Politics Elizabeth Warren doubles down

[MARIS61]

Cherokee Nation is NOT amused.

The Cherokee Nation responded to the results of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's DNA test on Monday, arguing that “a DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship.” The response came after the Democratic senator revealed that, based on tests, she has Native-American ancestry “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.”

"Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a press release.

"Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation," Hoskin continued. "Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."

 

[Natebishop3]

Show me some evidence that she used it to get ahead or else let's move on to a more productive topic.

Show me some evidence that she hasn’t benefited in any way from claiming to be a minority.

 

[barfo]

Show me some evidence that she hasn’t benefited in any way from claiming to be a minority.

Always hard to prove a negative. Prove you aren't a pedophile.

Why don't you show some proof she has benefited. That should be easier.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Always hard to prove a negative. Prove you aren't a pedophile.

Why don't you show some proof she has benefited. That should be easier.

barfo

I would say it's pretty even. It's impossible to prove that she hasn't benefited in any way, just as it would be impossible to prove that she has. Benefits can range from money to exposure to any number of different factors. Would most people even know who she was if not for this whole Native American thing? That is a benefit in and of itself.

 

[dviss1]

Somebody please provide a link when Elizabeth Warren EVER tried to:

"determine tribal citizenship"

I'll wait....

 

[Lanny]

Hey Lanny, Paul Allen has just died.

I heard that on the 4 O'Clock news, PBS. My wife and I are shocked.
Should have known it was coming when I heard his cancer was back after several years of remittance. That's usually a bad sign.
By the way, my cancer has been in remittance for over ten years, Yay.

 

[Lanny]

I would say it's pretty even. It's impossible to prove that she hasn't benefited in any way, just as it would be impossible to prove that she has. Benefits can range from money to exposure to any number of different factors. Would most people even know who she was if not for this whole Native American thing? That is a benefit in and of itself.

So we virtually convict her when there's no evidence?
Why not blame her for witchcraft and see if she'll drown or burn which will be proof she's not a witch. That should have the added benefit of removing her from the eyes of those who hate her.

 

[Lanny]

Somebody please provide a link when Elizabeth Warren EVER tried to:

"determine tribal citizenship"

I'll wait....

Here's the prevailing counter argument: Prove she didn't try to assert her tribal citizenship. Brilliant logic.

 

[Lanny]

I would say it's pretty even. It's impossible to prove that she hasn't benefited in any way, just as it would be impossible to prove that she has. Benefits can range from money to exposure to any number of different factors. Would most people even know who she was if not for this whole Native American thing? That is a benefit in and of itself.

I call Bull Shit.

 

[Lanny]

I would say that unless somebody comes up with at least a shred of credible evidence that Senator Warren's claim that she had some Native American blood in her resulted in benefits, how 'bouts we move on to some more productive topic. This topic seems kind of silly just as the claims that women were witches 300 years ago was silly, tragic but silly.

 

[barfo]

I would say it's pretty even. It's impossible to prove that she hasn't benefited in any way, just as it would be impossible to prove that she has.

That's logically nonsense.
To prove she benefited, you'd simply have to find one instance of benefit.
To prove she hasn't benefited, you have to show that every instance of possible benefit was negative.

Would most people even know who she was if not for this whole Native American thing? That is a benefit in and of itself.

US Senators are not anonymous unless they want to be. People would still have heard of her.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

I wouldn't care at all.

White people invented the one drop rule but it doesn't apply to their own?

My son is 37% Italian 22% European.

He's only 41% Sub Saharan African.. But guess what?

In America he's black.

Here's the thing, if y'all don't like the made up bullshit that "race" is, tear down your construct. Simple. Y'all invented it...

It's ridiculous, isn't it.
It came out of the deep South and was adopted by the North.
We have been feeble minded.

 

[Lanny]

Show me some evidence that she hasn’t benefited in any way from claiming to be a minority.

This is a totally illogical and absurd statement.
If you can't figure out why then I fear there's no hope in continuing this discussion.

 

[KingSpeed]

I would say it's pretty even. It's impossible to prove that she hasn't benefited in any way, just as it would be impossible to prove that she has. Benefits can range from money to exposure to any number of different factors. Would most people even know who she was if not for this whole Native American thing? That is a benefit in and of itself.

Yes.

 

[santeesioux]

 

[Natebishop3]

So we virtually convict her when there's no evidence?
Why not blame her for witchcraft and see if she'll drown or burn which will be proof she's not a witch. That should have the added benefit of removing her from the eyes of those who hate her.

No evidence? She publicly misrepresented herself as a minority for over a decade. How the hell are you people defending that? Even if she does have an ancestor who was Native American, it was such a tiny portion of her DNA that it does not make her a minority. How is this any different than someone who lies about serving in the military? What benefit do those people get? And yet, they do it. Clearly there was a reason for lying because she did it for a long time.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is a totally illogical and absurd statement.
If you can't figure out why then I fear there's no hope in continuing this discussion.

Actually it's not a statement. It's a request. Those are different things. But you seem to have some issues with telling the difference between questions and statements, as you have accused me of saying things that I have never said.

 

[Natebishop3]

That's logically nonsense.
To prove she benefited, you'd simply have to find one instance of benefit.
To prove she hasn't benefited, you have to show that every instance of possible benefit was negative.



US Senators are not anonymous unless they want to be. People would still have heard of her.

barfo

Ok - how about this

From 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Directory of Law Teachers.

Harvard Law School had identified Warren as a "woman of color" in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.

Being promoted as the only "woman of color" on the staff was a benefit. @santeesioux linked an article that talked about her as being the first "woman of color" hired by Harvard in the Fordham Law Review. She has gained notoriety because of her exaggeration.

 

[barfo]

Ok - how about this

From 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Directory of Law Teachers.

Yes, but it's hard to see what difference it makes. I mean, who pores over the AALS directory looking for Native American law professors?

Harvard Law School had identified Warren as a "woman of color" in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.

That's a benefit to Harvard, not her. Unless you can show that they only kept her on so that they'd have a woman of color on staff.

Being promoted as the only "woman of color" on the staff was a benefit. @santeesioux linked an article that talked about her as being the first "woman of color" hired by Harvard in the Fordham Law Review. She has gained notoriety because of her exaggeration.

Charles Manson gained notoriety because of the Tate-LaBianca murders. Not sure he benefited, though.
But I'm just picking on your word choice there. It is remotely possible that she gained something meaningful from being mentioned in the Fordham Law Review, which I'm sure we all read cover to cover every fortnight (or whatever the schedule is). But Harvard professors are pretty high profile in the academic world, they don't really need shoutouts from Nth tier law reviews.

How long are we going to debate this? I've got work to do tonight, and Warren is far from my favorite politician. I'd prefer she didn't run.

Does it really matter if once upon a time, she thought of herself as Native when in fact she was only a small part Native?
Isn't this "issue" about a million times less important than Obama's birth certificate or Hillary's emails or Trump's tax returns?

Imagine if it came out that Trump had claimed to be something other than what he is, genealogically, back in the 80's? Would anyone care?
Here's the answer: he did, and no one cared. In The Art of the Deal, he wrote that his father's family was Swedish. They aren't, they are German, but the family has lied about it for generations.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

No evidence? She publicly misrepresented herself as a minority for over a decade. How the hell are you people defending that? Even if she does have an ancestor who was Native American, it was such a tiny portion of her DNA that it does not make her a minority. How is this any different than someone who lies about serving in the military? What benefit do those people get? And yet, they do it. Clearly there was a reason for lying because she did it for a long time.

Dance all you want but in the end there is absolutely no evidence.

 

[CupWizier]

Ok - how about this

From 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a racial minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Directory of Law Teachers.

Harvard Law School had identified Warren as a "woman of color" in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.

Being promoted as the only "woman of color" on the staff was a benefit. @santeesioux linked an article that talked about her as being the first "woman of color" hired by Harvard in the Fordham Law Review. She has gained notoriety because of her exaggeration.

Who gives a shit. I just want to see trump pony up the million dollars and back up his lying words. Like usual, trump makes a promise and will likely renege.

 

[Cippy91]

here’s a good one.

 

[crandc]

In Trump world:

Not credible - climate scientists, DNA testing, women, U.S. intelligence agencies, Secretary of Defense
Credible - Roy Moore, Vladimir Putin, Brett Kavanaugh, Kim Jong Un, Saudi monarchy

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Proof Warren is Indian!

 

[Lanny]

Proof Warren is Indian!

Trump reneges on all his deals. This one is no exception.

 

[MARIS61]

US Senators are not anonymous unless they want to be. People would still have heard of her.

barfo

No.

Even now it’s the only thing most people know about her. She’s never done anything of note, just another swamprat on the dole.

 

[barfo]

No.

Even now it’s the only thing most people know about her. She’s never done anything of note, just another swamprat on the dole.

Only to the extent that "most people" only watch Fox like you.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]