• 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!

WATCH: Warren Lied About Losing Public School Teaching Job Because She Was ‘Visibly Pregna

Cardinal

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,840
Reaction score
98,882
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since we'll be discussing this crap whether we like it or not, I might as well get ahead of it, citing Jennifer Taub:

"Classic victim blaming. Speaking out about something you are silent about before does not make it a lie. That’s like saying a person who was sexually harassed or raped who does not mention it and then brings it up years later is lying."

Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren claims she lost a public school teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant,” but that’s not true according to Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who told a very different story in 2007.

Over the past several days, people have been circulating the claim that Warren lied about being fired over a pregnancy, and while that’s not quite right, it does demonstrate how the lie that has become a regular part of Warren’s stump speech has evolved. The central idea has always been that she was living her dream of being a public school special ed teacher until some villainous Mad Med-era principal put the kibosh on the whole thing because of her baby bump.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren Lied About Losing Teaching Job Because She Was 'Visibly Pregnant'

Interestingly enough, mediaite is a pretty hard left site, so I'm not sure what the writer's beef is. Either way, what we're seeing here is a very likely replay of 2016, where the media carried on the tradition of the fairness doctrine by reporting on one of Trump's scandals, and then looking "fair" by taking a much lesser thing by Clinton and making it appear to be a newsworthy scandal. This tactic is always devastatingly helpful to trump, because then no matter how awful he is, the public perception is that it's just another choice between two flawed people. That's a gigantic part of why Clinton lost in 2016 and it looks like we'll be seeing the same bull**** all the way up to November 2020.

Edit: ah, the writer, Tommy Christopher, appears to have a giant hate-erection for Elizabeth Warren. Was he in one of her classes, and did she flunk him or something?

Adam Best on Twitter: "Dante is right. All this dude does is use Mediate as a front for his Warren attacks. It’s clear he is trying to bring her down because he prefers someone else, guessing someone more moderate. At least have the guts to be an honest broker in your criticisms, offer transparency.… https://t.co/wj4EBHT1z5"
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Since we'll be discussing this crap whether we like it or not, I might as well get ahead of it, citing Jennifer Taub:

"Classic victim blaming. Speaking out about something you are silent about before does not make it a lie. That’s like saying a person who was sexually harassed or raped who does not mention it and then brings it up years later is lying."



Elizabeth Warren Lied About Losing Teaching Job Because She Was 'Visibly Pregnant'

Interestingly enough, mediaite is a pretty hard left site, so I'm not sure what the writer's beef is. Either way, what we're seeing here is a very likely replay of 2016, where the media carried on the tradition of the fairness doctrine by reporting on one of Trump's scandals, and then looking "fair" by taking a much lesser thing by Clinton and making it appear to be a newsworthy scandal. This tactic is always devastatingly helpful to trump, because then no matter how awful he is, the public perception is that it's just another choice between two flawed people. That's a gigantic part of why Clinton lost in 2016 and it looks like we'll be seeing the same bull**** all the way up to November 2020.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that the idea Hillary Clinton was flawed is a media concoction, unwitting or not?
 
Cardinal said:
Since we'll be discussing this crap whether we like it or not, I might as well get ahead of it, citing Jennifer Taub:

"Classic victim blaming. Speaking out about something you are silent about before does not make it a lie. That’s like saying a person who was sexually harassed or raped who does not mention it and then brings it up years later is lying."



Elizabeth Warren Lied About Losing Teaching Job Because She Was 'Visibly Pregnant'

Interestingly enough, mediaite is a pretty hard left site, so I'm not sure what the writer's beef is. Either way, what we're seeing here is a very likely replay of 2016, where the media carried on the tradition of the fairness doctrine by reporting on one of Trump's scandals, and then looking "fair" by taking a much lesser thing by Clinton and making it appear to be a newsworthy scandal. This tactic is always devastatingly helpful to trump, because then no matter how awful he is, the public perception is that it's just another choice between two flawed people. That's a gigantic part of why Clinton lost in 2016 and it looks like we'll be seeing the same bull**** all the way up to November 2020.

Edit: ah, the writer, Tommy Christopher, appears to have a giant hate-erection for Elizabeth Warren. Was he in one of her classes, and did she flunk him or something?

Adam Best on Twitter: "He’s like a center-left version of Jacobin. This is ridiculous.… https://t.co/WvSCo73Wvx"
Click to expand...
News is not "fair", or "balanced". News is factual. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Train wreck of an OP, but yeah:

Warren is corrupt, lying scum.
 
As if those who defend lying scum all the time have anything worth listening to to say about someone else lying.
 
Chomsky said:
News is not "fair", or "balanced". News is factual. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Facts are factual. But we are, in actuality, trapped inside a meta-narrative media culture.
 
My mother had to take leave when she was 3 months pregnant with me in the late 70's. It was a common practice in the Bible Belt and the South.
 
Mr Person said:
As if those who defend lying scum all the time have anything worth listening to to say about someone else lying.
Click to expand...

You can leave Warren's corrupt teepee of lies anytime, Kemosabe. :thumbs:
 
aociswundumho said:
On top of that she's an extremely unlikable phony. I think Trump would relish running against her.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's happening.

Warren has built her entire career on a foundation of fraud, and she's gonna get scalped by Reaches For P***y.
 
Parrish said:
My mother had to take leave when she was 3 months pregnant with me in the late 70's. It was a common practice in the Bible Belt and the South.
Click to expand...

Unless your mother is Elizabeth Warren, completely irrelevant to the latest whopping lie of Fauxcahontas.
 
Cardinal said:
Facts are factual. But we are, in actuality, trapped inside a meta-narrative media culture.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the Dems trying to defend themselves against baseless or frivolous attacks is a great strategy. Better to quickly & summarily dismiss the attacks, and move back on to attacking Trump.

There's virtually no ethical fault a Dem candidate can have, compared to Trump, that is substantive. So why dwell on these lessor or false faults.

For example, just now I saw Biden going into a long sober detailing of his "innocence". Why? If you're explaining, you're losing! I would have just remarked these claims being more of Trump's political witch-hunt fake news, and quickly shifted the topic to Trump's many and numerous faults and hammered those home.

I'll share this very old incident with you, from maybe around the early seventies. It involves Richard J. Daley (the old man), steering city business to his newly graduated lawyer son's newly opened law & insurance firm. If you were not established with the city, and wanted to do business with the city, you had to go through the kid's new firm.

The old man threw a press conference, and rather than dispute the allegations he essentially said,

"If a father can't help his newly graduated son get a start in life, who can?"

And it worked.

It was the only press conference the old man did on the issue, and he then moved-on and never discussed it again. That's how I would handle these attacks. Let the Trumpers do as they will. You can't control them. You can't convince them. You can't win them over, any more than Trump can win you or I over. Concentrate on keeping your base focused on removing Trump. That's where the Dem energy lies. I believe there's way more to be gained by increasing Dem turnout, than in attempting to woo cross-over voters. And, nothing is as good as increasing Dem turnout as Trump!
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Since we'll be discussing this crap whether we like it or not, I might as well get ahead of it, citing Jennifer Taub:

"Classic victim blaming. Speaking out about something you are silent about before does not make it a lie. That’s like saying a person who was sexually harassed or raped who does not mention it and then brings it up years later is lying."



Elizabeth Warren Lied About Losing Teaching Job Because She Was 'Visibly Pregnant'

Interestingly enough, mediaite is a pretty hard left site, so I'm not sure what the writer's beef is. Either way, what we're seeing here is a very likely replay of 2016, where the media carried on the tradition of the fairness doctrine by reporting on one of Trump's scandals, and then looking "fair" by taking a much lesser thing by Clinton and making it appear to be a newsworthy scandal. This tactic is always devastatingly helpful to trump, because then no matter how awful he is, the public perception is that it's just another choice between two flawed people. That's a gigantic part of why Clinton lost in 2016 and it looks like we'll be seeing the same bull**** all the way up to November 2020.

Edit: ah, the writer, Tommy Christopher, appears to have a giant hate-erection for Elizabeth Warren. Was he in one of her classes, and did she flunk him or something?

Adam Best on Twitter: "Dante is right. All this dude does is use Mediate as a front for his Warren attacks. It’s clear he is trying to bring her down because he prefers someone else, guessing someone more moderate. At least have the guts to be an honest broker in your criticisms, offer transparency.… https://t.co/wj4EBHT1z5"
Click to expand...

I think Elizabeth Warren radiates a kind of genuineness that is almost impossible to counter. I don't think this will make any difference. I think if she had run in 2016, she could have won.
 
Chomsky said:
News is not "fair", or "balanced". News is factual. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

That's really not true. The ideas of 'objectivity' or 'fair' or 'balanced' are rather basic, but rather misleading as being what the real issues are.

For example, simply by choosing which issues to cover and which to ignore, by choosing which facts to highlight and which not to mention, the messages are hugely different, yet all are 'factual'.

And there are always things like 'tone' and assumptions of what's 'normal' and what's 'radical'.

For example, imagine during the time of slavery, one report simply discussed the economic activities factually, with a positive tone about economic gains, and another discussed the situation in terms of the suffering of the slaves. Both 'factual', yet with hugely different views, messages.

Today, should the human suffering in the migrant crisis, the root problems and their causes, things like inequality, be covered? Or only the more logistical issues, 'these are the measure being pursued to limit illegal immigration', 'these are the numbers of people'? It's naive to think 'factual' begins to address the issue of news.
 
Chomsky said:
For example, just now I saw Biden going into a long sober detailing of his "innocence". Why? If you're explaining, you're losing! I would have just remarked these claims being more of Trump's political witch-hunt fake news, and quickly shifted the topic to Trump's many and numerous faults and hammered those home.
Click to expand...

But isn't that what Trump does?

I hate when politicians don't respond to valid criticism and just shift to attacking their opponent. It makes them look dishonest to me.

I think Biden should explain. When he's president that's going to be something he may need to do a lot. I think your ability to communicate your innocence when you are innocent is a necessary skill for the job.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not sure if the Dems trying to defend themselves against baseless or frivolous attacks is a great strategy. Better to quickly & summarily dismiss the attacks, and move back on to attacking Trump.

There's virtually no ethical fault a Dem candidate can have, compared to Trump, that is substantive. So why dwell on these lessor or false faults.

For example, just now I saw Biden going into a long sober detailing of his "innocence". Why? If you're explaining, you're losing! I would have just remarked these claims being more of Trump's political witch-hunt fake news, and quickly shifted the topic to Trump's many and numerous faults and hammered those home.

I'll share this very old incident with you, from maybe around the early seventies. It involves Richard J. Daley (the old man), steering city business to his newly graduated lawyer son's newly opened law & insurance firm. If you were new, and wanted to do business with the city, you had to go through the kid's firm.

The old man threw a press conference, and rather than dispute the allegations he essentially said,

"If a father can't help his newly graduated son get a start in life, who can?'.

It was the only press conference the old man did on the issue, and he then moved-on and never discussed it again. That's how I would handle these attacks. Let the Trumpers do as they will. You can't control them. You can't convince them. You can't win them over, any more than Trump can win you or I over. Concentrate on keeping your base focused on removing Trump. That's where the Dem energy lies. I believe there's way more to be gained by increasing Dem turnout, than in attempting to woo over cross-over voters. And nothing is as good as increasing Dem turnout as Trump!
Click to expand...

The way I've seen people win in these kinds of fights is with a combination of humor and immediately pivoting to the substantive thing, but it's never an exact science. Three different scenarios, three different results:

1)John Kerry is faced with the Swiftboat attack ads. He doesn't lower himself to addressing the ads, and the ads create the narrative that contributes to his election loss.
2)Obama ignored the claims of Birthers for as long as he could. Then he did the unthinkable and actually released his birth certificate. Birtherism suffered an immediate death blow. A Republican belief that was mainstream went fringe overnight.
3)Elizabeth Warren claims to have Native American heritage and is mocked relentlessly for it. She took a DNA test which showed her claims to be correct, and she was mocked even more relentlessly.

If we can take a lesson from these three instances, we can say that not responding is bad, but how you respond is important. And indeed, Warren learned the humor-and-pivot approach. After Wohl accused her of having an affair with a 24 year old body building Marine, this was Warren's response:

"It's always a good day to be reminded that I got where I am because a great education was available for $50 a semester at the University of Houston (go Cougars!). We need to cancel student debt and make college free for everyone who wants it."
 
Last edited:
SonOfDaedalus said:
I think Elizabeth Warren radiates a kind of genuineness that is almost impossible to counter. I don't think this will make any difference. I think if she had run in 2016, she could have won.
Click to expand...

That kind of genuineness is perplexing to journalists in general, I think. It doesn't make sense that a politician might be a genuinely good human being, and reporters will try as hard as they can to find the glaring imperfections, thus restoring order to their idea of how the universe works.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
But isn't that what Trump does?

I hate when politicians don't respond to valid criticism and just shift to attacking their opponent. It makes them look dishonest to me.

I think Biden should explain. When he's president that's going to be something he may need to do a lot. I think your ability to communicate your innocence when you are innocent is a necessary skill for the job.
Click to expand...

The idea that Chomsky was expressing, I think, is that Biden shouldn't just explain. You can explain so long as you quickly pivot, thereby carrying out the explanation without it being about the explanation.
 
Parrish said:
How ?
Click to expand...

3leftsdoo said:
/Thread

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Mr Person said:
As if those who defend lying scum all the time have anything worth listening to to say about someone else lying.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we do...

You voted for Hillary, so stop preaching to the choir.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Train wreck of an OP, but yeah:

Warren is corrupt, lying scum.
Click to expand...

Indeed!
She's also a fake feminist because women from my generation sought equal opportunity and pay commeserate to the job. Breaking the glass ceiling had nothing to do with forging a document, claiming minority status, to advance ourselves.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not sure if the Dems trying to defend themselves against baseless or frivolous attacks is a great strategy. Better to quickly & summarily dismiss the attacks, and move back on to attacking Trump.

There's virtually no ethical fault a Dem candidate can have, compared to Trump, that is substantive. So why dwell on these lessor or false faults.

For example, just now I saw Biden going into a long sober detailing of his "innocence". Why? If you're explaining, you're losing! I would have just remarked these claims being more of Trump's political witch-hunt fake news, and quickly shifted the topic to Trump's many and numerous faults and hammered those home.

I'll share this very old incident with you, from maybe around the early seventies. It involves Richard J. Daley (the old man), steering city business to his newly graduated lawyer son's newly opened law & insurance firm. If you were not established with the city, and wanted to do business with the city, you had to go through the kid's new firm.

The old man threw a press conference, and rather than dispute the allegations he essentially said,

"If a father can't help his newly graduated son get a start in life, who can?"

And it worked.

It was the only press conference the old man did on the issue, and he then moved-on and never discussed it again. That's how I would handle these attacks. Let the Trumpers do as they will. You can't control them. You can't convince them. You can't win them over, any more than Trump can win you or I over. Concentrate on keeping your base focused on removing Trump. That's where the Dem energy lies. I believe there's way more to be gained by increasing Dem turnout, than in attempting to woo cross-over voters. And, nothing is as good as increasing Dem turnout as Trump!
Click to expand...

Daley = Criminal scum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom