The ONLY Way Warren Answers These 2 Questions Is If A Moderator Asks Her These In The Next Debate...

[easyt65]

....if even then:

1. YOU TOOK A DNA TEST THAT PROVES YOU ARE OF NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENT - THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID...SO ARE YOU STILL A NATIVE AMERICAN OR NOT?

“Is Elizabeth Warren going to be a woman of color?” a Native American woman asked during an interview with MSNBC at the Sioux City forum. “She says she is not,” an MSNBC reporter replied. “How can she say she’s not when she took a DNA test stating she is?” the woman fired back. “So she’s either one of us or she’s not.”


2. WHY DID YOU STOP LISTING YOURSELF AS A NATIVE AMERICAN JUST AFTER SECURING TENURE AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?

Warren CLAIMS she received NO financial or professional benefit from officially classifying herself as a minority in the 80's and 90's. Evidence shows Warren is STILL lying to the American people.

At the time elite institutions were being highly scrutinized and criticized for not having diverse faculties. Revealed documents show how Warren changed her race form being White / Caucasian to Native American MONTHS before she was hired into the Ivy League for the 1st time. She continued to claim to be Native American for a decade....UNTIL JUST AFTER BEING GIVEN TENURE BY HARVARD.

When asked about this ... ONCE ... Warren claimed she listed herself as a Native American on the official records 'in hopes of meeting people like I am'.

Evidently Warren meant 'LIARS', not 'Native Americans'. She never joined Native American Organizations on campus. Also, Doctor Gavin Clarkson, a citizen of the Choctaw nation, asked invited Warren to attend the Harvard Native American Law Student Association, which Gavin led at the time, 3 times, and she blew him off / refused his invites all 3 times.

So much for wanting to 'meet people like me'.


This is a 'disqualifier'. Warren has proven that she committed fraud, played the system by lying to pass herself off as a Native American during a time when elite colleges were being pressured to increase the diversity of their faculty by hiring more minorities. Once acquiring Tenure the deception was no longer necessary. She had dishonestly gotten what she wanted.

We have enough - too many, in fact - of THOSE in our federal government now.


Will any of the Liberal media properly vet Warren by asking her these 2 questions?
Hardly...


Two Simple Questions Elizabeth Warren Cannot, or Will Not, Answer About Her 'Native American' Fiasco

 

[Natural Citizen]

Moderators are just media pundits. They deserve no respect given that they're the larger part of the reason America is so underinformed on the issues in the first place.

The only way any relevant debate is ever going to be had is if candidates redirect and reframe the nonsensical Romper Room questions they're asked.

Really, all the 'moderators' are doing is using the debates to forward their own bullshit.

 

[Pete7469]

They usually give libturds the questions in advance (as well as the answers) don't they?

 

[OldLady]

Moderators are just media pundits. They deserve no respect given that they're the larger part of the reason America is so underinformed on the issues in the first place.

The only way any relevant debate is ever going to be had is if candidates redirect and reframe the nonsensical Romper Room questions they're asked.

Really, all the 'moderators' are doing is using the debates to forward their own bullshit.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.
It seems to me from the debates I've seen that the candidates ALWAYS reframe the questions and use the allotted response time forwarding their own agenda. Over and over. Sometimes it's hard for me to remember what the initial question even was.
I do think that, for the most part, except for "gotcha" questions like Meghan Kelly used on Trump and Chris Wallace used on him with the "Will you accept the results of the election?" that the moderators ask decent questions to get some idea of their stance.
Like 2016, though, there are WAY too many people in each debate. I hear in September they will be narrowed down quite a bit, but the more people who need to speak, the less time each has and I have found the primary debates to be both confusing and not very informative. I'm waiting this time until they've whittled the field down to four or five. Then I'll start paying attention.

 

[Frannie]

....if even then:

1. YOU TOOK A DNA TEST THAT PROVES YOU ARE OF NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENT - THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID...SO ARE YOU STILL A NATIVE AMERICAN OR NOT?

“Is Elizabeth Warren going to be a woman of color?” a Native American woman asked during an interview with MSNBC at the Sioux City forum. “She says she is not,” an MSNBC reporter replied. “How can she say she’s not when she took a DNA test stating she is?” the woman fired back. “So she’s either one of us or she’s not.”


2. WHY DID YOU STOP LISTING YOURSELF AS A NATIVE AMERICAN JUST AFTER SECURING TENURE AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?

Warren CLAIMS she received NO financial or professional benefit from officially classifying herself as a minority in the 80's and 90's. Evidence shows Warren is STILL lying to the American people.

At the time elite institutions were being highly scrutinized and criticized for not having diverse faculties. Revealed documents show how Warren changed her race form being White / Caucasian to Native American MONTHS before she was hired into the Ivy League for the 1st time. She continued to claim to be Native American for a decade....UNTIL JUST AFTER BEING GIVEN TENURE BY HARVARD.

When asked about this ... ONCE ... Warren claimed she listed herself as a Native American on the official records 'in hopes of meeting people like I am'.

Evidently Warren meant 'LIARS', not 'Native Americans'. She never joined Native American Organizations on campus. Also, Doctor Gavin Clarkson, a citizen of the Choctaw nation, asked invited Warren to attend the Harvard Native American Law Student Association, which Gavin led at the time, 3 times, and she blew him off / refused his invites all 3 times.

So much for wanting to 'meet people like me'.


This is a 'disqualifier'. Warren has proven that she committed fraud, played the system by lying to pass herself off as a Native American during a time when elite colleges were being pressured to increase the diversity of their faculty by hiring more minorities. Once acquiring Tenure the deception was no longer necessary. She had dishonestly gotten what she wanted.

We have enough - too many, in fact - of THOSE in our federal government now.


Will any of the Liberal media properly vet Warren by asking her these 2 questions?
Hardly...


Two Simple Questions Elizabeth Warren Cannot, or Will Not, Answer About Her 'Native American' Fiasco

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

 

[leftwinger]

Moderators are just media pundits. They deserve no respect given that they're the larger part of the reason America is so underinformed on the issues in the first place.

The only way any relevant debate is ever going to be had is if candidates redirect and reframe the nonsensical Romper Room questions they're asked.

Really, all the 'moderators' are doing is using the debates to forward their own bullshit.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.
It seems to me from the debates I've seen that the candidates ALWAYS reframe the questions and use the allotted response time forwarding their own agenda. Over and over. Sometimes it's hard for me to remember what the initial question even was.
I do think that, for the most part, except for "gotcha" questions like Meghan Kelly used on Trump and Chris Wallace used on him with the "Will you accept the results of the election?" that the moderators ask decent questions to get some idea of their stance.
Like 2016, though, there are WAY too many people in each debate. I hear in September they will be narrowed down quite a bit, but the more people who need to speak, the less time each has and I have found the primary debates to be both confusing and not very informative. I'm waiting this time until they've whittled the field down to four or five. Then I'll start paying attention.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.

Right. No one cares she lied to get a $400K part-time job by gaming the system. Taking this job right out of qualified Mexican and Black hands. Where else or what else did she lie about?

It's old news now eh? "Thoroughly debunked" may be the new comeback.

 

[Third Party]

They usually give libturds the questions in advance (as well as the answers) don't they?

They didn't give Kamala Tulsi's questions ahead of time...

 

[OldLady]

Moderators are just media pundits. They deserve no respect given that they're the larger part of the reason America is so underinformed on the issues in the first place.

The only way any relevant debate is ever going to be had is if candidates redirect and reframe the nonsensical Romper Room questions they're asked.

Really, all the 'moderators' are doing is using the debates to forward their own bullshit.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.
It seems to me from the debates I've seen that the candidates ALWAYS reframe the questions and use the allotted response time forwarding their own agenda. Over and over. Sometimes it's hard for me to remember what the initial question even was.
I do think that, for the most part, except for "gotcha" questions like Meghan Kelly used on Trump and Chris Wallace used on him with the "Will you accept the results of the election?" that the moderators ask decent questions to get some idea of their stance.
Like 2016, though, there are WAY too many people in each debate. I hear in September they will be narrowed down quite a bit, but the more people who need to speak, the less time each has and I have found the primary debates to be both confusing and not very informative. I'm waiting this time until they've whittled the field down to four or five. Then I'll start paying attention.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.

Right. No one cares she lied to get a $400K part-time job by gaming the system. Taking this job right out of qualified Mexican and Black hands. Where else or what else did she lie about?

It's old news now eh? "Thoroughly debunked" may be the new comeback.

This has all been refuted and proven to be hogwash, and you were never going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so it might be better to come up with reasons why anyone should vote for Trump. You got a lot of work ahead of you.

 

[Pete7469]

They usually give libturds the questions in advance (as well as the answers) don't they?

They didn't give Kamala Tulsi's questions ahead of time...

I think they want to get rid of that commie whore.

They will get rid of Tulsi later.



.

 

[Pete7469]

This has all been refuted and proven to be hogwash, and you were never going to vote for a Democrat anyway, so it might be better to come up with reasons why anyone should vote for Trump. You got a lot of work ahead of you.

Reasons to vote for Trump?

I'll give you pictures to make it easier...

The Island of Guam might... "CAPSIZE" guy...

Need any more reasons?


.

 

[dannyboys]

....if even then:

1. YOU TOOK A DNA TEST THAT PROVES YOU ARE OF NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENT - THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID...SO ARE YOU STILL A NATIVE AMERICAN OR NOT?

“Is Elizabeth Warren going to be a woman of color?” a Native American woman asked during an interview with MSNBC at the Sioux City forum. “She says she is not,” an MSNBC reporter replied. “How can she say she’s not when she took a DNA test stating she is?” the woman fired back. “So she’s either one of us or she’s not.”


2. WHY DID YOU STOP LISTING YOURSELF AS A NATIVE AMERICAN JUST AFTER SECURING TENURE AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL?

Warren CLAIMS she received NO financial or professional benefit from officially classifying herself as a minority in the 80's and 90's. Evidence shows Warren is STILL lying to the American people.

At the time elite institutions were being highly scrutinized and criticized for not having diverse faculties. Revealed documents show how Warren changed her race form being White / Caucasian to Native American MONTHS before she was hired into the Ivy League for the 1st time. She continued to claim to be Native American for a decade....UNTIL JUST AFTER BEING GIVEN TENURE BY HARVARD.

When asked about this ... ONCE ... Warren claimed she listed herself as a Native American on the official records 'in hopes of meeting people like I am'.

Evidently Warren meant 'LIARS', not 'Native Americans'. She never joined Native American Organizations on campus. Also, Doctor Gavin Clarkson, a citizen of the Choctaw nation, asked invited Warren to attend the Harvard Native American Law Student Association, which Gavin led at the time, 3 times, and she blew him off / refused his invites all 3 times.

So much for wanting to 'meet people like me'.


This is a 'disqualifier'. Warren has proven that she committed fraud, played the system by lying to pass herself off as a Native American during a time when elite colleges were being pressured to increase the diversity of their faculty by hiring more minorities. Once acquiring Tenure the deception was no longer necessary. She had dishonestly gotten what she wanted.

We have enough - too many, in fact - of THOSE in our federal government now.


Will any of the Liberal media properly vet Warren by asking her these 2 questions?
Hardly...


Two Simple Questions Elizabeth Warren Cannot, or Will Not, Answer About Her 'Native American' Fiasco

But her recipe in the Cree cookbook for crab cakes is KILLER!
Those Crees sure did love their crab cakes.

 

[easyt65]

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

A refusal to answer is still an answer...

 

[Thinker101]

Moderators are just media pundits. They deserve no respect given that they're the larger part of the reason America is so underinformed on the issues in the first place.

The only way any relevant debate is ever going to be had is if candidates redirect and reframe the nonsensical Romper Room questions they're asked.

Really, all the 'moderators' are doing is using the debates to forward their own bullshit.

No truly concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren talking about her Native American heritage anymore.
It seems to me from the debates I've seen that the candidates ALWAYS reframe the questions and use the allotted response time forwarding their own agenda. Over and over. Sometimes it's hard for me to remember what the initial question even was.
I do think that, for the most part, except for "gotcha" questions like Meghan Kelly used on Trump and Chris Wallace used on him with the "Will you accept the results of the election?" that the moderators ask decent questions to get some idea of their stance.
Like 2016, though, there are WAY too many people in each debate. I hear in September they will be narrowed down quite a bit, but the more people who need to speak, the less time each has and I have found the primary debates to be both confusing and not very informative. I'm waiting this time until they've whittled the field down to four or five. Then I'll start paying attention.

Yep, not concerned or serious voter wants to hear Warren AT ALL, or ever again.

 

[Thinker101]

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

A refusal to answer is still an answer...

Yes, but we've seen her dance, sad as that is, she'll dance around the question(s).

 

[easyt65]

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

A refusal to answer is still an answer...

Yes, but we've seen her dance, sad as that is, she'll dance around the question(s).

...which is all part of her 'answer'.

Anyone with any intelligence reads this as an 'admission of wrong-doing. Only such people avoid questions if they have nothing to hide.

 

[Thinker101]

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

A refusal to answer is still an answer...

Yes, but we've seen her dance, sad as that is, she'll dance around the question(s).

...which is all part of her 'answer'.

Anyone with any intelligence reads this as an 'admission of wrong-doing. Only such people avoid questions if they have nothing to hide.

You know how this works, libs will claim she answered (even if she didn't), libs will claim she apologized (even though she hasn't).

 

[easyt65]

You know how this works, libs will claim she answered (even if she didn't), libs will claim she apologized (even though she hasn't).

Yup, because they - as Jonathon Gruber bragged so often - believe American citizens are stupid. Turns out they are only 33% correct (which is about how many hardcore snowflakes there are out there...)

 

[Frannie]

Warren would not have to answer those even if ask

A refusal to answer is still an answer...

How

 

[easyt65]

How

The same way when faced with any choice, like whether to lead or not, there are 3 choices: Choose to do, Choose NOT to, or sit there with your thumb up your ass, unable to make a choice at all.

Ever hear the old saying, 'LEAD, FOLLOW, or GTFO Of The Way'? -- 3 Options

In this case the choice is to answer, NOT to answer, or to attempt to avoid answering in hopes no one will keep pressing you to answer / in hopes the question will just go away.

As I said, people with nothing to hide would / will answer.
Those with something to hide will not...or attempt to dance around the question and not answer - which, again, is another form of NOT answering the question.

 

[Thinker101]

How

The same way when faced with any choice, like whether to lead or not, there are 3 choices: Choose to do, Choose NOT to, or sit there with your thumb up your ass, unable to make a choice at all.

Ever hear the old saying, 'LEAD, FOLLOW, or GTFO Of The Way'? -- 3 Options

In this case the choice is to answer, NOT to answer, or to attempt to avoid answering in hopes no one will keep pressing you to answer / in hopes the question will just go away.

As I said, people with nothing to hide would / will answer.
Those with something to hide will not...or attempt to dance around the question and not answer - which, again, is another form of NOT answering the question.

elizabeth warren dancing - Bing video