Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Clinton, Page, McCabe, Strzok, Lynch, etc.

[ecofarm]

She never made a ****ing claim of how much NA blood she had in her, just that she had NA ancestry! That's it!!

Sorry. Sorry.

[counts to 10]

I'm calm now.

She claimed "great great great grandmother", 5-6 generations ago. Test results show 6-9 generations ago. Average American is something like 10 generations ago (or an equivalent partial in between) and their test would show 9-12 generations ago.

But that's not how the math works. A half Native American ancestor in half the amount of time would produce the same results. So when we say "average American" we mean all possible combination resulting in about 1/1024. Could be both sides of the family, ancestors of partial ancestry, all sorts of ways to get to 1/1024.

Warren's test showed no (unexpected) ancestors with partial ancestry. It showed a Native American maternal grandmother 6-9 generations ago.

 

[AlphaOmega]

These threads are called denial and my god...are they entertaining me. This is like seeing the moms of murderers being interviewed and they are in such denial they say he was a goor goot boy.

 

[ecofarm]

I think the issue here is whether an NA relative, 6-10 gens back, would qualify one to enter law school with minority "Native American women" status. I don't know, but I suspect the answer technically is 'yes', similar to the African-American "one drop" rule.

But by Warren releasing a test showing she had no more NA blood than the great many of us, I think she unnecessarily fanned the flames, and it appears to me she did more political damage to herself than help.

Warren never applied for school or any job as a Native American. Staff from all four of the universities at which she worked, as well as her admissions officers, have provided video testimony.

There are two problems.

1. She listed herself as a Native American on what she believed to be an ancestry social media platform. It was connected to the a lawyers association. She realized her error and removed it and apologized.

2. She apparently filled out a form in 1986 for the Texas Bar that claimed "Native American" as ancestry. This was not an application, it was a registration for networking purposes.

1. Is meh. 2. Seems like a problem.


While her Native American blood amount might be average, the way in which it arrives is not. It's a single maternal ancestor possibly 6 generations ago, exactly as she claimed.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Clinton, Page, McCabe, Strzok, Lynch, etc.
The thread refers to persons known to be serial liars, but no comments directed to this issue. Whzzat?
/

I understand they all also spit at people in wheelchairs, kick sleeping dogs and heckle at piano recitals.

 

[Chomsky]

Can you post something so I can see what is the average of NA blood in the general population? I have none. My husband has none. Our spouses' siblings' spouses have none. None of my friends do. What percentage of the 320 million Americans have Native American heritage?

Here was the first comprehensive hit, on a Google search I just did:

Broadly, the genomic analysis found that on an average the African American genome was 73.2 percent African, 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American. Latinos as expected had significantly more Native American ancestry with the average Latino genome being 18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.

With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American. In general, the numbers seem to agree with what one would expect given the history of American colonization by Europeans and their interactions with African and Native Americans.

Source: (Genetic Literacy Project) Elizabeth Warren Controversy: Almost every American has a sliver of Native American ancestry

I'm no geneticist, I don't want to deeply re-litigate the Warren issue. But I do believe from her numbers in the test, and the way the general public interprets them, in political terms she would have been better to let the subject lie.

 

[OscarLevant]

Ans: Warren's claim is dubious, at best.

But regardless, I'm still pissed Obama stooped to Trump's level. It was beyond the weight & dignity of the office, IMO.

So, I always say that's her one sin. Compare that to Trump's.


IN the general, it won't be an issue, though Trump will try to use it as a weapon.

But, dems have a better weapon, the Mueller Report

 

[tres borrachos]

Here was the first comprehensive hit, on a Google search I just did:





Source: (Genetic Literacy Project) Elizabeth Warren Controversy: Almost every American has a sliver of Native American ancestry

I'm no geneticist, I don't want to deeply re-litigate the Warren issue. But I do believe from her numbers in the test, and the way the general public interprets them, in political terms she would have been better to let the subject lie.

From your link:

With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American

So less than 1 percent of 1 percent of Americans of European descent have NA ancestry.

 

[tres borrachos]

So, I always say that's her one sin. Compare that to Trump's.


IN the general, it won't be an issue, though Trump will try to use it as a weapon.

But, dems have a better weapon, the Mueller Report

People who weren't going to vote for her anyway won't not vote for her based on this.

She is the least favorite of mine as far as the candidates running, and the one I hope doesn't get the nomination over the rest of them. I can stomach voting for most of them against Trump, but I hate the idea of voting for Warren. That said, I'll do it anyway if she's who they put up against Trump. I'll vote for a Bic Pen over Trump.

 

[Chomsky]

Warren never applied for school or any job as a Native American. Staff from all four of the universities at which she worked, as well as her admissions officers, have provided video testimony.

There are two problems.

1. She listed herself as a Native American on what she believed to be an ancestry social media platform. It was connected to the a lawyers association. She realized her error and removed it and apologized.

2. She apparently filled out a form in 1986 for the Texas Bar that claimed "Native American" as ancestry. This was not an application, it was a registration for networking purposes.

1. Is meh. 2. Seems like a problem.


While her Native American blood amount might be average, the way in which it arrives is not. It's a single maternal ancestor possibly 6 generations ago, exactly as she claimed.

Alright, I'm working from memory and don't want to get lost in technicalities like whether she used her claimed heritage to get into law school, or to teach at law school. Yeah, I know there's a big difference. But anyway, apparently she used her claimed heritage while teaching at law school.

Here's what a quick Google found:

At a time when law schools faced public pressure to show greater ethnic diversity within their faculty, the university’s Crimson newspaper quoted a law school spokesman in 1996 saying Warren was Native American.

The Boston Globe followed the Herald with a report that the Association of American Law Schools listed Warren as a minority law teacher each year from 1986 to 1994. In that time, Warren went from being a law professor at the University of Texas, to the University of Pennsylvania, and finally in 1995 to Harvard University.

Source: (Politifact) The facts behind Elizabeth Warren, her claimed Native American ties and Trump's 'Pocahontas' insult

 

[ecofarm]

Alright, I'm working from memory and don't want to get lost in technicalities like whether she used her claimed heritage to get into law school, or to teach at law school. Yeah, I know there's a big difference. But anyway, apparently she used her claimed heritage while teaching at law school.

Here's what a quick Google found:



Source: (Politifact) The facts behind Elizabeth Warren, her claimed Native American ties and Trump's 'Pocahontas' insult

That's problem (1.) above. She claims she thought it was a social media ancestry sharing group (claims she was made aware of it through such) and it turned out to be a registry for the law school. Not an application of any sort. A list she claims to have thought was social but was just a list. She removed her name and apologized when she became aware it was not social media sharing (so she claims).

Problem (2.) above emerged in the past month or so.

 

[Chomsky]

So, I always say that's her one sin. Compare that to Trump's.


IN the general, it won't be an issue, though Trump will try to use it as a weapon.

But, dems have a better weapon, the Mueller Report

Perhaps. But I think it already damaged her, and that might be evidenced by her meager poll numbers and flame-out. Regardless, I don't see her catching-on sufficiently. She might make the bottom of the ticket, though. But for Veep, I'd probably prefer Kamala Harris.

 

[Chomsky]

That's problem (1.) above. She claims she thought it was a social media ancestry sharing group (claims she was made aware of it through such) and it turned out to be a registry for the law school. Not an application of any sort. A list she claims to have thought was social but was just a list. She removed her name and apologized when she became aware it was not social media sharing (so she claims).

Problem (2.) above emerged in the past month or so.

Either way, I think the issue is too technical to work for her. You and I are on her side, and we're struggling to figure it out. Her opponents will be speaking a short direct message, and those are the most powerful messages in political terms.

I just don't see her catching-on. Maybe, someone will pick her as Veep instead.

 

[ecofarm]

Either way, I think the issue is to technical to work for her. You and I are on her side, and we're struggling to figure it out. Her opponents will be speaking a short direct message, and those are the most powerful messages in political terms.

I just don't see her catching-on. Maybe, someone will pick her as Veep instead.

1. She would need to lay out her claim, "great great great grandmother", and call that 6 not 5 generations.
2. Then she needs to show the test results including 6 generations.
3. Then she needs to show the test results included 9 generations (is it 10?) and that is near the average American.
4. Then she needs to explain that's not how the math works. The average American has some ancestor here, some ancestor there and maybe a great great grandmother with 1/8 ancestry. These various ancestors together add up to an average amount of 10 generations removed 100% ancestor. Present the conversion equations. Graphs. Illustrate how one 100% ancestor 6 generations ago is twice or four times the average and coming from a single source is very unusual.

5. Now we pretend people understand (4.)

6. She apologizes again for the "social media ancestry sharing" debacle, and we buy it.
7. She somehow explains the magic marker filled form from 1986.

It's a long road.

 

[maxparrish]

So the citizens of Trump Fan Nation have been telling us for months that the Mueller report was going to result in all sorts of terrible issues for these people, and they were going to all be locked up. Has anyone found the pages in the Mueller report yet that basically exposes all of the heinous crimes these people committed, and when can we expect these indictments to be handed down?

While I have no idea why anyone might have expected the Mueller report would result in "terrible issues", there isn't any doubt that it exposed that Schiff, Warner, Clapper and Brennan as major flim-flammers and smear artists, and will join Harry Reid as among those of bottom feeders of hoax promoters in US history.

None of them have adequately explained how they got it so wrong, and some still seem to be in denial. Brennan stuttered: "I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," … no kidding! ("Morning Joe" program Monday morning).

Comey is shell shocked, tweeting a picture of himself staring a the water, captioned: "Geologic time offers useful perspective."

James Clapper, former DNI, refuses to believe that the cloud of suspicion has been lifted.

In any event, those "terrible issues" are now developing. Barr is reviewing, the IG is investigating, and the Senate will launch its own investigation - people must be held accountable for this debacle, and promotion of a fake narrative. Heads must roll...

Winter was always coming, but it has now arrived.

 

[tres borrachos]

While I have no idea why anyone might have expected the Mueller report would result in "terrible issues", there isn't any doubt that it exposed that Schiff, Warner, Clapper and Brennan as major flim-flammers and smear artists, and will join Harry Reid as among those of bottom feeders of hoax promoters in US history.

None of them have adequately explained how they got it so wrong, and some still seem to be in denial. Brennan stuttered: "I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," … no kidding! ("Morning Joe" program Monday morning).

Comey is shell shocked, tweeting a picture of himself staring a the water, captioned: "Geologic time offers useful perspective."

James Clapper, former DNI, refuses to believe that the cloud of suspicion has been lifted.

In any event, those "terrible issues" are now developing. Barr is reviewing, the IG is investigating, and the Senate will launch its own investigation - people must be held accountable for this debacle, and promotion of a fake narrative. Heads must roll...

Winter was always coming, but it has now arrived.

You lost me in your first sentence. The Mueller Report does not expose Schiff, Warner, Clapper and Brennan as "major flim-flammers and smear artists", unless you can point me straight to the part of the Mueller Report that confirms what you just said. Please do it so I can read it for myself.

 

[tres borrachos]

Either way, I think the issue is too technical to work for her. You and I are on her side, and we're struggling to figure it out. Her opponents will be speaking a short direct message, and those are the most powerful messages in political terms.

I just don't see her catching-on. Maybe, someone will pick her as Veep instead.

Are you saying that you think her Democratic opponents will actually talk about this stupid DNA nonsense?

 

[ecofarm]

Are you saying that you think her Democratic opponents will actually talk about this stupid DNA nonsense?

Hopefully "fauxahontas" not Pocahontas. The latter is disrespectful to an American hero.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yeah Tres, but my understanding is her trace of NA blood is lower than it is in the general population! That's not exactly a ringing endorsement!

NO, it's about what her family history supports. It's certainly more than mine.

 

[maxparrish]

You lost me in your first sentence. The Mueller Report does not expose Schiff, Warner, Clapper and Brennan as "major flim-flammers and smear artists", unless you can point me straight to the part of the Mueller Report that confirms what you just said. Please do it so I can read it for myself.

It doesn't literally report they are con artists, they not the subject of the report. However the content of the report exposes (reveals) what most of us suspected: these characters were full of **** all along.

Former CIA Director Brennan, for example, has been pushing the falsehood that about real and substantive collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia for the past two years. On what basis? Now that Mueller has shot holes in his meme, he sheepish admits he "must have gotten some bad information".

No kidding. Now begins the development of those terrible issues of the great hoax, who perpetuated it, and to hold the hoaxers accountable.

The wheel turns...heh...heh...heh.

 

[maxparrish]

Hopefully "fauxahontas" not Pocahontas. The latter is disrespectful to an American hero.

Not really. Sarcasm that points out a personae that a person IS NOT is a compliment to the personae. "You're no John Kennedy"..."Hey Einstein"... and other expressions don't insult the personae referenced, it insults the person it is directed at.

 

[ecofarm]

Not really. Sarcasm that points out a personae that a person IS NOT is a compliment to the personae. "You're no John Kennedy"..."Hey Einstein"... and other expressions don't insult the personae referenced, it insults the person it is directed at.

So if I refer to Kim Jong Un as George Washington, that's not a problem?

 

[maxparrish]

So if I refer to Kim Jong Un as George Washington, that's not a problem?

Not if it is sarcasm. It's only "a problem" if someone is trying to pay Kim Jong a compliment by calling him a George Washington. But you don't think Trump was giving Liz Warren a compliment by suggesting she was a real Pocahontas do you?

Of course not.

 

[ecofarm]

Not if it is sarcasm. It's only "a problem" if someone is trying to pay Kim Jong a compliment by calling him a George Washington. But you don't think Trump was giving Liz Warren a compliment by suggesting she was a real Pocahontas do you?

Of course not.

I find using the name of an American hero for disparagement to be disrespectful. If someone thought calling Kim Jong Un George Washington, even disparagingly, was cute, I'd disagree.

It's using the name as a pejorative and that's inherently disrespectful. Keep in mind, it's not a passing remark, it's a nickname.

 

[Fishking]

See, this is why I wouldn't make a good conspiracy theorist. My proposed conspiracy theory has an end point that is ultimately falsifiable. A really good conspiracy theory, like yours, is open-ended and never falsifiable.

Oh I don't know...you're clinging to Russian collusion pretty good.

 

[maxparrish]

I find using the name of an American hero for disparagement to be disrespectful. If someone thought calling Kim Jong Un George Washington, even disparagingly, was cute, I'd disagree.

It's using the name as a pejorative and that's inherently disrespectful. Keep in mind, it's not a passing remark, it's a nickname.

Nonsense. Apparently you've painted your self into a swamp of snooty propriety and now feel compelled to attack a social construction that is commonly understood and shared by the rest of us as NOT disrespectful EXCEPT to the target of the sarcasm. You can invent your own language that lack a sense of sarcasm, but our language and culture shares a plain meaning and construction that you don't get.

Sad. Perhaps you can move to a remote island where your native language is "ecofarm" - but as long as your going to interact here I suggest you use the lingua franca of America - American English.