Elizabeth Warren releases DNA results to prove she is partially Native American

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump should take a DNA test and show his percentage of African DNA (that we all have) - then claim he is black.

I think he should be concerned that it comes back showing him as part Mandrill, you know, the monkeys with the giant orange asses.

a reply to: narrator


Well technically, by those standards, I am part African as are you.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the debate was about percentages.
It was whether Warren was an American Indian. She used the claim in order to be treated like an American Indian - not someone who had a sliver of DNA from hundreds of years ago.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Why concern?
He's probably hiding his DNA report anyway, because it must show he is related to Hitler. He is of German descent, you know!
He must be related.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator


Well technically, by those standards, I am part African as are you.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the debate was about percentages.
It was whether Warren was an American Indian. She used the claim in order to be treated like an American Indian - not someone who had a sliver of DNA from hundreds of years ago.

That's inaccurate though. She didn't claim to be full American Indian. She claimed minority status because she has American Indian in her. Hence, why I feel the debate has to be about percentages. She never said she is a full-on Native. She said she has some in her.

And I agree, if the percentage determined is accurate, she shouldn't have received benefits because of it, and she played the system.

I have a nagging habit of pointing out the little things and technicalities (blame it on me being a DBA), but she was technically right. That can't be overlooked in this conversation. What she said is accurate.

a reply to: narrator

In all fairness, the OP has the old numbers which they have since changed.

1/32 sounds a lot more is possible than the updated numbers. They did that math wrong, and so the new range is 1/64th and 1/1,024th.

Honestly, she would have been better off to just keep this hush hush and not release it, instead she opened the flood gates of criticism.

I think context is important, and if she did in fact claim she was Native American for minority status upon employment, that is ethically if not legally wrong.

I don't see why anyone would pay after rhetoric with this "revelation".

The whole thing to begin with was political rhetoric in the context she identified as Native America with such a minuscule percentage. She has gone with the Native American thing a few times politically too, so this is something she gave to opponents as ammunition.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator


Well technically, by those standards, I am part African as are you.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume the debate was about percentages.
It was whether Warren was an American Indian. She used the claim in order to be treated like an American Indian - not someone who had a sliver of DNA from hundreds of years ago.

That's inaccurate though. She didn't claim to be full American Indian. She claimed minority status because she has American Indian in her.

And I agree, if the percentage determined is accurate, she shouldn't have received benefits because of it, and she played the system.

I have a nagging habit of pointing out the little things and technicalities (blame it on me being a DBA), but she was technically right. That can't be overlooked in this conversation. What she said is accurate.

So by these standards, if a white person claimed they were black and therefore in a minority, it would be accurate?
How far back do we go? Think it might be a good tactic to end this race nonsense to be honest. We're all African. There are no minorities.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: narrator

Yeah, it is relevant. Trump is ripping the piss out of her for claiming she is an American Indian. He didn't mention a percentage. He asked her to take a DNA test to prove she is an American Indian. She took one. She isn't.

Were those his exact words? Because she never claimed that she IS, she claimed that she had SOME.
This entire time we've all been arguing over the AMOUNT of Native DNA in her blood, not whether she is or isn't Native American. It's always been 100% obvious that she isn't a Native American. What was up for debate was if she had SOME in her.

And, she does.

Oh please, everyone has "some"... the percentage does matter, because it shows it so small that it is inconsequential and ludicrous for anyone to be claiming some sort of heritage.

I am black, but have some native american blood (IIRC, my grandfather's grandfather was full blood). I also have some Caucasian in me as well, but I don't run around calling myself white.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: narrator

In all fairness, the OP has the old numbers which they have since changed.

1/32 sounds a lot more is possible than the updated numbers. They did that math wrong, and so the new range is 1/64th and 1/1,024th.

Honestly, she would have been better off to just keep this hush hush and not release it, instead she opened the flood gates of criticism.

I think context is important, and if she did in fact claim she was Native American for minority status upon employment, that is ethically if not legally wrong.

I don't see why anyone would pay after rhetoric with this "revelation".

The whole thing to begin with was political rhetoric in the context she identified as Native America with such a minuscule percentage. She has gone with the Native American thing a few times politically too, so this is something she gave to opponents as ammunition.

I agree completely, if she did in fact claim to be Native, that is at least ethically wrong. From what I gather though, she has always said it's a part of her, not that it is 100% her. I could be wrong.

Not that that makes it right, if she did in fact do that. It's a big gray area for me. I'd have to know what she actually claimed decades ago to comment more on it.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: narrator

In all fairness, the OP has the old numbers which they have since changed.

1/32 sounds a lot more is possible than the updated numbers. They did that math wrong, and so the new range is 1/64th and 1/1,024th.

Honestly, she would have been better off to just keep this hush hush and not release it, instead she opened the flood gates of criticism.

I think context is important, and if she did in fact claim she was Native American for minority status upon employment, that is ethically if not legally wrong.

I don't see why anyone would pay after rhetoric with this "revelation".

The whole thing to begin with was political rhetoric in the context she identified as Native America with such a minuscule percentage. She has gone with the Native American thing a few times politically too, so this is something she gave to opponents as ammunition.

She did claim it for minority status and the benefits it conveyed on her career. I had a co-worker who did the same thing. She was a pasty white redhead from the Northeast. About as upper class and WASP as you could get (think Kennedy type)

She claimed she was Puerto Rican for graduate school because her grandmother was Puerto Rican. I'd be surprised if the Grandmother was full blood Puerto Rican. Anyway, because she claimed underrepresented minority, she qualified for some minority scholarships.

I was kind of salty about it because I am in fact black and also applied for the same scholarship. It was clear she was manipulating the system and the intent of the program.

originally posted by: UKTruth

He's probably hiding his DNA report anyway, because it must show he is related to Hitler.

Or Lucifer, he's an orange-ish douche too.

Too many posts to reply to, so I'll add this one without quoting the others:

I feel like I missed something. Did she actually, literally, claim to be Native American? Meaning, did she say "I am a Native American"? Or did she say something along the lines of "I have Native American DNA in me"?

Those are different things. And I agree, the percentage is ludicrous to consider using for any type of minority benefit. I'm not arguing that point.

Just like I could go back a few generations and say I have Native American in me.

Yes, the percentage does matter in terms of using it for personal/political gain. But, in only the argument between her and Trump, it doesn't matter. She showed that she has Native American DNA. That is technically true.

We could all go back far enough and show that we have African DNA. That would technically be true. But, we shouldn't all claim to be African American for benefits. That's the distinction I'm getting at (albeit poorly, apparently).

Now, in terms of any type of gain she got from it, that's shady and she shouldn't have done it. I don't know what, if any, type of benefit she gained, and I haven't seen her actual claim. But, using something that far back in your lineage is wrong.

a reply to: lostbook
Sorry I have not the time to read all posts, but no, this does not back her claim...the love story about her parents eloping because her mother was part Cherokee does not match the genetic test results, otherwise she would be at leas 1/8 Indian. Ben Shapiro has a great podcast on this today...hilarious.

a reply to: narrator

Warren’s central offense dates back to the mid 1980s, when she first formally notified law school administrators that her family tree includes Native Americans. Warren said she grew up with family stories about both grandparents on her mother’s side having some Cherokee or Delaware blood.

That genealogical claim has zero documentary evidence to back it up, according to a PolitiFact review of news and newsletter databases back to 1986.

There is no dispute that Warren formally notified officials at the University of Pennsylvania and then Harvard claiming Native American heritage after she was hired.

politifact


As we all know, in politics, no matter how small, these things can come back to haunt you.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
As we all know, in politics, no matter how small, these things can come back to haunt you.

Yeah, but thank the Baby Jesus and Cthulhu for rabid, partisan supporters on both sides who ignore the transgressions of their chosen person just because they are their particular flavor of moonbat.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
As we all know, in politics, no matter how small, these things can come back to haunt you.

Yeah, but thank the Baby Jesus and Cthulhu for rabid, partisan supporters on both sides who ignore the transgressions of their chosen person just because they are their particular flavor of moonbat.

'Moonbat' is Warren's Cherokee name.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
'Moonbat' is Warren's Cherokee name.

I always wondered what mine would be.

I know my spirit animal is John Wayne Gacy.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
As we all know, in politics, no matter how small, these things can come back to haunt you.

Yeah, but thank the Baby Jesus and Cthulhu for rabid, partisan supporters on both sides who ignore the transgressions of their chosen person just because they are their particular flavor of moonbat.

'Moonbat' is Warren's Cherokee name.

I thought it was Walks with Soros.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: narrator

Warren’s central offense dates back to the mid 1980s, when she first formally notified law school administrators that her family tree includes Native Americans. Warren said she grew up with family stories about both grandparents on her mother’s side having some Cherokee or Delaware blood.

That genealogical claim has zero documentary evidence to back it up, according to a PolitiFact review of news and newsletter databases back to 1986.

There is no dispute that Warren formally notified officials at the University of Pennsylvania and then Harvard claiming Native American heritage after she was hired.

politifact


As we all know, in politics, no matter how small, these things can come back to haunt you.

Gotcha. Yea, that's messed up. I wonder if there is going to be some type of punishment, given how small of a percentage she has in her? There probably isn't a distinction of percentage in terms of claiming it as she did, but there should be.

Side note, I had no idea that you can gain benefit from your DNA background in your career, I thought that stopped at getting scholarships.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Its a well old and manufactured machine they got runnin'.

No hope of quality candidates in the near future IMO, so I'm just going to make fun of them all.

CriticalStinker--fair and balanced roast of them all.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
CriticalStinker--fair and balanced roast of them all.

Prediction: You will not be popular and invited over for debate parties to enjoy wingnut guac and chips.