Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Bustamante said that Warren’s test results show the “vast majority” of her ancestry is European, but that “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor,” likely 6-10 generations ago.

Wait, wait, wait... she released this to SUPPORT her claim? That is hilarious.

And leftists are buying it?
Click to expand...

Depends what her original claim were.

Oh, that's right. You don't care about that. You cast your lot with opposing anything that someone on the "left" says. Now that you've been caught and that her original claim has been demonstrated, you must therefore move the goalposts.

Oh dear.

JoeMorgue said:
I... don't... care. I don't understand why Elizabeth Warren thought her homeopathic level of Native Americaness was something any of us were the least bit interested in and I don't care that the Republicans think it's a hill to die defending.

There is no angle to approach this discussion from that isn't stupid.
Click to expand...

It's worth discussing only as yet another exploration of the power of tribalism. In this case, right-wing tribalism. They just can't admit it.
 
The Big Dog said:
Nope, I saw them!

"Ha! What an idiot! She should just take the test! The fact that she's not taken a test just proves that she's lying!" and "Ha! What an idiot! She should never have taken the test!"

v.

"You should do X" and "You should never do X"

there are several differences, one is particularly crucial.
Click to expand...

Well we can remove "Ha! What an idiot!" as it exists in both. We're left with:

1. She should just take the test! The fact that she's not taken a test just proves that she's lying!

2. She should never have taken the test!

So, possible explanations of why these are compatible?

A. Trump changed his mind between making the two statements, from that she should take the test, to that she shouldn't.

B. Since she has now taken the test, the second sentence in the statement #1 is no longer applicable. Not sure how that could make the statements compatible.

C. Some other explanation. I'm stumped for the moment. You could maybe argue "a" test is different than "the" test. That would be weak.

D. He was being disingenuous one or both times.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
It's worth discussing only as yet another exploration of the power of tribalism. In this case, right-wing tribalism. They just can't admit it.
Click to expand...

I think we've safely established tribalism as a real world phenomenon at this point.
 
Shalamar said:
Family said there was ancestry. DNA says she has ancestry.
Click to expand...

Starting with her grandmother she claimed ancestry. We don't know if any other human being before her did. We don't know if anyone else did. We don't know if any of the eloping story is true.


There is context to these claims as Sooner in origin. Suppose my parents were from Normandy and Gotha and that I claimed an ancestry of English royalty. And a test confirms I'm descended from Aethelwulf. It is clear from the context of my claim that I was linking my story to the Normans or the Windsors. Finding saxon royalty doesn't prove me right.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Starting with her grandmother she claimed ancestry. We don't know if any other human being before her did. We don't know if anyone else did. We don't know if any of the eloping story is true.


There is context to these claims as Sooner in origin. Suppose my parents were from Normandy and Gotha and that I claimed an ancestry of English royalty. And a test confirms I'm descended from Aethelwulf. It is clear from the context of my claim that I was linking my story to the Normans or the Windsors. Finding saxon royalty doesn't prove me right.
Click to expand...

Family said there was ancestry. DNA says she has ancestry.
 
After reading today all the pages concerning the DNA results, one thing is disturbingly clear: Trump supporters will twist themselves into seemingly impossible knots not to admit that Trump was wrong. They'd rather make themselves look ridiculous. And they do. It's entertaining, yet scary, to watch. It's just another piece of evidence that Trump was right regarding shooting someone in Times Square and his voters.
 
crescent said:
aaannnd here we go again. She never said that - any of it. You are repeating lies, making up things she never claimed. Lies, either you yourself are lying, or you are repeating lies made by other people. Either way, that's not what she claimed.

She said they eloped because of disapproval by relatives, due to partial native ancestry.

Which might be as low as what you stated, but which may also be as high as 1/64.
Click to expand...

I hate to embarrass you like this, but I posted a link to her saying that earlier.
 
Segnosaur said:
It appears that none of the people who were involved in hiring her actually used that as a factor in hiring her. So again, no real advantage to her.

https://www.apnews.com/4d83eff785f146c6a20754a61f5fa503
Click to expand...

Yeah but that isn't the claim. The claim is that she used it to gain an advantage, not that it was successful.

BobTheCoward said:
And it was stupid to rely on it then, too.
Click to expand...

Retroactively!

BrooklynBaby said:
She provides proof she lied and Dems declare victory.
Click to expand...

If you think she did that, then you have not understood what happened.

BrooklynBaby said:
I'm an uneducated rube, so it's really not my fault.
Click to expand...

Oh? Not a deplorable?
 
Imhotep said:
Well we can remove "Ha! What an idiot!" as it exists in both. We're left with:

1. She should just take the test! The fact that she's not taken a test just proves that she's lying!

2. She should never have taken the test!

So, possible explanations of why these are compatible?

A. Trump changed his mind between making the two statements, from that she should take the test, to that she shouldn't.

B. Since she has now taken the test, the second sentence in the statement #1 is no longer applicable. Not sure how that could make the statements compatible.

C. Some other explanation. I'm stumped for the moment. You could maybe argue "a" test is different than "the" test. That would be weak.

D. He was being disingenuous one or both times.
Click to expand...

D. is certainly one theory, and in fact that is the very theory I have heard from some members of the left today.

I was thinking more along the lines of the results of the test...
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Here's Fauxcahontas talking about her Cherokee and Delaware heritage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLI3SU33tIc&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

What are you, 12? Can you call people by their names?

The Big Dog said:
That's 'weird' you did not actually address my post... hmmm.

Betsy's expert consulted for 23 and me. 23 and me says:

"The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent and a confidence level of 95 percent."

Uh oh, I am pretty sure that her claim falls well within the margin of error.

We are talking Science, so CERTAINLY our hero told us what the margin of error was, right?
Click to expand...

I love how you use Warren using the most charitable interpretation to her advantage as a dodge to ignore Trump's downright dishonesty and cowardice.
 
The Big Dog said:
D. is certainly one theory, and in fact that is the very theory I have heard from some members of the left today.

I was thinking more along the lines of the results of the test...
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that not only did not taking the test prove she was lying, but so did taking the test. So that would logically lead us to conclude that she was lying regardless of whether she took the test or not.

That seems to work out okay, but still fails to address the proposition of whether or not she should take the test, which remains at odds as the two statements of "she should" and "she should never" remain incompatible.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
There is no evidence that "debunks" me because there is no evidence. It's a fraud. Shes 1/1024 something that could be Native American and could be anyone who came across the land bridge. That means when she says her Cherokee mother had to elope because Injuns couldn't get married in those parts it was a lie.
You guys just never give up, regardless of the actual evidence. It reminds me of Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, and Amanda Knox.
Click to expand...

crescent said:
aaannnd here we go again. She never said that - any of it. You are repeating lies, making up things she never claimed. Lies, either you yourself are lying, or you are repeating lies made by other people. Either way, that's not what she claimed.

She said they eloped because of disapproval by relatives, due to partial native ancestry.
Which might be as low as what you stated, but which may also be as high as 1/64.
Click to expand...

BrooklynBaby said:
I hate to embarrass you like this, but I posted a link to her saying that earlier.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what she said at all. She never said "injuns" (sic) couldn't get married in those parts". What she said was :

“You know, my mom and dad were born and raised out in Oklahoma, and my daddy was in his teens when he fell in love with my mother,” the Massachusetts Democrat told Fox News Sunday. “She was a beautiful girl who played the piano. And he was head over heels in love with her and wanted to marry her. And his family was bitterly opposed to that because she was part Native American.”
Click to expand...

I suggest you read more carefully so you stop embarrassing yourself like this.
 
The Big Dog said:
who sees the problem here?
Click to expand...

Yes, mostly your interpretation or ignorance of what that means.

Oh dear.

JoeMorgue said:
Oh dear goddamn Jesus backflipping Christ politicians could just jiggle their keys at each other and it would be more meaningful then thus.

So the Republicans don't like the incontrovertible prove that the Democrats provided for their doubt of the claim that nobody has yet explained why anybody bothered to make.

Good. Glad we're all on the same page.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. If the thread is so ridiculous, why post in it or read it? I usually avoid the stuff I don't care for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom