

So you won't provide support for your claims it because you presume I won't accept it.

I don't know when she was supposed to discuss the pregnancy thing for it to not be suspicious to you?  She became a Senator in 2012 and my understanding is she mentioned it in a book in 2014, but you claim it is just coming out now?

Not sure what I am supposed to get out of this post? 

The interview that she claimed she quit teaching in order to pursue other interests in her life came out recently, which called into the question of if she's been telling the truth on the campaign trail and apparently in a book back in 2014.  She says at the end of the school year they realized she was pregnant and apparently forced her to submit a resignation, which they had the where with all to document as 'accepted with regret'.   Yet we know that in late April is when she was unanimously approved to come back.  So again, possible her belly began to show in those 2-3 weeks, possible she told someone at the school, possible an administrator had the where with all to note 'accepted with regret' knowing that 45 years later someone might question it and as the times might change the argument of 'umm, she was pregnant, what use was she for us?' couldn't be used.  

As with the Indian controversy, there is nothing I can do to prove she did anything on purpose for advancement.  Any point I make can have some possible explanation.  But even if you can't prove a motive...that still doesn't answer the 'why'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The why could be as simple as Harvard requested her to do it.  She never claimed it at any other university. 

That would seem to me to be the most obvious explanation.

Also Harvard has stated multiple times that it was not an influencing factor in hiring her.  She was quite sought after as a professor at that time.  So claiming American Indian heritage (unknown whether she believed it or not) is regrettable.  She has to own it, and that is fair.  But if there is no evidence to suggest she benefitted, what little evidence does exists seems to suggest she did not benefit, I don't know, maybe it is me, but I am not sure it is fair to assume she benefitted because one can imagine that she may have.

WRT to 1971, why can't both explanations be true?  Meaning she was asked to leave due to pregnancy and she also decided it was time to pursue new opportunities.  Maybe being asked to resign motivated the later?  Also, 'accepted with regret' is very likely fluffery, the 2 or 3 other people who resigned in the same meeting minutes also had their resignation accepted 'with regret'.

The whole thing just seems like an attempt to bury her under a bunch of rope and claiming their must be a knot in there rather than tying her down to something substantive.  And on some level, if this is all we got on her, well, it frankly suggests there probably isn't anything there that should disqualify her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I will state if there were a Republican candidate with similar lies (in terms of frequency and magnitude), I would claim that it should not disqualify him or her.

These objectively are small things, do not harm anyone if we assume the worst, nor do I think it is some sort of reflection on the individual.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Not sure what that demonstrates.

Something was totally demonstrated to me.  It wasn't in the vid tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Not sure what that demonstrates.

If your mother is an injun, wouldn't that make you more than 1/1024th injun?

I guess not, because she doesn't lie.

LOL.  Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, screwball said:

If your mother is an injun, wouldn't that make you more than 1/1024th injun?

I guess not, because she doesn't lie.

LOL.  Incredible.

Not what was said at all.

According to her, her father's parents were convinced (erroneously) that her mother had Indian heritage.  Everyone in the family assumed it was true.  It turns out much, much later that it wasn't true.

I am sure there is nothing in your life that you were led to believe for years that ended up being not true. 

I guess that means one would have unwittingly lied if asked about it, but I don't know as that it makes one a liar.

Also nobody claimed or suggested she doesn't lie.  That is just a strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pfife said:

really?  I mean, really?  We're doing this now?

Warren Derangement Syndrome....

It's incredible because, in my view, there's areas to knock her on policy.... but instead they focus on this weaksauce. As if anyone in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Detroit or Phoenix are going to give a rats-***.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Warren Derangement Syndrome....

It's incredible because, in my view, there's areas to knock her on policy.... but instead they focus on the weaksauce.

Yeah, her policy proposals are far left of what the average American is comfortable with.

But, hey, some meeting minutes from 1971 say that her resignation was accepted with regret, therefore she can't be trusted.

If only the meeting minutes had said 'forced resignation accepted' or 'dismissed due to pregnancy', then she could be president. 

Otherwise, how can we really know?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far Left American Style. It reminds me of the skit on SNL many years ago when on their version of “Meet the Press” Robert McNamara represented “The Left.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...