McParadigm wrote:A much better argument would be that she made the claim prior to actually investigating it, and the accuracy of it is inconsequential to whether or not she was factually certain of its accuracy at the time.
The rush instead to borrow the language of racial purity is...a bummer.
If your parents said you had ____ ancestry your whole life, would you think twice before putting it on a form? It's not like she called a press conference. People dug through her employment paperwork to find this "claim."
The purpose of a political attack is to be a political attack. Full stop.
So, if one is determined to make an attack of claimed ancestry on a form (which I think is already a stupid mistake, as it really only drums up the racist vote and is completely unrelated to any actual politics of the person being attacked), then I would say that the “She didn’t actually care if it was true” angle is superior to the one that heavily borrows from the language of racial purity.
cutuphalfdead wrote:So all these newspapers should have editorialized the story by saying that despite actually having some Native American ancestry, she shouldn't claim it?
you think CNN should bury the little detail (about it being 6 to 10 generations ago) 10 paragraphs in and below the line while the headline reads "strong evidence of Native American ancestry"? On a web page with multiple editorials defending her or attacking Trump over it?
Come the fuck on.
And this practice of mixing editorials with news articles on the front pages has never set right with me. Even if they are clearly marked (which they often aren't). The tactic is obvious. But at least it shows the biases I suppose.
B wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:She's as native American as the Cleveland Indians. 6 to 10 generations ago does not make you a native, you insane clowns. The issue is of course overblown, but she obviously was a fraud to claim it. Obviously.
What is the correct number of generations one may go back to claim ancestry?
Not around 8, that's for sure.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Mon October 15, 2018 8:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
McParadigm wrote:A much better argument would be that she made the claim prior to actually investigating it, and the accuracy of it is inconsequential to whether or not she was factually certain of its accuracy at the time.
The rush instead to borrow the language of racial purity is...a bummer.
If your parents said you had ____ ancestry your whole life, would you think twice before putting it on a form? It's not like she called a press conference. People dug through her employment paperwork to find this "claim."
Right, but she's also been on the defense for this for way too long. People who are pissed about any semblance -- real or imagine -- of her claiming to have somehow experienced the culture have a valid gripe, as the media has spun this so far beyond what really transpired. She's playing it for headlines now too.
She should have withheld the results and told Trump she'd release them if/when he releases his tax returns.
