Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Elizabeth Warren releases her DNA results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Elizabeth Warren releases her DNA results

    In a real shocker DNA supports Warren's claim. Trump expected to welch. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/polit...can/index.html

  • #2
    It is interesting this.

    Looks to me like we have another woman making some claim, accusation, statement, etc. and not expecting it to be questioned.

    Why ?

    Because she's a woman.

    .. and we know women never lie.

    They just don't. We dare not question anything said by a woman... ever.

    But wait.... maybe these Cherokee people are,... they have a different view

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin said

    "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."


    Warren's DNA test results, published in The Boston Globe, showed that there's a slight chance between 1/64th and 1/1,024th that she is actually Native American. Warren said Trump owes her or a charity of her choice $1 million after he pledged to donate the money if she proved through a DNA test that she was Native American.

    ...."I'll only do it if I can test her personally, OK? That will not be something I enjoy doing, either."

    Warren had a DNA test done to show whether she really has Native American heritage, a claim she's made for years. Trump and others on the right have ridiculed her for it because they felt she was lying.


    [ Don't these dumb right wingers know women never lie ??????? ]

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/don.../15/id/886406/

    ================================================== =========================


    Next piece written by a woman..

    ..thought that may need mentioning before the accusations of "old white guys" were brought out..

    .. have to try something else.

    Oh, I know we can attack the source of the writing !!!

    We can.

    ..still doesn't make Warren anything other than a fraud who used race to game the system

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the pastiest white woman in the entire Senate, has long been a figure of fun for her claim...

    It doesn't exactly seem to check out based on looking at her, or asking around in the Oklahoma Native American community she claims to be part of.

    Now she's come out after a long, long hiatus from those charges to claim that yes, she's found a geneticist who claims she has a Native American ancestor, some six to ten generations back. According to the Washington Post:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is gearing up for a potential 2020 presidential bid, has released a DNA test that suggests she has a distant Native American ancestor, part of an extraordinary effort to discredit President Trump and others who have questioned her claims about her heritage.

    Warren's "gotcha" is hardly the "slam dunk" she claims.

    The genetic finding she cites makes her at most 1/32 Native American, and it could easily be as little as 1/512 Native American.
    [Update: The Boston Globe, which reported the original story, corrected its math to 1/1,024.] Since Warren's original claim to Native American ancestry was that her great, great, great grandmother Sara was "part" Native American, that raises the likelihood that she's in the 1/1,024 range.

    This is almost exactly the same as the average white American's composition of Native American ancestry. One out of 512 is 0.19 percent. The average white American's is 0.18 percent, according to Sam Morningstar, who has an authoritative-looking piece on Quora about how Native American ancestry works in the U.S. and the fact that it's frankly, among whites, quite rare. The 0.18 percent average, he notes, is easily misleading, given that most white Americans have utterly no Native American ancestry in them, and a small number have much more.

    Here we have Elizabeth Warren, right there on the white-people average for being Indian at the original 1/512 level, and 0.097 percent, or half that of the average white American, at the 1/1,024 level.


    This doesn't even get into the skeeviness of DNA tests (mine told me I was Irish, Greek and Latino, which I find hard to believe), which is often a function of genetic traits matching certain geographic populations. In Warren's claim, her Stanford geneticist (a buddy?) claims there was a high likelihood that she had one unadmixtured Native American ancestor from six to ten generations back. And instead of testing his claim with Native American DNA, he used Mexican DNA, which is known to be infused with European bloodlines.

    Given the potential buddy factor, one wonders how she'd do in a blind DNA test from Ancestry.com, the kind Trump said he'd like to throw her at a presidential debate. Howie Carr suspects she already had taken that and didn't like the result, which would explain why she has been so silent as Trump has had his fun.

    It's funny because, well, she's so white-bread in appearance, much more than most other whites.

    Warren is charged with using that utterly tenuous claim to Indian blood to get a leg up on other applicants for law positions at competitive universities.

    Warren was touted in recruitment literature for her Native American heritage by Harvard and Penn, while Fordham Law Review hailed her as Harvard Law's "first woman of color," something she never tried to disabuse the university of at the time as the former house-flipper bit and clawed her way to the top.

    She liked the unearned advantage on other white applicants, and never mind that she displaced a genuine Native American from the affirmative action slot.

    And by the way, Harvard is finding itself on the defensive about that whole affirmative action slot business these days.

    Can a white guy with 1/512 or 1/1,024 percent African-American blood be able to claim that black affirmative action law professor slot now, Liz? Well, Liz showed that it could be done. What's more, the average real Indian nation requires a 1/16, or 6 percent DNA bloodline to get onto the tribal rolls.


    All anyone else can see is that Warren's claim to Native American heritage is still being upstaged by the real issue: that she gamed the system to profit from it.

    While she may crow about finding a geneticist to say she has a trace of Native American blood, her own website's page titled "fact squad" tells the real story of what she's worried about as she prepares for her next political climb: her long insistence that she never, never, never ever gamed the system and her website has a, kid you not, 4,000-word apologia to insist she didn't. Talk about the lady doth protest too much.

    It doesn't mention the literature or the Pow Wow Chow.

    Nice try, Liz. But you're still a fake Indian whose real problem is that you used a drop of ancestry to game an entire system.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...th_warren.html

    ?


    • #3
      Warren explains the accusation of using NA ancestry thus:
      Not only did the Massachusetts senator release the DNA results, but she created a fact-check website that details her Native American ancestry and her Oklahoma roots. The site also includes documents that Ms. Warren says make clear her heritage “had no role whatsoever” in her advancement during her academic rise as a Harvard law professor — as some Republicans have asserted.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/u...-ancestry.html

      We're still waiting on the prez to explain his mockery (denial) of Warren's claim, or other people's explanation of their short memory. Certain people were claiming Warren's ancestry claim was baseless, but now those same people are stating she used it to advance her career? Those people need to explain their fuzzy memory on what they said about Warren's ancestry first, then move on to their fuzzy understanding of how she used NA ancestry in her career. The best that could be said against Warren is that she used NA ancestry as tame self-promotion after she achieved her positions, not before.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Warren explains the accusation of using NA ancestry thus:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/u...-ancestry.html

        We're still waiting on the prez to explain his mockery (denial) of Warren's claim, or other people's explanation of their short memory. Certain people were claiming Warren's ancestry claim was baseless, but now those same people are stating she used it to advance her career? Those people need to explain their fuzzy memory on what they said about Warren's ancestry first, then move on to their fuzzy understanding of how she used NA ancestry in her career. The best that could be said against Warren is that she used NA ancestry as tame self-promotion after she achieved her positions, not before.
        WELL, except she is using it NOW, and rather vociferously to promote her expected bid for president. NOT to mention the actual tribe to which she claims ancestry is denying she's a part (which, to me, carries more weight than a suspicious DNA test administered by a Stanford fellow ... not Fellow, but fellow, chap, guy).

        ?


        • #5
          Some Tweets from the President: Never let it be said he can't or won't kick a dead horse...
          Pocahantas.png
          And this just in from Fox News:
          The Media Research Center examined the Monday evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS to determine whether or not Warren was painted as being vindicated regarding her often-criticized claim that she is part Native American.

          What went unreported by the networks was the fun statistic that showed that since Warren could have between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American DNA, it meant her mix could be below average for White people, MRC news analyst Nicholas Fondacaro wrote, adding that Cherokee Nation's condemnation of Warrens claims went unreported.

          The networks were so disgustingly in the tank for Senator Warren, Fondacaro wrote.

          The MRC noted that NBCs Nightly News was eager to prove that it was somehow a terrible day to be President Trump, while focusing on Warrens claim that there is strong evidence of her Native American ancestry.
          Apparently, Senator Warren has, again, shot herself in the foot and claiming to be doing a native american dance when hopping around because of it.


          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

            WELL, except she is using it NOW, and rather vociferously to promote her expected bid for president. NOT to mention the actual tribe to which she claims ancestry is denying she's a part (which, to me, carries more weight than a suspicious DNA test administered by a Stanford fellow ... not Fellow, but fellow, chap, guy).
            Your defense might cover for Trump's embarrassing behavior in the "Warren NA affair". For cover, I'd say it rates a facial tissue in size, but the embarrassment it is supposed to cover is a healthy bowel movement from a well-fed elephant.

            Let's go to the real left that has a say in the matter, a native american:
            Warren cannot, does not and should not claim Native American identity in its tribal or racial form. She, like many people on a continent taken from First Peoples, can claim Native American ancestry.
            https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth...164352717.html
            Doesn't look good for Elizabeth Warren. She back-pedaled on the Big Test, and said that was her objective; to claim NA ancestry, but not membership or identity with any tribe. But she told of stories she heard around the family dinner table while growing up, about this or that tribe being the source of that ancestry. The rhetorical equivalent of a sloppy sneeze, leaving a political line of snot on her face. She would need your facial tissue to cover for that claim. Good point made by the NA author of this article; he is rightfully upset with Warren's overreach and politicization. What does he have to say about Trump, on this issue? From same article:
            The senator’s response to President Donald Trump’s racist attacks and the legitimate criticisms of Native leaders, activists and scholars has shown that we need space to engage and learn from this conversation—now more than ever. The rub? Learning is often uncomfortable, especially in a diverse nation built on interlocking histories of colonization, slavery and racism that’s under siege by forces who call for a return to darker days.
            You're gonna need a LOT of facial tissue to cover for Trump's "boo-boo", if you want to use the NA response to this scandal. Even if the prez and his followers won't acknowledge the lie (that Warren has no NA ancestry), they still have that much bigger anal pie -of racism- to explain in his comments. At the very least, were I a righty, I'd be throwing the mess under the political bus, rather than trying to defend it by claiming Warren's sin is bigger than Trump's. Try something different, like "It's a big, stinky pie, but our Fearless Leader is fixing it by improving employment for everyone, including native americans". Something like that. It would be like trying to cover the elephant pie with an area rug, but at least it's a start.

            ?


            • #7
              No, you misunderstand... I will not defend Trump.

              i am more interested in disparaging Warren for her embarrassing behavior.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                No, you misunderstand... I will not defend Trump.

                i am more interested in disparaging Warren for her embarrassing behavior.
                I understand. IOW, the GOP strategy, play to the base rather than attempting reform. Similar to the Dem strategy, just different rhetoric.

                ?


                • #9
                  Well, according the to Cherokee Nation, she is not one of them.

                  That said...
                  warren-1-2020th-1.jpg

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    I understand. IOW, the GOP strategy, play to the base rather than attempting reform. Similar to the Dem strategy, just different rhetoric.
                    Yes, so far as it goes.

                    However, I do see Trump at least trying to effect some level of change. I just saw an article on USA Today (might be elsewhere as well):

                    President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would cut the federal budget with the help of his Cabinet.

                    "We're going to ask every Cabinet secretary to cut 5 percent for next year," Trump told reporters prior to a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

                    The president's cuts request is likely for his fiscal 2020 budget proposal, which is due to Congress early next year.

                    Still, while Trump can ask his Cabinet secretaries to cut their budget proposals, the federal budget is ultimately approved by Congress. Lawmakers are free to draw up their own spending plans for federal agencies and the rest of the government.

                    The president does have the leverage of his veto. After approving the $1.3 trillion budget plan Congress sent him in March, Trump threatened he will never sign another bill like this again.
                    As Marcus has pointed out, his personal behavior is that of a fool, but he is getting SOMETHING done...

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                      Yes, so far as it goes.

                      However, I do see Trump at least trying to effect some level of change. I just saw an article on USA Today (might be elsewhere as well):



                      As Marcus has pointed out, his personal behavior is that of a fool, but he is getting SOMETHING done...
                      The prez needs leadership in each cabinet before reform can take place. That is especially true for reducing staff/budget. It doesn't look good, from that perspective. Even if he has the numbers for top cabinet administration, his WH has a poor record on turnover at the top and admin staffing at lower levels is mediocre at best.

                      As far as Warren's chances, she now has a decent defense against T's junior high school insult (circa 1930). Hopefully she can brush up on her mockery skills. In a debate, we can all have a good laugh when the prez claims he could execute a DNA test, but it would be icky if he had to take a sample from Sen. Warren. At that point, Elizabeth can ask him if he is trying to prevent comedians from getting a laugh at his expense. How could anyone top the prez doing a parody of himself?

                      ?


                      • #12

                        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                        Well, according the to Cherokee Nation, she is not one of them.

                        That said...
                        warren-1-2020th-1.jpg
                        She's even made native Americans angry LOL



                        In the below article, he asks; "What made Warren, an intelligent human being, think such a thing?"

                        Answer; Warren isn't "an intelligent human being."

                        The people running the show in our "media" are even dumber.


                        -------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Democrats have the enviable advantage of being able to trot out nearly any story and be given credibility by most of the mainstream media. And every time the media do that, they undercut their own credibility.

                        This week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in preparation for a 2020 presidential run, decided to fight back against President Trump's brutal nickname for her: "Pocahontas." Trump, you'll recall, labeled her Pocahontas because for years, she has claimed Native American ancestry. Not only that, she claimed repeatedly that her mother's Native American ancestry drove her parents to elope after her father's family refused to welcome her mother with open arms thanks to their bigotry. As it turns out, Warren could never provide any evidence of Native American ancestry even though she spent years labeling herself "Native American" while at the University of Pennsylvania Law School as well as Harvard Law School.

                        On Monday, Warren decided she'd had enough. She released a video of her family members discussing her claims of Native American background. "Native communities have faced discrimination, neglect and violence for generations," Warren intoned. "And Trump can say whatever he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to try to get at me? That's not what America stands for."

                        She accompanied that video with her supposed proof of Native American background: an analysis by Professor Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University in which he explains that it is possible that Warren had a Native American ancestor anywhere from six to ten generations ago. That would have made her anywhere from 1/64th to 1/1,024th Native American. The study was based not on Native American DNA but on Mexican, Peruvian and Colombian DNA.

                        In fact, not even Cherokees were happy with Warren. In a stunning rebuke, the Cherokee Nation released a statement saying, "Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage" and that Warren's DNA test "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."

                        All of this should have been foreseeable by anyone with half a brain. Falsely claiming you are Native American for years is bad enough. But releasing a study demonstrating that you are 99.9 percent white and then claiming that such a study justifies your false claims?

                        What made Warren, an intelligent human being, think such a thing?

                        Only one simple fact: Warren knows, as everyone in politics knows, that the media will cover for nearly any instance of leftist political manipulation.
                        • They'll cover for Warren fibbing about her ancestry.
                        • They'll cover for Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke driving drunk, plowing into a truck and then attempting to flee the scene of the crime.
                        • They'll cover for Arizona Senate candidate Rep. Kyrsten Sinema saying that she didn't care if Americans joined the Taliban (CNN's headline: "Kyrsten Sinema's Anti-War Activist Past Under Scrutiny as She Runs for Senate").

                        Democrats have the enviable advantage of being able to trot out nearly any story and be given credibility by most of the mainstream media.

                        Non-Democrats, however, see this game. And every time the media simply parrot Democratic talking points on issues like Warren's ancestry, they undercut their credibility. Large media institutions have done more than anyone, including President Trump, to destroy their reputations with the American people. Their pathetic behavior over the past few weeks, in the approach to the 2018 elections, shows that they're doubling down on stupid.


                        https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...down-on-stupid

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post


                          She's even made native Americans angry LOL



                          In the below article, he asks; "What made Warren, an intelligent human being, think such a thing?"

                          Answer; Warren isn't "an intelligent human being."

                          ... ...

                          What made Warren, an intelligent human being, think such a thing?

                          Only one simple fact: Warren knows, as everyone in politics knows, that the media will cover for nearly any instance of leftist political manipulation.[/I]
                          • They'll cover for Warren fibbing about her ancestry.
                          • They'll cover for Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke driving drunk, plowing into a truck and then attempting to flee the scene of the crime.
                          • They'll cover for Arizona Senate candidate Rep. Kyrsten Sinema saying that she didn't care if Americans joined the Taliban (CNN's headline: "Kyrsten Sinema's Anti-War Activist Past Under Scrutiny as She Runs for Senate").

                          Democrats have the enviable advantage of being able to trot out nearly any story and be given credibility by most of the mainstream media.

                          Non-Democrats, however, see this game. And every time the media simply parrot Democratic talking points on issues like Warren's ancestry, they undercut their credibility. Large media institutions have done more than anyone, including President Trump, to destroy their reputations with the American people. Their pathetic behavior over the past few weeks, in the approach to the 2018 elections, shows that they're doubling down on stupid.


                          https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...down-on-stupid
                          Apparently, you don't bother to check lefty media sources, before claiming they give Warren a free pass. Perhaps your belief in a righty link that claims other media don't cover Warren's gaffs is "truth challenged", another mistake on your part -at least in this instance. Either way, let's help you correct your mistake with this media link:
                          But now she is coming under criticism from the Cherokee Nation, which says DNA tests are not appropriate to determine tribal citizenship. In the past, Warren has specifically alluded to having Cherokee or Delaware ancestry.
                          https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0d38b587060a1

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Apparently, you don't bother to check lefty media sources, before claiming they give Warren a free pass. Perhaps your belief in a righty link that claims other media don't cover Warren's gaffs is "truth challenged", another mistake on your part -at least in this instance. Either way, let's help you correct your mistake with this media link:

                            https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0d38b587060a1
                            That's good !

                            Very surprising, but good.

                            I actually do look at "media" sites from time to time. I didn't happen to THIS time.

                            I do wonder how many "media" stories are out there that are favorable to this pow wow chow I wish I was an indian warren woman.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              That's good !

                              Very surprising, but good.

                              I actually do look at "media" sites from time to time. I didn't happen to THIS time.

                              I do wonder how many "media" stories are out there that are favorable to this pow wow chow I wish I was an indian warren woman.
                              *Why don't you look? You could probably find a crass Warren apologist, even on the ancestry issue. Otherwise, you could get back to us on your opinion of onenewsnow on this subject.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X