• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren’s embattled campaign: Cherokee tie found 5 generations ago

Ah, Breitbart! Now THERE'S an objective source that I'm sure LaMR would find acceptable! :lol:

Of course you're going to attack the source (who wasn't Andrew Breitbart). The guy lays down his reasoning in the article. Do you have any better information to counter it? If so, please, let's see it.

If not, then, well, your cop-out is exceedingly lame.
 
Let's see, if the nation sets the standard for recognition the U.S. will follow it. Using your standards I can claim minority status because somewhere down the line......gasp......guess what, some of my ancestors hooked up with native americans. I'm probably 1/165th native american but what the hell, the U.S. doesn't specify. :lamo

I asked you to provide the federal law that you alluded to. Should I take your response as a punt, or as a fail?
 
I asked you to provide the federal law that you alluded to. Should I take your response as a punt, or as a fail?
You know that the U.S. is not going to have a law addressing what the Cherokee nation ALREADY SPELLS OUT, so be honest and take the point at face value. Here's the deal.....if the Nation of Cherokee doesn't recognize her SHE AINT A CHEROKEE! Not that difficult of a concept.
 
Of course you're going to attack the source (who wasn't Andrew Breitbart). The guy lays down his reasoning in the article. Do you have any better information to counter it? If so, please, let's see it.

If not, then, well, your cop-out is exceedingly lame.

Really? So presumably you think LaMR's Wikipedia cop-out was exceedingly lame as well?

As for the Breitbart article, I don't see anything particularly convincing in it. Why would Ms. Smith lie about being a Cherokee on her wedding certificate? Was she running for Senate?
 
You know that the U.S. is not going to have a law addressing what the Cherokee nation ALREADY SPELLS OUT, so be honest and take the point at face value. Here's the deal.....if the Nation of Cherokee doesn't recognize her SHE AINT A CHEROKEE! Not that difficult of a concept.

And so we come full circle. If the principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is considered by the Cherokee Nation to have sufficient Cherokee blood, then so does Warren.

Thanks for playing, please insert another quarter and try again.
 
You could not care less about any of this bull****. The only thing you care about is the fact that Warren stands up for working men and women.

you don't care about this topic-you only care about supporting a far left liberal who is in trouble in a liberal state because its your job to spew disinformation in favor of democrats
 
Really? So presumably you think LaMR's Wikipedia cop-out was exceedingly lame as well?

As for the Breitbart article, I don't see anything particularly convincing in it. Why would Ms. Smith lie about being a Cherokee on her wedding certificate? Was she running for Senate?
Dude, stating an OPEN SOURCE website isn't the last word isn't a cop out it's reality. You certainly didn't provide anything else relevant, sure, you gave the Nation of Cherokee website stating why they made an exception for the chief, that is NOT a defense of Warren taking it upon herself to claim minority status to get ahead.
 
And so we come full circle. If the principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is considered by the Cherokee Nation to have sufficient Cherokee blood, then so does Warren.

Thanks for playing, please insert another quarter and try again.

wrong-the issue is her using a faux (and its not proven she has cherokee blood-it appears more likely she is the descendent of a Indian oppressor) status to get an advantage
 
you don't care about this topic-you only care about supporting a far left liberal who is in trouble in a liberal state because its your job to spew disinformation in favor of democrats

Yes, your bizarre fantasy surfaces again. Do you honestly think the Dems would pay someone to be this abrasive? :lol:
 
And so we come full circle. If the principle chief of the Cherokee Nation is considered by the Cherokee Nation to have sufficient Cherokee blood, then so does Warren.

Thanks for playing, please insert another quarter and try again.
Horse ****. Warren declared HERSELF to be of Cherokee descent, the nation made an exception which they are allowed to do. You do realize that the indian nations are independent right?
 
Yes, your bizarre fantasy surfaces again. Do you honestly think the Dems would pay someone to be this abrasive? :lol:

so many boards to cover:mrgreen: the bullpen gets stretched thin
 
Dude, stating an OPEN SOURCE website isn't the last word isn't a cop out it's reality. You certainly didn't provide anything else relevant, sure, you gave the Nation of Cherokee website stating why they made an exception for the chief, that is NOT a defense of Warren taking it upon herself to claim minority status to get ahead.

There is no reference to any "exception" for the chief of the Cherokee Nation. You just made that up from whole cloth. :roll:
 
Really? So presumably you think LaMR's Wikipedia cop-out was exceedingly lame as well?

If he did, then, sure, why not?

As for the Breitbart article, I don't see anything particularly convincing in it.

Do you have anything better? He gave her ancestry and several different Census records. I will wait patiently for your superior info. (I won't have much reason to do anything other, because it's going to be a long, long, long, long wait.)


Why would Ms. Smith lie about being a Cherokee on her wedding certificate? Was she running for Senate?

SHE didn't, genius. Apparently you didn't read it very well.
 
There is no reference to any "exception" for the chief of the Cherokee Nation. You just made that up from whole cloth. :roll:
No I didn't. Indian nations are not bound by U.S. law, the are allowed to make their own charters. Try again.
 
No I didn't. Indian nations are not bound by U.S. law, the are allowed to make their own charters. Try again.

So cite the Cherokee law that states that principal chief of the Cherokee nation has enough Cherokee blood to be considered Cherokee, but Warren does not. :shrug:
 
If he did, then, sure, why not?



Do you have anything better? He gave her ancestry and several different Census records. I will wait patiently for your superior info. (I won't have much reason to do anything other, because it's going to be a long, long, long, long wait.)




SHE didn't, genius. Apparently you didn't read it very well.

So we have a disagreement between the census and the wedding certificate. Somehow the Breitbart article concludes from that he should just split the difference and call the woman half Cherokee? What's the logic behind that?

As for the wedding certificate, how do you think they get that information? Do you suppose the clerk of court does a geneological report, or do you think maybe the prospective newlyweds provide the information? :roll:
 
So we have a disagreement between the census and the wedding certificate. Somehow the Breitbart article concludes from that he should just split the difference and call the woman half Cherokee? What's the logic behind that?

Umm, that's not what the article said. Gosh golly gee, imagine that, AdamT being dishonest about what someone said again.

Why is it the only way you think you can argue is by lying about what others said?


As for the wedding certificate, how do you think they get that information? Do you suppose the clerk of court does a geneological report, or do you think maybe the prospective newlyweds provide the information? :roll:

:lamo What are these questions supposed to illustrate?

I'll lay it out simply, not that it will matter, because you will almost certainly distort it if you bother to respond to it at all:

The only reference in the entire family history to O.C. Sarah Smith being Cherokee is that for some reason, one of her sons listed it as her race on his own wedding certificate.

There is no other evidence of it. There is no evidence that either of her parents was Cherokee -- her father absolutely was not (making Elizabeth 1/64th at best) -- and she never claimed to be herself.

But of course, Warren being a very liberal Democrat, you're going to cling to it no matter what.
 
So cite the Cherokee law that states that principal chief of the Cherokee nation has enough Cherokee blood to be considered Cherokee, but Warren does not. :shrug:
:Services:TribalCitizenship

From the page:
Today the Cherokee Nations is nearly 300,000 citizens strong, young and old. To be eligible for Cherokee Nation citizenship, individuals must provide documents connecting them to an enrolled lineal ancestor who is listed on the Dawes Roll with a blood degree. CDIB/Tribal Citizenship is traced through natural parents. In cases of adoption, CDIB/Citizenship must be proven through a biological parent to an ancestor registered on the Dawes Roll.
Any other bubbles I can burst for you? And frankly, Warren obviously cannot PROVE she has the bloodline, contrary information was provided stating she doesn't have much of a case.
 
Umm, that's not what the article said. Gosh golly gee, imagine that, AdamT being dishonest about what someone said again.

Why is it the only way you think you can argue is by lying about what others said?

Yeah, I guess I misread the Breitbart article a bit, although what the article claims still doesn't add up. Let's look again at the meat of it:

We know that between 1794 and 1799, Wyatt Smith and Margaret "Peggy" Brackin Smith had a little girl they named O.C. Sarah Smith. There's no evidence that “Peggy,” O.C. Sarah’s mother, was Cherokee,

O'really? Is there any evidence that she wasn't Cherokee? I guess the author doesn't know, so the assumption is that she was not? Right....

and her father's father—Andreas Smith—was the son of two Swedish immigrants, Hans Jurgen Smidt and his wife Maria Stalcop, who settled in Delaware shortly before Andreas' birth in 1731.

What about her ... you know ... ACTUAL father, as opposed to her grandfather? No mention of whether he had Cherokee blood? Apparently the author doesn't know, so he ASSUMES that the father wasn't Cherokee.

O.C. Sarah Smith—known in some records as "Oma" or "Neoma"—appears to be the mother of both Elizabeth Warren's great-great-grandfather, Preston Crawford, and his brother, William Crawford, who is said to have claimed she was Cherokee on that wedding application.

In other words, she was (or APPEARS to have been?) Warren's great-great-great-grandmother.

It is upon this claim by O.C. Sarah Smith's son that Ms. Warren's assertion of Native American ancestry precariously sits. But under the best case scenario for Ms. Warren, her great-great-great grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith was only half Cherokee and half Swedish, making her not 1/32 Cherokee, as most press reports have stated, but 1/64 Cherokee.

False. Under the best case scenario, even posited by the Breitbart author, Warren's great-great-great grandmother could have been 3/4 Cherokee -- not 1/2 Cherokee.


:lamo What are these questions supposed to illustrate?

The only reference in the entire family history to O.C. Sarah Smith being Cherokee is that for some reason, one of her sons listed it as her race on his own wedding certificate.

Right, and that would be what we call pretty damned good evidence. If your mother was Cherokee, don't you think you'd know it? Do you think you might know better than some half-assed geneologist looking at dubious historical records 200 years later? Probably not. :lamo

There is no other evidence of it. There is no evidence that either of her parents was Cherokee -- her father absolutely was not (making Elizabeth 1/64th at best) -- and she never claimed to be herself.

There is no evidence that her father "absolutely was not". The claimed evidence is that the GRANDFATHER was not Cherokee. The Breitbart author apparently couldn't find anything on the grandMOTHER (or chose not to report on her) and so just ASSUMES that she wasn't Cherokee. :lamo

But of course, Warren being a very liberal Democrat, you're going to cling to it no matter what.

But of course, Warren being a liberal Democrat, you're going to cling to your Breitbart article no matter what. No matter that the author is a self-professed geneology HOBBYIST, and the author who found 1/32 Cherokee blood is a well respected professional geneologist. :roll:
 
Last edited:
:Services:TribalCitizenship

From the page:
Any other bubbles I can burst for you? And frankly, Warren obviously cannot PROVE she has the bloodline, contrary information was provided stating she doesn't have much of a case.

You could start by bursting one, and not posting irrelevant bull**** and pretending that it means something.
 
You could start by bursting one, and not posting irrelevant bull**** and pretending that it means something.
Right, cause the law of the independent Nation of Cherokee is irrelevant. :roll: Face it, you lose. Even IF you aren't completely wrong and Warren is the same amount of blood Cherokee as their chief(which by the way seems to be complete bull****) then she would have to APPLY for status in the Cherokee nation using that very by-law that I presented. Not that difficult, so let me finish the proper logic off for you;
1) Warren can NOT claim to be 1/anything Cherokee unless recognized by the Cherokee NATION which means:
a) If she claimed it even once for the purposes of AA based advancement it wasn't legally recognized by the tribe which means......
b) She lied, and lying in to a party to gain acceptance whether it be of contract, admittance, or for other monetary or personal gain is [fraud
c) Fraud is a criminal felony
2) If the chief in question was in fact voted into that position that means:
a) He presented the proper paperwork to the tribal council
b) Under their laws it was accepted so:
c) That means he PROVED that he is in fact Cherokee and the tribe ACCEPTED that as documented fact so:
d) He had the legal rights under Cherokee law to become chief
3) Since the nation doesn't have Warren as a member and didn't at the TIME of her usage of the ethnic identification.....she lied and thus committed a FRAUD.

This is the only logical conclusion one may come to if they aren't blindly supporting the perpetrator of the fraud.
 
Last edited:
Right, cause the law of the independent Nation of Cherokee is irrelevant. :roll: Face it, you lose. Even IF you aren't completely wrong and Warren is the same amount of blood Cherokee as their chief(which by the way seems to be complete bull****) then she would have to APPLY for status in the Cherokee nation using that very by-law that I presented. Not that difficult, so let me finish the proper logic off for you;
1) Warren can NOT claim to be 1/anything Cherokee unless recognized by the Cherokee NATION which means:
a) If she claimed it even once for the purposes of AA based advancement it wasn't legally recognized by the tribe which means......
b) She lied, and lying in to a party to gain acceptance whether it be of contract, admittance, or for other monetary or personal gain is [fraud
c) Fraud is a criminal felony
2) If the chief in question was in fact voted into that position that means:
a) He presented the proper paperwork to the tribal council
b) Under their laws it was accepted so:
c) That means he PROVED that he is in fact Cherokee and the tribe ACCEPTED that as documented fact so:
d) He had the legal rights under Cherokee law to become chief
3) Since the nation doesn't have Warren as a member and didn't at the TIME of her usage of the ethnic identification.....she lied and thus committed a FRAUD.

This is the only logical conclusion one may come to if they aren't blindly supporting the perpetrator of the fraud.

I don't think that anyone claimed Warren had done the paperwork to establish herself as a member of the Cherokee Nation, so this is all a massive strawman.

So let's put aside the desperate wingnut swift boating aside for a minute and look at what probably REALLY happened? I'm sure that, like many native Oklahomans, Warren was told growing up that she had Cherokee blood in her family, and she had no reason to doubt what she was told (which, as it turns out, was true). So like a lot of young people filling out applications, she mentioned stuff that she thought would make her sound interesting. "Hey, I'm part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?" And that is what all this bull**** is about. In fact, all of the institutions that have responded have said that they either didn't know of the claim or it was immaterial in their decision to bring her on board. And it seems that at least one of the institutions did essentially the same thing, i.e. they published in some directory that one of their profs was part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?

And what about your claim of fraud? In all likelihood that, too, is bull****, for several reasons. First, fraud requires intent -- knowledge of the falsity of the statement and the belief that it will have a material effect. In this case it appears that Warren thought she was telling the truth. Second, fraud requires reliance on the false statement by the recipient, and there is no evidence of that. Warren made no representation of Cherokee ancestry to most of the schools she applied to, and the others have said that they absolutely didn't rely on the claim in making their decision to take her on. And finally, fraud requires actual damages and there apppears to be no evidence of damages. Rather, the schools that Warren attended and for which she worked have benefitted from their association with her.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that anyone claimed Warren had done the paperwork to establish herself as a member of the Cherokee Nation, so this is all a massive strawman.

So let's put aside the desperate wingnut swift boating aside for a minute and look at what probably REALLY happened? I'm sure that, like many native Oklahomans, Warren was told growing up that she had Cherokee blood in her family, and she had no reason to doubt what she was told (which, as it turns out, was true). So like a lot of young people filling out applications, she mentioned stuff that she thought would make her sound interesting. "Hey, I'm part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?" And that is what all this bull**** is about. In fact, all of the institutions that have responded have said that they either didn't know of the claim or it was immaterial in their decision to bring her on board. And it seems that at least one of the institutions did essentially the same thing, i.e. they published in some directory that one of their profs was part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?

And what about your claim of fraud? In all likelihood that, too, is bull****, for several reasons. First, fraud requires intent -- knowledge of the falsity of the statement and the belief that it will have a material effect. In this case it appears that Warren thought she was telling the truth. Second, fraud requires reliance on the false statement by the recipient, and there is no evidence of that. Warren made no representation of Cherokee ancestry to most of the schools she applied to, and the others have said that they absolutely didn't rely on the claim in making their decision to take her on. And finally, fraud requires actual damages and there apppears to be no evidence of damages. Rather, the schools that Warren attended and for which she worked have benefitted from their association with her.
You should have stopped where I bolded, the crux of your argument is defeated right there. Warren could not LEGALLY claim Cherokee heritage for any benefits if not recognized by the tribe, which means she would have to submit some kind of DOCUMENTATION to that means, in the absence of said documentation she committed fraud any time she claimed Cherokee heritage on any official contract. I stopped reading after what I bolded because anything further is irrelevant.
 
You should have stopped where I bolded, the crux of your argument is defeated right there. Warren could not LEGALLY claim Cherokee heritage for any benefits if not recognized by the tribe, which means she would have to submit some kind of DOCUMENTATION to that means, in the absence of said documentation she committed fraud any time she claimed Cherokee heritage on any official contract. I stopped reading after what I bolded because anything further is irrelevant.

Um, when did Warren ever claim any legal benefits based upon her Cherokee heritage? What benefits are you alleging that she obtained?

I'll repost the portion that missed:

So let's put aside the desperate wingnut swift boating aside for a minute and look at what probably REALLY happened? I'm sure that, like many native Oklahomans, Warren was told growing up that she had Cherokee blood in her family, and she had no reason to doubt what she was told (which, as it turns out, was true). So like a lot of young people filling out applications, she mentioned stuff that she thought would make her sound interesting. "Hey, I'm part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?" And that is what all this bull**** is about. In fact, all of the institutions that have responded have said that they either didn't know of the claim or it was immaterial in their decision to bring her on board. And it seems that at least one of the institutions did essentially the same thing, i.e. they published in some directory that one of their profs was part Cherokee -- pretty cool, right?

And what about your claim of fraud? In all likelihood that, too, is bull****, for several reasons. First, fraud requires intent -- knowledge of the falsity of the statement and the belief that it will have a material effect. In this case it appears that Warren thought she was telling the truth. Second, fraud requires reliance on the false statement by the recipient, and there is no evidence of that. Warren made no representation of Cherokee ancestry to most of the schools she applied to, and the others have said that they absolutely didn't rely on the claim in making their decision to take her on. And finally, fraud requires actual damages and there apppears to be no evidence of damages. Rather, the schools that Warren attended and for which she worked have benefitted from their association with her.
 
Um, when did Warren ever claim any legal benefits based upon her Cherokee heritage? What benefits are you alleging that she obtained?
Stay with me this time. Whenever she put Cherokee on any admission form she was affirming Cherokee heritage. You understand that yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom