Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108278 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 ... 2707  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64378
Turbogoat wrote:
bimboman wrote:

How many mental leaps do you need to post that against 0.09% in total for Warrens defence!


Try having a look at the links and actually reading them. Try working out the range of percentages, rather than just jump immediately to the lowest possible number, and once you have, ask yourself the only relevant question.

Is 0.09% larger than 0%?

If yes, then Trump owes her a million dollars. To quibble over the amount (and if you read the links above you'd realize how fallacious it is to rely on your 0.09%) is merely shifting the goalposts.



That was the best result in a test paid for by her, you’re making huge
Mental leaps to defend her, I am posting this as a west African man so claiming that as a privilege.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
bimboman wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
bimboman wrote:

How many mental leaps do you need to post that against 0.09% in total for Warrens defence!


Try having a look at the links and actually reading them. Try working out the range of percentages, rather than just jump immediately to the lowest possible number, and once you have, ask yourself the only relevant question.

Is 0.09% larger than 0%?

If yes, then Trump owes her a million dollars. To quibble over the amount (and if you read the links above you'd realize how fallacious it is to rely on your 0.09%) is merely shifting the goalposts.



That was the best result in a test paid for by her, you’re making huge
Mental leaps to defend her, I am posting this as a west African man so claiming that as a privilege.


You are going to make posters who care about basic maths cry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5837
Location: Front and centre.
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


White man speak with forked tongue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
If Warren is of European descent she might be as much as 4% Neanderthal. Which makes her much more cave woman than Native American (based on Colombian and Peruvian data)

Sounds true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64378
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.



Possibly, it also might be further back from a wandering viking. I’m looking forward though to my slave reparations.


Last edited by bimboman on Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.


Warren claimed a Cherokee ancestor.
Cherokees say there are no such person.

Unless the cigar store Indian got to the lady .....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.


He has to pay if "she is Indian". Does somewhere between 1.5% and .09% make you Indian?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 5004
Seneca of the Night wrote:
BokJock wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
Is 0.09% larger than 0%?

If yes, then Trump owes her a million dollars.


You keep saying this like its true. Why?


Because he is NEVER EVER WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING, EVER.


But you admitted earlier that he was right about this


Firstly irrelevant, secondly I did no such thing.


Firstly it is relevant in the context of zzzz asking why TG keeps saying it's true. If the most die hardest of Trump die hards thinks its true - it adds a bit of weight.

Secondly
Quote:
FWIW I just read a blog comment from one of the worlds leading geneticists who has said that the dude who did the test is much more accurate than the usual kit, and the ancestor is probably six generations back, well within the realms of family lore, and on a balance of probabilities Warren has been telling the truth as she knew it and that the story got away on her in today's crazy race environment and that the matter should be dropped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

You want the top of the range? Go for your life. So she may (in the best case) be 1.5% Native American.

Do you really think one ancestor 6 generations (at best) back determines your ethnicity?


No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.


He has to pay if "she is Indian". Does somewhere between 1.5% and .09% make you Indian?


My frame of reference would be the Maori All Blacks, which I think would be enough to qualify someone to play for them. Other places I'm sure will have different levels to 'qualify', but frankly that's when people start thinking in labels like "quadroon" etc.... and it all starts getting a little dodgy. Tribal status is a little different to genetic make up in any case, but that's the parameter Trump demanded, so any amount in that test is enough to qualify.

At what percentage do YOU think is enough to qualify someone for Indianship? Where do you draw the line? It's definitely open for debate (and would go down as one of the single-most stupid debates in PR history of course). Genuinely interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Quote:
Native Americans are the people who consist one of the more than five hundred (500)
distinguished tribes that still endure as sovereign states with the United States’ present
geographical boundaries.
These are the tribes that descended from the pre-Colombian indigenous peoples of North
America.
For a person to be considered Native American by the United States government, they must either
have a CDIB card or be enrolled in a tribe.
A Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) is issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) an
agency under the United States Department of Interior. This certificate (CDIB) is the basis most
tribes use to enroll tribe members.
The CDIB is an official U.S. document used to certify that a person does possess a percentage of
Native American blood. Note though, the blood must be identified with a federally recognized
tribe.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs issues the certificate after the individual has forwarded a finalized
genealogy. The genealogy must be submitted with legal documents that include birth certificates,
documents showing the applicant’s descents both from the maternal and the paternal sides......

A certificate of degree of Indian blood shows the constituent blood degree of a particular tribe or
that of all tribes in the applicant’s ancestry. The percentage required by each tribe to enroll
varies. Some tribes require that a minimum degree must be met before granting membership to an
individual..........

Interestingly, even the federal government requires that you meet a certain minimum before
granting you some federal benefits....


To give you an example, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians a minimum of 1/16 degree of
Cherokee blood for tribal enrolment, while the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Higher Education Grant
expects you to have the minimum of ¼ Native American blood percentages. That is 25% of your
blood is from Native American ancestors.

Tribal Blood Quantum Requirements
50 Percent / One-Half Blood Quantum (One Parent)
Kialegee Tribal Town
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Utah
25 Percent / One-Fourth Blood Quantum (One Grandparent)
Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington
Oneida Tribe of Indians, Wisconsin
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma
Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Arizona
Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Kansas
Navajo Nation, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico
Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, North and South Dakota
Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, California
Havapai-Prescott Tribe, Arizona
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Oklahoma
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Montana
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York, Canada
12.5 Percent / One-Eighth Blood Quantum (One Great-Grandparent)
Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Comanche Nation Oklahoma
Delaware Nation, Oklahoma
Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon
Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
Karuk Tribe of California
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington
Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie)
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma
Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
Ponca Nation, Oklahoma
Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska
Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington
Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, Washington
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe of Washington
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco and Tawakonie)
6.25 Percent / One-Sixteenth Blood Quantum (One Great-Great-Grandparent)
Caddo Nation
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Fort Sill Apache Tribe
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina





Reckon that settles it.


Last edited by Wilson's Toffee on Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Stop deflecting. :P

What is your line in the sand for someone to claim to be an "Indian"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25660
The things the dems will hang their hats on :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Stop deflecting. :P

What is your line in the sand for someone to claim to be an "Indian"?



The post above reflects the federal government as well as the different tribes' requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
No, I think acknowledging that there is a range is a lot more honest than repeatedly trying to just use the one extreme to try and bolster your argument.


Stop deflecting. Does 1.5% make you native american?


Does 0.09% = 0 ? Nobody seems to want to answer that one. So much deflection.

In answer:
It reflects some small measure of Native American heritage, likely a single ancestor about 6-10 generations back.


He has to pay if "she is Indian". Does somewhere between 1.5% and .09% make you Indian?


My frame of reference would be the Maori All Blacks, which I think would be enough to qualify someone to play for them. Other places I'm sure will have different levels to 'qualify', but frankly that's when people start thinking in labels like "quadroon" etc.... and it all starts getting a little dodgy. Tribal status is a little different to genetic make up in any case, but that's the parameter Trump demanded, so any amount in that test is enough to qualify.

At what percentage do YOU think is enough to qualify someone for Indianship? Where do you draw the line? It's definitely open for debate (and would go down as one of the single-most stupid debates in PR history of course). Genuinely interested.


Apples and origins* innit. Paul Tito is eligible to play for the Maori. Suspect people would be less keen on him self identfying as Maori and trying to build a career off it.


I dunno what the limit should be - I don't have a lot of time for this shite - but I'm pretty sure it should be higher than 1.5%. Why not ask the Cherokee?



* I am obscenely proud of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15668
Location: South Oxfordshire
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Stop deflecting. :P

What is your line in the sand for someone to claim to be an "Indian"?



The post above reflects the federal government as well as the different tribes' requirements.


Had she asked to be recognised by a tribe or the federal government as a Native American? Can I see this application please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:

Apples and origins* innit. Paul Tito is eligible to play for the Maori. Suspect people would be less keen on him self identfying as Maori and trying to build a career off it.


I dunno what the limit should be - I don't have a lot of time for this shite - but I'm pretty sure it should be higher than 1.5%. Why not ask the Cherokee?



* I am obscenely proud of that.


*very good :lol:
But she wasn't applying to be apart of the Cherokee nation, was she?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24432
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage ... rol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25660
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Stop deflecting. :P

What is your line in the sand for someone to claim to be an "Indian"?



The post above reflects the federal government as well as the different tribes' requirements.


Had she asked to be recognised by a tribe or the federal government as a Native American? Can I see this application please?
Did she ever check "that box" in the past?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
By the way - Warren would still fail the Maori test.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

Apples and origins* innit. Paul Tito is eligible to play for the Maori. Suspect people would be less keen on him self identfying as Maori and trying to build a career off it.


I dunno what the limit should be - I don't have a lot of time for this shite - but I'm pretty sure it should be higher than 1.5%. Why not ask the Cherokee?



* I am obscenely proud of that.


*very good :lol:
But she wasn't applying to be apart of the Cherokee nation, was she?


She's certainly claiming to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
saffer13 wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Assuming the most favourable 6 generations analysis, you're looking at an Indian ancestor somewhere around 1785. Most likely 8th generation is 1720. Least favourable 10th generation is 1660.

This is not the stuff of "well within the realms of family lore".


Stop deflecting. :P

What is your line in the sand for someone to claim to be an "Indian"?



The post above reflects the federal government as well as the different tribes' requirements.


Had she asked to be recognised by a tribe or the federal government as a Native American? Can I see this application please?
Did she ever check "that box" in the past?


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eliza ... -american/
Quote:
The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in [on the decision]. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15668
Location: South Oxfordshire
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:

Apples and origins* innit. Paul Tito is eligible to play for the Maori. Suspect people would be less keen on him self identfying as Maori and trying to build a career off it.


I dunno what the limit should be - I don't have a lot of time for this shite - but I'm pretty sure it should be higher than 1.5%. Why not ask the Cherokee?



* I am obscenely proud of that.


*very good :lol:
But she wasn't applying to be apart of the Cherokee nation, was she?


She's certainly claiming to be.


You shure she's claiming more than a single ancestor? That doesn't mean the same as being part of the Cherokee nation by your standards. (or theirs)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
Did she ever check "that box" in the past?


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eliza ... -american/
Quote:
The Globe examined hundreds of documents, many of them never before available, and reached out to all 52 of the law professors who are still living and were eligible to be in [on the decision]. Some are Warren’s allies. Others are not. Thirty-one agreed to talk to the Globe — including the law professor who was, at the time, in charge of recruiting minority faculty. Most said they were unaware of her claims to Native American heritage and all but one of the 31 said those claims were not discussed as part of her hire. One professor told the Globe he is unsure whether her heritage came up, but is certain that, if it did, it had no bearing on his vote on Warren’s appointment.
[/quote]

This does not say what you think it says.

This is just Harvard double pinkie promising and swearing down dead they absolutely, positively didn't pay any attention to all the times she claimed to be Indian, honest guv.

In fact so race deaf are Harvard, her claims (including her decison to list herself on faculty lists as a native american) were all like a tree failing in the forest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.


I would pay good money to see Trump, earnestly kitted out in a lab coat (and stethoscope round the neck like a n00b) trying to work out how to perform a DNA test.
That's quite impressive goalpost shifting too, after offering to throw a DNA test kit at her, he now wants to change the game... it's almost as if a million dollars is slightly more to him than he has previously hinted at.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.



This is not true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
This does not say what you think it says.

This is just Harvard double pinkie promising and swearing down dead they absolutely, positively didn't pay any attention to all the times she claimed to be Indian, honest guv.

In fact so race deaf are Harvard, her claims (including her decison to list herself on faculty lists as a native american) were all like a tree failing in the forest.


Apart from the bits where they were unaware of her Native American Heritage? You'd think people at Harvard would read the applications before interviewing and approving new faculty, but ok.


Last edited by Turbogoat on Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15668
Location: South Oxfordshire
zzzz wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.



This is not true.


Source please? Happy to be corrected, but as far as I have seen from numerous sources, when directly questioned about this she only claimed to have a single ancestral link.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15668
Location: South Oxfordshire
Turbogoat wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.


I would pay good money to see Trump, earnestly kitted out in a lab coat (and stethoscope round the neck like a n00b) trying to work out how to perform a DNA test.
That's quite impressive goalpost shifting too, after offering to throw a DNA test kit at her, he now wants to change the game... it's almost as if a million dollars is slightly more to him than he has previously hinted at.


Remember, back in the day he would have settled this type of personal bet out of the Trump Foundation. I suspect that he'd forgotten that that option wasn't available to him any more


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Saint wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.



This is not true.


Source please? Happy to be corrected, but as far as I have seen from numerous sources, when directly questioned about this she only claimed to have a single ancestral link.


Likewise, it'd be interesting to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9891
So when Harvard Law School listed her as a minority hire what were they talking about? Who gave them that impression?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Saint wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.


I would pay good money to see Trump, earnestly kitted out in a lab coat (and stethoscope round the neck like a n00b) trying to work out how to perform a DNA test.
That's quite impressive goalpost shifting too, after offering to throw a DNA test kit at her, he now wants to change the game... it's almost as if a million dollars is slightly more to him than he has previously hinted at.


Remember, back in the day he would have settled this type of personal bet out of the Trump Foundation. I suspect that he'd forgotten that that option wasn't available to him any more


Maybe Daddy can buy a million dollars worth of casino chips again. He didn't manage to run a casino into the ground, did he?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9891
zzzz wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.



This is not true.


No it is not. She was listed as a minority hire at Harvard. She was not listed as a normal hire with some minority ancestry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6587
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
This does not say what you think it says.

This is just Harvard double pinkie promising and swearing down dead they absolutely, positively didn't pay any attention to all the times she claimed to be Indian, honest guv.

In fact so race deaf are Harvard, her claims (including her decison to list herself on faculty lists as a native american) were all like a tree failing in the forest.


Apart from the bits where they were unaware of her Native American Heritage? You'd think people at Harvard would read the applications before interviewing and approving new faculty, but ok.



You and me both. But there you go. Apparently they were completely unaware of her self identification.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9891
Just to clarify, in order to be a minority hire you have to be one. At the time. You cannot not be one but have some minority ancestry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
This does not say what you think it says.

This is just Harvard double pinkie promising and swearing down dead they absolutely, positively didn't pay any attention to all the times she claimed to be Indian, honest guv.

In fact so race deaf are Harvard, her claims (including her decison to list herself on faculty lists as a native american) were all like a tree failing in the forest.


Apart from the bits where they were unaware of her Native American Heritage? You'd think people at Harvard would read the applications before interviewing and approving new faculty, but ok.



You and me both. But there you go. Apparently they were completely unaware of her self identification.


Yup, that's what the cool kids are saying.
http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/09/02/eli ... ty-harvard
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth- ... 018-09-01/
https://coed.com/2018/09/03/elizabeth-w ... -american/
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/09/02/ ... ng-report/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... pocahontas

So much for claims of 'minority hire'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21769
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Saint wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
https://www.powwows.com/much-percentage-native-american-enrol-tribe/

She claimed to be Cherokee. See her reference to herself in the cook books, etc.


But did she ask to be recognised by a tribe? No
Did she ask to be recognised by the Federal Government? No

You're trying to impose a minimum standard on this, after the fact. She never, ever, claimed that she had more than a distant ancestral link.

Was she unwise to try and self identify like this? Probably


I see Donald is now saying he will only pay out if he personally tests her. Presumably he is now an expert geneticist.


I would pay good money to see Trump, earnestly kitted out in a lab coat (and stethoscope round the neck like a n00b) trying to work out how to perform a DNA test.
That's quite impressive goalpost shifting too, after offering to throw a DNA test kit at her, he now wants to change the game... it's almost as if a million dollars is slightly more to him than he has previously hinted at.


You do realise, you clown, that trump keeps close by him at all times a lab coat and stethoscope all ready to go, at rallies, on the off chance that he should need to do a quick dna test. He is prepared. Is she?


Please tell Trump it's a urine test.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108278 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 ... 2707  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Flockwitt, mr bungle, ovalball, RuggaBugga, Sonny Blount, terryfinch, ticketlessinseattle and 62 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group