A point about Elizabeth Warren's Native American Ancestry

Superfreak said:
It isn't proof you idiot. They did not use Cherokee DNA, the used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
Click to expand...

yes it is dumb shit. The test was done by Stanford Geneticist Bustamante . He said it said it showed 5 genome segments that that are common to American indian populations. It meant native american ancestry back 5 to 10 generations ago.
Genetic experts queried by "Science" said the results are trustworthy.
No she is not claming tribal anything. Nor does she mention Cherokee in the report. That is you and Rush doing that. Scientists accept Indian heritage. That was the point .
 
Oneuli said:
Try to focus. The question isn't whether she (correctly, as you'll recall) claimed she had Native American ancestry. The question is whether, as was asserted, she claimed it as part of applying to law school and applying for teaching jobs. If you have evidence to support that assertion, just share it. If not, it's OK to simply say, "yeah, there's no evidence to support that."
Click to expand...

Again, you can be gullible and pretend she didn't. There is a reason she and Harvard touted her Cherokee ancestry. But do bury your head in the sand.
 
Nordberg said:
yes it is dumb shit. The test was done by Stanford Geneticist Bustamante . He said it said it showed 5 genome segments that that are common to American indian populations. It meant native american ancestry back 5 to 10 generations ago.
Genetic experts queried by "Science" said the results are trustworthy.
No she is not claming tribal anything. Nor does she mention Cherokee in the report. That is you and Rush doing that. Scientists accept Indian heritage. That was the point .
Click to expand...

No, it did not moron. Try looking at the actual information. She absolutely said she was Cherokee. Period. The DNA study did not include Native American DNA. It SUBSTITUTED Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA for Native American DNA because there isn't much Native American DNA in the registry.

So again, AT most it proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it did not moron. Try looking at the actual information. She absolutely said she was Cherokee. Period. The DNA study did not include Native American DNA. It SUBSTITUTED Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA for Native American DNA because there isn't much Native American DNA in the registry.

So again, AT most it proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American.
Click to expand...

She went full retard, you should never go full retard.
 
Oneuli said:
Try to focus. The question isn't whether she (correctly, as you'll recall) claimed she had Native American ancestry. The question is whether, as was asserted, she claimed it as part of applying to law school and applying for teaching jobs. If you have evidence to support that assertion, just share it. If not, it's OK to simply say, "yeah, there's no evidence to support that."
Click to expand...

No, she was not correct. Not even close to correct.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, you can be gullible and pretend she didn't. There is a reason she and Harvard touted her Cherokee ancestry. But do bury your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

There are different reasons each did. With Warren, she was already a tenured professor, so it wasn't about career advancement or job security. It was likely about a desire to connect with that part of her ancestry. As for why Harvard did it, it was probably to head off criticism about having too little diversity among faculty.
 
Oneuli said:
As you'll recall, she was correct. Now we know her DNA reflects the distant Native American ancestry that she claimed.
Click to expand...

again, no it does not show that. Try improving your reading comprehension skills. The DNA expert used Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA as a substitute for Native American DNA. Even if we assume that is a good proxy, which is highly skeptical, she is only 0.9% to 1.6% 'Native American'. So yeah, her bullshit claim is highly doubtful.
 
Oneuli said:
No, very obviously a person born into enough wealth does not need to work hard to maintain wealth, nor to be materially successful.
Click to expand...

I said "successful"--that does not have to be financially. A very wealthy person could do nothing and still have wealth, but they must work hard to continue being a successful athlete, musician, actor, entrepreneur......
 
Oneuli said:
Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test strongly suggesting she has Native American ancestry. This is a fun story because it puts Trump in a position where he'll want to lie and claim he never promised a million dollars to charity if she did so. Watching that weasel squirm is a joy. But the test itself shouldn't matter.

Think about it. What was the knock on Warren? It was that she made up Native American ancestry. Whether or not she actually has Native American ancestry is entirely beside the point. What was relevant is whether she had reason to think she had Native American ancestry when she claimed it. If she had good cause to think it (e.g., plausible family oral history) and it turned out not to be true, that's not her fault. And if she didn't have good cause to think it, but it randomly turned out to be true, that doesn't relieve her of the charge of fabrication.

For example, what if I told you I have 100% Korean ancestry, which I said on the basis of my mother and father both having told me they were of Korean ancestry. And what if I took a DNA test later and found out that I'm actually 100% of Chinese ancestry -- that my parents actually adopted me from China but didn't want me to know I was adopted. Would I have been lying when I told you of my Korean ancestry? Should I be attacked and ridiculed for having told you something I had good cause to think was true?

Or, on the flip side, imagine that, thinking I was 100% of Korean ancestry, I applied for a scholarship reserved only for those of Chinese ancestry, telling them falsely that my ancestors were Chinese. If later I found out from a DNA test that I was actually 100% of Chinese ancestry, due to that hypothetical adoption, would that change the fact I'd lied about my heritage for personal advantage?

The focus on a DNA test doesn't really make sense in the Warren story, and never did. The important question is whether her family did, in fact, have an oral tradition about Native American ancestry. Her DNA test adds a little to the plausibility of such a story having existed (since there was, in fact, a Native American ancestor, it seems more plausible that she was told a story about a Native American ancestor.) But a DNA test could never settle the question of whether such a story existed, one way or the other. The best you can do for that is to interview members of her extended family and see if such a story was, in fact, going around.
Click to expand...

Truth: A Jeep Grand "Cherokee" (as quoted by Ben Shapiro) has more Native American Blood than this idiot female who is rapidly burying herself in order to prove she knows how to use a shovel. :palm: Really? 1/100 of a percentile that can easily be dismissed with the false positive due to certain types of European ancestry being diluted with Asian DNA? This proves that she has CHEROKEE blood running through her veins as originally claimed?

To "ME".....personally this is far worse than representing STOLEN VALOR as did Blumenthal's documented lies.

Another thing that Shapiro had right: If this weeks news cycle was represented in analogical terms: Trump would be the "Lone Ranger"...…..horse face would be "Silver" and the Fake native American would be "Tonto" as played by a Hollywood actress after a couch casting session.
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
There are no Colombian, Peruvian, or Mexican Native Americans????

Are you kidding...or what?

My guess would be a HUGE native American DNA component in MOST Colombians, Peruvians, and Mexicans.
Click to expand...

And lots of european in those colonized places.
Stick with your day job as your guesses are not so hot.
 
Oneuli said:
Agreed. But whether you think of that qualification as something you have to earn through years of hard work, or whether you think you're entitled to it by way of being a "very stable genius" makes all the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

Very true. But to know that difference we have to know what a person believes. To assume the person who earns his position through years of hard work does not believe he is entitled is just dishonest speculation; especially when we attribute it to those of the other party with whom we disagree or intensely dislike.
 
It continually amazes me how Trump supporters will tear apart any comment/claim anyone makes while ignoring Trump's lies, ignorance and all around bullshit.

Fucking hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top