I’m sure most of those stories are true. Elizabeth Warren’s, however, was a lie.[1]
[1] https://freebeacon.com/politics/county-records-contradict-wa...
Or another:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/09...
It certainly is easy enough to generate a reason acceptable to external monitors to get rid of a person. I have done this myself, and would do it again. In fact I don't think I've ever worked anywhere over the last 40 years where this is not the default approach. CYA is a thing, and always will be.
We could speculate about unrecorded behavior. What proof do we have? Warren says one thing and written records literally contradict it. If Warren’s version is to be believed, it seems obvious it would require significant evidence to contradict the meeting minutes and her own earlier quotes about graduate courses.
I understand that people might not like her policies, but this stuff is clearly targeted swift boating. It doesn’t add to to the discussion.
It's perfectly plausible that she could have been "constructively discharged" on account of her pregnancy, which morally would amount to the same thing.
But I think based on what is written, either that article or Warren has to be lying about specifics.
As a Democratic primary voter, I'm indifferent to this story, and will probably go with Warren if everyone else does, but if I cared, obviously I would check on the source, no matter how disreputable the publication.
Edit: I reread it a few times and now I think it's just BS framing by the Free Beacon. She had her contract renewed, but she resigned at the end of the school year, I'd assume before the new contract took effect. Probably was told she had to. To assume her story is perfectly consistent, you just have to assume they noticed she was pregnant in those couple of months.
Would you be this credulous then?
The results are always the same: his die-hard supports believe him, and reality is altered; his opponents point it out and wonder how anyone can think he's not maniacal; and the Republican party sighs and repeats the mantra "you dance with the one that brought you".
Of course it’s difficult to give a general answer, and it’d depend on the details of the case.
Perhaps you have a specific example of where Trump was at the tail-end of systematic discrimination in the beginning of his career?
Pregnancy discrimination, and discrimination against women in particular, has been so insidious and so pervasive for so many years, that the standard for proof has changed accordingly.
Apples and oranges, covered by a veneer of intellectualism and a subtle accusation of partisan bias. It’s pretty transparent trolling to be honest.