• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Elizabeth Warren part Native American?

Is Elizabeth Warren part Native American?


  • Total voters
    78
It doesn't really matter whether it's true or not as long as she believes it's true. Which means she wasn't trying to deceive anyone.

Not that I care about her ancestry either way - it's her ideas that suck - but I am curious about this statement. Do you believe that as long as a politician believes something is true then he/she isn't trying to deceive anyone?
 
I can't stand the vast majority of her political stances. I don't care if she is or isn't a Native American. I do care if she isn't, and knew she isn't, but said she was anyways. I've seen no clear cut evidence in which that is the case. As such...even if it was utterly proven she didn't have any native american descent, I still wouldn't care that she was "mistaken" if there's no clear evidence to show that it was anything other than a mistake.

That makes sense. The evidence against her is that her story (and what she wrote on forms) changed back and forth - depending whether being white or being NA best served her personally. This is more about her past history as she had dropped the claim when she entered politics and never brought it up. It tells about her character, but then so many politicians hide, alter or exaggerate their past and duck things they said and signed in earlier years.

There are people who envision some self identity that across time somehow just became how the people sees him/herself to the person's mind. If she had always claimed NA ancestry - even if she couldn't prove it or it proven false - would be less worth criticism than conveniently changing her portray back and forth to suit her wanted and goals. Is it a big deal? In my view, just another low integrity politician - like so many (I suspect most) are.
 
Not that I care about her ancestry either way - it's her ideas that suck - but I am curious about this statement. Do you believe that as long as a politician believes something is true then he/she isn't trying to deceive anyone?

Actually, yes. In a larger sense if someone says something that isn't accurate, the line between deception and being wrong lies in the intent.
 
I wouldn't say I really care but the answer is probably no.
 
I can't stand the vast majority of her political stances. I don't care if she is or isn't a Native American. I do care if she isn't, and knew she isn't, but said she was anyways. I've seen no clear cut evidence in which that is the case. As such...even if it was utterly proven she didn't have any native american descent, I still wouldn't care that she was "mistaken" if there's no clear evidence to show that it was anything other than a mistake.

It was no mistake that she changed her story many times even after she "came to believe" (after age 30?) that she was Native American when it was to her benefit. It is not up to me to prove that her claims were false but it is up to her to prove them to be true.
 
There is no amount of evidence that would ever get you to admit she lied so why bother arguing the point.

Sure there would be. Any evidence of a clear cut admittal by her that she knew she really didn't have native american descent, or if there were statements from the family members she claims gave her the information that made her believe that saying they never made such claims, or something of the sort it'd likely sway me.

All I've really seen to indicate she's purposefully and knowingly telling a falsehood is people pointing to the fact that at one point she claimed "white" on an official form instead of "native american". That isn't a clear indication of lying, as it can just as simply be explained as choosing to identify with the part of her heritage that was likely to be most beneficial at that time...as just one other explanation.

Could claiming it at one point and not claiming it at another, based on what's beneficial to you, warrant condemnation or scorn? Arguably, yes. Nothing wrong with showing scorn there. But selectively choosing what part of your heritage to embrace is different than outright lying.

I'm sorry that dealing with facts and what words actually means bothers you. If you want to be "done" with dealing with someone with more than an ounce of intellectual honesty and actually giving a damn about consistency and facts then that's fine...I can understand why you'd want to be "done" with such given your arguments thus far.
 
Elizabeth "Pocohontas" Warren is about as much an Indian as Ward "Sitting Bull" Churchill. You may remember that Churchill used to be a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He claimed to be part Indian, too, but the leaders of the tribe he claimed to be affiliated with repeatedly denied he had anything to do with them. Eventually, he was fired.

Not long after 9/11, Churchill echoed Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright, his fellow anti-American leftist and Mr. Obama's preacher of twenty years. Wright had said the attack meant "America, your chickens have come home to roost!" In Professor Churchill's version, the victims at the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns." Like Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official whose efficient scheduling of trains had maximized the supply of victims to the death camps, and who was hanged for it by Israel, in the Professor's view the financial workers in New York had gotten what they deserved for helping make the evil capitalist system work efficiently.

It's not an easy thing to choose which America-hating leftist liar of those four--Churchill, Obama, Wright, or Warren--is most disgusting. Sort of like choosing whether you'd rather find a dead roach in your salad, or maggots.

Are you seriously trying to smear Warren with Churchill's words? Could you be more jaw-droppingly dishonest?
 
I .... Don't care?

Exactly...what on Earth does this have to do with anything?

What's next?

Is she...a baseball fan? Secretly left handed? A fan of carbonated beverages?
 
Exactly...what on Earth does this have to do with anything?

What's next?

Is she...a baseball fan? Secretly left handed? A fan of carbonated beverages?

Elizabeth Warren has the entire series of "Mama's Family" on VHS.
 
Exactly...what on Earth does this have to do with anything?

What's next?

Is she...a baseball fan? Secretly left handed? A fan of carbonated beverages?
No, seems like just a liar.
 
Exactly...what on Earth does this have to do with anything?

What's next?

Is she...a baseball fan? Secretly left handed? A fan of carbonated beverages?

If she is going to run for POTUS she's going to be called on her past lies, and this is one of them. This lie gave her an advantage at one time in her life. That speaks to character and may very well have been a felony. Kobie is obviously a Warren fan and would like to see this put back in the box of things we do not speak of.
 
If she is going to run for POTUS she's going to be called on her past lies, and this is one of them. This lie gave her an advantage at one time in her life. That speaks to character and may very well have been a felony.

1. It's not even clear that it was a lie.
2. A felony? Seriously?
 
1. It's not even clear that it was a lie.
2. A felony? Seriously?

Yes, do you even read the forms you sign? If she made the false claim on a federal application form, that is indeed a felony. And yes, pretty clearly a lie.
 
Are you seriously trying to smear Warren with Churchill's words? Could you be more jaw-droppingly dishonest?

I'll leave it to the readers to decide who is dishonest here. But accusing me of dishonesty can't hide the fact Pocohontas Warren is a damned liar, just like Churchill, Wright, Obama, and most other collectivists. Lying has been part and parcel of being a collectivist at least since the days of Lenin. Saul Alinsky openly advocated intentional deceit, and Obama and others like him--including Pocohontas--have adopted that recommendation with a vengeance. She wouldn't be the first law school professor to be a bald-faced liar.
 
That makes sense. The evidence against her is that her story (and what she wrote on forms) changed back and forth - depending whether being white or being NA best served her personally.

Which is indicitive of someone with little significant tie to her ethnic heritage, but doesn't necessarily indicate she was "lying".

My grandfather (passed away a number of years before I was born) was half native american, which my uncle ended up verifying doing ancestory research regarding the family line. So I've got at least an 1/8th in me, which is one of the larger percentages (italian being the most). I don't self identify typically as native american, I've never strongly intigrated myself with that culture growing up, and in general I wouldn't label myself as one.

That said, when they were asking for applicants to attend a variety of minority based conferences (the groups hosting the conference were minority based, attending was not restricted to such), the fact that I did have native american descent was something I pointed to when putting in my application...specifically because it's what made me interested in attending that particular conference as opposed to one of the other ones. When I was 17 and in high school as well, I put in for a scholarship that simply required native american descent (admittedly, in retrospect I'm happy I was not one of those that was awarded said scholarship).

Me self identifying most of my life as "white" doesn't mean I'm lying when I say I have native american descent. It arguably wouldn't be lying if I said I identified as native american instead of white at this point IF I actually, in my normal life, began to actually identify more with that part of my history. It could be considered self serving, unprincipled, etc...but not "lying".

There's a LARGE difference between saying her claims regarding her supposed NA ancestry are deserving of questioning, criticism, or scorn....and outright claiming it was a lie.
 
I'll leave it to the readers to decide who is dishonest here. But accusing me of dishonesty can't hide the fact Pocohontas Warren is a damned liar, just like Churchill, Wright, Obama, and most other collectivists. Lying has been part and parcel of being a collectivist at least since the days of Lenin. Saul Alinsky openly advocated intentional deceit, and Obama and others like him--including Pocohontas--have adopted that recommendation with a vengeance. She wouldn't be the first law school professor to be a bald-faced liar.

Alinsky! Everybody drink!
 
It was no mistake that she changed her story many times even after she "came to believe" (after age 30?) that she was Native American when it was to her benefit. It is not up to me to prove that her claims were false but it is up to her to prove them to be true.

It's up to her to "prove" her claims in terms of demanding that people believe that she IS native american, that's true.

It's not up to her to "prove" that she believed she was native american, and that she was honestly presenting herself as such without an intent to decieve, beyond her claims that it was the case. Her "proof" of what she believed is her stating what she believed. If you think she's lying about that, you need to provide evidence suggesting why you believe such.

Again, there's a giant difference between:

1. Whether or not she IS native american

2. Whether or not she was intentionally misleading people by knowingly making a false statement regarding her supposed native american descent.

She can absolutley not have a DROP of native american blood in here...and that would still not in any way prove whether or not she was "lying" about being native american. It would prove she was WRONG about being native american, but those are two different things.
 
1. It's not even clear that it was a lie.
2. A felony? Seriously?

Theoritically there could be a felony involved, if she indicated on any official government form that she was a native american while knowing and believing entirely that said statement was incorrect. However, that would be ridiculously difficult to prove in ourt.

Yes, do you even read the forms you sign? If she made the false claim on a federal application form, that is indeed a felony. And yes, pretty clearly a lie.

No, not pretty clearly a lie. Pretty clearly wrong, but not necessarily a lie. Those forms typically indicate "To the best of your knowledge....". If she did not believe her statement to be false, or didn't realize/understand that you had to meet both of those criteria, then it's highly questionable that she'd be found guilty of a felony for giving false information on a federal form.
 
Not that I care about her ancestry either way - it's her ideas that suck - but I am curious about this statement. Do you believe that as long as a politician believes something is true then he/she isn't trying to deceive anyone?

Of course a politician could be lying on another issue, but on a particular issue believing something is true, but it's not, that would not be lying. If the person is trying to deceive you then its lying.

What if the person doesn't know and said something is true?
Let's say that a person says the Yankees beat the White Sox but he doesn't know that is true. Later he finds out the Yankees did beat the White Sox. Is that person a liar?
 
Of course a politician could be lying on another issue, but on a particular issue believing something is true, but it's not, that would not be lying. If the person is trying to deceive you then its lying.

What if the person doesn't know and said something is true?
Let's say that a person says the Yankees beat the White Sox but he doesn't know that is true. Later he finds out the Yankees did beat the White Sox. Is that person a liar?

Wait you said if she believes it, she isn't deceiving or trying to deceive anyone.

Do you feel that same way about all politicians or any person - as long as he/she believes what he/she is saying is true, then there is no intent to deceive?
 
I don't care if a politician swears up and down they are any ethnicity...it has NOTHING to do with my decision process about voting for them.

I don't care if they were a drunk, drug addict, addicted to pornography, had sex with table lamps and claimed they were abducted by Martians on several occasions.

If I believe they are sane and are the candidate that shares the most political viewpoints with me...that is all I care about.


And this nonsense about whether she lied or exaggerated or let the idea continue without stopping it is ridiculous.

Hello people?

Politicians lie through their teeth.

Are you people really so staggeringly naive as to believe they don't?

Either 'yes'...which means you are too stupid/ignorant to vote (IMO). Or 'no'...which leads me to ask 'what difference does this make?'


I am neither rep nor dem (both parties are useless to me -two sides of the same pathetic coin)...but a person with an IQ of 22 can clearly see that this whole topic is little more then anti-Warren people trying to discredit her rather then an unbiased, rational person seeking the truth about an important topic.
 
Of course a politician could be lying on another issue, but on a particular issue believing something is true, but it's not, that would not be lying. If the person is trying to deceive you then its lying.

What if the person doesn't know and said something is true?
Let's say that a person says the Yankees beat the White Sox but he doesn't know that is true. Later he finds out the Yankees did beat the White Sox. Is that person a liar?

Or lets get more accurate here, since from my understanding there were conflicting sources telling warren about her heritage.

Scenario

Last night, the White Sox beat the Yankees.

[Person A] is told by someone they trust a lot that the Yankees beat the White Sox. They're also told by someone they trust less that the White Sox beat the Yankees.

Since [Person A] holds significant trust in the person who told them the Yankees beat the white sox, they simply believe that one to be true and the other person to have just got the information wrong.

[Person A] then goes and tells someone else that the Yankees beat the White Sox.

Is [Person A] lying? Or were they simply wrong?

(I need to keep this little scenario in my back pocket for other instances of "[person] lied!" that comes up on these forums)
 
Back
Top Bottom