Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

It is likely that she was hired at Penn as a condition for Bruce to make the move to Penn, but she was well-qualified for the position. When he moved to Harvard, she was offered only a part-time position at first. Once she got the job, she again proved herself to be an expert in a field of law that the Ivy alumni don't care about. She did not get either job because of any minority claim, but in both cases, probably because they wanted to hire her husband.

It’s always disaster when a woman, especially a feminist, gets a ride to the top from her husband.

I am even more disappointed in Warren now. She’s quite the fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

You are gossiping.

DP: it’s called opinion and discussion

My God is a Christian Church lady here policing the forums?

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

You are gossiping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

This. I think I read that she was the only public law school graduate on the law school faculty.

Rutgers law school ranks #74.

But she had made a name for herself as a professor and researcher at the University of Texas Law School, which is #15, and had been a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, which is #8.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

This. I think I read that she was the only public law school graduate on the law school faculty.

Rutgers law school ranks #74.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you talk with American families who've been here since the 1700's, most of them have a story saying they are part Indian. I know we did, the family loved to trot the story out. Personally I was always skeptical. Took a DNA test about a year ago, and nope, zero American Indian heritage.

Elizabeth Warren definitely pushed the envelope farther than anyone in my family, but I can see how it happens. I bet it's a story she heard her whole life. To me it doesn't look like she intended any malice, if anything she was proud of being part American Indian.

But it appears she only EMPLOYED the falsehood once she started chasing more prestigious professorships. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.

The best job she got had nothing to do with that though. She was qualified.

Had she never lied about being American Indian she never would have been hired by Penn or Harvard (and possibly even U-T), and would have lacked the resume for US Senate. She would have been some nobody law professor at backwater Rutgers. A very fine and comfortable life, but she wanted more -- by hook or by crook.

That is not true. There is no evidences at all that either Penn or Harvard hired her because of an American Indian claim. There is plenty of evidence in both cases that they wanted her husband and she was included in the package.

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

It is likely that she was hired at Penn as a condition for Bruce to make the move to Penn, but she was well-qualified for the position. When he moved to Harvard, she was offered only a part-time position at first. Once she got the job, she again proved herself to be an expert in a field of law that the Ivy alumni don't care about. She did not get either job because of any minority claim, but in both cases, probably because they wanted to hire her husband.

Unless you can prove that she gained professionally by claiming to be American Indian, I consider it a mistake. You feeling does not count. A mistake is still a mistake. But I do not consider that to be disqualifying to be candidate for Presidency, especially when she is courageous enough to have bold proposals to improve the condition of the country and sound plan.

I think you are the one who is letting feelings overrule facts.

Anonymous wrote:She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

This. I think I read that she was the only public law school graduate on the law school faculty.

She married Bruce -- Brown University (BA, MA); Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD) -- in 1980. She had some status envy and did whatever it took. Nobody on Harvard Law School's roster has her degree mill credentials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you talk with American families who've been here since the 1700's, most of them have a story saying they are part Indian. I know we did, the family loved to trot the story out. Personally I was always skeptical. Took a DNA test about a year ago, and nope, zero American Indian heritage.

Elizabeth Warren definitely pushed the envelope farther than anyone in my family, but I can see how it happens. I bet it's a story she heard her whole life. To me it doesn't look like she intended any malice, if anything she was proud of being part American Indian.

But it appears she only EMPLOYED the falsehood once she started chasing more prestigious professorships. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing.

The best job she got had nothing to do with that though. She was qualified.

Had she never lied about being American Indian she never would have been hired by Penn or Harvard (and possibly even U-T), and would have lacked the resume for US Senate. She would have been some nobody law professor at backwater Rutgers. A very fine and comfortable life, but she wanted more -- by hook or by crook.

Anonymous wrote:

You are doing the same thing again if you demonize Warren for a mistake she has apologized for. If she could, she would not do what she did years ago. But what she did was a mistake and not fraud

1. She is a lawyer.
2. She is from Oklahoma--and know the rules.
3. After submitting this license, she was listed in a journal as a "minority."
4. In 1986, she filled out the form. In 1987, she was hired by UPenn.

Mistake or Fraud?

Mistake
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mistake
: to blunder in the choice of
mistook her way in the dark
2a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : MISINTERPRET
don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said
b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of



fraud
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

: DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
was accused of credit card fraud
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
automobile insurance frauds
2a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR
He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud

Looks pretty clear to me.

Unless you can prove that she gained professionally by claiming to be American Indian, I consider it a mistake. You feeling does not count. A mistake is still a mistake. But I do not consider that to be disqualifying to be candidate for Presidency, especially when she is courageous enough to have bold proposals to improve the condition of the country and sound plan.

You are doing the same thing again if you demonize Warren for a mistake she has apologized for. If she could, she would not do what she did years ago. But what she did was a mistake and not fraud

1. She is a lawyer.
2. She is from Oklahoma--and know the rules.
3. After submitting this license, she was listed in a journal as a "minority."
4. In 1986, she filled out the form. In 1987, she was hired by UPenn.

Mistake or Fraud?

Mistake
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mistake
: to blunder in the choice of
mistook her way in the dark
2a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : MISINTERPRET
don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said
b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of



fraud
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

: DECEIT, TRICKERY
specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
was accused of credit card fraud
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
automobile insurance frauds
2a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR
He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud

Looks pretty clear to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the era when the president and his associate lie about everything from his weight to his possible conspiracy to steal a presidential election, I am amazed voters/media hounding Warren for her mistaken identity issues years ago? What's up people. This is a rehash of the "but her emails"...

When will we start accepting imperfect, but great leaders? She is human, she did some mistake (did not defraud anyone). Can we move on?

She has some excellent idea to take the country in the right direction. Let us focus on her policy positions, arguments to justify those and ideas to implement those. Stop doing the same mistake we did in 2016 to demonize a great candidate for a small mistake, while giving a totally reprehensible candidate a free pass.

Is this what happened in 2016? I don't think democrats gave Trump a pass. We've all been convulsing in apoplectic rage since election night.

And I don't think HRC was a great candidate, I think we were blind to how unliked she was by how much of America.

Yes, there were democrats who gave Trump a pass because he was outside the box candidate and they also disliked Hillary. Hillary's dislikability is a result of years of smear campaign by right wing media. She was demonized by them years for the reasons they would stand up for republican women/men.

You are again pointing how unliked she was proves my point. You ignored her years of political career fighting for policies that could have moved our country forward.

You are doing the same thing again if you demonize Warren for a mistake she has apologized for. If she could, she would not do what she did years ago. But what she did was a mistake and not fraud. What did not use her political position to enmass wealth, she worked very hard to put protections for working class people. She is disliked because wealthy people are putting enormous amount of money against her. She is for income equality, campaign finance reform, medicare for all and accessible education. Can you imagine what kind of force she is against? If you are joining hand with right-wingers to demonize her, shame on you!

Anonymous wrote:In the era when the president and his associate lie about everything from his weight to his possible conspiracy to steal a presidential election, I am amazed voters/media hounding Warren for her mistaken identity issues years ago? What's up people. This is a rehash of the "but her emails"...

When will we start accepting imperfect, but great leaders? She is human, she did some mistake (did not defraud anyone). Can we move on?

She has some excellent idea to take the country in the right direction. Let us focus on her policy positions, arguments to justify those and ideas to implement those. Stop doing the same mistake we did in 2016 to demonize a great candidate for a small mistake, while giving a totally reprehensible candidate a free pass.

Is this what happened in 2016? I don't think democrats gave Trump a pass. We've all been convulsing in apoplectic rage since election night.

And I don't think HRC was a great candidate, I think we were blind to how unliked she was by how much of America.