• 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!

Warren faces mounting questions on another part of her personal story: Was she fired for being pregn

dcsports said:
Don't see the connection there, or the relevance, but ok.
Click to expand...
The point is that you were making a definitive prediction in October of 2019, that Warren is not going to get the nomination. That prediction is as useful as Gallup's October 2007, in which they said Obama has no chance.
 
MTAtech said:
The point is that you were making a definitive prediction in October of 2019, that Warren is not going to get the nomination. That prediction is as useful as Gallup's October 2007, in which they said Obama has no chance.
Click to expand...

Then respectfully, you read it wrong. I wasn't making a 'definitive prediction' - or any prediction on the outcome of the race. If you'll look, I stated she was currently second in the polls on the Democrat side, behind a flagging frontrunner, and is therefore going to be a prime target for attacks from other party contenders (and their supporters).

As far as predictions - I have no idea who's going to win the DNC primary. Given their history of NOT selecting the frontrunner, it's likely not going to be Biden or Warren, but instead someone further back in the pack.
 
HumblePi said:
I think it was you that were trolling me by implying that I'm mentally handicapped.
Click to expand...
. You are just making an assumption. Warren also taught in Law School in Texas for several years perhaps you are the right age to be one of those students. You out right called me a coward...that's per the forum rules is trolling
 
Last edited:
dcsports said:
It's the primary season, and she's #2 behind a struggling frontrunner. Make no mistake, the arrows coming at her now are coming from the left. That's not to say there won't be people jumping on the bandwagon, but these are from her current competition.
Click to expand...

Bernie's people are mostly chill with Warren; our daggers are out for Biden if anything, and tbh, Biden's incoherence speaks for itself more often than not.
 
MTAtech said:
I am not going to comment on something from nearly 50 years ago. The fact that the right-wing needs to go back 50 years to dig up dirt means there isn't anything current they can criticize her about.
Click to expand...
So you are going to put a statute of limitations on slandering a person. :lamo I guess you have conditional integrity. Why then is Warren stumping a 50 year old story if a fifty year makes no difference. Warren is lying TODAY.
 
Phys251 said:
Please click on the link that has been conveniently provided for you so that you may show that you actually know what you're talking about for a change. :)
Click to expand...

Yes you should click the link that i gave you and even quoted for you. that way you know what you are talking about for a change.
She wasn't fired for being pregnant. In fact she was offered an extension. she quit on her own.
as i said leftist hate facts but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
ludin said:
Yes you should click the link that i gave
Click to expand...

You first, so that you may prove that you actually know what you're talking about for once. :)
 
Warren is doubling down on her pregnancy lie just like she doubled down on her native American lie. She just does not learn :lol:
 
SLC said:
The woman is lying to try to advance her career AGAIN and she is falsely impugning the integrity of the principle who she falsely claimed fired her. She is lying to women to try to get the women's vote. Pretty scummy.
Click to expand...

As much as I am for a women being president, I don't understand why she insists on this under the table type behavior.

I would vote for her if she had a little more integrity. Who else is left in the running at this point?
 
apollo 13 said:
As much as I am for a women being president, I don't understand why she insists on this under the table type behavior.

I would vote for her if she had a little more integrity. Who else is left in the running at this point?
Click to expand...
It bothers me that she is impugning the integrety of her former principle in order to gain sympathy and bond with female voters. It's not an innocent lie. any welcome to DP. I have a very tiny piece of Apollo 13's heat shield.
 
From Kyle Smith writing at NRO:

It is by now well established that Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. She lied about her parents having to elope because of racism against her mother, who was white. She lied about being the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in New Jersey (which doesn’t keep such records). She lied about being a “single mom” when she met her second and present husband (she was still married, and had not yet filed for divorce). She lied about the death of Michael Brown, which was not a murder. Only recently, after more than 30 years, has she stopped lying about being a Cherokee and a woman of color.

...The response from the media has been fatuous. Coverage falls into the following categories: Republicans pounce, and it must have happened to Warren because it happened to others, therefore the larger truth is what matters.

A HuffPost piece by Amanda Terkel is a classic of partisan water-carrying: “People Get Fired From Their Jobs Without Being ‘Fired’ All The Time.” Yes, well, people win Nobel prizes all the time too, but I’d still be lying if I said I was one of them. The issue is not whether the situation Warren describes ever happened to anyone else but whether she is telling the truth. Media Scramble to Cover for Elizabeth Warren's Lies | National Review

And she is not. But that hasn't stopped the dutiful on this thread from essentially saying that because it happened to other women, it must have happened to Warren too.
 
SLC said:
It bothers me that she is impugning the integrety of her former principle in order to gain sympathy and bond with female voters. It's not an innocent lie. any welcome to DP. I have a very tiny piece of Apollo 13's heat shield.
Click to expand...

You, obviously, are not aware that "sexual discrimination" actually existed in the United States of America 50 years ago. Not only that, but you are also, obviously, not aware that it was very common practice (in the United States of America 50 years ago) for pregnant women to be offered the "choice" between "having their resignation accepted" and being fired. Since "having a resignation accepted" was a lot less likely to have adverse long-term employment effects than being fired would have, can you guess which way any rational person would go?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You, obviously, are not aware that "sexual discrimination" actually existed in the United States of America 50 years ago. Not only that, but you are also, obviously, not aware that it was very common practice (in the United States of America 50 years ago) for pregnant women to be offered the "choice" between "having their resignation accepted" and being fired. Since "having a resignation accepted" was a lot less likely to have adverse long-term employment effects than being fired would have, can you guess which way any rational person would go?
Click to expand...
Since I actually lived in the US during that time I'm more aware of it than you are. Sure there was and continues to be sex discrimination in the US. BUT IN THIS CASE there is no evidence that Warren was discriminated against due to her pregnancy and all the real evidence, including from Warren's own mouth, points to Warren lying.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
You first, so that you may prove that you actually know what you're talking about for once. :)
Click to expand...

so you continued to not know what you are talking about.
congrats for letting everyone else know that.

/thread over you lose like always.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You, obviously, are not aware that "sexual discrimination" actually existed in the United States of America 50 years ago. Not only that, but you are also, obviously, not aware that it was very common practice (in the United States of America 50 years ago) for pregnant women to be offered the "choice" between "having their resignation accepted" and being fired. Since "having a resignation accepted" was a lot less likely to have adverse long-term employment effects than being fired would have, can you guess which way any rational person would go?
Click to expand...

You are obviously not aware that Warren herself admitted it had nothing to do with her pregnancy.
in fact her school offered her an extension on her contract that she turned down due to her wanting to stay home and be a home.

she wasn't fired for being pregnant she quit to be a mother.
 
SLC said:
Since I actually lived in the US during that time I'm more aware of it than you are. Sure there was and continues to be sex discrimination in the US. BUT IN THIS CASE there is no evidence that Warren was discriminated against due to her pregnancy and all the real evidence, including from Warren's own mouth, points to Warren lying.
Click to expand...

It was always the case in 1971...smh at some man who thinks he knows what pregnancy discrimination is like. Sit your butt down and learn something....women were not allowed to work heavily pregnant in 71
 
ClaraD said:
It was always the case in 1971...smh at some man who thinks he knows what pregnancy discrimination is like. Sit your butt down and learn something....women were not allowed to work heavily pregnant in 71
Click to expand...

You go, girl! :applaud
 
ClaraD said:
It was always the case in 1971...smh at some man who thinks he knows what pregnancy discrimination is like. Sit your butt down and learn something....women were not allowed to work heavily pregnant in 71
Click to expand...

Warrens own words said that she wasn't discriminated against. The school she was at offered her further employment and she declined it because she wanted to be a stay at home mom.
i am not sure what part of this is confusing for you.

SMH at people that refused to see facts.
 
Atomic Kid said:
You go, girl! :applaud
Click to expand...

Go with what? being wrong? how is being wrong being a good thing?
go with what? not knowing facts? how is that a good thing?
 
ludin said:
Warrens own words said that she wasn't discriminated against. The school she was at offered her further employment and she declined it because she wanted to be a stay at home mom.
i am not sure what part of this is confusing for you.

SMH at people that refused to see facts.
Click to expand...

Those aren't her words...you might want to stop listening to Hannity so much
 
ludin said:
Go with what? being wrong? how is being wrong being a good thing?
go with what? not knowing facts? how is that a good thing?
Click to expand...

Another man who thinks he knows all about pregnancy and the discrimination women suffered and still live with.
 
ClaraD said:
Those aren't her words...you might want to stop listening to Hannity so much
Click to expand...

Warren Rewrites Her Story Again - WSJ

I swear people are so uninformed it isn't even funny.

Warrens own words from interviews that SHE GAVE.

She lacked a teaching credential, she explained in the interview, so “I was on an ‘emergency certificate.’ . . . I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ My husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ ”

But the Washington Free Beacon obtained documents that back up Ms. Warren’s 2007 version. Minutes of an April 1971 meeting show that the Riverdale, N.J., Board of Education unanimously offered her a “2nd year” contract similar to the first year’s, and June 1971 minutes show her resignation was “accepted with regret.” CBS found that the Paterson News reported at the time that Ms. Warren was “leaving to raise a family” and had “resigned for personal reasons.”

NO where is hannity mentioned. what is mentioned is Warren's own words and her own transcripts with the school itself.

So it is not hannity's words it is warren's own words that contradict her own story.

You know if you guys would spend just 5 or 10 minutes of looking stuff up and verifying things you leftist would look way more informed about
things. I know i know appeal to emotion and moral outrage look like good arguments but they fail entirely when confronted with facts and logic.

hence why they are considered logical fallacies and not actual arguments.
 
ClaraD said:
Another man who thinks he knows all about pregnancy and the discrimination women suffered and still live with.
Click to expand...

Yet another nothing argument.
she wasn't faced with discrimination she admitted it. SHe left on her own accord.
 
ludin said:
Yet another nothing argument.
she wasn't faced with discrimination she admitted it. SHe left on her own accord.
Click to expand...

She never said she wasn't discriminated against. Downplaying something and saying it didn't happen are quite different. I had to hide a pregnancy to keep my job and that was in 1990
 
ludin said:
Warren Rewrites Her Story Again - WSJ

I swear people are so uninformed it isn't even funny.

Warrens own words from interviews that SHE GAVE.

She lacked a teaching credential, she explained in the interview, so “I was on an ‘emergency certificate.’ . . . I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ My husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ ”

But the Washington Free Beacon obtained documents that back up Ms. Warren’s 2007 version. Minutes of an April 1971 meeting show that the Riverdale, N.J., Board of Education unanimously offered her a “2nd year” contract similar to the first year’s, and June 1971 minutes show her resignation was “accepted with regret.” CBS found that the Paterson News reported at the time that Ms. Warren was “leaving to raise a family” and had “resigned for personal reasons.”

NO where is hannity mentioned. what is mentioned is Warren's own words and her own transcripts with the school itself.

So it is not hannity's words it is warren's own words that contradict her own story.

You know if you guys would spend just 5 or 10 minutes of looking stuff up and verifying things you leftist would look way more informed about
things. I know i know appeal to emotion and moral outrage look like good arguments but they fail entirely when confronted with facts and logic.

hence why they are considered logical fallacies and not actual arguments.
Click to expand...

The Moonie Times? Find a dependable source that has her exact words...I don't think this is going to work for me isn't a denial of discrimination...in fact, it indicates it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom