A.M. Links: Navajo Code Talkers Condemn Trump for 'Pocahontas' Remark, Second Ex-Staffer Accuses Conyers of Sexual Harassment, Alfa Romeo Giulia Named 'Car of the Year'

|

  • Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

    President Donald Trump will meet with congressional leaders today to see if an agreement can be reached on a spending bill.

  • A second former staffer has accused Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) of sexual harassment.
  • "Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II."
  • Senate Republicans remain divided on the GOP tax bill.
  • Motor Trend magazine has named the Alfa Romeo Giulia as its "car of the year."
  • "Pope Francis left out any specific mention of the embattled Muslim Rohingya community during his keynote speech in Myanmar on Tuesday. Human-rights groups were eagerly awaiting the talk and had urged the pope to use the term as a show of support for the community, which is being targeted in what the U.N. has called a 'human-rights nightmare' amid reported ethnic cleansing."

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Harvey Weinstein Sued for Sex Trafficking by British Actress Kadian Noble

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator…

    The Indians knew what they were getting when they elected Trump.

    1. What about the codebreakers themselves? What do they think?

      1. They released a statement, but, well, you know…

        1. THIS is why I continue to read the comments here.

        2. “They released a statement, but, well, you know…”

          According to the statement, ” they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator”.

          If you are dumbfounded by Trump making an outrageous political comment, then you haven’t been paying attention for the last 2 years.

          1. show me a politician who does not use public events for political purposes. but in this case its TRUMP the orange headed monster, run and hide …..

            1. Also, the link is to an article in Time magazine, so consider the source. How many times did the put Obama on the cover?

    2. Hello.

      Alfa Romeo is legend.

      1. Fun Fact: Alfa Romeo built fascist fighter engines for Italy in WWII.

        I wonder if any Italian leader will have to meet Trump under a portrait of FDR.

        1. That company is FILLED with fun facts.

        2. How was an engine fascist? Did they edpouse a blood and soil ideology?

          1. Probably was a typo. They built fascia engines that were made from human connective fibers.

            Though, same room as fascist.

          2. No. The engines fought fascism.

          3. The engine ran on time!

        3. Did those planes have check engine lights and limp modes?

  2. …demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II.

    He didn’t think they could break the code on Fauxahontas.

    1. Does his jab really *demean* their work? Maybe it dennismeans it.

      1. I don’t see how it does.

        It was a really stupid and inappropriate thing to say in that context, but making fun of someone for claiming unverifiable Indian ancestry is no comment one way or another on what the Navajo code guys did.

        1. It brought politics into an occasion that was about as apolitical as it gets.

          1. Yeah. It’s just impossible for him not to be an asshole.

            1. That’s Mr. Asshole if you don’t mind.

          2. all government appearances are political events its just in this case its TRUMP run etc….

          3. “…about as apolitical as it gets.”

            Yeah, because bringing a select group of people to the White House to honor based solely on them being American Indian veterans, had no political over tones. FFS

            Yeah, how dare Trump call out someone who used fraudulent Indian ancestry for her own selfish furtherance and who arguably brings dishonor upon Indians by association. Trump was just standing up for the Indian brand and did not want to see it tarnished. FFS you act like Trump was wearing a Cleveland Indians jersey.

            1. based solely on them being American Indian veterans

              I think there was also the significant and important contribution they made to the war effort.

              1. Agreed but you missed my point which was that it was in no way an apolitical event.

                Trump said, “I just want to thank you because you are very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here,” Trump said. “Although, we have a representative in Congress who has been here a long time ? longer than you ? they call her Pocahontas!”

                He then turned to one of the code talkers behind him, put his left hand on the man’s shoulder and said: “But you know what, I like you. You are special people.”

                And Trump had the audacity to say that in front of Jackson’s portrait. Trump also told them to endeavor to persevere. What an Indian hater.

    2. The internet is ablaze with outrage that he called her “pocahontas”. I think they misheard him.

      1. I heard, ” I want to poke that highness”.

  3. Trump will meet with congressional leaders today to see if an agreement can be reached on a spending bill.

    “Fuck you, cut spending”?

    1. The hope of seeing that as a Trump tweet is what gets me up in the morning.

      1. Unfortunately, he’s not that kind of messiah.

      2. “…a Trump tweet is what gets me up in the morning.”

        Sex gets me up in the morning. To each his own.

  4. Senate Republicans remain divided on the GOP tax bill.

    Half want it to fail by never getting to a vote, while half want it to fail on the vote.

  5. Motor Trend magazine has named the Alfa Romeo Giulia as its “car of the year.”

    If it’s not an SUV no one cares.

    1. It’s not a 65 GTO so I don’t care.

    2. It Italian so it will only last a year

    3. Has that car ever completed a magazine test without throwing a check engine light?

      Car and Driver claims to have a code reader dedicated for use during Giulia test drives.

  6. A second former staffer has accused Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) of sexual harassment.

    But he did it iconically.

    1. Yep. Perhaps Pelosi will erect a monument to this member of congress.

      1. Obligatory obelisk.

        1. Wasn’t that your nickname in college?

          1. Yes, and my scrotum was the Plinth of Doom.

            That B.S degree was the best 7.5 years of my life.

            1. Ha! It only took me six years.

  7. “Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II.”

    The worst part is, he just called her Pocahontas instead of Fauxcahontas. It was a real missed opportunity.

    1. The best part is that this all took place in front of the portrait of Andrew Jackson.

      1. I didn’t realize that Pocahontas was Navajo or that the Navajo were Cherokee. Or is it just that all them redskins are just alike? If Trump meets with a Chinese delegation in front of a portrait of Truman, will they get offended because Truman dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

        1. Pocahontas was Powhatan, an Algonquian tribe. The Cherokee are an Iroquoian tribe.

          1. And what the hell is Warren pretending to be? New Delhi-an?

            1. Brahmin. Or Algonquin.

            2. She was born in the US, so she checked the “Native American” box on her application.

              1. Better to be a Native American than a Native American’t.

          2. Iroquois: Thus the word according to Bakker is translatable as “the killer people,” and is similar to other terms used by Eastern Algonquian tribes to refer to the Iroquois which translate as “murderers”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

            1. “Cherokee” is a Creek word that means, roughly, “people who hide in caves.” The word “Cherokee” is not actually pronounceable in the Cherokee language, which has no ch- or r- sound.

              Most Indian tribes are now known by whatever their nearest neighbors/rivals called them.

        2. If Trump meets with a Chinese delegation in front of a portrait of Truman, will they get offended because Truman dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

          I strongly suspect Trudeau or Macron would acquiesce on this point.

        3. Fun fact: The name Comanche is derived from a Ute word meaning “anyone who wants to fight me all the time.”

          1. Did you say ‘Ute’?

      2. Democrats should be proud of their founder.

    2. And not for the first time.

  8. Cokie Roberts: “Every female in the press corps knew to avoid getting on an elevator with John Conyers.

    And yet every female in the press corps also decided to keep it a secret for all these years. Gee willikers, I wonder why that could possibly be.

    1. Just to piss you off, Simple Mikey.

      1. Nope, that’s not it. The reason is because they’re all a bunch of liberal douchenozzles like you.

        1. That’s a D- burn, Simple Mikey. Maybe you could have tried harder?

    2. Icont imagine why.

    3. Well I know not to get into an elevator with Crusty but I don’t have specific knowledge to write/air a story about him.

      1. Yeah, you just “know” it without being able to “prove it.” Journalists have been protecting their own with that trope for ages.

    4. Just like sports writers during the steroid era. I still blow a gasket whenever I hear guys like Wilbon and Costas make fun of bloggers when it was bloggers and a pair of investigative journalists that blew that scandal open while the ‘privileged gatekeepers’ were too busy cozying up with athletes to protect their access to bother to do their fucken jobs.

      That was a permanent black stain for me and part of the reason why I listen to them with a huge grain of salt. You fail to report on something everyone knew was happening?

      Not only that, then people like Wilbon pick and choose when they’re gonna act all indignant. His favourite is to harp on race.

      They can all suck my balls.

      1. “They can all suck my balls”

        is a very strong contender for my epitaph.

        1. Females only.

          1. That was a quick reply before Crusty got in there.

            Maybe he was donating $10,000+ to Reason. Those chumps would never believe what Crusty would demand for that kind of donation.

      2. Wilbon also loves taxing other people. He thought it was perfectly reasonable for a golfer living in California to pay a total of $20 million on $40 million gross income.

    5. Wait, so journalists should have published stories including nothing but vague rumors about John Conyers? Is that your standard now?

      1. No, they should have done a little digging and turned the vague rumors into facts, whatever those turned out to be, and then published those facts, if they were newsworthy.

        1. Or they could get on the fcking elevator and report the outcome.

  9. Pope Francis left out any specific mention of the embattled Muslim Rohingya community during his keynote speech in Myanmar on Tuesday.

    Maybe he heard the Rohingya were free market.

  10. Motor Trend magazine has named the Alfa Romeo Giulia as its “car of the year.”

    It must have agreed to do the interview.

    1. Caio!

    2. I devoured issues of Road & Track and Car and Driver in my mid-teens (a long time ago) but not Motortrend. For a long time their car of the year award was only for domestic makes. Guess that changed.

      1. I used to Read Road and Track and they would always trash American cars over Euro cars so I quit reading after the chevy ran full laps at a race Track while the porsche never completed a lap but they still loved the porsche over the chevy. that wasn’t them first time either

  11. Senate Republicans remain divided on the GOP tax bill.

    WEIRD, WHEN I’M SURE THEY’LL ULTIMATELY AGREE ON MULTIPLYING spending.

    1. This is a good Mike Huckabee type joke.

  12. dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II

    Eventually, he will beat these sensibilities out of us.

  13. Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded…

    What did the codetalkers themselves say? It’s good, though, that we’re talking about Warren’s cultural appropriation again, I suppose.

    1. Except we’re not. The media doesn’t even explain why Trump uses that insult, and Warren is actually fundraising off of it.

      1. Is she still claiming that critics are attacking her mom?

        That was her defense when this first came up.

  14. A second former staffer has accused Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) of sexual harassment.

    I can’t wait until shreek gets here and gives us all the True Libertarian take on how due process is important and nobody should rush to judgment on Democrats ever.

    1. The House should expel Conyers if I understand his settlement and $27,000 payoff correctly.

      1. The House should expel itself if I understand the settlement and payoff correctly.

  15. “It’s not going to be easy,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah said Monday. “This is going to be a tough, tough time.”

    “Dealing with all those square-yard-sized postcards so we can meet our promise to the American people will involve major changes to the USPS.”

  16. I have constant diarrhea! I am so offended at the racial slur used by the Literal TrumpkenHitler!

  17. White House Weighs Personal Mobile Phone Ban for Staff

    … raising concerns among some staffers including that they’ll be cut off from family and friends

    Just tweet from your desktop, the way God intended.

    1. The White House may ban its employees from using personal mobile phones while at work, raising concerns among some staffers including that they’ll be cut off from family and friends, according to seven administration officials.

      First sentence of the article. You work in a secure area with sensitive information, you’re goddamn right you can’t bring a camera/microphone into work with you.

      1. I’m stunned they are allowed to do so. I know drones in several agencies have strict limitations on what kind of devices they can use (they still make some non-camera phones solely because government employees in some departments have to have them). That should’ve been nixed years ago.

  18. But are Native Americans upset Warren claimed to be Cherokee?

    1. Probably depends on whether they like Warren or not.

      1. Depends whether she is trying to get a taste of their casino dollars.

    2. Are they upset? Damn right. They’re on the Warren Path.

  19. Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded …

    Good thing Trump didn’t greet the code talkers by chanting “Howya doin’? Howya down’?”

  20. Actor Billy Baldwin says President Trump hit on his wife during party at upscale Manhattan hotel

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.3653452

    See, a real sexual predator does not jerk off into a potted plant.

    1. “When Trump realized it wasn’t a raging Hollywood party with strippers hanging from the roof, he left with his tail between his legs,” the source said.

      *** facepalm ***

    2. He must have just forgotten about that during the election or maybe didn’t mention it out of kindness.

      1. In fairness, I’m still not sure I’ve parsed, “Hey, let’s go ride in my helicopter. No? Ok, I’ll go then.” to an actual sexual assault, mild harassment, or anything else above anecdotal annoyance. It sounds more like something from an episode of Bob Newhart*.

        *I was gonna say Three’s Company but even that seems more risque than this.

        1. Please, please. Never compare Trump to something as pure and good as Bob Newhart.

          1. Fair enough. Murphy Brown it is.

      2. Maybe he tried to bring it up, but nobody had time to listen to a third-tier Baldwin back then.

        1. Possible. But I think accusing Trump of harassing his wife would have got him back up to the first tier.

    3. “Well, when the charge has something to do with somebody’s private sex life, I would prefer not to run any of it.” -Dan Rather on Bill Clinton

      “My hope is, and I see some signs, that this may be a signal moment. A change, if you will, in the culture of the country, where women are able to speak up and do speak up more.” -Dan Rather on Charlie Rose

      Evolution, ladies and gentlemen.

    4. Billy Baldwin?

      Fuck, Trump probably fucked her anally and finished in her mouth and then made her kiss Billy afterwards.

      1. Medic!

  21. I don’t see how ridiculing a white woman who made her career falsely claiming to be an Indian is disrespectful to Indians. Funny how no one in the media has actually talked to any of the code talkers who were there. I am thinking that if any of them were offended, the media would have them on TV by now. My guess is that they thought it was a funny joke because it is.

    Beyond that, Trump just killed Warran’s career. The media should have not taken the bait and said nothing. Every time they talk about this, people hear “Warren fake Indian”. This is going to stick to her like “low energy” stuck to Jeb. She is done. And they are not hurting Trump since the only people angry about this wouldn’t vote for him anyway. The whole thing is just another example of Trump understanding the media and manipulating them to destroy his enemies.

    1. If you listened carefully, Trump said that we have a “representative” who we call Pocahontas. If Warren had half a brain, her simple response when asked about it should have been, “He can’t have meant me. I’m a senator, not a representative,” and moved on. Instead she created a Streisand Effect moment by further publicizing the comment.

      1. That is a good point. He never said her name. She could have just played it off as “I have no idea what he is talking about” and that would have been the end of it. Trump seems to have an almost magical power over these people. They seem to be totally unable to resist his manipulations. At this point, it is getting beyond even uncanny.

        1. The value of Trump is that his crass, brutal thoughtlessness makes the dysfunctions inherent in political power almost impossible to ignore.

          The curse of Trump is that his vocal opponents seem entirely hell-bent on clinging to that “almost.”

          1. Well said.

          2. His approach seems to be to say things that ordinary people would say but that the courtly manners of the Washington Media and political class say you shouldn’t say. The media and political class are so attached to their system of manners that they feel compelled to attack him for breaching the rules of manners. Since what he said was true and something ordinary people would say, the media and political establishment ends up defending or highlighting the indefensible in the name of defending their system of manners.

            That is I think a large part of what is going on. If you ever notice, his critics on the Right rarely seem to have any actual objection to his policies are actions. It is almost always some version of “how dare he!!”. Trump understands how shallow and attached to form over substance these people are and manipulates the living hell out of all of them with that knowledge.

            1. Normal people aren’t demented racist assholes. I know this may come as a shock to you.

              1. Yes Tony, no one on here ever claimed that you were normal.

              2. “Normal people aren’t demented racist assholes.”

                That doesn’t square with the meme that America is full of racist assholes.

              3. Please explain normal people to me, homosexual.

                1. You can say faggot, I’m not that sensitive.

                  1. Sorry, but I’m not here to turn you on, and I know you love that.

              4. See? Rather than critiquing the long-term structures and trends that made him (or someone like him) both undesirable and inevitable, or even his actual actions in office (many of which have been pretty bad), Tony attacks Trump’s presentation using unsubstantiated, emotionally overblown claims of racism*. The Tonys of the world do not have the intellectual tools to fight Trump** without making themselves and everyone associated with them look foolish at best and hypocritical at worst, and the Tonys of the world are loud.

                *I’ll concede that Trump is an asshole, possibly a demented one.
                **Which is a sad state of affairs indeed!

                1. I have yet to see any reason why I should care that Trump is an asshole, provided I approve of his actions in office, which I largely do. I voted for him to be President, not Pope or my son in law. The only reason people like Tony and others on both sides are so concerned about the “character” of their politicians is that they are partisan assholes who view politics as a means to achieve self-esteem and thus consider feeling good about the people they support to be essential. I don’t. I don’t give a shit what kind of person a politician is. They are elected to do a job and should be judged on how well they do that job. Their job isn’t to make me feel good about myself for supporting such a wonderful person.

                  1. You wouldn’t approve of what he’s doing to the country if he were a Democrat. You might even be paying some attention to what he’s doing in that case.

                    1. Tony|11.28.17 @ 2:41PM|#
                      You wouldn’t approve of what he’s doing to the country if he were a Democrat. You might even be paying some attention to what he’s doing in that case.

                      Luckily, we never -ever- have to worry about Democrats doing good jobs by reducing government.

                2. It’s just more politics as style over substance.

                  People are more concerned over Trumps mockery of a fake Indian, than the fact that a white woman claims (without evidence) that she is Indian.

                  I also recall people being more upset about Trump’s comments about Charlottesville, VA than the actual violence.

              5. Yes, they are. Otherwise Democrats would never win an election.

    2. I read this morning that perhaps Warren should apologize. But even if she decided that it would be in her best interest to do so, she’ll have to wait for a period of time where Trump doesn’t mention it or it will look like Trump forced her to do it. She’s in a tough spot.

      1. Her problem is that her entire career is a fraud. She went to Rutgers law school, didn’t clerk for a judge and somehow ended up in a tenure-track position at Harvard. There are people who graduated top of their class at top law schools who clerked for Supreme Court Justices who cannot get a tenure-track position at Harvard. Barrack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law review and ended up an adjunct at the University of Chicago. And Lizzie Warren got a tenured job at Harvard how?

        She claimed to be an Indian and they hired her because she checked two blocks on the affirmative action bingo card. There is no getting around that. If she apologizes, she has to then also admit and apologize for taking a spot from someone who actually is an Indian. And I don’t’ see how she does that and stays in politics much less runs for President.

        1. Just because you do not like her politics does not mean she was not (perhaps) deserving of her spot at Harvard. Maybe she is just a good teacher or she did some good work at Rutgers? Her wikipedia article said she was cited a ton. In fact it is nice to see a non-Ivy teaching at Harvard.

          There are a lot of things we do not know and it seems hard to speculate why or why not she was hired when we are not privy to a tremendous amount of information. Why can’t we just stick to things we do know and saying she is an unrepentant proto-socialist and bashing her for that?

          1. The fact that she wasn’t deserving has nothing to do with her politics. And it requires no speculation at all. I am a lawyer and know plenty of people who are both adjuncts and tenured track profs. And no one gets a job teaching as anything but an adjunct without a top ten degree and a federal clerkship. That is how the system works and how it has always worked. The idea that Warren could graduate from Rutgers and walk into a tenure job at Penn without claiming to be a Native American is absurd. It just is. She could be a die hard conservative and that would still be true.

            You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about here and are attributing it to politics because you are to ignorant to understand what it happening.

            1. If you are going to call someone ignorant it is probably a good idea to use the correct “too” in the word right before ignorant in the future 🙂

        2. somehow ended up in a tenure-track position at Harvard

          Uh no she didn’t. She was a visiting professor at Havard for one year, after 15 years as an academic at other institutions.

          Barrack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law review and ended up an adjunct at the University of Chicago.

          Yeah, it’s funny how someone with 15 years experience can get a better job than someone fresh out of law school.

          1. Those other institutions were Penn. Rutgers wasn’t even a top 50 law school when she graduated there. And she ended up with a job at Penn. There is no fucking way she did anythign to merit that. Law is the most provential credentialist profession known to man. No one who graduates Rutgers gets a tenure job period let alone at a place like Penn unless it is due to affirmative action.

            1. Not, after graduating from Rutgers, she got a job as an adjunct at Rutgers.

              After two years there, she got a job at University of Houston for five year. She got tenure after three years there and eventually became an associate Dean

              She then went to work at University of Texas Laws school for six years, during which she spent time as a visiting professor at University of Texas Austin and University of Michigan.

              THEN, after 12 years as an academic and seven years as a tenured professor, she finally got a job at University of Penn.

              1. Other than being an adjunct at Rutgers without claiming to be an Indian she never would have gotten any of those jobs. There are few better paid and more cush jobs than a tenured law professor. Every year hundreds of people graduate with better credentials than Warren. And the few people who get the tenured jobs available, rarely change schools much less move up the academic ladder the way she did.

                Legal academia is about credentials. Even no shit big time lawyers who have tremendously successful careers do not walk into jobs at places like Houston let alone Harvard. She is a fraud. She didn’t lie and claim to be an Indian for fun. She did it because it caused her to check off two blocks on the Affirmative Action bingo card and allowed her to get ahead in academia.

                It is what it is. It had nothing to do with politics. it is the truth.

              2. You claiming Warren’s holding herself out as an Indian had nothing to do with her getting those positions is as dumb as claiming that George Bush being a Bush had nothing to do with him getting into the Harvard Business school. Some things are just true even though they don’t fit your political narrative.

                1. John, using Stormy Dragon’s logic, Chelsea Clinton’s NBC job was due solely to her engaging and dynamic personality. She had to have deserved it.

    3. This. They’re so myopic and stupid that they can’t see how this is going to become a “she’s a phony Indian” story.

      Because seeing that would require objectivity and foresight.

      1. Just like all those other times it became that story.

        1. Actually, it’s precisely because it wasn’t made much of a story before, that it can be made one now.

          “Gee? What’s Trump doing with the Native American slurs? Explain yourself, Trump! Oh, she… what? Why am I hearing this now? That can’t be true….Wha?”

          It’s basically that.

          Way to go, consistent media!

          1. I don’t see why this is notably different than the other times. It can be the story this time. But it won’t.

            If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Warren in 2020 against Trump, it will have to be addressed. Until then, they’re racist-sounding slurs against that one senator some of the kids like. It certainly doesn’t help that Trump seems to only repeat the inside joke, rather than actually saying that she’s a liar or a fraud. That would motivate explanations and investigations by newsfolk.

            1. “It certainly doesn’t help that Trump seems to only repeat the inside joke, rather than actually saying that she’s a liar or a fraud. That would motivate explanations and investigations by newsfolk.”

              All I’m saying is that every time someone in the media sticks a microphone in someone’s face and demands they explain Trump’s “Native American slur”, is an opportunity for exactly what you just said.

              We’ll see how that pans out.

              1. It’s seventh-dimension chess! Scott Adams said so! It’s a brilliant tactical move, as opposed to what it appears to be, a narcissistic blowhard turning an apolitical event honoring veterans into an IT’S ALL ABOUT ME ME ME ME ME ME ME moment

                1. Clearly, this will all stop working for Trump any day now, and then we can all finally have the Hillary we deserve.

            2. It won’t matter in 2020. White lefties will vote “first woman” no matter what. Conservatives already weren’t going to vote for her. “Fauxcahontas” won’t generate GOP turnout.

              The only issue is whether gaming the affirmative action system will depress the black vote. But they already seem to not like voting for white women.

    4. It was a bad time to bring up the subject, but it wasn’t racist.

      Trump can certainly be accused of being tone deaf on this.

      If progressives jump on this faux pas too hard, they’re begging to have the question of Liz Warren’s fake heritage opened up all over again.

      Liz Warren has still refused to meet with the Cherokee to explain herself. It is a fact that Liz Warren claimed to be Cherokee–and there is no evidence that she actually is Cherokee.

      Here’s the Washington Post on the facts:

      https://tinyurl.com/y9jo4vyf

      They’re slanted in as pro-Liz Warren a way as possible, and they still point out that there is no evidence that she has any Native American heritage whatsoever–despite the fact that she repeatedly identified herself as Cherokee.

      In 2020, no one will be thinking about whose toes Trump stepped on back in November of 2017, but if Liz Warren becomes the Democrat nominee in 2020, it won’t just be the progressives of Massachusetts she needs to impress with her explanation of why she claimed to be a minority.

      1. Trump lies about being a good businessman but nevertheless got a lifetime of affirmative action from daddy’s “small loan” (and inheritance). Also that was an extremely, extremely racist and embarrassing moment. Why do you even bother? There aren’t even any Republicans who actually defend this lunatic except a few trained monkeys on FOX News.

        And the fact that the mouth breathing cousinfuckers of the political world can’t let go of the Pocahontas things should actually worry you should Warren become the nominee, because it makes it seem like that’s all you idiots have on her.

        1. I’m sure this will finally destroy Trump.

        2. I don’t know what Trump’s daddy has to do with anything, but Liz Warren may have taken a spot from a real Native American by lying about her heritage.

          Are you familiar with the Trail of Tears? I’m reading that some 4,000 Cherokee died on the death march to Oklahoma. It was an act of ethnic cleansing.

          Liz Warren took advantage of our collective guilt over that, and the Cherokee, apparently, aren’t happy about it. She refuses to even meet with Cherokee representatives to explain herself or to even listen to their comments and questions.

          That’s what she did. That’s who she is. Read about it at the Washington Post article I linked above. If and when Liz Warren wins the Democrat nomination, she’ll need to make a full accounting of her actions.

          1. Trump learned business from his dad and leveraged dad’s business and money to build a real estate empire far larger than anything his dad ever did.

            Isn’t that what you hope your children do?

            Some of his deals failed. No shit. That’s how real estate development works.

          2. I’m above my limit for Post articles this month, but Snopes has the claim as unverified I believe, with a direct quote from the person responsible for her admissions saying that her racial heritage had nothing to do with anything.

            1. Oh, well, Tony, if you claim to have read something somewhere without even a link to it, then I guess the science is settled.

        3. “extremely racist ”

          1. A white woman claims (without evidence) to be Indian
          2. People mock the white woman claiming to be Indian.

          yet somehow, you think #2 is the racist part.

      2. ” there is no evidence that she has any Native American heritage whatsoever–despite the fact that she repeatedly identified herself as Cherokee.”

        By 2020, ‘identifying’ as a Cherokee will equal being a Cherokee.

        1. If she exploited a genocide for her own personal gain by falsely claiming minority status, . . .

          It’s a bit like making money by falsely claiming to be an Auschwitz survivor–and then asking for people’s support to be president because she represents the interests of minorities.

          It’s a “pussy-grabbing” kind of thing. If she’s elected, it’ll be in spite that. I mean, Trump wasn’t claiming to be the candidate for feminists. What he was caught on tape saying was consistent with being the champion of the politically incorrect.

          Liz Warren wants to represent minorities by way of the White House. Maybe that flies in Massachusetts, but in Michigan, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida, maybe not so much. To beat Trump, she’ll need to carry the swing vote in those states, and I’m not sure she’ll be able to find enough fake minorities to carry them–even if she wins the nomination because of California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

          1. Being a fake Indian won’t play well here in AZ. The attack ads pretty much write themselves.

    5. I wish you were right, but I doubt it. For Warran to be done she’d have to have shame.

  22. Once again, Reason is silent on the latest Project Veritas bombshell

    But who could have possibly foreseen that a plan to undermine and discredit sexual assault victims by fabricating a rape could backfire?

    1. Welchie Boy and his gang of Professional Fake Libertarians despise O’Keefe with a passion.

      Me, I love the dude like the brother I never had.

      1. Fact: Simple Mikey’s twin absorbed him in utero.

    2. I don’t see how thinking the Post wouldn’t fact check a story that told them what they wanted to hear was a bad bet. Good for the Post they tried to verify the story and didn’t just print it. I don’t really see why that says anything bad about Veritas. I don’t see what is wrong with what they did. It only would have hurt the Post if they had been dishonest and not done their job. Since they did do their job, it is a non story. I really have no problem with Veritas or anyone else going out and seeing if major newspapers check their facts before they print something. Indeed, the threat of the person in front of you being some Veritas sting operation should serve as a real incentive for news organizations to do their jobs and make sure something is true before printing it. I really don’t see how that is a bad thing or why people would complain about it.

      1. I don’t see what is wrong with what they did.

        It’s pretty obvious to anyone whose moral compass isn’t hopelessly warped by blind partisanship that it’s the “fabricating a rape to push a political agenda” part that’s wrong.

        1. They told the Post a lie to see if the Post would report it. The entire point was that the rape didn’t happen and to reveal that much as soon as the Post bought the story. It is not like they planned to actually slander someone or try to get an innocent person thrown in jail. Saying they “fabricated a rape” makes it sound like they did it to harm an innocent person. And that is not what happened here. There was never any intention or possibility of anyone being falsely accused of a rape. The whole point was to see if the Post was sloppy and partisan enough to believe a lie they wanted to hear.

          And I am not partisan about this at all. If liberals want to start trolling Fox News and Breitbart with tales of how some Democrat raped them to see if they will publish it, I say go for it. Every news organization should have to check its facts before printing them and the more afraid they are of getting something wrong, the better off everyone is.

          1. Saying they “fabricated a rape” makes it sound like they did it to harm an innocent person. And that is not what happened here.

            I don’t know if you actually don’t get it or are playing dumb, but here goes: why did they hope the Post would take the bait? Was it not because they hoped to turn around and say, “the Post believed our outrageous lies, so these other women who have accused Moore must also be liars”? To open these women up to further harassment and humiliation? And you’re gonna sit there and tell me no one innocent was going to be hurt by this ploy?

            1. I don’t know if you actually don’t get it or are playing dumb, but here goes: why did they hope the Post would take the bait? Was it not because they hoped to turn around and say, “the Post believed our outrageous lies, so these other women who have accused Moore must also be liars”?

              Sure. And that is a valid point. If it were true that the Post will believe and print anything, that would make the stories they have printed much more questionable. You, being exactly the kind of partisan you accuse me of being, assume those women are telling the truth when that is the entire question and hardly settled.

              To open these women up to further harassment and humiliation?

              I don’t see how these women are being harassed or humiliated. Some of them seem to have some real problems with their credibility and their accusations. If you want to accuse someone of sexual assault and statutory rape, you better be telling the truth and you better be prepared to explain yourself. Those are serious charges and the danger of innocent people being slandered with them is real. Are you such a partisan idiot that you forget every idea of fairness and truth-seeking whenever you don’t like the accused’s politics?

              I don’t care what Roy Moore’s politics are. He could be a fucking Marxist for all I care. No one deserves to be slandered or have every accuser of them automatically believed without any inquiry into the truthfulness of their statement.

              1. Your argument rests on the implied premise that it was impossible to trust the thoroughness of the Post’s reporting until O’Keefe tried to con them, which is false. Their reporting was robust enough to be credible to anyone paying attention; this stuff is actually not that hard to suss out.

                I don’t see how these women are being harassed or humiliated.

                Pay better attention then. I imagine they aren’t reporting that part much on Fox.

                1. Your argument rests on the implied premise that it was impossible to trust the thoroughness of the Post’s reporting until O’Keefe tried to con them,

                  Given the Post’s record and its long-standing reputation as Provada on the Potomac, I would say that is true. The Post has been taken in in the past by stories that fit its narrative. As recently as last summer the Post breathlessly reported how the Russians hacked into the power grid, only to quietly rewrite the story after it turned out to be a complete lie.

                  http://www.forbes.com/forbes/w…..oogle.com/

                  Then there is this

                  http://thefederalist.com/2017/…..e-bashing/

                  Google Washington Post lies and you will find dozens of examples of the Post printing outright lies or unverified stories as factual only later to retract or redact the stories.

                2. And even if it is possible to trust the Post, why does that making checking to see if that is still true a bad thing?

                  1. OJ may have gotten away with murder because the police tried to frame a guilty man.

                    If someone tried to frame the Washington Post in one case, that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t guilty in others.

                    1. Sure. My only point is that they can act better and catch people in actual acts of dishonesty rather than attempt base subterfuge such as this.

                    2. Do you know the penalty for trying to frame someone for a capital crime?

            2. Have you forgotten Rolling Stone?

        2. That political agenda being to elect a child molester to the Senate.

          1. And Alabama might very well elect an accused child molester over a Democrat. CNN seems to find this outrageous without ever questioning why it is that a large number of Alabamians seem to prefer child molesters to Democrats. Hint: It’s not that Alabamians have a fondness for child molesters.

            But it’s the same as CNN’s blind spot on Hillary – they just can’t fathom how the hell could anybody have been so ignorant as to have voted for such a fat-headed, loud-mouthed, lying, retarded baboon as Trump. They really can’t see that plenty of people knew full well Trump’s a fat-headed, loud-mouthed, lying, retarded baboon but preferred a fat-headed, loud-mouthed, lying, retarded baboon to Hillary Clinton.

            1. Because they’re morons. In their defense, they were made that way by many years of propaganda so successful that it actually makes them think that a conservative Democrat is worse than a pedophile theocrat. I’ve always said, imagine the good that could be done if Republicans took their skill at convincing idiots to support horrible things and applied it actually toward governing.

              1. No Tony, it is because they know people like you hate their guts and would do real harm to them if they ever had the chance. Basically, people like you are more of a danger than guys who once hit on teenagers for dates. That is hardly a controversial position much less an irrational one.

              2. ^^^The psychological projection in this post is impressive… even by Tony’s (double) standards.

              3. Maybe the criticism of Trump would be more convincing if the same accusations hadn’t been made against Mitt Romney.

      2. Exactly! I find The Washington Post’s reporting on this far more credible now. At least they do some basic fact checking.

        It also makes me think less of all the news sources that have been bamboozled by Project Veritas in the past. It doesn’t appear to be very hard to determine the credibility of a source, if you are actually trying.

        1. I agree. And like I said above, if liberals want to start trolling Breitbart and Fox News, they should absolutely do so. No honest news organization is going to be harmed by this stuff and I fail to see how harming the dishonest ones is a bad thing.

          1. The audience of FOX and Breitbart couldn’t give two shits about proper standards of journalism or objective reality itself.

      3. I don’t really see why that says anything bad about Veritas. I don’t see what is wrong with what they did.

        Of course you don’t, John. Of course you don’t.

        1. And of course, you don’t bother to explain why it was wrong. You don’t’ do that because you can’t explain why and know if you tried, I would tear it apart. So you just pretend it is obvious and hope no one notices. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way.

          But thanks for showing you don’t have the guts to even try to refute my point. I guess I have finally beaten you into a bit of submission.

    3. I must say, I do resent only now hearing about his attempted ‘sting’ on George Soros, where O’Keefe forgot to hang up his phone and left a 10-minute voicemail message of he and his staff going over the plan.

    4. Wow those Veritas guys are some real bush league goofers. Pretty pathetic.

      Should have their charity status stripped, those guys are just straight misinformation artists.

  23. “Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II.”

    I, for one, am not dumbfounded and I find the situation amusing. Also, to my knowledge, none of the code talkers were Algonquian. So get over it. And it’s not like the Navajo and Algonquians wouldn’t have tried to scalp each other if given the opportunity.

  24. Motor Trend magazine has named the Alfa Romeo Giulia as its “car of the year.”

    Terrible name for an ugly car.

  25. Is it that Trump’s hands are tiny, or that his head and clothes are so oversized?

    1. Both/and.

      Plus side: tiny hands make Melania’s breasts look YUGE.

  26. One question I do have: does Elizabeth Warren actually have native american heritage or not?

    I could certainly see her making it up to get minority credit, but on the other hand most of the criticism I see seems to basically be “she can’t have native american heritage, she looks too white!”

    Has anyone actually figured out her genealogy one way or the other?

    1. Nobody can point to any evidence of Native American ancestry in her history. It’d be impossible to prove she wasn’t (proving a negative and all), but there is literally zero evidence that she is one. Even birth records of her ancestors don’t indicate any.

      1. The thing is that it shouldn’t matter. The problem is affirmative action. You have a system like that and people will game it.

        If she wants to say she’s 1/128th Indian, so what? I think more people should lie and make stuff up about ancestry, just to fuck with the whole identity politics system.

        1. Sure people will game it. And yes affirmative action is wrong. That, however, doesn’t make Warren gaming it any less morally reprehensible. Understand, she didn’t game it to break down the system or to make some statement about it. She gamed it because she wanted to cheat to get ahead. She still claims to believe in affirmative action and happily supports institutions being legally required to follow it. She just doesn’t think the rules should apply to her.

          1. Or she actually believes that she has Indian ancestry. I have no idea.

            I can’t stand Warren, but this is pretty far down on the list of my reasons why.

            1. I don’t care what she believes. If you are going to take advantage of being something, you bear some responsibility to make sure that you actually are what you claim to be. I don’t believe saying “mom always told me I was an Indian”, even if that were true, gets her off the hook. She never looked into it or made any effort to see if that claim was true. She just made it because it was to her advantage.

      2. A DNA test would find it pretty easily.

    2. I think there is family lore and not much else to support the claim.

      But there are plenty of official tribal members that are just as white as she is.

      Whether or not it’s true, it seems like a bit much to claim that her whole career is based on a lie about ancestry.

      1. “Whether or not it’s true, it seems like a bit much to claim that her whole career is based on a lie about ancestry.”

        Yup and this is where the Right just comes off as unhinged nutbags, when they go TOO FAR with the Fauxcahontas thing.

        They can’t stop at “she used phony heritage to get a good job at Harvard”, which may or may not be true. They have to go all the way as “SHE’S A COMPLETE FRAUD”

        1. That is because she is a fraud. She didn’t lie about being an Indian for fun. She did it because she knew it would help her career. Absent that lie, Warren is just another adjunct professor and workaday attorney out helping banks foreclose on mortgages. It is what it is.

          She gamed the system she claims to support for her own advantage. She took jobs that were supposed to go to actual minorities. She is a craven dishonest person. She has your politics, so I understand why you don’t care about that. But, understand that is who she is.

          1. Such sincere concern for the plight of minority aspirants to Harvard, I’m sure.

            1. You don’t have any concern for them or you would be offended by what Warren did. Since you like her politics, you don’t give a flying fuck about them. All you care about is politics. It is a sad way to live but it seems to be all you are capable of doing.

              1. I’m offended by your existence John. What a waste of a decent mind the bullshit rightwing internet has made of you. You sit there and probably in heartfelt sincerity parrot the discredited affirmative action story as if it’s actually newsworthy right now because the presiden’t mouthpiece said for you to believe that. And I’m the one who makes everything about politics.

                1. Of course, you are offended by my existence, Tony. You are a complete idiot. Idiots find those who are not idiots to be offensive.

                  Look you evil little fuck. Warren did what she did. You don’t care about it because you don’t care about anything other than power and are too stupid to know any better even if you did. If you were not such a horrible person, I would feel sorry for you, because ignorant and hateful is no way to go through life.

                  1. Trump testified before Congress that he didn’t think a competitor for a casino deserved to win because they didn’t “look like Indians to me.”

                    Also stop lying about Elizabeth Warren. A single bullshit racist lie is not enough to take her down, so you should try to do better than that.

                    Once again, a Republican does something bad (like touches little girls in the vagina, or makes a horrific racist joke in front of members of that race), and for some reason we’re talking about a Democrat on a completely unrelated subject.

                    But I’m the one who’s a slimy political toad.

                    1. Yes Tony, the answer to Warren being a fraud is “But Trump!!” Thanks for further confirming what a fraud she is.

                    2. Trump testified before Congress that he didn’t think a competitor for a casino deserved to win because they didn’t “look like Indians to me.”

                      AND?

                      You know, there are ways to prove Native status.

                      Warren has failed on that regard, mind you.

                      Also stop lying about Elizabeth Warren. A single bullshit racist lie is not enough to take her down, so you should try to do better than that.

                      Not a word written about her has been a lie here.

                      She went to a meh school. The usual clerkship for judges was not done. She did meh work. Her scholarship was meh. Then, boom, she ends up at Penn. Then she keeps moving UP the ladder. She ends up at Harvard. With tenure. A job that I bet had very, very little competition for it.

                      Yup, total logic.

                      Once again, a Republican does something bad (like touches little girls in the vagina, or makes a horrific racist joke in front of members of that race), and for some reason we’re talking about a Democrat on a completely unrelated subject.

                      Warren was a topic in this piece.

                      Try and keep up.

        2. She lied to get a job, and she’s a politician.

          How much more evidence do you need?

    3. If she wanted to, Lizzie could order up one of those DNA kits from Ancestry ($59.95) and see if there is any native American background. They are pretty good at ferreting out ethnic connections that you didn’t even know you had, and debunking the “we always thought we were Germans” kind of family myths.

      1. Funny how she has never done that. It is like she knows how it will turn out or something.

        1. Or how she won’t meet the tribe who she claims to be a member of and who have asked to meet with her for years now…

      2. Once you go back several generations, it’s quite possible not to have any DNA from an ancestor if there isn’t a direct male or female line of descent.

        1. Warren never lived as an Indian, has no close or even distant relatives who were Indians, was never considered an Indian except when she voluntarily choose to be seen as one and had no contact with Indians, the Indian experience or Indian culture beyond lying about being one. She claimed to be an Indian as a way to get ahead. Even if it were to turn out that five generations ago she had an Indian ancestor that she the DNA test just now revealed to her, it wouldn’t change what she did or in any way excuse it.

          1. I don’t know how much her career has actually been built on her claim of Indian ancestry. If it was as crucial as you seem to think, then I entirely agree.

        2. 10 generations would still leave her with 1/1024 Cherokee DNA. Native American DNA should be sufficiently different from European to identify this.

          However, it’s possible that Cherokee DNA is underrepresented in the control samples and you don’t have the data you need to make a valid statement.

  27. president Trump did not demean the code talkers. he did however take a cue from the democrats who take every opportunity to Trash any Republican. the Dems set the rules and Trump is using them, thats why we like him

    1. He demeaned only himself.

      Seriously, he’s at an event honoring Native American WWII vets and the only thing that popped into his dementia-addled brain is his lame racist Pocahontas joke. That is seriously fucked up in a president. Or a kindergartner.

  28. Many Oklahomans have family lore of Indian ancestry, Sen. Warren and myself included. I thought I was some nonnegligible fraction Native American until just last week when I got my DNA test results back. Turns out that not only are we not Native American in the slightest, we aren’t even Irish, which has been our principal identity.

    I’m not sure how to feel about being nearly 100% British even after being from an early migration to the US with plenty of opportunities to collect different types of genes, and the euphemism “part of a culture of pride in Southern heritage” doesn’t make me feel any better.

    1. Or, you’re adopted.

      1. My paternal grandfather was adopted and has an Irish family name, and there are a lot of drunks in my family, so I think we just assumed it was a happy coincidence.

    2. Many Oklahomans have family lore of Indian ancestry, Sen. Warren and myself included. I thought I was some nonnegligible fraction Native American until just last week when I got my DNA test results back. Turns out that not only are we not Native American in the slightest, we aren’t even Irish, which has been our principal identity.

      We’re supposed to humor lies to make people feel better?

      Well, that does seem to be Progressive theory now.

      But she got very specific benefits for claims that were blatantly false. And she is now whining because, again, she is being called out for taking advantage of her lies.

      1. Pop quiz hotshot. Who said the following:

        “I think I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations.”

        1. “I think I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations.”

          Dunno. Did that person use affirmative action laws to benefit him/herself? You know, stealing a spot from somebody who “deserved” it so that person could get it instead?

          I ask because the person of the topic, Warren, specifically did.

          1. No she didn’t, but Trump grifted his way through his entire life and you’re fine with that, so what gives?

            1. And you refuse to vote for Trump. Okay, then shouldn’t you also refuse to support Warren?

              1. The relevant difference between them, to me, is not how much one claimed to be an Indian more than the other, it’s that one is an insane clownish demented buffoon who’s destroying the country via sheer idiocy and mental illness and the other is a competent human being with genuine concern for public service.

                1. And yet, the economy is growing at 3%, something it didn’t do under the community organizer.

  29. This is likely the real reason that Warren got her academic positions. Her husband.

    Bruce H. Mann, Carl F. Schipper, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, teaches American Legal History, Property, and Trusts and Estates. He has also taught as a visiting or permanent member of the faculty at the law schools of Washington University in St. Louis and the universities of Connecticut, Houston, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and in the history department at Princeton.

    It is not at all unusual for a university to offer a position to the spouse of a highly sought recruit. Of course she can’t admit that.

    1. But a tenure track position? Seems unbelievably unlikely.

      1. It happens all the time in the life sciences. I can’t speak to the law profession.

        And by “all the time” I mean when you have a true star who is married to someone who is adequate but wouldn’t otherwise win the competition for the job.

        So, both sides can claim to be right. She is “qualified” but would never have gotten that job except for her marriage.

        1. But there are a lot fewer “true stars” in the hard sciences than there are in the law. Warren’s husband was qualified to work at Harvard but he wasn’t such a star that it would be worth hiring his wife if she were not an Indian as well. If anything happened, they hired him as a way to get her. Qualified white males are a dime a dozen. Female minorities that are at least arguably qualified are very hard to find and a real prize for law departments. I think you have what happened here backwards.

    2. That is pretty much every school she worked at. Houston, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and then Harvard. As a matter of fact it is every single school except for Rutgers.

      I think we have the more likely answer. It is amazing what more information adds!

      1. A double affirmative action hire is a bigger prize to a law school than some well qualified white guy. So, chances are her husband owes his career to her, not the other way around.

  30. I think John is actually offended by his fake belief in Liz Warren’s alleged but disproven affirmative action bid. That’s what’s so sad about it. I don’t know if he’d be a better person if he were merely being a lying cynic like the greasy toads he gets his news from, but I know he’d be less sad and pathetic.

    1. I have explained repeatedly how someone with Warren’s credentials would never have had a career in academia much less one that ended with a tenured position at Harvard if she had not claimed to be an Indian. And we know she is not an Indian.

      What reason do you have to believe that she is telling the truth other than you like her? You don’t. You are unable to explain why she got those positions if not for affirmative action. Moreover, you know nothing about legal academia and couldn’t explain it even if such an explanation existed.

      The facts are what they are Tony. All you are doing by pretending otherwise is showing just how true they are and how desperately partisans like you want them to go away. This is why Trump said what he said. He knew idiots like you would run around making absurd claims that did nothing but highlight what a fraud Warren is.

      This is why you lose and why he is President. And since he is the luckiest man with his enemies maybe in history, you will never understand what is going on and continue to fall for the same ploy over and over again. It is just amazing how stupid and predictable you idiots are.

      1. There is no evidence any claim on her part to Indian heritage helped her get any position ever. That’s the lie you keep repeating. That you don’t know it’s a lie isn’t because you’re dumb, but because you’re such a tribal partisan shithead that you refuse to believe anything that contradicts one of Sean Hannity’s mouth farts.

        Meanwhile Trump also claimed Indian heritage, and in testimony before Congress in order to cheat someone else out of a casino deal. But that doesn’t bother you for some reason even though it’s essentially the same thing. On top of which he’d be the world’s orangest day shift manager at Applebee’s without Daddy’s money, but that’s a whole other conversation, albeit on the same subject (ludicrous Republican hypocrisy).

        And I hate to break it to you but Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of polling and is seen around the world as a dangerous joke. You’d know that if you got your mind out of the gutter trash news and read facts every now and then.

        1. That’s because she got her job by virtue of marriage.

        2. There is evidence all over the place. All of the places she worked touted her as a Native American woman. It is the only possible explanation for how someone with her credentials got where she is. There is no evidence George Bush’s father had anything to do with him getting into Harvard, but it is not hard to see how that was the case. Again, you refuse to admit the truth because of politics. And please keep doing this. This is what Trump intended to happen.

          Trump just killed Warren’s political career and the more you scream and cry the more obvious that becomes. Trump is President. Suck it you little weasel.

          1. At least you almost admit to having absolutely no principles. I mean, you’d have to be an amoral bastard to support this president regardless of the “suck it” stuff you tards like to pull out whenever you lose an argument.

            1. No Tony, You are an irrational idiot who only understands power. So, rubbing your lack of power in your face is really the only thing you will understand.

    2. Maybe Sen. Warren should offer a challenge to Trump: I’ll allow all my employers to release my job applications if you will release all your audited tax returns.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.