The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
A much better argument would be that she made the claim prior to actually investigating it, and the accuracy of it is inconsequential to whether or not she was factually certain of its accuracy at the time.
The rush instead to borrow the language of racial purity is...a bummer.
If your parents said you had ____ ancestry your whole life, would you think twice before putting it on a form? It's not like she called a press conference. People dug through her employment paperwork to find this "claim."
The purpose of a political attack is to be a political attack. Full stop.
So, if one is determined to make an attack of claimed ancestry on a form (which I think is already a stupid mistake, as it really only drums up the racist vote and is completely unrelated to any actual politics of the person being attacked), then I would say that the “She didn’t actually care if it was true” angle is superior to the one that heavily borrows from the language of racial purity.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39821 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
cutuphalfdead wrote:
So all these newspapers should have editorialized the story by saying that despite actually having some Native American ancestry, she shouldn't claim it?
you think CNN should bury the little detail (about it being 6 to 10 generations ago) 10 paragraphs in and below the line while the headline reads "strong evidence of Native American ancestry"? On a web page with multiple editorials defending her or attacking Trump over it?
Come the fuck on.
And this practice of mixing editorials with news articles on the front pages has never set right with me. Even if they are clearly marked (which they often aren't). The tactic is obvious. But at least it shows the biases I suppose.
B wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
She's as native American as the Cleveland Indians. 6 to 10 generations ago does not make you a native, you insane clowns. The issue is of course overblown, but she obviously was a fraud to claim it. Obviously.
What is the correct number of generations one may go back to claim ancestry?
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47165 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
run2death wrote:
Trag moves to Montana and now thinks he's an expert on Indian culture.
not even remotely, but she's a Senator with Presidential ambitions. It's not too much to ask that she clarifies the misunderstanding. She wants the highest office in the country? She can take a couple minutes to explain that she claimed the heritage based on the narrative as she knew it, but makes no claims to the lifestyle or culture. Progressives need to be impeccable with their words these days, and none more than one who wants to be in the White House.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm Posts: 37156 Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
tragabigzanda wrote:
B wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
A much better argument would be that she made the claim prior to actually investigating it, and the accuracy of it is inconsequential to whether or not she was factually certain of its accuracy at the time.
The rush instead to borrow the language of racial purity is...a bummer.
If your parents said you had ____ ancestry your whole life, would you think twice before putting it on a form? It's not like she called a press conference. People dug through her employment paperwork to find this "claim."
Right, but she's also been on the defense for this for way too long. People who are pissed about any semblance -- real or imagine -- of her claiming to have somehow experienced the culture have a valid gripe, as the media has spun this so far beyond what really transpired. She's playing it for headlines now too.
She should have withheld the results and told Trump she'd release them if/when he releases his tax returns.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47165 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
cutuphalfdead wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
B wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
A much better argument would be that she made the claim prior to actually investigating it, and the accuracy of it is inconsequential to whether or not she was factually certain of its accuracy at the time.
The rush instead to borrow the language of racial purity is...a bummer.
If your parents said you had ____ ancestry your whole life, would you think twice before putting it on a form? It's not like she called a press conference. People dug through her employment paperwork to find this "claim."
Right, but she's also been on the defense for this for way too long. People who are pissed about any semblance -- real or imagine -- of her claiming to have somehow experienced the culture have a valid gripe, as the media has spun this so far beyond what really transpired. She's playing it for headlines now too.
She should have withheld the results and told Trump she'd release them if/when he releases his tax returns.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
