Hey, Donald! She's back! Warren: I am part Native American

[adrina]

Really? You're denying her lying about her ethnicity to get a teaching gig at Harvard? It's a known fact, but your denial
SOUNDS ABOUT WHITE TO ME!!! LOL

Show me proof that she is Native American.
If she didn't need to list her heritage to get college placement and jobs , guess what, idiot? - she wouldn't have done it. Now, why are you talking anyway, bubble head? I told what to do with that open mouth of yours.
(Unzips my fly)
DO YOUR JOB, PUTA!

Please provide one credible citation for your claims that her repeating family stories in any way aided her in getting into college or provided material support for her academic career, and further took an opportunity away from someone else. Known facts are tricky that way.

I notice one thing about you. You revert to name calling and bigotry instead of actually answering any challenges. Do you think perhaps you could find that credible citation please? Being it's a "known fact", it should be quite easy. Correct?

 

[phrodeau]

Please provide one credible citation for your claims that her repeating family stories in any way aided her in getting into college or provided material support for her academic career, and further took an opportunity away from someone else. Known facts are tricky that way.

I notice one thing about you. You revert to name calling and bigotry instead of actually answering any challenges. Do you think perhaps you could find that credible citation please? Being it's a "known fact", it should be quite easy. Correct?

There is none. Harvard officials say nothing like that ever happened.

Seems pretty odd that anyone can just claim something and get a job by it, without providing any tangible proof. That only happens in Fake News World.

 

[adrina]

There is none. Harvard officials say nothing like that ever happened.

Seems pretty odd that anyone can just claim something and get a job by it, without providing any tangible proof. That only happens in Fake News World.

Precisely.

Exactly what we would expect:

Hypocrite much when I bringup black per-capita crime/employment/graduation/poverty stats by calling me a sock puppets and attacking my dignity as a person of color and an immigrant, you white fucking CUNT?

You get nothing from me, bitch. Everyone knows she did it. She knows she did it. She just refuses to take the DNA test, just like that wigger wannabe Shaun King.
All you've done is sit on your fat white trash nigger-fucking ass and call me names, so I'm giving back. I'm not some desperate old fat white bald dude, so I won't be kissing your ass hoping for you to send me a pic of your tits.
Dumb white uppity coal-burning, mudshark fat fucking CUNT no white man in real life wants anything to do with.

So basically you just want to make claims regardless of veracity and when called out on it, decide that your best most impressive course is to make sexist and racist slurs.

Calling you a sexist racist bigot isn't calling you names. It's simply an observation of the obvious as you have so aptly demonstrated.

I think we're done here. Well that is unless you can pony up that credible source for your claims.

 

[phrodeau]

Precisely.

Exactly what we would expect:



So basically you just want to make claims regardless of veracity and when called out on it, decide that your best most impressive course is to make sexist and racist slurs.

Calling you a sexist racist bigot isn't calling you names. It's simply an observation of the obvious as you have so aptly demonstrated.

I think we're done here. Well that is unless you can pony up that credible source for your claims.

See, once you ask a troll for something, you have to read the replies to see if he or she has responded. Best not even ask, and add to Ignore.

 

[adrina]

See, once you ask a troll for something, you have to read the replies to see if he or she has responded. Best not even ask, and add to Ignore.

Yeah pretty much. He's got some posts above this one and I haven't bothered. I'm assuming it's pretty much the usual. He'll call me a name, allege some kind of assumed superiority, think he's making some kind of point all the while ignoring the burden of proof that has been placed upon him.

I'm used to a little better trolls to be honest. He's kind of disappointing as far as trolls go.

 

[OldJourno]

Please provide one credible citation for your claims that her repeating family stories in any way aided her in getting into college or provided material support for her academic career, and further took an opportunity away from someone else. Known facts are tricky that way.

I notice one thing about you. You revert to name calling and bigotry instead of actually answering any challenges. Do you think perhaps you could find that credible citation please? Being it's a "known fact", it should be quite easy. Correct?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ve-american/OZdiCFhjx5CCH3Es0sREHM/story.html

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ve-american/OZdiCFhjx5CCH3Es0sREHM/story.html

Where does it say she was given support or took something away from someone else? All that link says is that they reported her as Native American. That's it.
And there's this from your link:

In recent weeks, Warren has repeatedly said that her race was not a factor in her hiring at Harvard or elsewhere, a point that several colleagues and supervisors at the schools have publicly supported. There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements.

 

[Que]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ve-american/OZdiCFhjx5CCH3Es0sREHM/story.html

You can see how that could happen with no input from Warren; they probably just noticed her high cheekbones and just assumed she was Native.

It amuses me that progressives that are all about diversity and affirmative action protest that there's no evidence that there are actual token hires simply because no one stamps "token" on their file.

A directory of non-white law professors used by recruiters of institutions with diversity "problems" exists for only one reason.

She listed herself in that directory in order to get recruited as a Native. Which she wasn't. Even if she truly believe that high cheekbones are some kind of evidence of a far distance native relative that doesn't make you Native American in the specifics required by the feds when reporting your minority counts for reasons of federal compliance and oversight.

 

[phrodeau]

There's this thing called "due diligence." It doesn't get done very often on this board, but when it comes to Harvard hiring law professors, it's a pretty popular concept.

Nobody claims that Warren indicated her heritage when she applied for the position, but if she had and if it made any difference, they would not accept it without documentation.

 

[HisArpy]

Where does it say she was given support or took something away from someone else? All that link says is that they reported her as Native American. That's it.
And there's this from your link:

In recent weeks, Warren has repeatedly said that her race was not a factor in her hiring at Harvard or elsewhere, a point that several colleagues and supervisors at the schools have publicly supported. There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements.

Gee, I wonder where they got that idea....?

 

[Que]

Where does it say she was given support or took something away from someone else? All that link says is that they reported her as Native American. That's it.
And there's this from your link:

In recent weeks, Warren has repeatedly said that her race was not a factor in her hiring at Harvard or elsewhere, a point that several colleagues and supervisors at the schools have publicly supported. There is nothing in the federally required documents that contradicts those statements.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they happen to find a highly qualified great teacher (in a directory for minority law ptofessors) at the time that they were in trouble for having too few minorities and immediately begin reporting her as a minority.

Just a happy, fortunate coincidence that she ticked the box that they needed ticked at the time that they hired her.

I'm sure if they claim they were absolutely not duped into hiring a phony minority and no one finds her file stamped on the front with the word token in red we can just assume that it's all one big coincidence.

Harvard actively bragging in several instances about her Native American status in a manner that would easilly meet the legal standard for "constructive, published notice" that she claims to have never seen, must have come about completely independent of her claiming any Native American ancestry... they must have just looked at her cheekbones and assumed. You know, the way people routinely do.

I often just see random people with olive complected skin and assume that they are this race or that and of course would be happy to author an article referencing about that person's Heritage without consulting them.

As a highly visible and involved member of the Harvard Law School I'm sure that she just completely disregarded the multiple publications that happened to mention her by name. None of her colleagues ever mentioned to her "Hey, Fauxcahontas what's up? Enjoyed reading about your heritage..."

 

[Que]

There's this thing called "due diligence." It doesn't get done very often on this board, but when it comes to Harvard hiring law professors, it's a pretty popular concept.

Nobody claims that Warren indicated her heritage when she applied for the position, but if she had and if it made any difference, they would not accept it without documentation.

Bullshit.

What, have you been on disability your entire life? I can't imagine any major employer that doesn't have the same procedure that I've gone through many times.

Have you ever been hired by anyone and gone through the process? Any sizable employer has reporting requirements to the federal government they either have you check a box on a form or in two instances I was actually interviewed by phone (for privacy from the interviewer) from corporate headquarters where they asked me if I wished to state my race. That's it.

In your imaginary requirement of due diligence (by the way, who is requiring this due diligence? Certainly isn't the federal government) what would said applicant have to do to prove their race? And what would they have done before DNA testing was regularly available?

If you are demanding that someone prove they were specific race that would be tantamount to admission that you are in fact making race a requirement for the job which would be illegal.

You can pretend that this is no big deal because she was only pretending to be Native American not something important like black but you can't pretend that she wasn't pretending. Idiot.

 

[adrina]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ve-american/OZdiCFhjx5CCH3Es0sREHM/story.html

That does not support his claim that it aided her in getting her education, elevated her at the expense of someone else or that she used it to serve as material support for her academic career.

 

[Que]

That does not support his claim that it aided her in getting her education, elevated her at the expense of someone else or that she used it to serve as material support for her academic career.

They needed a minority.

They were actively looking for a minority.

They found her while she was listed in a directory for minority law professors.

They hired her.

They bragged about her minority heritage.

They stopped getting grief for having NO minorities.



If they hadn't been "mistaken" about her heritage (that she TOTALLY didn't give them the impression she had) they would have continued their stated active recruitment of qualified minority applicants, presumedly found an *actual* token and hired that person.

NO institution EVER has publiclly admitted that a token hire was a token hire, since hiring on the basis of race is ILLEGAL. The fact that they deny it was a factor is MEANINGLESS.

Show me one public announcement where any organization admits that a hire was to fill a specific requirement that they diversify.

 

[adrina]

They needed a minority.

They were actively looking for a minority.

They found her while she was listed in a directory for minority law professors.

They hired her.

They bragged about her minority heritage.

They stopped getting grief for having NO minorities.



If they hadn't been "mistaken" about her heritage (that she TOTALLY didn't give them the impression she had) they would have continued their stated active recruitment of qualified minority applicants, presumedly found and actual token and hired that person.

NO institution EVER has publiclly admitted that a token hire was a token hire, since hiring on the basis of race is ILLEGAL. The fact that they deny it was a factor is MEANINGLESS.

Show me one public announcement where any organization admits that a hire was to fill a spevific requirement or even wish that they diversify.

And what does any of that have to do with his claim that she used her heritage to get her education and at the expense of someone else? Further that does not demonstrate that she used any claimed heritage to actually aid her career.

All it does show is that you guys are desperate - once again - to find a way to discredit by any means possible and regardless of the actual facts those you perceive as a political "enemy".

Perhaps you should write to your member of congress and they can open up nine committee investigations into it.

 

[HisArpy]

And what does any of that have to do with his claim that she used her heritage to get her education and at the expense of someone else? Further that does not demonstrate that she used any claimed heritage to actually aid her career.

All it does show is that you guys are desperate - once again - to find a way to discredit by any means possible and regardless of the actual facts those you perceive as a political "enemy".

Perhaps you should write to your member of congress and they can open up nine committee investigations into it.

Somewhere in there is some really twisted...

Wait, what was that word?

Ah yes, now I remember. PRETZELRY!

 

[adrina]

Somewhere in there is some really twisted...

Wait, what was that word?

Ah yes, now I remember. PRETZELRY!

Nice try no cigar.

Please give one credible citation that Warren used any claimed heritage to get her education, that it was at the expense of someone else and that she used it to further her academic career.

At this point, you're trying to make something you guys do regularly and often stick to me. Which it doesn't. At some point, I'd think one of you could come up with some proof for this "known fact". It's been claimed by conservatives over and over as if it was part of history. Surely there is some documentation of it somewhere?

Or is it just more smearing and ignorance based drivel?

 

[Que]

What would satisfy you that an obvious phony token taking an obvious token slot was obvious?

Somebody breaking in and stealing her confidential file and finding bright red token Indian written on the front of it?

Circumstantial evidence is actual evidence. The strongest of circumstantial evidence she is what she is drowning in.

 

[adrina]

What would satisfy you that an obvious phony token taking an obvious token slot was obvious?

Somebody breaking in and stealing her confidential file and finding bright red token Indian written on the front of it?

Circumstantial evidence is actual evidence. The strongest of circumstantial evidence she is what she is drowning in.

I think somewhere for all of these accusations you guys keep making that there would be some kind of real evidence, some kind of records.

With the way you guys are going on, you'd think she was being accused of sexually assaulting 19 women or something like that. Interesting your standards of acceptable behavior and your standards of proof as applied to these varying behaviors.

 

[Que]

Absolutely insane. Demanding "documentation" of a token hire decision being a token hire.

I guess though you just proved there's no such thing as white privilege because she can't find in any files anywhere documenting that a hire was made on the basis of white privilege. Nor, when queried, will any HR manager concede that he hired someone specifically because of white privilege.

At least with token hires you have an actual paper trail where the company or organization has a stated policy of "actively recruiting women, minorities, and gays."

Since you are obviously not following, I will say this slowly, again.

Circumstancial evidence

Is

Actual

"Real"

Evidence.

 

[HisArpy]

I think somewhere for all of these accusations you guys keep making that there would be some kind of real evidence, some kind of records.

With the way you guys are going on, you'd think she was being accused of sexually assaulting 19 women or something like that. Interesting your standards of acceptable behavior and your standards of proof as applied to these varying behaviors.

Wait wait! Turn around. All those darts you're throwing are aimed at the unisex bathroom door. The DART BOARD is in the other direction.

 

[adrina]

Absolutely insane. Demanding "documentation" of a token hire decision being a token hire.

I guess though she just proved there's no such thing as white privilege because she can't find in any files anywhere documenting that a hire was made on the basis of white privilege. Nor, when queried, will any HR manager concede that he hired someone specifically because of white privilege.

At least with token hires you have an actual paper trail where the company or organization has a stated policy of "actively recruiting women, minorities, and gays."

I'm demanding evidence of the claims made:

• That any claimed heritage aided her in obtaining her education
• That any claimed heritage prohibited someone else form taking that spot
• That she used any claimed heritage as material support for her academic career

That the university used her for any tokenism is a silly issue. She had no control of what they chose to do. That she stated what she has been told her entire life to network with others in that situation isn't some kind of grand conspiracy.

Do you or do you not have any evidence of the above? Or do you intend to continue to make mountains out of molehills as if she had been accused of sexual assault of multiple people?

Unless and until you do, this is just the usual smear machine hyping up trying to destroy perceived political enemies regardless of severity of offense, actual fact and behavior in context.

Wait wait! Turn around. All those darts you're throwing are aimed at the unisex bathroom door. The DART BOARD is in the other direction.

So you don't look at things in context? That we knew. Next.

 

[Que]

The sane thing to do would be for her to admit it, be contrite and then blame the patriarchy. If she will just refer to the intersectionality of oppression she will find that nobody really cares about the oppression of Natives.

What she should have said was:

"Yes, but I did it because I was desperate to break into the evil patriarchy of Harvard to help my sisters of all races. If I had to borrow a native sheepskin to get in, I'm sorry, but it was totes worth it because I got in and oppressed white males which is a win for women of all colors!

Plus if I didn't do it I wouldn't have had the platform to be a US senator and you might have had an evil white male senator in my place.

You natives didn't build this country! You have to spread some of that affirmative action around in order to defeat the evil white male patriarchy."

 

[adrina]

Riiiight.

Thank you for demonstrating your selective outrage and proving your actual end game in this.

 

[Que]

I'm demanding evidence of the claims made:

• That any claimed heritage aided her in obtaining her education
• That any claimed heritage prohibited someone else form taking that spot
• That she used any claimed heritage as material support for her academic career

That the university used her for any tokenism is a silly issue. She had no control of what they chose to do. That she stated what she has been told her entire life to network with others in that situation isn't some kind of grand conspiracy.

Do you or do you not have any evidence of the above? Or do you intend to continue to make mountains out of molehills as if she had been accused of sexual assault of multiple people?

Unless and until you do, this is just the usual smear machine hyping up trying to destroy perceived political enemies regardless of severity of offense, actual fact and behavior in context.





So you don't look at things in context? That we knew. Next.

So, you begrudgingly acknowledge that she fit the slot that they needed filled but you think that when they were deciding who to hire the fact that she fit the slot did not enter into their thought process? They just happened to notice it, and actively tout it after they hired her?

Sounds legit.

So again what would the documentation that you insist be? That they come out publicly and admit that they a) made a huge mistake by being duped and b) were engaging in illegal hiring practices?

You do know that it is specifically it illegal to hire a black guy over more qualified applicants just because you need a black guy, right? You have to pretend that he's the most qualified applicant that you could find.


What else would satisfy you? Interview notes from her confidential file where they put in bright red letters, "Hey this chick's got high cheekbones, I suspect she's an injun and would fit nicely into our minority slot!!"