Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
You should consider that I had very good reason for not liking what you said, and that you should internalize it.

If you had merely offered that you thought she had showed poor judgement in handling the controversy, and your opinion of her political abilities was diminished, it would have been a valid opinion. I would have disagreed on the grounds of her demonstrated campaigning skill and adaptiveness in 2019, but the disagreement would have been so banal as to not warrant arguing over.

Instead, you said that Warren even maintaining this identity was shameless pandering and part of a race to the bottom, which is the rhetorical and logical equivalent of throwing a flaming sack of excrement. Of course that's shameful, what's wrong with you?

You thankfully seem to have withdrawn this line, but it's one of the worst I've seen you post.
I still think her public expression of native identity is somewhat cynical. The "I wanted to be invited to a luncheon" line doesn't wash with me unless you want to believe she's exceptionally naive.

Maybe she is though, the more I read about this the more intellectually incoherent it is. The biggest miss-step would seem to be the DNA test because that, to my understanding, imposes a White Germanic standard on Native American Tribal membership.

Well, yes?
Oh, so as a nation you ARE completely lacking in self awareness?

So?
She wasn't working class - she was poor. There's a difference, I should know.

Yes, if you excise events from all context and substitute a different arrangement anything is possible.
Or I could include my legendary ancestor Tord in my university Bio. I don't though - because that would be stupid. Tord is merely a subject for polite conversation over dinner.

So if she hadn't been criticized for something she wouldn't have adjusted her behavior? That's not shocking.
You don't imagine that eventuality would be somewhat scandalous? I do.

I fear your overall perspective on Warren is an unreasonable and prejudicial one, leading to your fixation to the exclusion of facts.

Referring to the above, this doesn't even bear debating because the facts will develop in the short-term, over the next year. Either she doesn't win nomination and it's irrelevant, or she does and her judgement will be on full exercise for review.
Exclusion of what facts? You tried to blame all of this on Trump when it actually started years ago - which is a pretty important fact.