It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How did the controversy about Warren's Native American ancestry begin?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: Swills

How did the controversy about Warren's Native American ancestry begin?

Better question: How did it end?

Well, by her shooting herself in the foot with the most politically questionable "proof" ever submitted on a topic.

As for your claim that she didn't start the controversy--she did, all of those years ago, when she made improvable claims at being a minority when she wasn't. Just because her university used her own claim to pretend like that proved diversity in their student body is irrelevant.

But, you know, you do a good job from acknowledging her choice to pretend to be a minority, but ending with, "Warren didn't start this controversy."

The irony is palpable: The Dems are all about whining about cultural appropriation. THAT is the hypocrisy that needs calling out, even if only Right is willing to do it (and some of us non-Dem or non-Repubs who just like pointing out political dishonesty).

posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 01:33 PM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes indeed. A hatchet blow does seem to be delivered to this whole issue.
A smarter person might have first gone to the tribal elders with that information to find if there was any acceptance of her claims before making them public. She seems to have succumbed to the temptation to treat fire with fire, in this case the blatant verbal abuse peppered on her from Trump. What was really a small issue was blown up by first her opponent back on 12 and then again by Trump. She should have just let it lay. Just let the water roll off her almost moccasins.

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:58 AM

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Lumenari

Neanderthals were a completely different species... soooo...
Your analogy is garbage. Pure garbage on a heap of other garbage that is about to be set ablaze.

How sad that you would need to do such mental gymnastics, rather than just swallow your pride for being gullible enough to believe Trump.

The DNA test says you are wrong... Jesus Christ, get over it and move on.

It actually doesn't though; as the DNA test was administered by a personal friend and results culled at 0.003% are way below the margin of error. 0.003% results show up on typical DNA tests as "unassigned."

Her friend added that for her, and made it below the margin of error so he doesn't lose his job. That DNA test essentially proves that she's not native american.
edit on 18-10-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 12:07 PM

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It's not a semantics defense. It's a he never made the bet and if he did he would have WON.

NO, the proof that she does have NA ancestry is now on the record. Have you missed all of this?

It's like saying one of these days I am going to bet you that you can't flip a coin twice and get heads twice, they flip it and get two tails and then claiming they need to pay up.

If I tell my buddy with a deck of cards in his hand that if he cuts a read card I will pay him 5 bucks. If he does I would pay. But that would be a stupid bet. I do not make stupid bets. I would make the bet if my buddy put up five bucks on the turn of a black card. That would be a 50 50 bet.

Trump made a stupid bet before the whole nation and lost as her dna has now shown. A bet is a bet bet it stupid or not.

Your argument is ridiculous. Hey, persuade me. What exactly was the bet Trump made and how did he lose?

And I am not here to persuade you of anything. "What exactly was the bet Trump made and how did he lose?'' He lost because all he had to do was take a dribble of his fortune and donate it to charity and he cannot even admit that he has been caught out. He has shown once again just how cheap he really is. That is to everyone but his believers.

Caught out on what?

She's 0.003% that's less than the margin of error in the DNA test, meaning it's supposed to be thrown out or be classified as "Unassigned" because there isn't enough data in the sample to tell what group it belongs to. In other words, this is "common" data in DNA. As it turns out the average American is more Native American than 0.003%.

Soooooo, caught out on what?

edit on 18-10-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 05:56 PM
I asked this question in another thread, but it seems to be dead.

If she had an ancestor that was of Native stock 10 generations deep, approximately 350 years at 1/1000 %.

Does this mean humans, who's DNA has Neanderthal at 1 -6% or more may have come across a family of Neanderthals not very long ago?

Like in the past 300 years?

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in