wifeisafurd said:

---

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Michelle has no interest in being an elected official

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

---

I think Biden goes with a woman of color, who is not scary to Wall Street or more independent voters. Maybe Harris or Abrams (also works the south angle).

A Warren "unity ticket" with both of them makes some sense, so long as the primaries don't get too down and dirty. You'd have gender and ideological balance, I suppose. But you'd also have two really old people, and if the ticket won, Democrats would lose a Senate seat from Massachusetts (the state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, albeit barely). There is the additional problem fo Warren being outspoken and difficult: 1) stealing President Joe's thunder, and (2) driving voters away. If I'm going with white women, such as Whitmer (right age, wins elections, photogenic) or Whaley (right age, his profile, wins elections) from the Midwest make more sense.

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Harris brings nothing. Her constituency is upper middle class white people like Warren's
only less of them.. Abrams makes sense but Biden already does well with blacks. Biden- Obama would not play any way.

Inherent in my thinking about Biden-Warren is that she endorses him not Bernie when she drops out- immediately becoming the great unifier in an ugly progressive vs centrist battle and bringing otherwise disenchanted back into the fold. ( Trump however will beat Biden- Warren and Biden-anyone)

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Michelle has no interest in being an elected official

---

That was before Trump. That said, she may not want to run for Vice President.

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

---

I think Biden goes with a woman of color, who is not scary to Wall Street or more independent voters. Maybe Harris or Abrams (also works the south angle).

A Warren "unity ticket" with both of them makes some sense, so long as the primaries don't get too down and dirty. You'd have gender and ideological balance, I suppose. But you'd also have two really old people, and if the ticket won, Democrats would lose a Senate seat from Massachusetts (the state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, albeit barely). There is the additional problem fo Warren being outspoken and difficult: 1) stealing President Joe's thunder, and (2) driving voters away. If I'm going with white women, such as Whitmer (right age, wins elections, photogenic) or Whaley (right age, his profile, wins elections) from the Midwest make more sense.

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Harris brings nothing. Her constituency is upper middle class white people like Warren's
only less of them.. Abrams makes sense but Biden already does well with blacks. Biden- Obama would not play any way.

Inherent in my thinking about Biden-Warren is that she endorses him not Bernie when she drops out- immediately becoming the great unifier in an ugly progressive vs centrist battle and bringing otherwise disenchanted back into the fold. ( Trump however will beat Biden- Warren and Biden-anyone)

---

Lot I agree with in your post.

Biden made it pretty clear to black groups his VP will be black, and he needs to keep that commitment. He would be smart to look at some one a lot younger than Warren. The woman thing just an adds another check mark on the Democrats identity politics approach. I think Biden should win, but he does say some strange stuff from time to time (not that Trump doesn't). He gets a pass in the primaries, but not so in the general. I think the general race is closer than people here think. This from a Biden supporter. Also, Warren has major negatives. But yes, absent some horrible foot in mouth, Biden takes Trump.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

I am going to deal with your situational ethics and the question you raise in a separate post. For someone who is asshat enough to throw my education at me, your post is extremely stupid because in choosing to talk about events to which you admit to being ignorant you have muddied the waters in exactly the way a conservative would want. In your rush to absolve Elizabeth Warren of anything and everything without question, you have absolved her of acts no one accused her of doing and in so doing made her actions look a lot worse than they are. So let's be fair to me and talk about what I actually said and let's be a lot more fair to Elizabeth Warren and clarify what she actually did which is far less egregious than anything you have described.

I said she lied about being Native American. She did. Her own genetic test showed that she had one ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago. Being 1/64th Native American does not make one Native American. Someone raised White, in White culture, with no one ever looking at her as Native American and never facing the slightest hardship that Native Americans face is not Native American. That is a lie.

I said she lied about lying about being a Native American. She did. When it was first brought out that Harvard had listed her as a Native American professor and a minority professor she claimed not to have known they did this. This was proven a false statement. A lie. Further, it has been demonstrated that she described herself as a Native American professor and a minority professor at Penn and Harvard. She won an award at least in part for being a minority professor. She classified herself as Native American on her Texas Bar application.

She further showed extreme insensitivity on the issue by trying to excuse it by pointing to family lore of a distant ancestor as excusing her behavior. Native Americans have a pretty shytty lot. Trying to get street cred or wokeness by piggybacking on that is pretty despicable. Native American groups were pretty ticked off with her genetic test fiasco and openly asked where she was on a whole host of Native American concerns if she is so Native American.

My personal take on the issue as it relates to Warren is this. I hadn't looked at the issue before she did the genetic test stunt because we weren't close to election time. For me it was Trump being an ass (which still holds true) and I was just inclined to defend her against a patently unfair attack. I think the genetic test was a fiasco because I think most Democratic voters were like me they weren't inclined to look at the underlying issue. I also think no Democratic candidate was going to make an issue out of this and look like they were carrying Trump's water. When she did the genetic test what it did for me was say "Wait you did what? And you think this test justifies that how?" What she did was unethical. Her justification showed her to be oblivious to the issue. And also concerning was how she let Trump egg her on into doing something patently stupid. So I had serious reservations about her as a candidate based on the ethical question, the lack of understanding of the plight of minorities and how a White person using their "benefit" hurts the political cause, and the political miscalculation on her part.

These were not disqualifying issues for me. They did put her further down the list needing to overcome these issues. I had candidates I liked better. None of them rose to the top. However, I did get to the point where I was willing to overlook them because I felt it was her or Biden or Sanders and I don't feel great about either Biden or Sanders. I was virtually decided that I would vote for her. However, once I looked closer at her as a candidate other issues joined the pile and yes, I dislike her. I think these ethical issues continue.

I think it is fair to say that there are legitimate issues and criticisms to be levied at her based on the "Native American business" as you dismissively call it. That does not mean I agree with Trump or conservatives on the issue. To be clear, Trump has been unfair and an ass with the Pocahontas thing. Conservatives have unfairly accused her of doing what she did not do. The media unfairly portrayed the genetic test. And now, poor Elizabeth Warren, you as her supporter have perhaps been the most unfair to her. Elizabeth Warren should take crap for what she did, not what she didn't do. So let's make clear what she didn't do.

She did not, as you imply with your situational ethics defense, try to gain advantage or in fact gain any advantage in an college admissions process on the basis of being Native American. No one has actually accused her of doing so. So, frankly, your post was an unfortunate red herring, classifying her as potentially doing something far worse than she did or even the most unfair smears accused her of, and you sold yourself out for no reason to defend behavior your candidate did not engage in.

Conservatives VERY UNFAIRLY accused her of using her Native American heritage to gain preferential consideration in job applications. There is no evidence that she ever did this. In fact all signs point to the contrary. Some job applications show that she listed herself as White. No one has produced an application where she classified herself as Native American. Her employers have said it wasn't considered. She has said she was usually recruited into jobs. This makes sense to me. I believe her. More importantly, no one has provided hard evidence to the contrary.

I am also going to say let's be fair in talking about the genetic test fiasco. The media coverage on that was extremely ill informed and very unfair. They compared apples and oranges because as usual the media was ignorant on anything scientific or technical. The results showed she had a Native American ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago. The press and political rivals started translating that into fractions. (Like if I had a Native American grandparent I would be 1/4 Native American in common parlance) That translates to 1/64 to 1/1024. Okay as far as that went. Then they got out of their depth. They translated those fractions into percentages and then compared them to genetic percentages you would get in a 23 And Me test. That is incompatible. They then made moronic conclusions like most people have more Neanderthal blood than Elizabeth Warren has Native American blood. That is based on 1/1024 being less than a tenth of a percent while most Europeans have 3-5% Neanderthal DNA. They are two different measures. Obviously no one has a Neanderthal ancestor in the last 6-10 generations. If you applied the same standard to our Neanderthal ancestry as they did to Warren's Native American ancestry, the highest percentage Neanderthal anyone would have would be a decimal point, a whole lot of zeroes followed by a 1. (something like 2000 generations ago). The media coverage was grossly unfair.

So, no, I'm not falling for a conservative line on this. I am espousing a liberal line which says you do not try to use some distant ancestor to gain entre into a disadvantaged minority group for some benefit, or street cred or wokeness when you don't have to ever deal with any issue that the group deals with. It is flat out wrong and it provides ammunition for opponents of any such benefits.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one candidate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm known for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

I told you weeks ago that if Warren doesn't win either Iowa or New Hampshire, she is done. (or at least be in a virtual tie). Since the "this is how I pay for Medicare for All" gambit followed by the "Heh. Heh. Did I say Medicare for All? I meant some day in the distant future long after I'm long gone" walk back, Her polls have been consistently sinking. She is in real trouble in both Iowa and New Hampshire. She still has a shot, but she also has a good shot at finishing fourth in either or both. Meanwhile, Bernie has been the primary beneficiary in the polls. Basically, how I would speculate about it is that over the summer many saw her as Bernie without the baggage. She blew her credibility on the Medicare for All issue. She is now Fake Bernie. People have been gravitating back to Bernie. Her campaign needed to do something. She can't get many votes away from Biden and Buttigieg. She needs to kneecap Bernie.

Let me ask you. (or anyone else). Let's say in 2018 he actually did say "Yeah, look, Liz. A dame can't be president." Why say this now? You've had a year to bring this up. Debate the issue. Why now? It's not new. Why now? It's called a desperate campaign saying "we need to do something to catch Bernie?"

As for the post debate stunt - she knew everyone would see her refuse to shake Bernie's hand. She knew a mic would pick up her accusation (if she didn't know either of these things or didn't care, she is too stupid and/or hotheaded to be president - neither of which I think she is). Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one candidate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm known for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

FYI, Fivethirtyeight's simulation (not the same as a poll compliation and definitely not a predictions) has Biden at 26.8%, Bernie at 18.8%, Warren at 16% and Buttigieg at 7.1%

In Iowa it is Biden 20.1, Bernie 20.0, Buttigieg 17.4, Warren 15

In New Hampshire it is Biden 21.7, Bernie 20.1, Warren 15.8, Buttigieg 13.2

The polling is not as prolific in Nevada and South Carolina, but Biden as a small but distinct lead in Nevada with Bernie second.

Biden is way ahead in South Carolina. Bernie is second.

So right now Warren is up there, but she is in no better than third in any of the four states before Super Tuesday and no closer than 5% points from the lead. She needs to move the needle and quickly. She can definitely win in either Iowa or New Hampshire, but she desperately needs to or she is going to go to Super Tuesday very weak.

See why she is lobbing a molotov cocktail at her former pal?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

---

I'll respond by asking this question. Do you think offensive coordinators see that hail mary's almost never work?

Iowa is almost here. She is behind. New Hampshire follows soon after. She is behind. She is not going to finish top 2 in Nevada. She could finish second in South Carolina WAAAAAAAAY behind Biden. She needs to change the state of play NOW.

The point is, what do you care about. If all you care about is getting elected, you kneecap Bernie and hope for the best. It is the only card you have left. Hope that Bernie supporters will forgive you by Super Tuesday. You likely aren't surviving past Super Tuesday otherwise. If you care about the policies that you claim to have been working with Bernie on for 4 years, you play out your existing hand, hope for good turnout or that the polls are off, and hope to beat Bernie in at least one state, but acknowledge that one of you may need to bow out to keep the cause going and it may be you.

I responded to your question. Now respond to mine. What was the point in her campaign dropping this story over a year after the alleged comments took place? Warren is clearly not mad about the comment. She has buddied up to Bernie for a year after the comment was made. There was only one point to the story - try and sink Bernie.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry. It's what people do. I try not to get into the business of telling people who they are. If her family told them they had Native American ancestry, it's not really my business.

Also, Biden is currently my #1, as I noted in one of these threads in here about a month ago.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

---

I think Biden goes with a woman of color, who is not scary to Wall Street or more independent voters. Maybe Harris or Abrams (also works the south angle).

A Warren "unity ticket" with both of them makes some sense, so long as the primaries don't get too down and dirty. You'd have gender and ideological balance, I suppose. But you'd also have two really old people, and if the ticket won, Democrats would lose a Senate seat from Massachusetts (the state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, albeit barely). There is the additional problem fo Warren being outspoken and difficult: 1) stealing President Joe's thunder, and (2) driving voters away. If I'm going with white women, such as Whitmer (right age, wins elections, photogenic) or Whaley (right age, his profile, wins elections) from the Midwest make more sense.

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Harris brings nothing. Her constituency is upper middle class white people like Warren's
only less of them.. Abrams makes sense but Biden already does well with blacks. Biden- Obama would not play any way.

Inherent in my thinking about Biden-Warren is that she endorses him not Bernie when she drops out- immediately becoming the great unifier in an ugly progressive vs centrist battle and bringing otherwise disenchanted back into the fold. ( Trump however will beat Biden- Warren and Biden-anyone)

---

Lot I agree with in your post.

Biden made it pretty clear to black groups his VP will be black, and he needs to keep that commitment. He would be smart to look at some one a lot younger than Warren. The woman thing just an adds another check mark on the Democrats identity politics approach. I think Biden should win, but he does say some strange stuff from time to time (not that Trump doesn't). He gets a pass in the primaries, but not so in the general. I think the general race is closer than people here think. This from a Biden supporter. Also, Warren has major negatives. But yes, absent some horrible foot in mouth, Biden takes Trump.

---

I saw an article the other day that talked about the "other swing voter". The typical swing voter is the one that swings between Repub and Dem. This one was the Black voter that swings between Dem and sitting out. That Biden will win the Black vote in the primary does not equate to pulling voter turnout.

If it's Biden, he needs a Black Woman. He is already the moderate candidate.

Stacey Abrams is truly impressive if you hear her. I think she absolutely should and would be his candidate if she wants it.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Seems like the gloves are off between Sanders and Warren (she just accused him of being a liar). My amateur read is there is only room for one caudate on the very left against Biden, or if he shoots himself in the foot, probably Mayor B. Oak or someone who follows polls better than me can provide better insight. The field is narrowing down. Obviously, I'm know for my biases for Biden or Mayor B, but it seems like the agreement to not attack each other between Sanders and Warren is in the wind.

---

Warren is tacking to the establishment center- she basically threw aside her health care program and suddenly has ptsd recognition of a 2018 conversation with Sanders days before Iowa . This is due to her down numbers but wouldn't be too surprised if her long game also is to be a VP candidate. For Biden, it gives him a woman and seemingly consolidates the "left" and center wings. ( I doubt this will be true but so what). For her part if Biden wins she has a good shot at being President- possibly sooner than later- given his onset dementia

---

I think Biden goes with a woman of color, who is not scary to Wall Street or more independent voters. Maybe Harris or Abrams (also works the south angle).

A Warren "unity ticket" with both of them makes some sense, so long as the primaries don't get too down and dirty. You'd have gender and ideological balance, I suppose. But you'd also have two really old people, and if the ticket won, Democrats would lose a Senate seat from Massachusetts (the state's governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican, albeit barely). There is the additional problem fo Warren being outspoken and difficult: 1) stealing President Joe's thunder, and (2) driving voters away. If I'm going with white women, such as Whitmer (right age, wins elections, photogenic) or Whaley (right age, his profile, wins elections) from the Midwest make more sense.

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Harris brings nothing. Her constituency is upper middle class white people like Warren's
only less of them.. Abrams makes sense but Biden already does well with blacks. Biden- Obama would not play any way.

Inherent in my thinking about Biden-Warren is that she endorses him not Bernie when she drops out- immediately becoming the great unifier in an ugly progressive vs centrist battle and bringing otherwise disenchanted back into the fold. ( Trump however will beat Biden- Warren and Biden-anyone)

---

Lot I agree with in your post.

Biden made it pretty clear to black groups his VP will be black, and he needs to keep that commitment. He would be smart to look at some one a lot younger than Warren. The woman thing just an adds another check mark on the Democrats identity politics approach. I think Biden should win, but he does say some strange stuff from time to time (not that Trump doesn't). He gets a pass in the primaries, but not so in the general. I think the general race is closer than people here think. This from a Biden supporter. Also, Warren has major negatives. But yes, absent some horrible foot in mouth, Biden takes Trump.

---

Biden is "electable" like Clinton was electable. It misreads the results of 2016 as a fluke rather than a rejection of establishment politics ( both parties.). Take any disastrous issue of the last 25 years and there will be a record of Biden's support- Iraq war, mass incarceration, banking deregulation, war on drugs, endless wars, cutting social security, etc. Trump will beat him like a drum. Add in the fact that Biden is exhibiting signs of dementia. The media calls it "gaffes.". Trump will call it what it is and Biden will reinforce it when he opens his mouth.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry. It's what people do. I try not to get into the business of telling people who they are. If her family told them they had Native American ancestry, it's not really my business.

Also, I posted in one of the these threads in here a couple of weeks ago that Biden was currently my #1.

---

Normally, I am never angry and I wouldn't say I'm very angry, but yeah, the shot on my education has me personally angry and you are just flat out excusing behavior that you shouldn't excuse. Yeah, if someone is biracial, say, I'm not going to tell them what culture they should be. There is no way Elizabeth Warren sees herself as Native American and you full well know that. Your "I'm not telling people who they are" is a bullshyte cop out to try and put a liberal talking point behind what was an utterly old boys network conservative argument. But mainly that was not the argument you made. You said people do it all the time so what. There is nothing in your initial response that said, well if Lori Loughlin's daughter truly considers herself Native American, why shouldn't she get a Native American slot? It was flat out excusing abuse of policies designed to help the disadvantaged because "that is how the game is played" your words.

OaktownBear said:

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

---

Thus why I have dubbed him Cal88 2.0. He exposed himself a long time ago.

OaktownBear said:

---

Basically, how I would speculate about it is that over the summer many saw her as Bernie without the baggage. She blew her credibility on the Medicare for All issue. She is now Fake Bernie. People have been gravitating back to Bernie.

---

Exactly right.

Heck, I was curious about her as well. Not being from Massachusetts and really not caring very much about politics to the degree that I care about it now due to Trump, I was interested to see what the differences were between her and Sanders and whether those differences made her a more appealing candidate. It was when she started courting the power brokers in the party that I realized she was a fake.

Quote:

---

There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I don't think that's true on the whole. I think there are definitely very polarized supporters of both who might feel that way, but from a progressive's point of view, if you're a supporter of one of those two and it becomes clear that your candidate is not going to win, who else are you going to throw your support to? Biden and Buttigieg don't care about the policies you care about and frankly, Klobuchar and Steyer are too irrelevant to even bother discussing. It won't matter to me as Sanders and Warren will almost assuredly still be in the race by the time I get to cast my vote, but after that, it's just me voting for Not Trump over Trump because I won't have any other viable options. Butthurt Sanders and Warren supporters are not going to vote for Trump out of spite or sit this election out. They know what's at stake.

dajo9 said:

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry.

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/93142/replies/1704204

"I find that people who have their arguments shredded tend to go to the "wow you are really stressed out card" right before trying to respond.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

I don't think that's true on the whole. I think there are definitely very polarized supporters of both who might feel that way, but from a progressive's point of view, if you're a supporter of one of those two and it becomes clear that your candidate is not going to win, who else are you going to throw your support to? Biden and Buttigieg don't care about the policies you care about and frankly, Klobuchar and Steyer are too irrelevant to even bother discussing. It won't matter to me as Sanders and Warren will almost assuredly still be in the race by the time I get to cast my vote, but after that, it's just me voting for Not Trump over Trump because I won't have any other viable options. Butthurt Sanders and Warren supporters are not going to vote for Trump out of spite or sit this election out. They know what's at stake.

---

I also suspect this is not any more damaging than the usual mudslinging that goes on in the later stages of a primary. Eventually the candidates on the same side will fight, in sometimes nasty ways. The party voters still tend to fall in line behind the nominee anyway.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry. It's what people do. I try not to get into the business of telling people who they are. If her family told them they had Native American ancestry, it's not really my business.

Also, I posted in one of the these threads in here a couple of weeks ago that Biden was currently my #1.

---

Normally, I am never angry and I wouldn't say I'm very angry, but yeah, the shot on my education has me personally angry and you are just flat out excusing behavior that you shouldn't excuse. Yeah, if someone is biracial, say, I'm not going to tell them what culture they should be. There is no way Elizabeth Warren sees herself as Native American and you full well know that. Your "I'm not telling people who they are" is a bullshyte cop out to try and put a liberal talking point behind what was an utterly old boys network conservative argument. But mainly that was not the argument you made. You said people do it all the time so what. There is nothing in your initial response that said, well if Lori Loughlin's daughter truly considers herself Native American, why shouldn't she get a Native American slot? It was flat out excusing abuse of policies designed to help the disadvantaged because "that is how the game is played" your words.

---

I don't really think it was a shot at your education, but whatever.

Warren was told by her family she has Native American ancestry. If Lori Loughlin's family had the same family story I wouldn't be upset about her using it. Here is the thing - it's a minor transgression at best. Like Hillary's emails. We aren't voting for Saints, we are voting for President's. Your hysterical reaction to it just plays into Trump's hands. This kind of triviality is coming for the Democrat no matter who the nominee is. Because if Warren is the nominee we'll hear about it every day. If Sanders is the nominee we'll hear about some other triviality every day. And so on and so on. Democrats better get smart.

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

---

I'll respond by asking this question. Do you think offensive coordinators see that hail mary's almost never work?

...

I responded to your question. Now respond to mine. What was the point in her campaign dropping this story over a year after the alleged comments took place? Warren is clearly not mad about the comment. She has buddied up to Bernie for a year after the comment was made. There was only one point to the story - try and sink Bernie.

---

To the first question, I would say that OCs call Hail Marys (Maries?) on the last play of the game, and don't do it before that. If you are arguing that this week is the equivalent of 3 seconds left on the clock, down by 5 for Warren, then I guess what you are saying would make sense. I don't think that's the situation she is in.

To the second question, I am not convinced her campaign did drop this story - I thought that was obvious from the prior post of mine you responded to. I've seen it said that Warren wanted to de-escalate and it certainly seems like if she wanted to make a bigger deal out of this, she could have. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere, but I'm lazy and buzzfeed came up first in my search.

If there is credible evidence that Warren leaked this (or that it was leaked at her behest), then I would certainly need to re-evaluate but for now I am questioning your assumption that Warren is this careful, calculating person who did this thing that obviously hurts her and Bernie but helps Biden.

Biden is, however, likely celebrating.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

---

I'll respond by asking this question. Do you think offensive coordinators see that hail mary's almost never work?

...

I responded to your question. Now respond to mine. What was the point in her campaign dropping this story over a year after the alleged comments took place? Warren is clearly not mad about the comment. She has buddied up to Bernie for a year after the comment was made. There was only one point to the story - try and sink Bernie.

---

To the first question, I would say that OCs call Hail Marys (Maries?) on the last play of the game, and don't do it before that. If you are arguing that this week is the equivalent of 3 seconds left on the clock, down by 5 for Warren, then I guess what you are saying would make sense. I don't think that's the situation she is in.

To the second question, I am not convinced her campaign did drop this story - I thought that was obvious from the prior post of mine you responded to. I've seen it said that Warren wanted to de-escalate and it certainly seems like if she wanted to make a bigger deal out of this, she could have. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere, but I'm lazy and buzzfeed came up first in my search.

If there is credible evidence that Warren leaked this (or that it was leaked at her behest), then I would certainly need to re-evaluate but for now I am questioning your assumption that Warren is this careful, calculating person who did this thing that obviously hurts her and Bernie but helps Biden.

Biden is, however, likely celebrating.

---

My one concern is that in the debate, if she really didn't want it to be an issue, she could have nipped it in the bud. She didn't take the opportunity at that time. Perhaps since then they have recalculated and decided it's a loser point.

I thought this quote from the story about was illuminating:

Quote:

---

"I would be careful with the 'sexism' angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually that's not what this is about and I think it'll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about (i.e. press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist)," the staffer told the group. "Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely. But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic)."

---

There's still a feeling in my mind that they want sexism at the forefront to try and energize the female vote. I don't have a problem with that, but why did you need to try to kneecap Sanders to do it? And why didn't you do it earlier in the campaign, as making the case that it's time for a woman president is a perfectly valid point to be making?

I think she just has real campaign messaging problems similiar to Hillary, partly because what she paints herself as and what she more likely is in reality are different. The thing that attracts people to Sanders is that he's never trying to hide who he is. You always know where he stands on something even if you don't agree with that stance.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry. It's what people do. I try not to get into the business of telling people who they are. If her family told them they had Native American ancestry, it's not really my business.

Also, I posted in one of the these threads in here a couple of weeks ago that Biden was currently my #1.

---

Normally, I am never angry and I wouldn't say I'm very angry, but yeah, the shot on my education has me personally angry and you are just flat out excusing behavior that you shouldn't excuse. Yeah, if someone is biracial, say, I'm not going to tell them what culture they should be. There is no way Elizabeth Warren sees herself as Native American and you full well know that. Your "I'm not telling people who they are" is a bullshyte cop out to try and put a liberal talking point behind what was an utterly old boys network conservative argument. But mainly that was not the argument you made. You said people do it all the time so what. There is nothing in your initial response that said, well if Lori Loughlin's daughter truly considers herself Native American, why shouldn't she get a Native American slot? It was flat out excusing abuse of policies designed to help the disadvantaged because "that is how the game is played" your words.

---

I don't really think it was a shot at your education, but whatever.

Warren was told by her family she has Native American ancestry. If Lori Loughlin's family had the same family story I wouldn't be upset about her using it. Here is the thing - it's a minor transgression at best. Like Hillary's emails. We aren't voting for Saints, we are voting for President's. Your hysterical reaction to it just plays into Trump's hands. This kind of triviality is coming for the Democrat no matter who the nominee is. Because if Warren is the nominee we'll hear about it every day. If Sanders is the nominee we'll hear about some other triviality every day. And so on and so on. Democrats better get smart.

---

I'm surprised someone of your high education doesn't see sense enough to be an immoral cretin like my brilliant self is a shot.

How was I being hysterical? (Wow take away the liberal membership card for using such a misogynistic term). I said she lied about it. You said she didn't.

I said what she did was a black mark but that I would still vote for her. How does that make me one who displays the characteristics of a crazy, emotional female as ascribed by a dismissive male society?

The thing you excused, which Warren did not do, was to steal resources earmarked for disadvantaged minorities when one is neither disadvantaged or a minority. That is fraud. As a liberal who actually cares that disadvantaged minorities get some kind of helping hand, yes that would be disqualifying without a lot of penitence being paid long before it being politically expedient. You don't feel that way. Fine. If you can live with that stance while hellfire licks at your feet for eternity fine for you. Just curious how you would feel about rich White people taking affirmative action benefits from African Americans on the basis of having a Black ancestor 10 generations ago. That would cover a lot of White people.

You do not get to decide "who you are" for the sake of taking benefits earmarked for that group. Your excusing that because you think it is your own flock doesn't make it right.

As for Warren's "family lore", if she said she was proud to have a Native American ancestor, this wouldn't be an issue. She classified herself as Native American and a minority. That is a different statement. She has demonstrated zero Native American cultural heritage. She has done nothing that in any way indicates wanting to be part of the Native American culture. No it isn't the worst transgression and I never said it was. (I actually only took issue with the lie). But don't look me in the face and tell me you think she actually identifies as Native American.

Also, my kids are biracial. They have their own challenges and experiences that 63/64 White or higher Elizabeth Warren does not share. Neither does she share the experiences of Native Americans. No, you don't get to claim ownership of an ethnicity to look cool on a faculty website without criticism from those whose cultures you are appropriating.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

---

I'll respond by asking this question. Do you think offensive coordinators see that hail mary's almost never work?

...

I responded to your question. Now respond to mine. What was the point in her campaign dropping this story over a year after the alleged comments took place? Warren is clearly not mad about the comment. She has buddied up to Bernie for a year after the comment was made. There was only one point to the story - try and sink Bernie.

---

To the first question, I would say that OCs call Hail Marys (Maries?) on the last play of the game, and don't do it before that. If you are arguing that this week is the equivalent of 3 seconds left on the clock, down by 5 for Warren, then I guess what you are saying would make sense. I don't think that's the situation she is in.

To the second question, I am not convinced her campaign did drop this story - I thought that was obvious from the prior post of mine you responded to. I've seen it said that Warren wanted to de-escalate and it certainly seems like if she wanted to make a bigger deal out of this, she could have. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere, but I'm lazy and buzzfeed came up first in my search.

If there is credible evidence that Warren leaked this (or that it was leaked at her behest), then I would certainly need to re-evaluate but for now I am questioning your assumption that Warren is this careful, calculating person who did this thing that obviously hurts her and Bernie but helps Biden.

Biden is, however, likely celebrating.

---

My one concern is that in the debate, if she really didn't want it to be an issue, she could have nipped it in the bud. She didn't take the opportunity at that time. Perhaps since then they have recalculated and decided it's a loser point.

I thought this quote from the story about was illuminating:

Quote:

---

"I would be careful with the 'sexism' angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually that's not what this is about and I think it'll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about (i.e. press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist)," the staffer told the group. "Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely. But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic)."

---

There's still a feeling in my mind that they want sexism at the forefront to try and energize the female vote. I don't have a problem with that, but why did you need to try to kneecap Sanders to do it? And why didn't you do it earlier in the campaign, as making the case that it's time for a woman president is a perfectly valid point to be making?

I think she just has real campaign messaging problems similiar to Hillary, partly because what she paints herself as and what she more likely is in reality are different. The thing that attracts people to Sanders is that he's never trying to hide who he is. You always know where he stands on something even if you don't agree with that stance.

---

I don't see how anyone could say this isn't about sexism. It is absolutely about sexism.

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

I don't think that's true on the whole. I think there are definitely very polarized supporters of both who might feel that way, but from a progressive's point of view, if you're a supporter of one of those two and it becomes clear that your candidate is not going to win, who else are you going to throw your support to? Biden and Buttigieg don't care about the policies you care about and frankly, Klobuchar and Steyer are too irrelevant to even bother discussing. It won't matter to me as Sanders and Warren will almost assuredly still be in the race by the time I get to cast my vote, but after that, it's just me voting for Not Trump over Trump because I won't have any other viable options. Butthurt Sanders and Warren supporters are not going to vote for Trump out of spite or sit this election out. They know what's at stake.

---

I also suspect this is not any more damaging than the usual mudslinging that goes on in the later stages of a primary. Eventually the candidates on the same side will fight, in sometimes nasty ways. The party voters still tend to fall in line behind the nominee anyway.

---

I think it is very different from usual mudslinging. They had a mutual nonaggression pact and have gone through several debates not criticizing each other and talking about the importance of the cause. This isn't about mudslinging. It is about breaking a pact, backstabbing a friend, and selling out a cause for personal gain. Whichever side you are on, you think the other did that. If one is able to drive the other from the race, they don't have months to smooth it over. They will have days until the next primary. I don't see supporters of the vanquished getting over it that quickly.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I listened to it a few more times and I now believe my conclusion was too conclusive. He does say with some anger at the end that she called him a liar too. I still strongly believe she is telling the truth, but not conclusively.

I also agree with Sycasey that they could be remembering it differently or, more likely, that he said something about a woman matching up with Trump specifically being a challenge, as opposed to more generally.

---

Bernie is a lot of things. A liar is not one of them. Elizabeth Warren is very few things. A liar is definitely one of them. She lied about being Native American. She lied about lying about being Native American. She has massively lied about the cost of her plans and how she can pay for them.

Bernie has been very supportive of women candidates. The statement doesn't make sense coming from him. But what really doesn't make sense is her being upset about this now when she has been chummy with him for a year after he's supposedly said it.

What makes perfect sense is a campaign that has been in decline for months with Sanders pulling support from her realizing they need to do something before Iowa or they are toast manufacturing a bullshyte story to take Sanders down and let her play up her status as the only woman in contention. She starts a fight with Bernie, then says they are friends, then stages a fight visibly refusing to shake hands and chastising him where she knows full well it will be caught on audio (which is why Bernie said let's not do this here)

If denying he made the statement is calling her a liar, she called him a liar first. Her campaign said he said it. He said he didn't. She then said he did. She was the first to specifically refute what the other said.

Her campaign just nuked the liberal wing of the party that she supposedly cares so much about. That should tell you how much she really cares about the cause. Unlikely either one can build a coalition now.

---

You clearly dislike Warren, and that's fine. None of the things you call out as lies are lies, and that's fine. But what I wanted to talk about was this Native American business.

I haven't followed the story in depth so their may be nuances I don't know because I've always considered the issue to be a distraction and a smear, which I generally try to ignore (a lot like the whole issue of this thread). But it surprises me that somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing when we all know that is how the game is played. I personally know a rich, white, oil family who is now 2nd generation Ivy League assisted by "Native American". heritage. Dartmouth began as a school for Native Americans and to this day has a rule that Native Americans (1/32nd at least) get priority. Per a Dartmouth friend of mine, the school is overrepresented with white kids from places like North Dakota and Oklahoma. I mean, if you have a little Native American blood you put it in your college application - that's how the world is playing the game. I get that Warren takes criticism for that from the public in general, but I'm surprised to see it from Cal grads who are generally savvy about how these things are done.

---

On to situational ethics.

I'm surprised someone with such a profoundly high education such as yourself would speak to an issue from a point of total ignorance. (again Asshat)You have defended a completely unethical practice (and questioned my education, you complete arrogant, effing asshat) in order to fall in line with your chosen candidate using twisted logic as great as a Trump supporter. I'm wondering if Warren should shoot someone on Fifth Avenue to test your allegiance.

If George Bush had done this we'd be rightfully all over it. You'd be all over it. And to your point about the George Bushes of the world buying their way into things, that sucks. The practice you describe sucks more.

I'll start with, I don't give a damn what Dartmouth, the USC of the Ivy League, does with their admissions policies. If they do it, it is probably wrong.

I'm a public school kid. Never attended private school. Never applied to one. I'm not really sympathetic to what some overprivileged, entitled kids at some prep school do. First of all, no, they don't all do it. In fact, Elizabeth Warren did not try to use her status to gain entry to college.

Yes, I'm aware there are some that do it. My first direct knowledge was a girl in my wife's law school class at a UC who didn't quite realize that other students at a public university wouldn't think that a wealthy, blonde, White girl getting into schools marking down her Native American status was funny like she did. I thought what she did was bullshyte and pretty much every minority I heard talk of the issue thought the same. (Warren's issue immediately brought her back to my mind).

Native Americans have had a lot of crap to deal with and overcome. A White person who is raised White, in a family of wealth, who have never had one bit of Native American exposure and who have never dealt with one minute of the disadvantage they deal with, taking advantage of programs designed to give some tiny fraction of benefit back to them is horrible. I would consider it like a rich person stealing food from a soup kitchen multiplied by 10,000. Just because it is know that some asshats do that doesn't mean it is okay. I'd gladly vote against every asshat who did this to get their start in college.

It is now a common practice among SOME wealthy elites to pay a doctor to diagnose their kids with a learning disability to get them preferential testing treatment. They are taking a benefit that is given to kids who genuinely need the help. Asshats.

These programs that are needed by a few are put at risk when many fraudulently use them. That is why this is worse than Bushes using the normal unfair benefits enjoyed by the wealthy. It is one thing to buy yourself a fancy meal. It is another thing to steal a meal off of an orphan's plate who may now go hungry.

Not everyone does this. Frankly, I think most don't. My daughter vehemently guards against anything untoward regarding her college applications. Even in jest. Her friends are the same way. Yes there are some in her school that will clearly stomp all over anyone to get what they want. That isn't most.

Frankly, you are surprised "somebody from quality higher education would criticize Warren for the Native American thing"? I'm ten times more surprised and disappointed that a purported liberal and Cal grad would justify the behavior. Shouldn't we be fighting to stop these practices? They are clearly unethical. They put at risk liberal policies. They give unfair advantage to people who don't need more advantage. You arguing that it is okay for your candidate to do it (even when she didn't) chops off at the knees any argument that others should not do it. Talk about amoral, unethical bullshyte.

---

Oaktownbear, you seem angry. It's what people do. I try not to get into the business of telling people who they are. If her family told them they had Native American ancestry, it's not really my business.

Also, I posted in one of the these threads in here a couple of weeks ago that Biden was currently my #1.

---

Normally, I am never angry and I wouldn't say I'm very angry, but yeah, the shot on my education has me personally angry and you are just flat out excusing behavior that you shouldn't excuse. Yeah, if someone is biracial, say, I'm not going to tell them what culture they should be. There is no way Elizabeth Warren sees herself as Native American and you full well know that. Your "I'm not telling people who they are" is a bullshyte cop out to try and put a liberal talking point behind what was an utterly old boys network conservative argument. But mainly that was not the argument you made. You said people do it all the time so what. There is nothing in your initial response that said, well if Lori Loughlin's daughter truly considers herself Native American, why shouldn't she get a Native American slot? It was flat out excusing abuse of policies designed to help the disadvantaged because "that is how the game is played" your words.

---

I don't really think it was a shot at your education, but whatever.

Warren was told by her family she has Native American ancestry. If Lori Loughlin's family had the same family story I wouldn't be upset about her using it. Here is the thing - it's a minor transgression at best. Like Hillary's emails. We aren't voting for Saints, we are voting for President's. Your hysterical reaction to it just plays into Trump's hands. This kind of triviality is coming for the Democrat no matter who the nominee is. Because if Warren is the nominee we'll hear about it every day. If Sanders is the nominee we'll hear about some other triviality every day. And so on and so on. Democrats better get smart.

---

I'm surprised someone of your high education doesn't see sense enough to be an immoral cretin like my brilliant self is a shot.

How was I being hysterical? (Wow take away the liberal membership card for using such a misogynistic term). I said she lied about it. You said she didn't.

I said what she did was a black mark but that I would still vote for her. How does that make me one who displays the characteristics of a crazy, emotional female as ascribed by a dismissive male society?

The thing you excused, which Warren did not do, was to steal resources earmarked for disadvantaged minorities when one is neither disadvantaged or a minority. That is fraud. As a liberal who actually cares that disadvantaged minorities get some kind of helping hand, yes that would be disqualifying without a lot of penitence being paid long before it being politically expedient. You don't feel that way. Fine. If you can live with that stance while hellfire licks at your feet for eternity fine for you. Just curious how you would feel about rich White people taking affirmative action benefits from African Americans on the basis of having a Black ancestor 10 generations ago. That would cover a lot of White people.

You do not get to decide "who you are" for the sake of taking benefits earmarked for that group. Your excusing that because you think it is your own flock doesn't make it right.

As for Warren's "family lore", if she said she was proud to have a Native American ancestor, this wouldn't be an issue. She classified herself as Native American and a minority. That is a different statement. She has demonstrated zero Native American cultural heritage. She has done nothing that in any way indicates wanting to be part of the Native American culture. No it isn't the worst transgression and I never said it was. (I actually only took issue with the lie). But don't look me in the face and tell me you think she actually identifies as Native American.

Also, my kids are biracial. They have their own challenges and experiences that 63/64 White or higher Elizabeth Warren does not share. Neither does she share the experiences of Native Americans. No, you don't get to claim ownership of an ethnicity to look cool on a faculty website without criticism from those whose cultures you are appropriating.

---

In your criticism of Warren for "appopriating" a culture did you just hide behind the centuries of abuse against women for the misuse of the word hysterical typically leveled against women in a biased and sexist manner meant to demean, humiliate and silence women? Are you a woman? If not, please don't look me in the face and tell me you actually identify as a woman. You do not get to decide "who you are" when turning words leveled against you as if that word has the same meaning as when leveled against a group facing prejudice. Shame on you for lying about who you are. Definitely at least equally as bad as what Warren did. Hellfire is licking at your feet, for sure.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

I don't think that's true on the whole. I think there are definitely very polarized supporters of both who might feel that way, but from a progressive's point of view, if you're a supporter of one of those two and it becomes clear that your candidate is not going to win, who else are you going to throw your support to? Biden and Buttigieg don't care about the policies you care about and frankly, Klobuchar and Steyer are too irrelevant to even bother discussing. It won't matter to me as Sanders and Warren will almost assuredly still be in the race by the time I get to cast my vote, but after that, it's just me voting for Not Trump over Trump because I won't have any other viable options. Butthurt Sanders and Warren supporters are not going to vote for Trump out of spite or sit this election out. They know what's at stake.

---

I also suspect this is not any more damaging than the usual mudslinging that goes on in the later stages of a primary. Eventually the candidates on the same side will fight, in sometimes nasty ways. The party voters still tend to fall in line behind the nominee anyway.

---

I think it is very different from usual mudslinging. They had a mutual nonaggression pact and have gone through several debates not criticizing each other and talking about the importance of the cause. This isn't about mudslinging. It is about breaking a pact, backstabbing a friend, and selling out a cause for personal gain. Whichever side you are on, you think the other did that. If one is able to drive the other from the race, they don't have months to smooth it over. They will have days until the next primary. I don't see supporters of the vanquished getting over it that quickly.

---

I guess I just figured this was inevitable. The nonaggression pact wasn't going to hold forever, since ultimately you need to beat the other person to win the race.

And what is the "usual mudslinging?" In the last presidential race one candidate said the other's father had killed JFK.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd Warren is very careful and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing. It was severing ties and doing it brutally. She was trying to make him old, out of touch and unacceptable. She was trying to dump the friendship and say "you can't be for both of us - choose". We'll see. I think it was a kamikaze attack. There are now large portions of both camps that will never vote for the other. I don't see how that helps her. I think she just both of them down. Biden must be ecstatic.

---

I've bolded two statements. Do you think that this thing that you have pointed out obviously helps Biden would have been unforeseen by the "very careful and calculating" Warren?

She's had plenty of time to break her non-aggression pact with Bernie, if that was her intention all along. I see this as too little too late, if what she was trying to do was use this to propel her to the presidency. I don't know if we will ever find out the truth, but I would be surprised if the answer is (1) she's lying and (2) she chose to put this out in the public.

---

I'll respond by asking this question. Do you think offensive coordinators see that hail mary's almost never work?

...

I responded to your question. Now respond to mine. What was the point in her campaign dropping this story over a year after the alleged comments took place? Warren is clearly not mad about the comment. She has buddied up to Bernie for a year after the comment was made. There was only one point to the story - try and sink Bernie.

---

To the first question, I would say that OCs call Hail Marys (Maries?) on the last play of the game, and don't do it before that. If you are arguing that this week is the equivalent of 3 seconds left on the clock, down by 5 for Warren, then I guess what you are saying would make sense. I don't think that's the situation she is in.

To the second question, I am not convinced her campaign did drop this story - I thought that was obvious from the prior post of mine you responded to. I've seen it said that Warren wanted to de-escalate and it certainly seems like if she wanted to make a bigger deal out of this, she could have. I'm sure this has been reported elsewhere, but I'm lazy and buzzfeed came up first in my search.

If there is credible evidence that Warren leaked this (or that it was leaked at her behest), then I would certainly need to re-evaluate but for now I am questioning your assumption that Warren is this careful, calculating person who did this thing that obviously hurts her and Bernie but helps Biden.

Biden is, however, likely celebrating.

---

Three months ago Warren was at 27% and Bernie was at 14%. Now she is at 16% and he is at 19. Her polling in Iowa and New Hampshire is hovering at the cutoff point that gets you 0 delegates. She is running third ir worse in the first four states. And, Iowa and New Hampshire are her most favorable states demographically. 538 gives her a 1 in 8 chance and in scenarios where she loses both , her chances plummet from there. She has 3 weeks to change the game and little opportunity to do it. Maybe not Hail Mary, but she's in her own 5 with 30 seconds left.

4 people 2 claiming to be in the meeting 2 claiming to have been briefed by Warren immediately after coordinated to tell the same story at the same time over a year after it happened. There were only Bernie people and Warren people there. The Bernie people are in the record saying he didn't say it. Where is this story coming from if not her campaign or at least her people. Is Warren briefing non-Warren people?

Anonymous sources who talked to Warren said Warren said after the meeting that he said it. Bernie says "did not". Bernie people go on record saying "did not" and go as far as saying Warren will confirm he didn't say it. She comes out and says "he said it, but I don't want to make an issue out of it. Then at the debate she reiterated that he said it but she doesn't want to make an issue, then as soon as the debate is over she charges to center stage, yanks her hand away and says he called her a liar which he did not do. For someone who doesn't want to make an issue out of it, she certainly keeps making it an issue.

I have not been following this thread closely, but I have noted a recurrence of friction between D9 and OTB. You are both reasonable people and I respect your contributions on here. Let's please try a reset to keep things civil and give each other the benefit of a doubt when possible. Truce hombres.

Andrew Yang
"One thing I'll share with you all, is that some of the campaigns are in touch with the TV network ahead of time to talk about what kind of attack they want to level on the stage."

CNN to Sanders: " CNN reported yesterday that -- and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement -- that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman can win the election. Why did you say that?

Sanders: " I didn't say it."

CNN to Warren: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win an election?"

The whole thing was orchestrated right down to "finding" the missing video.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Andrew Yang
"One thing I'll share with you all, is that some of the campaigns are in touch with the TV network ahead of time to talk about what kind of attack they want to level on the stage."

CNN to Sanders: " CNN reported yesterday that -- and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement -- that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman can win the election. Why did you say that?

Sanders: " I didn't say it."

CNN to Warren: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win an election?"

The whole thing was orchestrated right down to "finding" the missing video.

---

Not sure what you mean here. Maybe missing audio?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

I have not been following this thread closely, but I have noted a recurrence of friction between D9 and OTB. You are both reasonable people and I respect your contributions on here. Let's please try a reset to keep things civil and give each other the benefit of a doubt when possible. Truce hombres.

---

Mind your own beeswax Bear Ass.

(J/k)

Audio, right.

OaktownBear said:

---

4 people 2 claiming to be in the meeting 2 claiming to have been briefed by Warren immediately after coordinated to tell the same story at the same time over a year after it happened. There were only Bernie people and Warren people there. The Bernie people are in the record saying he didn't say it. Where is this story coming from if not her campaign or at least her people. Is Warren briefing non-Warren people?

---

I think we've pretty well boiled the ocean at this point so I will just leave you with one thing. Symone Sanders was Bernie's press secretary in 2016 and is Biden's senior advisor now. These people all know each other and talk. If Warren orchestrated this, she isn't as careful and calculating as you think she is because this is not a winner for you. Hail Marys can result in touchdowns, this is closer to a suicide pact.

https://giphy.com/gifs/film-eli-wallach-the-good-bad-and-ugly-Mnpy7GEjtd33O

https://www.moviefone.com/2017/01/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-facts/

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The other side is what if Biden picks an Obama, perhaps Michelle?

---

Michelle has no interest in being an elected official

---

That was before Trump. That said, she may not want to run for Vice President.

---

Michelle Obama would be the best presidential candidate in the field by far. However, she has seen what the job entails and she doesn't want it.