It's time to have a 2020 Presidential Election thread


You just forgot to recalibrate for @kerzain ;)


Most people don’t know what Cognitive Biases are. But understanding how they work in no way makes you immune to them, and it can be difficult to recognize in ourselves.


The mental gymnastics Trump supporters tend to make in order to support him, over someone like Hillary, is that he doesn’t apologize for grabbing pussies. By their measure, he displays a fair amount of “honesty” by shrugging off the importance of his words and actions by simply saying they’re jokes or locker room talk. He doesn’t waste time trying to pretend he’s not just a regular guy thinking and doing the same things any other regular guy would do in his situation (whether regular guys actually do, or should do, this is another conversation. But to attack Trump is to attack “regular guys,” putting them on the defensive of both Trump and their own selves by extention).

On a certain level, he’s more trustworthy to Trumpsters if only because he doesn’t pretend to be sinless, he just diminishes each sin’s magnitude and relevance… whereas Hillary and Warren are stuck in an uncanny valley of chaste perfection. The harder they try to prove they’re pure through and through, the more impact any percieved flaw has on a suspicious audience. All anybody will see is the one imperfection that the candidate will expend so much effort to address, where with Trump, they’ll accept him for his flaws because he’s already accepted himself for his flaws. “If you don’t like him, tough shit, he is who he is. Can’t ask for more than a person being true to themselves.” And any efforts to point out any question of treason and the like are just lumped in with an overall effort to take him down no matter what lies have to be told to do so, as a symptom of some sort of Trump derangement syndrome.


The CFPB saved my house from a fraudulent foreclosure so I’m forever a Warren supporter.

Still she shoulda known better.


That’s the sad truth of it from what I’ve seen, as well. If people owned up to their pasts and led from a position of growth, I’d be all behind them. Of course, I guess the issue is not everybody would feel the same and they’d be more likely to lose elections so the temptation to lie or withhold such stuff is probably pretty intense.


That isn’t even what i was talking about - the Snopes article was about whether she got some kind of post-graduate position at Harvard. I’m pretty sure i read it was on her college applications, which the PolitiFact references as being part of her law school tenures, which was the “real” point of doing it, and not whatever thing happened a few years ago, which by that point would have been irrelevant.

At a time when law schools faced public pressure to show greater ethnic diversity within their faculty, the university’s Crimson newspaper quoted a law school spokesman in 1996 saying Warren was Native American.

The Boston Globe followed the Herald with a report that the Association of American Law Schools listed Warren as a minority law teacher each year from 1986 to 1994. In that time, Warren went from being a law professor at the University of Texas, to the University of Pennsylvania, and finally in 1995 to Harvard University.

The directories don’t indicate which minority group the person belonged to, so it would not be obvious to schools or other readers that Warren was thinking of her Native American roots.

It’s not certain that the directory form gave Warren the option to identify as Native American. All we know for sure is that the directory listed law school faculty who self-identified as minority.

Again, using common sense, i’m sure this was just what she did. She does have NA ancestry, and applying to schools (including law schools) as a minority did help (or at least everyone assumes it does) and she was listed as a minority because (more than likely) that’s what she listed herself (ie, not being listed by them as), and doing so benefited the schools for things like certain diversity quotas.

But this is all paperwork identity stuff. She had the right to put it on there because she thought she had that ancestry (again, Oklahoma here). She recently took a DNA test to confirm is this was true, because she always thought it was true. She never intended to lie.

I think the problem for her (whom i support, btw!) is basically exactly what @kerzain said. She did this because it helped a little, back then. Today or even 10+ years ago it conveys no advantage. But she has a particularly hard tine just owning it as both being real and being to her advantage, and seems to act a bit embarrassed by it. An asshole like Trump screws partners for millions, destroys careers and runs around like a bankrupt bull breaking everything he hits; but he owns it.

It does show Democrats need to own their past - i think AOC is showing how this is done today. Warren is too congenial to just tell people to fuck off, and therefore it’s a tiny crack her opponents lean into.

Which sucks, because it’s pretty much irrelevant to the larger problems facing the country, and that, like any good paper scheme, she was completely within her rights to say these things even she really wasn’t what diversity planners had in mind at the time.


The politifact article says she only mentioned her ethnicity after she was employed. It says that quite clearly. It may be wrong, and she may be lying about it, but there’s no evidence she is lying about it.

If you want to believe it’s true, that’s pretty much up to you, but you’re doing that despite the absence of any evidence that it’s true. Don’t you think that if it were true, someone by now would have produced at least some evidence that it was true? A copy of an admissions form? A record from an admissions database? Anything at all?

See? There you go again. Produce any evidence at all that she took advantage of the claim. Any evidence. I’ll wait.


Are we reading the same article, or am i making a mistake?

The Boston Globe followed the Herald with a report that the Association of American Law Schools listed Warren as a minority law teacher each year from 1986 to 1994.

Or are you saying this is simply a report that has been unverified?


I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the question. She did not claim to be a minority to get admission to any institution. She did not claim to be a minority to get any preferential treatment. She did not claim to be a minority to get any job. Everyone who has ever hired her has said that her ethnicity never came up in the recruiting process.


Oh, i see, so you’re not disputing she claimed it, but that it had no effect.

Well, that’s a counter factual now, isn’t it? And we know universities do take substantial efforts for diversity today (to the point of going to the Supreme Court to defend diversity programs). We know colleges select populations, especially higher end universities, with an eye on diversity.

It’s like the example about Texas construction businesses above. If it helped at all, i’m sure it was very subtle and not substantial. But neither can i claim to prove it helped her anymore than you can claim to prove it did not. In recent years, like i said, for example the Harvard job, they carefully noted there was little interest in this and that it had no effect up their selection criteria; which only makes sense as at that stage in her career her personality and accomplishments vastly outweigh whatever identity she possessed, and i’d not expect otherwise.

But to say it had no effect is to say that colleges are blind to diversity issues then and today, that there is absolutely no way being listed as a minority has any effect whatsoever on college and law school acceptance rates. Which we not only know is untrue, but that colleges are fighting in court for their right to do so.


I’m disputing that there is any evidence she ever made the claim with respect to admissions or job applications.

She never claimed it with respect to any college admission process, and no college ever admitted her on that basis.

If I ‘list’ myself as a minority on my bathroom wall, I guarantee it will produce no be benefit. If I list myself as a minority after I have finished law school and passed the bar, I guaranteee it would not have been considered by the law school that admitted me. If I never claim to be a minority on any application of any kind, I think that’s evidence that I wasn’t trying to get preferential treatment for the claim.


That’s fair. So (just to be clear) we know she never listed herself as a NA on her applications, but only did so after she had been accepted?

If that’s the case, than there’s not much to complain about. (Not that she should apologize for doing so, per se).


I’ve taken a number of demographic surveys over the years and they don’t always ask the same question. Sometimes they ask “what ethnic group do you primarily identify as?” (check one) and sometimes they ask “what ethnic groups do you identify as?” (check all that apply).

Also, for the CA State Bar demo survey they quite clearly say this is for demographic info only and isn’t used for any other purpose, so there’s no “seeking of advantage” by answering that survey.

I’m generally of the opinion that this whole thing against Warren is exaggerated. Pending more info on the Texas thing, it just doesn’t sound like that big of a deal.


Wait, when has Trump ever owned up to anything? He flat out denies every single negative thing he’s ever done, lying about it constantly. How is that owning it?


Yeah he doesn’t own anything. He just never apologizes and people confuse that with being “honest.”

Most of the time he just straight up denies the thing that is obvious or for which there is 100% proof.


Owning it (here) isn’t admitting to it. Owning it is somehow overcoming the criticism.

Sadly, Warren’s problem was that she thought the criticism was that she didn’t have NA ancestry when the criticism was actually no matter what tiny percentage she has in reality, that she as a white woman has no right to claim it, something she didn’t seem to understand.

She should have said something like “fuck you + Oklahoma + grandma + more fuck you”. Instead she apologies (again) for claiming it, which is basically an admission of wrongdoing, and plays right into the Fox-GOP plan.


No, owning it literally means to acknowledge or admit something. You’re talking about something more along the lines of surviving or completely ignoring criticism. I don’t know what to call that. Somehow it works for Trump because his followers are complete f’ing morons but in normal society that tactic should fail miserably.

After your edit, seems like you mean more ‘pwn’ or something, where Trump has somehow pwned society by being a complete shitbag over & over but still was elected President. That makes more sense.


It’s 100% exaggerated but if she did (as i suspect) did check “Native American” on an application, it’s literally just listing every possible “thing” that helps your application, like “1) volunteer with kids” “2) veteran” “3)national merit scholar” “4) Native American” “5) 3.9 GPA” ect. If you can, you do. Basically everyone would if they could, because it can’t hurt and only help.

I remember as a high school student talking to kids about you become eligible for X if you claim this or Y if you claim that. Certainly it was believed to be beneficial, even if in reality it had little effect, and if she did it at all, i’m sure that’s why. And after all, if she grew up with stories about grandmother’s heritage she believed she could.


Nah, it really is political savvy. Fox loves the “have you stopped beating your wife?” framing of politics, and you don’t win by answering Yes or No.


Isn’t this whole thing with her Native American thing kind of moot?

I mean, ultimately, I don’t think many folks give a shit. It’s a far right talking point. It only really impacts folks on the far right.

It’s actually her reaction to the attacks which is more problematic, as it shows some poor instincts that would be a vulnerabilty against Trump.

Taking a blood test to respond to Trump’s racist attacks was dumb. Just straight up dumb. It validated total bullshit from him, with bonus dumbness by actually offending native americans. And then she did a similar thing where she actually denied, on her website, having a ridiculously racist thing in her kitchen? Which was based on literally nothing beside some tweet by an imbecile? Why would you respond to that? If an idiot like Tammy Idiot or whatever her name is can force you to respond by making a totally idiotic tweet… then that’s gonna be a problem. You’re gonna have a bad time in today’s media market.

I know some of you guys really, really, really like Warren… but I just don’t see that happening. You have better candidates in the field right now. But I don’t think it has anything to do with her Native American thing.