Elizabeth Warren 2020

[BradInATX 9208]

The fact that her first major act since declaring her run for POTUS is an apology tour is all you need to know. She's a poor political decision maker and there are others who are better at her "calling cards" than she is. Bernie is a better pie in the sky super-lefty. Harris is a better Trump attack bulldog.

 

When everyone in the primary shifts far left and co-opts half of Bernie's platform, she will be completely lost in the fray.

 

She won't play in the midwest whatsoever and she's a "good at a lot of stuff but great at nothing" candidate.

 

She'll be out by the halfway post and back to the Senate, where she can continue to be effective in a role more suited for her.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bookman 4639]

She's done. She let Trump brand her Pocahontas and the only way to recover is by actually being Native American.

I'm about 10% Native American, which is probably more than Elizabeth Warren, and it's never even occurred to me to claim I'm a Native American.

[DigglerontheHoof 21194]

14 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There is no evidence I’m aware of she sought to gain from her heritage so your point is kind of not there.

Your obtuseness on this bottles the mind.  

[Asithappens 974]

12 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Many times when you apply for a job/position at ivy league institutions...you have a better shot of gaining admission/the job if you are an underrepresented minority.  So you would certainly benefit/profit by checking that box.  She seems to have checked it pretty regularly.  

This.

This is the evidence. Whether it absolutely "proves" it, who knows.

But it is evidence.

[Incredulity 11668]

The “never benefited” white knights seem to be diminishing. Interesting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Your obtuseness on this bottles the mind.  

If Elizabeth Warren had a pattern of deception and fraudulent behavior I would give the nefarious allegation more credibility but she doesn’t.

Until a decision maker says she benifited, the assertion is baseless.

[Celery Man 20935]

23 hours ago, Jograves said:

I grew up on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and nearly every white kid that did was told they have some Native American in their woodpile. My grandmother was part Native American (I honestly have no idea how much) and we were told this from a very early age. It still comes up at family events when my grandma is brought up. I feel bad for Warren in a way because if you're proud of your family heritage and the stories you are told, it's very easy to get caught up in retelling these stories. I think labeling herself as she did was her way of showing pride in her family. That's not to say what she did on her bar card isn't wrong. I understand how it happens though, and I don't think it makes her 'slightly nutty' or a 'liar' on the scale of what we're currently witnessing. 

oh cool - my fiance's grandfather grew up on Fort Peck/was Assiniboine.  Actually surprised to hear that there were vanilla white kids who grew up there?

[hpslugga 4058]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

She's done. She let Trump brand her Pocahontas and the only way to recover is by actually being Native American.

You overestimate Trump's ability to "brand" anything. 

[Mole 4330]

18 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Now do the men.

 

 

18 hours ago, SKJ said:

If only this applied to Trump in the same way

Did we not all laugh at the Voldemort looking picture highlighting the absurd difference between the tiny bit of natural skin color on his face and the weird orange color of the rest of his face? 

Did we not all laugh when the adult film actress he paid off described his member as resembling a short, stubby, mushroom-like video game character? 

Do we not all laugh at the strange smallness of his hands? 

Or how about Senator Turtle?

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

This.

This is the evidence. Whether it absolutely "proves" it, who knows.

But it is evidence.

What is evidence? A conservative's post about a progressive?

I don't think you know what "evidence" means.

[NBMisha 224]

But R.

We're talking about the D's and their decision making.

[Underdog 28617]

16 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

Why isn't there a Kirsten Gillibrand thread?

NSAA

[troph 24787]

I’m undecided on her candidacy but her ideas belong in the front and center of the national debate. That I’m certain about.

[bad_teammate 13195]

To me, this is kind of a litmus test for how the overall primary is going to go.

How you are reacting to Warren right now indicates how susceptible you are to the Republican and media machines once they go to work on the candidates. There is no rational basis for concluding that Warren (1) knowingly lied about her heritage or (2) did so for personal or professional gain. The absolute worst rational conclusion is that she was a naive, disconnected-from-reality white lib trying to be woke.

Combine that with the reality that she is, by a very wide margin, the most substantive and intelligent candidate to have announced so far (either an outright candidacy or an exploratory committee), and it's kind of easy to see that where you are with regard to Warren right now is where you'll be in a year when the primaries and caucuses fire up. That is to say, many of you are going to be easily swayed and manipulated by the most meaningless and pointless garbage imaginable.

If you are someone who, right now, thinks, "Oh man she really let Trump get to her" then you are both part of the problem and unable to see anything but the media spectacle horse race.

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

17 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

anyone who won't vote for her because of this story very likely would never have voted for her anyway.

There's a lot of primaries left where it will matter.

[tantric superman 4667]

She needs to leave the issue alone, and move on to other shit.  She doesn't anything my addressing the issue or trying to explain it.

The heyday of the recruitment of minorities to prestigious schools was in the 1970s and 1980s.   By the 1990s when she went to teach at Harvard, the backlash and the arguments about stigma were in full swing.  Whatever Warren's motivations were, her listing of herself as native american was less about gaining an advantage than about Harvard diversity in general.  But the bottom line, in retrospect it looks hamfisted and a patronizing offering to the Temple of Diversity. 

Suck it up, take the loss, and move on.

[Bat Guano 359]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

There's a lot of primaries left where it will matter.

True. I was getting way ahead of things, thinking about the general.

[Hank Kingsley 20923]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

To me, this is kind of a litmus test for how the overall primary is going to go.

How you are reacting to Warren right now indicates how susceptible you are to the Republican and media machines once they go to work on the candidates. There is no rational basis for concluding that Warren (1) knowingly lied about her heritage or (2) did so for personal or professional gain. The absolute worst rational conclusion is that she was a naive, disconnected-from-reality white lib trying to be woke.

Combine that with the reality that she is, by a very wide margin, the most substantive and intelligent candidate to have announced so far (either an outright candidacy or an exploratory committee), and it's kind of easy to see that where you are with regard to Warren right now is where you'll be in a year when the primaries and caucuses fire up. That is to say, many of you are going to be easily swayed and manipulated by the most meaningless and pointless garbage imaginable.

If you are someone who, right now, thinks, "Oh man she really let Trump get to her" then you are both part of the problem and unable to see anything but the media spectacle horse race.

 

So we're just supposed to ignore a potential issue for Warren with voters in 2020? She made a mistake. She has time to make up for it. Every liberal on here will enthusiastically vote for her over Trump. 

I think an under the radar, very important characteristic for the Democratic candidate will be authenticity.  Republicans know Trump is full of shit, and they just assume every D candidate is full of shit as well. The fact that there are public arguments about the authenticity of her actual ancestry is a problem. We can't even talk about her policies before people question her genetic identity. 

 

 

[troph 24787]

My family claims to be related to John Adams, Sam Adams and John Quincy Adams. My maternal grandmothers maiden name is Adams, and there is supposedly a genealogy report but I’ve never seen it. I kinda imagine the genealogist thought it would be fun to drive it that direction for his or her fee who knows. I would never report I’m a daughter of the revolution or whatever without a legitimate investigation of my own. In fact this is the only disclosure I’ve said about it that wasn’t a sarcastic comment about how unimportant this stuff really is. I don’t know what gets into people to report this nonsense on applications, she’s a white woman. But I guess if you know you have a fraction of a minority race and if your family is proud of it then as a young adult I can see making the stupid decision of checking the box. Again I don’t get it but I also am not sure this is that big of a deal. As long as she has some NA blood in her then I see it as dumb but not disqualifying. Whether I think she should be the dem leader will depend on the full cast of candidates.

[bad_teammate 13195]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Suck it up, take the loss, and move on.

How can she "move on" if her opponents keep bringing it up?

Beyond that, her public apology and discussion of the issue with regard to tribal sovereignty was absolutely appropriate and something Cherokee groups were actively calling for.

It's all out there. Whose side are you on? Pick it and move forward. I think it's pretty clear at this point, honestly.

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

So we're just supposed to ignore a potential issue for Warren with voters in 2020? She made a mistake. She has time to make up for it. Every liberal on here will enthusiastically vote for her over Trump. 

I think an under the radar, very important characteristic for the Democratic candidate will be authenticity.  Republicans know Trump is full of shit, and they just assume every D candidate is full of shit as well. The fact that there are public arguments about the authenticity of her actual ancestry is a problem. We can't even talk about her policies before people question her genetic identity. 

 

 

I don't understand this, it's why we literally have a primary voting system. This is going to be very crowded and not something where she's just going to be handed the nomination like Hillary basically was.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The fact that there are public arguments about the authenticity of her actual ancestry is a problem.

Then WE (the supposed allies) need to stop talking about it. WE (the supposed allies) need to move on. Let the right rage on at themselves about nothing.

Quote

We can't even talk about her policies before people question her genetic identity.

Do you seriously not see how centrist concern trolling fuels the fire? If we united in a rational defense against this BS then it starves oxygen. Let it be relegated to right-wing Facebook memes and stop the hand-wringing and speculation about unspecified groups of mythical voters who would care about this.

Centrists are making this a big deal by acting like it matters. It doesn't matter. If we act like it doesn't matter (which it doesn't) then it will matter less. If we act like it's a big deal (which it isn't) then it becomes a big deal.

[Hank Kingsley 20923]

Her opponents will never let go of it. You know this. 

And strategically, her apology was 3 months too late. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't think she knowingly lied and I don't think she did so for professional gain (but it's still funny to roast her over because it's so delusional and funny how she handled the DNA tests and pretending it was a win and that youtube clip, etc.). Guess I'm woke, now, finally. Sorry for being late to the party!

Didn't knowingly lied ?  She knows she's not a majority native American DNA, and that's what those little boxes that ask for race are for.  She's caucasian, and her writing in American Indian is insulting to everyones intelligence if she thinks it really describes her race.

Harvard used her alleged Native American heritage to trumpet their inclusiveness. Please don't tell me it didn't benefit her.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Her opponents will never let go of it. You know this.

So what? Why should we care? Why on earth would we let the right pick our candidates for us? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Quote

And strategically, her apology was 3 months too late. 

Stop with this pseudo-pundit BS. 3 months too late? For whom? What are you even saying?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

My family claims to be related to John Adams, Sam Adams and John Quincy Adams. My maternal grandmothers maiden name is Adams, and there is supposedly a genealogy report but I’ve never seen it. I kinda imagine the genealogist thought it would be fun to drive it that direction for his or her fee who knows. I would never report I’m a daughter of the revolution or whatever without a legitimate investigation of my own. In fact this is the only disclosure I’ve said about it that wasn’t a sarcastic comment about how unimportant this stuff really is. I don’t know what gets into people to report this nonsense on applications, she’s a white woman. But I guess if you know you have a fraction of a minority race and if your family is proud of it then as a young adult I can see making the stupid decision of checking the box. Again I don’t get it but I also am not sure this is that big of a deal. As long as she has some NA blood in her then I see it as dumb but not disqualifying. Whether I think she should be the dem leader will depend on the full cast of candidates.

She wasn't filling out applications at Burger King. These were for post undergrad employment, and or licensing. How stupid do you have to be to not know what they mean by race on an application for employment.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[Jhawk 1075]

18 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If she did, doesn’t matter.  For whatever reason, this story has legs.  Maybe because she’s a liberal and liberals are more sensitive about this stuff.  

Live boy/dead girl wouldn’t matter with Trump.  Plenty of Republicans claim to be heterosexuals for that matter.  

It’s fucked up that this is still an issue.  

The reason it is a story is because of how big of a deal cultural appropriation has become.  Her party, and maybe even her, have fanned those flames.  Someone dug up the dirt and showed that people within the ranks of fanning the flames are also guilty of what they charge others with.  This will always be an issue for her because she hopped on a train and didn't think of the consequences.  Now she has to deal with them.

You're 100% right about trump and he said it himself that he could shoot someone in the street and still have his followers.  No doubt.  But when you build a glass house like the dems have you better not walk around naked inside unless you're ready to be called out on your issues.  I have a huge rant about weaponizing dirt by both parties and now each party is having to sleep in the beds they made and they hate it. 

It has been an arms race to see who could stockpile more nukes against their political enemies over the last 10 years.  Both parties would be better served if they would sign a peace treaty and some rules of engagement and start to work together instead of trying to sabotage each other with things that aren't even related to policy.  Oddly, if they all stopped focusing on who wronged what group of people and who is oppressed today then they might actually sit down in a room together and hammer out legislation that makes the country better.  Right now all they do is hate each other because of a climate they all created.  Humorous if you think about it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't think she knowingly lied.

I think like others have noted, she naively or delusionally thought she was an NA because gam-gam gave the sunburned traveler a handy, as someone hilariously described, above. She probably got amped up and caught up in the wave of being a minority back in those times and a) wasn't trying to profit and b) didn't knowingly lie or try to be deceptive or manipulative unlike our NA friend Nathan Phillips, for example.

I'm woke.

It's not a question of lying. It's a question of understanding the significance of filling in "Native American" on an employment application when you're clearly a majority % caucasian and she friggin knew that. She didn't think she was a majority Native American.  THAT is exactly what those boxes sore for.  

Those boxes are for people who are actual majority to full blood/ DNA black, Hispanic,  Native American, and yeti and had the negative impacts of being one in those groups in a country that's fucked them over since the first Euros stepped ashore.  They're not for Caucasians with an Indian in the wood shed, maybe, maaaaybe somewhere back a hundred or two hundred years ago.

[Jhawk 1075]

15 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't think she knowingly lied.

I think like others have noted, she naively or delusionally thought she was an NA because gam-gam gave the sunburned traveler a handy, as someone hilariously described, above. She probably got amped up and caught up in the wave of being a minority back in those times and a) wasn't trying to profit and b) didn't knowingly lie or try to be deceptive or manipulative unlike our NA friend Nathan Phillips, for example.

I'm woke.

I didn't know it was stealing to just refill my cup from the QT across town at the QT I'm sitting at right now but I still have to pay for the soda.  

This is the biggest problem I see from both sides in the political arena today.  Something comes out and all of the sudden everyone is jumping through hoops to say "yeah.... but....".  Flat out, she filled out multiple documents that require truth on them from 1984 to 2004 and in the time since then she has said "I never did that," as well as "I am this," as well as "I can prove I'm native, look at my DNA."

I think we can all agree that many on this board think that Trump should be held accountable for his misgivings, why aren't these same people crowing about how warren should be held accountable? The sad truth is we shove a dog's face in shit and piss when trying to train it not to shit in the house.  We might spank a child or at least chide them when they do something wrong.  We put people in jail for not paying a speeding ticket at 5 mph over in a timely fashion (trust me, I've been booked).  But when a holier than thou politician lies for 30 years we say "but did they really mean to?"  It is disgusting that we hold our pets more accountable than our elected leaders.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Jhawk

[Hank Kingsley 20923]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Then WE (the supposed allies) need to stop talking about it. WE (the supposed allies) need to move on. Let the right rage on at themselves about nothing.

Do you seriously not see how centrist concern trolling fuels the fire? If we united in a rational defense against this BS then it starves oxygen. Let it be relegated to right-wing Facebook memes and stop the hand-wringing and speculation about unspecified groups of mythical voters who would care about this.

Centrists are making this a big deal by acting like it matters. It doesn't matter. If we act like it doesn't matter (which it doesn't) then it will matter less. If we act like it's a big deal (which it isn't) then it becomes a big deal.

We are talking about this on a Longhorn message board, in a thread devoted to Elizabeth Warren.  I'm not walking the streets telling people they should be concerned. 

I look forward to you backing 100% of the D nominees and plugging your ears over any potential controversy, whether the criticism is fair or not. 

Practically ever D candidate can with the Presidency without a single Republican voter. Bigger picture, the ideal candidate is someone people on the right will still respect once in the White House. That very well could be Elizabeth Warren, we'll see. We have options and plenty of time to figure it out. 

 

[Bat Guano 359]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

If Elizabeth Warren had a pattern of deception and fraudulent behavior I would give the nefarious allegation more credibility but she doesn’t.

Until a decision maker says she benifited, the assertion is baseless.

If she brought it up during her application to teach at Harvard, then she probably was trying to benefit from a perceived diversity preference. No hiring authority is ever going to say that she was hired because of it, and it probably wouldn't even be true if they did; they would accurately classify it as one of a number of factors that went into the decision.

But let's be honest: she didn't put down Native American on stuff because she was proud of that obviously tiny bit of ancestry. She put it down to gain an advantage. Whether it played out that way is impossible to prove one way or another, but the only way to put this behind her is to admit that she did it to try to advance herself in some way, and apologize for that. It might kill her politically, or she might be forgiven, but it's the only way to get past it. It would certainly be a refreshing change from the self-aggrandizement of our current president, and maybe that would be enough or maybe it wouldn't, but if she ties it to her story - humble background, made it pretty far in life on smarts, competence and determination, then ties that to her policy prescriptions designed to help others do the same, it might help. This is what she's done sort of circuitously, but she needs to make it an explicit narrative. It still won't go away, but at some point people will get tired of hearing about it and it may lose its punch.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

I look forward to you backing 100% of the D nominees and plugging your ears over any potential controversy, whether the criticism is fair or not. 

When I criticize a D candidate it will be on the merits of the issue or controversy, not me concern trolling about "oh no how will the right-wing feel about this!?!?" or pretending I have a special insight into the mythical "voter".

Quote

Bigger picture, the ideal candidate is someone people on the right will still respect once in the White House.

If you sincerely believe this is possible then you do not have your critical faculties in order.

We just had 8 years of one of the most worthy-of-respect presidents in history and the right's reaction was to elect a guy who constantly accused him of being a foreign-born Muslim terrorist who had people killed to hide the truth.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Bat Guano said:

But let's be honest: she didn't put down Native American on stuff because she was proud of that obviously tiny bit of ancestry. She put it down to gain an advantage.

You can state it confidently like it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

We are talking about this on a Longhorn message board, in a thread devoted to Elizabeth Warren.  I'm not walking the streets telling people they should be concerned. 

I look forward to you backing 100% of the D nominees and plugging your ears over any potential controversy, whether the criticism is fair or not. 

Practically ever D candidate can with the Presidency without a single Republican voter. Bigger picture, the ideal candidate is someone people on the right will still respect once in the White House. That very well could be Elizabeth Warren, we'll see. We have options and plenty of time to figure it out. 

 

I could live with Mrs. Warren in the WH. I could do it better if she could admit the stupidity of her filling out applications in such an obviously false manner.

[Bat Guano 359]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can state it confidently like it's true, but that doesn't make it true.

I repeat: let's be honest.

[wildcat09 29352]

9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

We are talking about this on a Longhorn message board, in a thread devoted to Elizabeth Warren.  I'm not walking the streets telling people they should be concerned. 

I look forward to you backing 100% of the D nominees and plugging your ears over any potential controversy, whether the criticism is fair or not. 

Practically ever D candidate can with the Presidency without a single Republican voter. Bigger picture, the ideal candidate is someone people on the right will still respect once in the White House. That very well could be Elizabeth Warren, we'll see. We have options and plenty of time to figure it out. 

 

I see Hank just woke up from a 40-year coma.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Bat Guano said:

I repeat: let's be honest.

And I can say with perfect honesty that I don't believe she told anyone she had native ancestry to gain an advantage. It doesn't make any sense.

This is what it looks like when someone is trying to claim minority status for some kind of advantage:

That is someone actively pretending to be something they are not.

This is not.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And I can say with perfect honesty that I don't believe she told anyone she had native ancestry to gain an advantage. It doesn't make any sense.

This is what it looks like when someone is trying to claim minority status for some kind of advantage:

That is someone actively pretending to be something they are not.

This is not.

No you can't because as soon as she filled out a job application as Native American she was instantly in a different class of hiring. Stop being dishonest about this fact.  Harvard trumpeted her hiring as a diversity feather in their cap (no pun intended).  

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

What job application did she fill out as Native American?

[troph 24787]

She wasn't filling out applications at Burger King. These were for post undergrad employment, and or licensing. How stupid do you have to be to not know what they mean by race on an application for employment.

I’m a lawyer, and going on 20 years of practice. I’d check white but I never see any qualifying language saying the determination of checking a box is majority. In fact they are all silent. She was probably early mid thirties when she asked for admission to the Texas bar. Why did she check it, I don’t know. But I don’t see it as disqualifying as long as she has NA blood. Insensitive yes, insulting to visibly NA folks yes (I assume). But a lie? Not that clear cut.

[Bat Guano 359]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And I can say with perfect honesty that I don't believe she told anyone she had native ancestry to gain an advantage. It doesn't make any sense.

You really don't know that ethnic diversity is a hiring goal in many institutions, including many elite universities?

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Bat Guano said:

You really don't know that ethnic diversity is a hiring goal in many institutions, including many elite universities?

Which hiring committee did she tell? On what job application did she put it?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, troph said:

I’m a lawyer, and going on 20 years of practice. I’d check white but I never see any qualifying language saying the determination of checking a box is majority. In fact they are all silent. She was probably early mid thirties when she asked for admission to the Texas bar. Why did she check it, I don’t know. But I don’t see it as disqualifying as long as she has NA blood. Insensitive yes, insulting to visibly NA folks yes (I assume). But a lie? Not that clear cut.

Yes it's a lie, SHE IS NOT AMERICAN INDIAN. The family lore is there was a great grandma who might have been Indian or part Indian.

Seriously ??  You don't know that race means "predominant" race ?  I'm not disqualifying her at all for quite office. I am however saying it was flat out wrong to label herself as American Indian because of the ramifications to others potentially. We don't know how many forms she filled out that way it's 2 currently, how many other places did she use it.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Onboard, can you please answer my question?

What job application did she fill out as Native American?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Which hiring committee did she tell? On what job application did she put it?

Harvard, They went on record making  a big deal about their inclusiveness. You just being dishonestly obtuse or have you never heard that  ?  Cause it's  been posted here by several people on both sides of the aisle.

[Bat Guano 359]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Which hiring committee did she tell? On what job application did she put it?

I thought I heard she put it on her Harvard application. I could be wrong about that, or I may be remembering something put out by liars.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Harvard, They went on record making  a big deal about their inclusiveness. You just being dishonestly obtuse or have you never heard that  ?  Cause it's  been posted here by several people on both sides of the aisle.

Do you have any actual evidence that she told the Harvard hiring committee that she was a Native American? Do you have any evidence that she put it on her application?

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, Bat Guano said:

I thought I heard she put it on her Harvard application. I could be wrong about that, or I may be remembering something put out by liars.

This is what happened.

Silly season hasn't even started yet, man, and it's ALREADY wild out here.

[Hank Kingsley 20923]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I see Hank just woke up from a 40-year coma.

Fair enough. I’ve stated numerous times that this country is being fucked over by the GOP and right wing media. They’ve gone after their own voters and attacked their sensibilities. Regular Americans are being told what to believe by disingenuous actors.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Onboard, can you please answer my question?

What job application did she fill out as Native American?

Harvard I believe , how else would they know she was Native American ?