• 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?

  • Absolutely not -- part of her family denies it.

    Votes: 6 7.7%

  • Absolutely -- part of her family says it's true.

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • How the hell would I know?

    Votes: 21 26.9%

  • I don't see why this is so unbelievable.

    Votes: 6 7.7%

  • Who cares?

    Votes: 53 67.9%

  • No, seriously, this is the least important issue in the history of anything ever.

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • Total voters
    78
CRUE CAB said:
Another one that missed the biggest word of my first post. The word IF.
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to your first post. That's why I didn't quote that first post. That's why I didn't post anything related to your assertion in your first post. Nothing about my post had anything to do with your first post.

My post had to do with the one I quoted. Here, I'll link it for you

CRUE CAB said:
Because they would never lie when pushed.
Click to expand...

There's no "if" there. If there is, please highlight it for me and show me where I'm wrong.

My post had nothing to do with your first post. My post quoted your second post, where you were attacking the source...and commented on the piss poor argument that attacking the source was based on the manner you did it.
 
pbrauer said:
What evidence do you or for that matter Scott Brown have that she lied?
Click to expand...

Because even by her own explanation that is not what Native American is.
 
joko104 said:
No, the definition of Native American is not just ancestry, but also tribal membership for many tribes.
Click to expand...

I'll give you this. You're the one person in this thread thus far that I can say with absolutely certainty has and likely will remain incredibly consistent on this type of thing regardless of the circumstance.
 
Zyphlin said:
Then why'd you bring up the hypothetical about her being one? Why was it perfectly fine for you to muse how one set of people would act if she was consrevative, but you've got some kind of issue with me making a similar musing about a different set of people?



Really? I've not seen you say any such thing in this thread till just now. Glad you finally take a stance. So exactly what evidence do you have that Warren:

1. actively lied about being an indian
2. that she did it "in order to fraudulently recieve preferential treatment"
Click to expand...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...tive-american-issue-has-not-been-put-to-rest/

She lied, not surprising. Libs are awful people
 
As to the question why would anyone care outside of mass? She is a law maker of the united states. Thats effects all americans and i for one would rather not have someone dishonest in that position
 
I tend to check the "hispanic" box if I think it will make any difference. Truth is all 8 of my great grandparents came from Prussia, but I dare those racist bastards to question it.
 
joko104 said:
Because even by her own explanation that is not what Native American is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
cpwill said:
Do you care if she lied about it, meaning that she was falsely seeking racial advantage, harming the credibility of the system of affirmative action while also presumably denying a spot to the next actual minority in line, for her own professional and financial benefit?
Click to expand...
Of course they don't, she's one of them. It only matters if a republican lies.
 
CRUE CAB said:
For those that wont read.
Click to expand...

And since she didn't get financial benefit from her claim, I guess your "if" statement isn't relevant anymore, wouldn't you agree? After all, I could say that Scott Brown made the accusation against Warren because he was under the influence of alien zombies, but since there is zero evidence that actually happened then that question wouldn't belong here.
 
Cardinal said:
And since she didn't get financial benefit from her claim, I guess your "if" statement isn't relevant anymore, wouldn't you agree? After all, I could say that Scott Brown made the accusation against Warren because he was under the influence of alien zombies, but since there is zero evidence that actually happened then that question wouldn't belong here.
Click to expand...

You do ok until you get on stupid things like zombies. I just cant take a person seriously if that is part of their argument.
 
CRUE CAB said:
You do ok until you get on stupid things like zombies. I just cant take a person seriously if that is part of their argument.
Click to expand...

Then you know how I feel about stupid, unsubstantiated claims about lying about being Native American and claiming she profited from it.
 
White folks talking about that one relative that was Cherokee or whatever from two hundred years ago always makes me laugh.

Anyway, I couldn't care less. I don't see why it's important.

But, if she's lying, well......that would be problematic.
 
cpwill said:
Do you care if she lied about it, meaning that she was falsely seeking racial advantage, harming the credibility of the system of affirmative action while also presumably denying a spot to the next actual minority in line, for her own professional and financial benefit?
Click to expand...

Those that like her political stand will never care that she "might have been mistaken" about being a special protected minority. These are the same folks that call pulling a 180 on a given policy position either a flip-flop or an evolved position - depending entirely upon whether they like the person's political slant. The bottom line is that while republicants constantly lie and/or flip-flop, demorats simply occasionally misspeak and/or evolve to a different policy position. ;)
 
The Wiki on this is informational

Elizabeth Warren Native American / Cherokee Controversy « Elizabeth Warren Wiki


Technically, the question is whether any Cherokee tribe lists her as a member. If not, she's not. If so, she is. But I suppose that depends upon whether you look at it through white folks eyes or Cherokee eyes, huh?

Harm? Harvard listed her as their first Native American woman. What a slam against Native Americans. About as accurate as to claim that FRD was the United States first African-American president.

It appears her story has perpetually changed from claiming she heard she had a great grandmother who was Cherokee, to her knowing she much be by her "high cheek bones," to that she said this to connect to Native Americans. In liberal settings, she has claimed and written that she is. In conservative settings, such as the University of Texas, she checked that she's white.

The relevancy is about personal integrity. On this topic she has continually changed her story (continually changing what is true) to always serve her own personal benefit. However, it seems most people see all politicians as liars so catching a politician lying doesn't matter much anymore.
 
Cardinal said:
Then you know how I feel about stupid, unsubstantiated claims about lying about being Native American and claiming she profited from it.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it, but that statement has been going around for a couple years.
 
Van Basten said:
White folks talking about that one relative that was Cherokee or whatever from two hundred years ago always makes me laugh.

Anyway, I couldn't care less. I don't see why it's important.

But, if she's lying, well......that would be problematic.
Click to expand...

Hey, who's that dude in your avatar?
 
tech30528 said:
I tend to check the "hispanic" box if I think it will make any difference. Truth is all 8 of my great grandparents came from Prussia, but I dare those racist bastards to question it.
Click to expand...

Hispanic, Prussian....same thing.
 
Sabanist said:
Cherokee genealogist to Elizabeth Warren: “Your Native American issue has not been put to rest”

She lied, not surprising. Libs are awful people
Click to expand...

1. The article doesn't show any fact that she "lied" (A false statement with the deliberate intent to decieve, the same definition I used when speaking about the Bush Administration) about being a native american . For example, debunking her parents wedding story doesn't prove that the story she told wasn't what she was told and led to believe. Another example, an ASSUMPTION "something you did or said led the two schools in question to believe you met those requirements despite the fact you didn’t" is both not a fact nor does that assumption clearly prove a purposeful intent to decieve.

2. The article doesn't show any fact that she isn't of native american descent. It calls into question some of the claims she's made in regards to his descent, it notes she wouldn't be federally recognized as one (which is different than having NA descent), and it implies guilt due to her not releasing personal information...but none of that actually is factual evidence against her claim of descent.

The article is VERY light on fact and VERY big on assumptions, accusations, and opinion being masqueraded as facts.

There's nothing in it to indicate that she:

1. Is definitively not of any native american descent

2. That she knew she was definitively not of any native american descent.

3. That she purposefully stated information she knew was false for the intent of decieving people.

There's a significant difference between the question "Is Elizabeth Warren a native american" and "Did Elizabeth Warren lie about being a native american".

The answer to question one could be yes, and question two could still be answered "no".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those that like her political stand will never care that she "might have been mistaken" about being a special protected minority. These are the same folks that call pulling a 180 on a given policy position either a flip-flop or an evolved position - depending entirely upon whether they like the person's political slant. The bottom line is that while republicants constantly lie and/or flip-flop, demorats simply occasionally misspeak and/or evolve to a different policy position. ;)
Click to expand...

Tough to tell in the post but you have to be using sarcasm
 
To just toss this in...

For some Native Americans the only people they hate more than white people are people of certain other Native American tribes.

Tell some Apache men that he is the same race as a Pueblo would be like calling a neo-nazi stormfronter a n*gger. While many/most Native Americans (the PC term is Indigeous American) are no different than most people (by that I mean they don't really care about race or ethnicity)​, for some a rich white Harvard lawyer-politician claiming she's Native American would be extremely offensive in the sense of trying to steal their heritage to herself. Most reservation tribal Native Americans don't have much in possessions, wealth or power. What they have is heritage pride (and for some victimhood).

Did Warren's ancestors suffer in the Cherokee trail of tears? Did they fight for their land? Did they die in that fight? If not, her claiming that heritage is in a sense to steal that ancestry her ancestors never earned for her. For some Native Americans, ancestry also is quite important - again not "racial/ethnic" - but having been a member of the tribe who lived and died as one of the contributors to the tribe.

An analogy would be those who claimed they served in the military and the person didn't is particularly offensive to those who did serve.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those that like her political stand will never care that she "might have been mistaken" about being a special protected minority.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
1. The article doesn't show any fact that she "lied" (A false statement with the deliberate intent to decieve, the same definition I used when speaking about the Bush Administration) about being a native american . For example, debunking her parents wedding story doesn't prove that the story she told wasn't what she was told and led to believe. Another example, an ASSUMPTION "something you did or said led the two schools in question to believe you met those requirements despite the fact you didn’t" is both not a fact nor does that assumption clearly prove a purposeful intent to decieve.

2. The article doesn't show any fact that she isn't of native american descent. It calls into question some of the claims she's made in regards to his descent, it notes she wouldn't be federally recognized as one (which is different than having NA descent), and it implies guilt due to her not releasing personal information...but none of that actually is factual evidence against her claim of descent.

The article is VERY light on fact and VERY big on assumptions, accusations, and opinion being masqueraded as facts.

There's nothing in it to indicate that she:

1. Is definitively not of any native american descent

2. That she knew she was definitively not of any native american descent.

3. That she purposefully stated information she knew was false for the intent of decieving people.

There's a significant difference between the question "Is Elizabeth Warren a native american" and "Did Elizabeth Warren lie about being a native american".

The answer to question one could be yes, and question two could still be answered "no".
Click to expand...

There is no amount of evidence that would ever get you to admit she lied so why bother arguing the point. Context matters, statements matter, withholding information matters, much of these are the same standards used in evidence in courts of law, but not good enough for you.

Im done addressing you myopia
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom