Red Mosquito

B wrote:

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.

tragabigzanda wrote:

B wrote:

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.

I mean, wtf is this?

yeah but is Obama a U.S. citizen?!

E.H. Ruddock wrote:yeah but is Obama a U.S. citizen?!

HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM TERRORIST

BurtReynolds wrote:I mean, wtf is this?

this airbnb stuff is pissing me off

Will Tom Brady ever get old?

BurtReynolds wrote:I mean, wtf is this?

Did you actually read this before you posted it?

It is pretty absurd for it to be placed as an A1 story.

Judging from today's reaction, I'd say putting it on A1 was a very good call.

run2death wrote:
Did you actually read this before you posted it?

Most people don't read past the headline. or the subheadline. Or click through to the article. They know this.

BurtReynolds wrote:I mean, wtf is this?

I like to pretend that that ticker tape parade is being thrown in response to the Warren test results.

tragabigzanda wrote:can someone explain to me the history of the face used for that account? have seen it a ton but don't get the joke

That's her face. She's a comedian I think