14
   

Who is Elizabeth Warren?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2019 01:01 pm
@ipxpert,
Warren lies. Three. Trump lies more than 12000.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2019 01:48 pm
@RABEL222,
So, pick someone who’s not a liar. I know one.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2019 02:17 pm
@ipxpert,
Your initial claim which I challenged
Quote:
EW is an opportunistic pathological liar
So we'll start with defining the term:
Quote:
A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively. While there appears to be many possible causes for pathological lying, it’s not yet entirely understood why someone would lie this way.

Some lies seem to be told in order to make the pathological liar appear the hero, or to gain acceptance or sympathy, while there’s seemingly nothing to be gained from other lies.

...Compulsive lying is also a known trait of some personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder.

...Pathological lies, on the other hand, are told consistently and habitually. They tend to appear pointless and often continuous.
LINK HERE - and a cross check will see this matches the DSM
What you've included as your evidence that Warren is a "pathological liar" are three items.

The first, re middle class families paying less under her plan, none of the links you've found contradict her claim. What each addresses is her tap dance on the question of the possibility of increased taxation for that group as a consequence of her plan. Her response, though avoiding that question, is that regardless of such a factor, middle class families' real world costs will go down. That's entirely reasonable. It is the case here in Canada and it is the case in most other western nations where some similar medical system is in place. It is a key reason why there is no significant constituency in Canada to get rid of these programs and move to an American style system. In Canada, no political party, no matter how coonservative, has ever run on a platform plank of erasing our medicare system. Same with Britain. I know of no other western nation where such a shift has any support in their electorates or political parties. Rather obviously, if a significant portion of the populations in any of these nations wished their med programs removed, some political party would take that up as a platform plank and run with it loud and clear. And that's not happening anywhere I know of. Not New Zealand, not Australia, not Switzerland, not France, not the Netherlands, etc etc.
She avoids the question but is not lying. And her avoidance is understandable because it is politically loaded and many or most citizens will succumb to "she's going to raise your taxes" claim because they aren't being informed of what I've noted above.

Re DNA test, that is an actual test result which she released. Such a test is, obviously, not a lie. It's a legitimate test. It caused a bit of a furor with some First Nations groups because a DNA test result is not the same as cultural membership. Fair enough.

So, as with the typical right wing attacks on this issue, the real protest or complaint is against her statements that she has such a heritage. "She lied" is the claim. It's a bogus attack, meant to discredit. Here's why it's bogus.

My mother's family (Mennonite) came out of the Ukraine following the Bolshevik revolution. Within the family, it was long believed and repeated that we had a significant Jewish ancestry. I'm not sure of how this notion originated but it was credible because so many of us look as if that could well be true (and there were cultural similarities as well - high regard for education and the arts, for example). It's only been in the last five years where family members' DNA tests have shown the family story to be false.

This is a commonplace in family myth stories. They are handed down over generations and accepted as true when, very often, they are not. When I or my siblings said "we have some Jewish ancestry", we weren't lying. We were mistaken. My daughter and I were disappointed by those results. We're big fans of Jewish culture. But we're not Jewish. We have to settle on being jew-ish

The third is the pregnancy/firing story. Your link attempts to prove that Warren was lying about being let go for pregnancy. The evidence for that claim are documents showing she was accepted later. But this doesn't actually stand as evidence she lied at all and is presented without any relevant historical context, such as:
Quote:
Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school. But Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed.

"The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer," Randall said. "But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant."

As the school board minutes show, no member of the Riverdale school board at the time was a woman. A full year after Warren's dismissal, the Associated Press wrote that a recent New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights decision meant that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey classrooms."
LINK

So, none of what you've dug up is actual evidence for lying. And the three instances you've included certainly come nowhere near matching the definitions of "pathological liar".

As I said earlier, I'd ask you to compare and contrast Warren with Trump as regards your charge. You'd didn't do that but a post above mine notes the records and tallies of Trump's lies, now exceeding 12,000 falsehoods over a mere 3 years and while holding the White House as President.

If you are serious about pathological liars, deeming them a key indicator that would make a person unfit for office, particularly the office of the president of the United States, you're looking in the wrong direction.
ipxpert
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 09:42 am
@blatham,
Quote:
The first, re middle class families paying less under her plan, none of the links you've found contradict her claim. What each addresses is her tap dance on the question of the possibility of increased taxation for that group as a consequence of her plan. Her response, though avoiding that question, is that regardless of such a factor, middle class families' real world costs will go down. That's entirely reasonable. It is the case here in Canada and it is the case in most other western nations where some similar medical system is in place. It is a key reason why there is no significant constituency in Canada to get rid of these programs and move to an American style system. In Canada, no political party, no matter how coonservative, has ever run on a platform plank of erasing our medicare system. Same with Britain. I know of no other western nation where such a shift has any support in their electorates or political parties. Rather obviously, if a significant portion of the populations in any of these nations wished their med programs removed, some political party would take that up as a platform plank and run with it loud and clear. And that's not happening anywhere I know of. Not New Zealand, not Australia, not Switzerland, not France, not the Netherlands, etc etc.
She avoids the question but is not lying. And her avoidance is understandable because it is politically loaded and many or most citizens will succumb to "she's going to raise your taxes" claim because they aren't being informed of what I've noted above.


Poppycock. The definition of a lie is 'intent to deceive'. Are you actually claiming that EW is not intending to deceive in the examples?

Quote:
Re DNA test, that is an actual test result which she released. Such a test is, obviously, not a lie. It's a legitimate test. It caused a bit of a furor with some First Nations groups because a DNA test result is not the same as cultural membership. Fair enough.

So, as with the typical right wing attacks on this issue, the real protest or complaint is against her statements that she has such a heritage. "She lied" is the claim. It's a bogus attack, meant to discredit. Here's why it's bogus.

My mother's family (Mennonite) came out of the Ukraine following the Bolshevik revolution. Within the family, it was long believed and repeated that we had a significant Jewish ancestry. I'm not sure of how this notion originated but it was credible because so many of us look as if that could well be true (and there were cultural similarities as well - high regard for education and the arts, for example). It's only been in the last five years where family members' DNA tests have shown the family story to be false.

This is a commonplace in family myth stories. They are handed down over generations and accepted as true when, very often, they are not. When I or my siblings said "we have some Jewish ancestry", we weren't lying. We were mistaken. My daughter and I were disappointed by those results. We're big fans of Jewish culture. But we're not Jewish. We have to settle on being jew-ish


I agree with you concerning ancestry and the results that recent science has revealed. I assume that you and your siblings did not intend to deceive others as EW did (for personal & political favor). No one in their right mind would conclude that EW did not attempt to convince masses of "Native American ancestry" in order to procure votes.

btw: EW's NA claim has unintentional consequences. The apparent evidence of EW's ancestry shows that she has at least 1 Native American ancestor. Using her claim to ancestry standard; how many 'non-African Americans' have at least 1 African American ancestor? For the sake of minimal page clutter, take a moment to review this. Imagine the consequences of using EW's standard to race/ancestral relations: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

Quote:
The third is the pregnancy/firing story. Your link attempts to prove that Warren was lying about being let go for pregnancy. The evidence for that claim are documents showing she was accepted later. But this doesn't actually stand as evidence she lied at all and is presented without any relevant historical context, such as:


"Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school..."

Quote:
So, none of what you've dug up is actual evidence for lying. And the three instances you've included certainly come nowhere near matching the definitions of "pathological liar".


All 3 are clear evidence of pathological lying - using actual definitions of each.

Quote:
As I said earlier, I'd ask you to compare and contrast Warren with Trump as regards your charge. You'd didn't do that but a post above mine notes the records and tallies of Trump's lies, now exceeding 12,000 falsehoods over a mere 3 years and while holding the White House as President.


Please prove your assertion.

Quote:
If you are serious about pathological liars, deeming them a key indicator that would make a person unfit for office, particularly the office of the president of the United States, you're looking in the wrong direction.


The facts prove otherwise.




blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2019 11:46 am
@ipxpert,
Sorry, but I don't continue when a person I'm talking with turns out to be exactly as intellectually dull as I'd expected.
ipxpert
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Oct, 2019 09:59 am
@blatham,
Translation: "The truth as presented by ipxpert does not fit my narrative."

Understood and not surprised. Bye.















RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 12:55 am
@ipxpert,
I want to agree with Blatham but I can't since I quit reading your posts after the first 5 or 6. Blatham is probably right but I can't attest to his views because I don't read anything you post.
ipxpert
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2019 08:09 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
I want to agree with Blatham but I can't since I quit reading your posts after the first 5 or 6. Blatham is probably right but I can't attest to his views because I don't read anything you post.


Your reply to this proves you wrong. I suspect that like blatham & others who are emotion-based, the facts bother you and/or your narrative. At last count there were 2 of you who retreated to your safe space by hitting ignore. Are you going to yours?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 08:44:18