Warren passes Biden, takes the lead in prized Iowa poll

Oh Goody, Pocahontas it is :rofl2:

should be fun to watch Trump make her bug eyed self lose her cool on a debate stage
 

Attachments

  • crazy.jpg
    crazy.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 0
Harvard Must Set the Record Straight on Elizabeth Warren

“Elizabeth Warren is beginning to solidify herself as a top-tier candidate in the Democrat primary. She has been forced to backtrack on her decades-long claims of being a woman of color, but Harvard still has not done the same. Why has Harvard not set the record straight?

In 1993, Harvard Law School offered Warren a highly coveted tenured professor job. The record is clear as to how she obtained the offer -- Harvard had been the subject of a discrimination lawsuit at the time regarding its hiring practices, and the school was openly trying to hire women and people of color at its law school.


Warren did not begin her job until 1995 due to “family reasons,” but shortly after she started, Harvard Law School News Director Mike Chmura began touting her as the first woman of color to be given tenure at the institution. Here are just some of the references to her minority status:

1996: Spokesperson Chmura identifies Warren as a native American professor in the Harvard Crimson.”
Realclearpolitics
 
I bet you can explain why her heritage helped her. Her family and Warren said they have a trace on Indian blood and the DNA proved that. She was 100 percent correct.
Her family claimed they have some Indian in their history. So she assumed her family told her the truth. Like we all do. It turned out to be 5 generations back. Why does it matter? Now she knows what percentage. She is correct about the blood.
I just did and she had to apologize to the Cherokee Nation.
 
No, I don't think she played a part in it. I think Russian trolls managed to dupe enough people with propaganda that they voted for Trump or a 3rd Party in margins that made it possible for them to change the vote totals without anyone noticing.

I agree the interference played some part, how much no one will ever know for sure, but her role, or lack there of, was the problem, she essentially ignored/took for granted their issues/concerns & trump promised them jobs etc....
 
I am in Michigan. The amount of money Trump spent here is stunning. Trump ads ran all day long on every channel. Trump and the Reds have forced voter suppression across the land. It is harder to win for the left. However, Hillary lost Michigan by a vote per precinct. It was an extremely narrow victory. I would not chalk it up for Trump so easily.

What did hillary spend there?? Time, addressing their issues etc as compared to trump?
 
I agree the interference played some part, how much no one will ever know for sure, but her role, or lack there of, was the problem, she essentially ignored/took for granted their issues/concerns & trump promised them jobs etc....

I'm not sure why people lay any of the blame on Clinton despite the fact that she got 3 million more votes on voter turnout greater than 2012, and that Russia interfered in the election and probably changed vote totals since they were able to hack our election systems with ease.

I mean right here, you're saying that their interference played a part. Well, how could it play only a partial role when it's the thing that managed to sway juuuuust enough voters to make the vote changing plausible enough for Russia to pull off? Clinton would have won if not for the Russian interference. Hell, she probably did win...they just changed the vote totals and claimed it was a close election.
 
I'm not sure why people lay any of the blame on Clinton despite the fact that she got 3 million more votes on voter turnout greater than 2012, and that Russia interfered in the election and probably changed vote totals since they were able to hack our election systems with ease.

I mean right here, you're saying that their interference played a part. Well, how could it play only a partial role when it's the thing that managed to sway juuuuust enough voters to make the vote changing plausible enough for Russia to pull off? Clinton would have won if not for the Russian interference. Hell, she probably did win...they just changed the vote totals and claimed it was a close election.

As I said, no one knows exactly how much, if any it swayed ppl to vote for him, it is an unknown to which everyone assigns their own #, most likely on that fits their preconceptions..

I think she could have done much more reaching out to the folks in the rust belt.......

It's a few years ago now & we don't agree on that but we can both live w/ that... :thup:
 
Back
Top