4 ms·

Politics is full of bad actors, I do not think Warren is one of those people. You can disagree with her, sure, but she just wants to create fairness for all in

Politics is full of bad actors, I do not think Warren is one of those people. You can disagree with her, sure, but she just wants to create fairness for all in my opinion. Facebook is the opposite of this, with their closed systems, back door dealings and often shady business practices it makes perfect sense that they are opposed to her.

gadders 7y ago
You don't think the whole debacle about claiming to be native american has hurt her credibility somewhat?
- paulmd 7y ago
  Do I think her college admissions in 1975 affect her credibility as a senator in 2020? Not particularly, especially compared to her actual track record. (if we can find a way to forgive and forget Judge Boof's college "hijinks" I think we can find a way to forgive this.)
- murph-almighty 7y ago
  I'll bite even though I'm a bit uninformed here: I think it's plausible to be told something about your heritage and not question it, especially if it's something spanning multiple generations where the paperwork validating the claim is either nonexistent or otherwise hard to reach. At varying points I've been told by relatives that I'm part Scottish, and told by others that I'm not, and I don't really have a straightforward way of validating this aside from engaging in some intensive research. I can reasonably extend the benefit of the doubt to Elizabeth Warren that she didn't know if she was actually some fraction Native American or not until the DNA test.
  - politil_throw93 7y ago
    > I can reasonably extend the benefit of the doubt to Elizabeth Warren that she didn't know if she was actually some fraction Native American or not until the DNA test. But she didn't claim to be 'some fraction Native American'. She said her race was 'Native American', just full-on 'Native American', on an official form. And she claimed to be Cherokee in a book. That's even more bizarre of a thing to claim. No matter what anyone told her, she must have known she wasn't part of the tribe? People say she's apologised, but she hasn't really said 'I'm sorry that I...' except that she's caused distress. What does she now admit she did? Lied? Stretched the truth? What does she see it as? What was going through her head. What would lead her to make such obviously ludicrous claims? Even if she did have one recent ancestor, which it turns out she probably didn't, it's still a nonsense claim that she is Native American and Cherokee. Does she still think she's Native American? Will she describe herself as the first Native American president? If she doesn't, what does she say is the difference between now and when she filled out that form? That's what I'm missing - her explanation.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    I'm a little bit Native American, according to my family. I have never claimed that my parents weren't allowed to get married because of their tribes, nor have I put Native American down as my race on a college application. Warren found a politically convenient fractional truth and exploited it.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Really, people are going to hang her on this issue? Most people have some family lore that isn't 100% verified -- oh, really, your great grandfather was hero in the civil war? maybe, maybe not. There isn't a pattern of deceit on her part, this "debacle" wasn't a sin of great consequence, all the while it is pushed over and over by someone whose entire life is built on manufacturing falsehoods. "Both sides do it" doesn't apply here. It is like saying I can't be critical of a murderer because I too broke the law by speeding.
  - rpmisms 7y ago
    She got into Harvard claiming "Native American" as her only race. If she were a conservative, she would have been crucified by now. Just because she's on the "good" side doesn't mean she gets a free pass, just like Joy Behar shouldn't get a pass for blackface. Oh no, I said something inconvenient for someone's ideology.
    - tasty_freeze 7y ago
      Sorry, I didn't see your condescending reply until now. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n...
  - politil_throw93 7y ago
    What I don't understand is - does she still think she's Native American? If not, what's changed since she filled that form in? It's not her DNA percentage result that has changed her mind, as she saw that as proof. I don't get what her thinking is, and I wouldn't mind her just explaining it.
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  The contention that she has leveraged claims to be Native American to advance is, at the least, wildly overblown. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n...
  - politil_throw93 7y ago
    But why did she claim it at all? Even if her family's story was correct, having one Native American ancestor at some point ages ago, does not make you simply 'Native American', does it?
    - SN76477 7y ago
      As someone else said "I think it's plausible to be told something about your heritage and not question it"
      - gadders 7y ago
        Agreed, but if I was running for office or using it on official forms I would want to be a bit more certain.
        SN76477 7y ago
        That is a good point of view to have.
      - politil_throw93 7y ago
        I get that she believed that she was small fractional Native American if that's what she was told (and she thought a couple of percentage points on the test proved her right, so she already knew it was very small.) But she didn't claim to be small fractional Native American. She claimed to be simply 'Native American, period'. I can't see why she'd do that?
- SN76477 7y ago
  I do not think she was some how misleading anyone. She was just wrong. The world is sloppy, its not perfect, people are not perfect. In the end I dont care about that.
chrisco255 7y ago
"fairness for all" ah, the siren song of communism.
- vernie 7y ago
  Fairness bad.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, which makes them boring, and tend to get angrier as they go. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20tangent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - SN76477 7y ago
    Thank you
natalyarostova 7y ago
Creating fairness for all is sufficiently vague as to justify almost anything. Politicians, or those with power in general, should not be evaluated positively based on their well meaning platitudes, even if they are sincerely held. Creating fairness for all, if implemented poorly, can and has led to mass murder, genocide, etc. I'm not suggesting Warren would lead to that, or implying it, simply saying that wanting to 'do more good' isn't a sufficient defense.
drharby 7y ago
Saying that candidate A retains quality X is as good as the tests administored to measure and quantify the presence of said quantity. In politics, there exists a game with real stakes to LOOK a certain way regardless of the truth. Therefore, I find that any opinion on political matters made as if it were a matter of fact has a high probability of being either naive or a component of a political campaign to influence public opinion on said candidate. So I ask this question of you, what are the tests administered to verify you claim of Warren and what is your profession? Are you an expert in policy?
- drharby 7y ago
  Mods - can we do something about the obvious political astroturfing? Every comment critical of GP here is dimming due to vapid down votes and it is discouraging and disappointing to see.
  - dang 7y ago
    I'm afraid both this comment and its parent break the site guidelines that ask you not to make insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, etc., in HN comments. Internet users are much too quick to do that, and it poisons discussion. There's no evidence that the GP comment was in bad faith, and most of the downvoted comments I've seen here broke the site guidelines, so we needn't look for more menacing reasons. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - drharby 7y ago
      So to clarify, so long as one has plausible deniability in spreading political opinion, there is a punishable offense for asking for clarification (as i have done in this ggp, your gp comment) as a means to get to the meat of the root claim? This is in my opinion poisoning of any discussion. I'll admit, my gp your p comment does in fact jmp the gun, but my original comment was thought out. It is, again, discouraging and I as a desiring participant find it harder and harder to engage in these topics on this forum.
    - 7y ago

gadders 7y ago

You don't think the whole debacle about claiming to be native american has hurt her credibility somewhat?

paulmd 7y ago
Do I think her college admissions in 1975 affect her credibility as a senator in 2020? Not particularly, especially compared to her actual track record. (if we can find a way to forgive and forget Judge Boof's college "hijinks" I think we can find a way to forgive this.)
murph-almighty 7y ago
I'll bite even though I'm a bit uninformed here: I think it's plausible to be told something about your heritage and not question it, especially if it's something spanning multiple generations where the paperwork validating the claim is either nonexistent or otherwise hard to reach. At varying points I've been told by relatives that I'm part Scottish, and told by others that I'm not, and I don't really have a straightforward way of validating this aside from engaging in some intensive research. I can reasonably extend the benefit of the doubt to Elizabeth Warren that she didn't know if she was actually some fraction Native American or not until the DNA test.
- politil_throw93 7y ago
  > I can reasonably extend the benefit of the doubt to Elizabeth Warren that she didn't know if she was actually some fraction Native American or not until the DNA test. But she didn't claim to be 'some fraction Native American'. She said her race was 'Native American', just full-on 'Native American', on an official form. And she claimed to be Cherokee in a book. That's even more bizarre of a thing to claim. No matter what anyone told her, she must have known she wasn't part of the tribe? People say she's apologised, but she hasn't really said 'I'm sorry that I...' except that she's caused distress. What does she now admit she did? Lied? Stretched the truth? What does she see it as? What was going through her head. What would lead her to make such obviously ludicrous claims? Even if she did have one recent ancestor, which it turns out she probably didn't, it's still a nonsense claim that she is Native American and Cherokee. Does she still think she's Native American? Will she describe herself as the first Native American president? If she doesn't, what does she say is the difference between now and when she filled out that form? That's what I'm missing - her explanation.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  I'm a little bit Native American, according to my family. I have never claimed that my parents weren't allowed to get married because of their tribes, nor have I put Native American down as my race on a college application. Warren found a politically convenient fractional truth and exploited it.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
Really, people are going to hang her on this issue? Most people have some family lore that isn't 100% verified -- oh, really, your great grandfather was hero in the civil war? maybe, maybe not. There isn't a pattern of deceit on her part, this "debacle" wasn't a sin of great consequence, all the while it is pushed over and over by someone whose entire life is built on manufacturing falsehoods. "Both sides do it" doesn't apply here. It is like saying I can't be critical of a murderer because I too broke the law by speeding.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  She got into Harvard claiming "Native American" as her only race. If she were a conservative, she would have been crucified by now. Just because she's on the "good" side doesn't mean she gets a free pass, just like Joy Behar shouldn't get a pass for blackface. Oh no, I said something inconvenient for someone's ideology.
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    Sorry, I didn't see your condescending reply until now. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n...
- politil_throw93 7y ago
  What I don't understand is - does she still think she's Native American? If not, what's changed since she filled that form in? It's not her DNA percentage result that has changed her mind, as she saw that as proof. I don't get what her thinking is, and I wouldn't mind her just explaining it.
jimhefferon 7y ago
The contention that she has leveraged claims to be Native American to advance is, at the least, wildly overblown. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-n...
- politil_throw93 7y ago
  But why did she claim it at all? Even if her family's story was correct, having one Native American ancestor at some point ages ago, does not make you simply 'Native American', does it?
  - SN76477 7y ago
    As someone else said "I think it's plausible to be told something about your heritage and not question it"
    - gadders 7y ago
      Agreed, but if I was running for office or using it on official forms I would want to be a bit more certain.
      - SN76477 7y ago
        That is a good point of view to have.
    - politil_throw93 7y ago
      I get that she believed that she was small fractional Native American if that's what she was told (and she thought a couple of percentage points on the test proved her right, so she already knew it was very small.) But she didn't claim to be small fractional Native American. She claimed to be simply 'Native American, period'. I can't see why she'd do that?
SN76477 7y ago
I do not think she was some how misleading anyone. She was just wrong. The world is sloppy, its not perfect, people are not perfect. In the end I dont care about that.

chrisco255 7y ago

"fairness for all" ah, the siren song of communism.

vernie 7y ago
Fairness bad.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, which makes them boring, and tend to get angrier as they go. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20tangent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- SN76477 7y ago
  Thank you

natalyarostova 7y ago

Creating fairness for all is sufficiently vague as to justify almost anything. Politicians, or those with power in general, should not be evaluated positively based on their well meaning platitudes, even if they are sincerely held. Creating fairness for all, if implemented poorly, can and has led to mass murder, genocide, etc. I'm not suggesting Warren would lead to that, or implying it, simply saying that wanting to 'do more good' isn't a sufficient defense.

drharby 7y ago

Saying that candidate A retains quality X is as good as the tests administored to measure and quantify the presence of said quantity. In politics, there exists a game with real stakes to LOOK a certain way regardless of the truth. Therefore, I find that any opinion on political matters made as if it were a matter of fact has a high probability of being either naive or a component of a political campaign to influence public opinion on said candidate. So I ask this question of you, what are the tests administered to verify you claim of Warren and what is your profession? Are you an expert in policy?

drharby 7y ago
Mods - can we do something about the obvious political astroturfing? Every comment critical of GP here is dimming due to vapid down votes and it is discouraging and disappointing to see.
- dang 7y ago
  I'm afraid both this comment and its parent break the site guidelines that ask you not to make insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, etc., in HN comments. Internet users are much too quick to do that, and it poisons discussion. There's no evidence that the GP comment was in bad faith, and most of the downvoted comments I've seen here broke the site guidelines, so we needn't look for more menacing reasons. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - drharby 7y ago
    So to clarify, so long as one has plausible deniability in spreading political opinion, there is a punishable offense for asking for clarification (as i have done in this ggp, your gp comment) as a means to get to the meat of the root claim? This is in my opinion poisoning of any discussion. I'll admit, my gp your p comment does in fact jmp the gun, but my original comment was thought out. It is, again, discouraging and I as a desiring participant find it harder and harder to engage in these topics on this forum.
  - 7y ago