Why did she wait 40 years to tell this story lol
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/stat...430918665?s=09
https://twitter.com/kombiz/status/11...508808705?s=09
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Well the principal at the time died in '99 and I guess there wasn't really a need to tell the story sooner?
Kinda crazy how theres a timeline where Warren didnt get fired, stayed as a teacher, and the CFPB never exists @_@
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Why is she only coming forward now she's just trying to get famous.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Totes
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
It's not even hard to understand. No one wants to pay a pregnant woman their salary when their out of commission for so long lol. But that's scummy as fuck and we made laws about it. It was a different time back then, they let you get away with these things haha.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
It's trivially easy to believe she making shit up for appeal to voters when running for president too, since she has a history of that sort of thing
The other argument about not talking about it sooner was Congress passed a law in '74 that made this illegal, but it was hard to enforce due to the way school policies were written.
So even if we're talking about it after she became a lawyer, there was already some action trying to prevent this exact thing from happening.
The discourse changed so fast I caught it after it had changed. I was not born in it, molded by it. I had tasted fresh air for decades before I saw this shit.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I mean, if the quote in that tweet is directly from the interview, she doesn't even discuss how she came to not be a teacher anymore. There's really no argument to be made the story changed because she didn't tell the story at all.
It was:
I taught for a year, but after that year I needed to get more classes done to not be on an emergency certificate, I was super pregnant, and my husband wanted me home with the baby.
That's not an unreasonable statement and it doesn't touch on the circumstances of the firing/resignation like some of the articles are trying to imply.
But whatever, people will believe what they want to believe, and this was honestly more effort than I was initially going to put into this.
If she's willing to lie to be more relatable to voters, how do we know she won't lie about working with foreign powers to influence the election or using her position to make millions from lobbyist groups at all her properties?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk