Elizabeth Warren claims Michael Brown was "murdered"

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are right-wingers so literal? Obviously, you could have just said her parents knew she was part NA, if it was literal. Lol

I am neither a "right winger" nor am I being literal. If she is using "American Indian" as her race on her registration card on her bar application, plenty of people would have seen it. Also, it is unlikely that she listed her race as "American Indian" as her race for the TX bar, but did not self-identify as Indian anywhere else.

Tribal law of East Cherokees allows 1/16th to get tribal membership.

Sweet. Now I just need a bogus story about a great-greatgrandmother (=1/16) having high cheek bones and I too can enjoy that sweet, sweet Harrah's money.

Nice try, but they're not stupid.

 

[Derec]

Nice try, but they're not stupid.

They are certainly very protective of the casino pot and don't want to get it diluted.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nice try, but they're not stupid.

They are certainly very protective of the casino pot and don't want to get it diluted.

Yeah, that's what happens with the ownership class. Your point?

 

[Elixir]

I have zero racist attitudes, open or otherwise.

And Donald Trump is the least racist person you've ever laid eyes on. Just ask him.

 

[laughing dog]

No, your "awareness" is not a substantiation of what actually happened. You are conflating correlation with causation without any actual evidence in this case that there is causation.

I have provided evidence for EW using "American Indian" as her race professionally. I have also provided evidence that Harvard sought to hire a "woman of color" and that EW was listed as such by them. What more do you need? It may not prove it (and "proof is just for math and liquor) there is more than enough evidence to draw an inference, which is enough in the real world.

Anyone can say there is enough evidence to draw an inference. You confuse correlation with causation. You dismiss the evidence of the people who made the decisions that they did not even know she was native american.

It is incredibly naive to think that Harvard would not have been aware of EW self-identifying as "American Indian". However, it seems you will reject any connection unless Harvard comes out and admits that they hired EW in part because she was considered a "woman of color".

It is incredibly ignorant to think that the decision makers necessarily knew anything about the applicant's ethnicity or race. It is really naive or ignorant to think that there is some monolithic decision-maker called "Harvard". It appears you will draw on any fallacy or illogic to buttress your promote your bigoted beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

Derec provided this on page 7 in response to you, which, in my opinion, supports his position (if authentic)

No, Derec is conflating correlation with causation.

It seems dishonest to reject that a statement from an (allegedly) authoritative source about how an institution of that type gains extra benefit from having a "woman of color" on the team. It's also hard to accept the idea that the institution blatantly disregarded such a benefit in their hiring process, to the detriment of their own potential gains.

Sorry, but when one claims that X was hired because of Y, one needs to produce actual evidence that Y was the reason that X was hired, not that it makes some sense that X was hired because of Y. Especially when there is a report that the decision-makers (of which there were many) say that they did even know about Y.

 

[Toni]

No one knew, because it sure isn't obvious by looking at her or by her name, that she had made any claims to NA ancestry or that it was her family legend.

It's BS to say that nobody knew since she listed "American Indian" as her race on her Texas bar card.

And we KNOW that is her bar card??? How do we KNOW that? Because the internets say so????? So what if it is? Do you think that faculty at Harvard saw her bar card?

Derec, you have zero idea how one is approached to hold a named chair or named professorship at an elite university. She didn't APPLY. She was recruited. Based on her education, expertise and accomplishments.

This is NOT the same thing as a department having a vacancy and putting out adverts. It's really not at all the same thing.

 

[Derec]

And we KNOW that is her bar card??? How do we KNOW that? Because the internets say so????? So what if it is? Do you think that faculty at Harvard saw her bar card?

If you want, you may fly to Texas and try to look for the physical card. Barring that, all we have are Internet sources.

FWIW, even the decidedly left-of-center Snopes says it's real.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

As far as Harvard, I would find it incredible they would not have done research on somebody they planned to hire as a professor.

Derec, you have zero idea how one is approached to hold a named chair or named professorship at an elite university. She didn't APPLY. She was recruited. Based on her education, expertise and accomplishments.

Even MORE reason, not less, to think Harvard would have thoroughly researched her and thus would have known she self-identified as "American Indian".

This is NOT the same thing as a department having a vacancy and putting out adverts. It's really not at all the same thing.

Again, that makes my point even stronger.

 

[Derec]

No, Derec is conflating correlation with causation.

No, I am not. You are conflating absolute proof, which is only useful for pure math and contrived logic puzzles, and making inferences in the real world, which are by necessity made with incomplete information.
I have provided more than enough evidence to make the inference that Harvard hired EW in part because of her self-identification as American Indian.

To get back to her libelous claim that Michael Brown was "murdered".

A cynical Elizabeth Warren asks that everyone stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was ‘murdered’

 

[Politesse]

If you want, you may fly to Texas and try to look for the physical card. Barring that, all we have are Internet sources.

FWIW, even the decidedly left-of-center Snopes says it's real.
Did Sen. Elizabeth Warren Describe Her Race as ‘American Indian’ on Her 1986 Texas Bar Card?

As far as Harvard, I would find it incredible they would not have done research on somebody they planned to hire as a professor.


Even MORE reason, not less, to think Harvard would have thoroughly researched her and thus would have known she self-identified as "American Indian".

This is NOT the same thing as a department having a vacancy and putting out adverts. It's really not at all the same thing.

Again, that makes my point even stronger.

Why would that help her case in any way? Harvard doesn't hire Native American women.

 

[Toni]

No, Derec is conflating correlation with causation.

No, I am not. You are conflating absolute proof, which is only useful for pure math and contrived logic puzzles, and making inferences in the real world, which are by necessity made with incomplete information.
I have provided more than enough evidence to make the inference that Harvard hired EW in part because of her self-identification as American Indian.

No, you've just demonstrated that you don't know anything about how faculty are hired for endowed positions. Or how Harvard hires. Or what kind of position Warren held. Or how Harvard came to know that Elizabeth Warren's family claimed Native American ancestry.

All you've demonstrated is continued bigotry against Elizabeth Warren and a willingness to dredge up old news.

 

[laughing dog]

No, Derec is conflating correlation with causation.

No, I am not. You are conflating absolute proof, which is only useful for pure math and contrived logic puzzles, and making inferences in the real world, which are by necessity made with incomplete information.
I have provided more than enough evidence to make the inference that Harvard hired EW in part because of her self-identification as American Indian.

You have shifted the goal posts. Your inference is correlation = causation. And, your inference is rebutted by the Boston Globe report which is based on documentation and statements by the people making the decision. You have no evidence these people are mistaken or lying.

You certainly are entitled to your faith-driven inferences, those inferences are not facts and that inference is demonstrably false.

To get back to her libelous claim that Michael Brown was "murdered".

A cynical Elizabeth Warren asks that everyone stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was ‘murdered’

Senator Warren did not ask everyone (or anyone) to stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was murdered, so that headline you used is technically libel. Hmmm.

 

[Elixir]

You have shifted the goal posts. Your inference is correlation = causation. And, your inference is rebutted by the Boston Globe report which is based on documentation and statements by the people making the decision. You have no evidence these people are mistaken or lying.

You certainly are entitled to your faith-driven inferences, those inferences are not facts and that inference is demonstrably false.

To get back to her libelous claim that Michael Brown was "murdered".

A cynical Elizabeth Warren asks that everyone stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was ‘murdered’

Senator Warren did not ask everyone (or anyone) to stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was murdered, so that headline you used is technically libel. Hmmm.

You can't blame the alt-whitists for being in a tizzy about Liz W.. The woman is a terrifying juxtaposition to Trump's idiocy and insanity. She's almost as good as Buttigiege, whose talents will probably never be tested.

 

[Derec]

You can't blame the alt-whitists for being in a tizzy about Liz W.. The woman is a terrifying juxtaposition to Trump's idiocy and insanity. She's almost as good as Buttigiege, whose talents will probably never be tested.

Who is an alt-whitist? I am not even a Trump supporter, but Warren has at least one thing in common with Trump - she is a divider. The false accusation of murder against Wilson is a case in point. As is her promising even more racially based benefits for American Indians.

Also, Buttigieg is spelled like I did. I think he jumped the gun with the run for president a little. Maybe he should have challenged Eric Holcomb for governorship instead.

 

[Derec]

You have shifted the goal posts. Your inference is correlation = causation.

No I have not and no it is not.
And you are harping on this issue only to avoid the issue of Warren falsely accusing a police officer of murder.

And, your inference is rebutted by the Boston Globe report which is based on documentation and statements by the people making the decision. You have no evidence these people are mistaken or lying.

Again, I provided reasons for my conclusion. Boston Globe came to a different conclusion, but to claim that they must be right because they are a newspaper is argument from authority fallacy.

You certainly are entitled to your faith-driven inferences,

It's not faith driven. It's based on
- Warren using "American Indian" as her race in her professional life
- Harvard participating in racial preferences (so called "affirmative action")
- Harvard being eager to hire a minority woman law professor.

those inferences are not facts and that inference is demonstrably false.

The inference is not a fact but it is based in fact, and it is clearly not demonstrably false, or else you could have demonstrated it.

Senator Warren did not ask everyone (or anyone) to stop focusing on her lie that Michael Brown was murdered,

So you admit it was a lie?

so that headline you used is technically libel. Hmmm.

Bullshit. On the other hand, her lie is definitely libel. Wilson should sue her.

 

[Derec]

No, you've just demonstrated that you don't know anything about how faculty are hired for endowed positions.

I know enough. What do you know that disproves them using race (and Warren used "American Indian" as her race in professional context) for hiring decisions?

All you've demonstrated is continued bigotry against Elizabeth Warren and a willingness to dredge up old news.

Calling her out on her use of "American Indian" as her race in her professional life, not just as family lore, is not bigotry. And neither is calling out her libeling of Darren Wilson.

By the way, what do you think of Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris falsely accusing a police officer of murder?

 

[Toni]

No, you've just demonstrated that you don't know anything about how faculty are hired for endowed positions.

I know enough.

Clearly you do not. This was not an open faculty position where adverts are placed to search for appropriate candidates. This was a particular position for which Warren was specifically recruited. Of all the faculty who could possibly have been on the committee to hire her, only one said that they did not know if her heritage came up. The others clearly stated that it was never brought up, nor was it used in any hiring decisions.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman.

The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in [on the decision]. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.

What do you know that disproves them using race (and Warren used "American Indian" as her race in professional context) for hiring decisions?

The Globe piece linked above and quoted is a pretty darn good source. They interviewed people who were involved in her hiring. They weren't all her buddies.

By the way, what do you think of Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris falsely accusing a police officer of murder?

I can see why they made those statements.

 

[laughing dog]

No I have not and no it is not.

Logic fail.

And you are harping on this issue only to avoid the issue of Warren falsely accusing a police officer of murder.

I addressed that early on, so that response is another example of false inference.

Again, I provided reasons for my conclusion. Boston Globe came to a different conclusion, but to claim that they must be right because they are a newspaper is argument from authority fallacy.

Wrong again. The Boston Globe did not confuse correlation with causation - they have statements from the actual decision-makers that refute your "inference".

It's not faith driven. It's based on
- Warren using "American Indian" as her race in her professional life
- Harvard participating in racial preferences (so called "affirmative action")
- Harvard being eager to hire a minority woman law professor.

Your conclusion is faith-based because there is clear evidence that it is false (the statements of the actual decision-makers).
The fact Harvard Law School (which is not Harvard University) was eager to hire a minority woman law professor and ended up hiring a minority woman law professor does not mean that she was hired because she was a minority and a woman. When the decision-makers who recommended her hire say that they did not know she was a minority and when the hirers also say that, unless you have evidence they are either delusional or lying, then your claim is unconvincing. The fact you cling to it despite the evidence it is not true indicates that it is more faith-based than reason-driven.

The inference is not a fact but it is based in fact, and it is clearly not demonstrably false, or else you could have demonstrated it.

The Boston Globe article with its statements from the decision-makers demonstrates it is false.

So you admit it was a lie?

No, I was using your terminology since you clearly have a difficult time with understanding English. For example, while a lie is a false statement, a false statement is not necessarily a lie. A lie requires intent to deceive. Another example is the term libel (see below).

Bullshit. On the other hand, her lie is definitely libel. Wilson should sue her.

Wrong again. There is no proof she lied, hence the printed claim that she lied is libel.

 

[Toni]

Logic fail.
I addressed that early on, so that response is another example of false inference.

Again, I provided reasons for my conclusion. Boston Globe came to a different conclusion, but to claim that they must be right because they are a newspaper is argument from authority fallacy.

Wrong again. The Boston Globe did not confuse correlation with causation - they have statements from the actual decision-makers that refute your "inference".

It's not faith driven. It's based on
- Warren using "American Indian" as her race in her professional life
- Harvard participating in racial preferences (so called "affirmative action")
- Harvard being eager to hire a minority woman law professor.

Your conclusion is faith-based because there is clear evidence that it is false (the statements of the actual decision-makers).
The fact Harvard Law School (which is not Harvard University) was eager to hire a minority woman law professor and ended up hiring a minority woman law professor does not mean that she was hired because she was a minority and a woman. When the decision-makers who recommended her hire say that they did not know she was a minority and when the hirers also say that, unless you have evidence they are either delusional or lying, then your claim is unconvincing. The fact you cling to it despite the evidence it is not true indicates that it is more faith-based than reason-driven.

The inference is not a fact but it is based in fact, and it is clearly not demonstrably false, or else you could have demonstrated it.

The Boston Globe article with its statements from the decision-makers demonstrates it is false.

So you admit it was a lie?

No, I was using your terminology since you clearly have a difficult time with understanding English. For example, while a lie is a false statement, a false statement is not necessarily a lie. A lie requires intent to deceive. Another example is the term libel (see below).

Bullshit. On the other hand, her lie is definitely libel. Wilson should sue her.

Wrong again. There is no proof she lied, hence the printed claim that she lied is libel.

Actually, I believe that Warren was hired before Harvard Law decided they needed to do something about hiring minority women.

 

[Derec]

Actually, I believe that Warren was hired before Harvard Law decided they needed to do something about hiring minority women.

Warren was hired in 1995. Racial preferences in academia long predate that.


You still have not answered what you think about Warren and Harris lying about Michael Brown being "murdered".