POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Don't like the conclusion then the results must be "speculative"?

 

No, that isn't it at all. It just simply isn't a "clock." Let me spin it another way for you. How do we know it wasn't 2 ancestors who were each 1/16th native american, rather than a full one 10 generations ago?

We don't.

 

You said "she actually may be a lot more native American". Thus the reason for the question, is there another may attached to that. If thats the case, she may not be.

Her stumping that for career and political gain is hilarious regardless.

 

Does anyone have pictures of native American ancestors if you have any in your line?

I actually have a good one that survived in a Bible for 60 years.

 

No. She's at least 1/1024th New World.

I don't think she is stumping. She is trying to get this addressed prior to a run. She is actually ruffling feathers of Native Americans and their allies, which are overwhelmingly liberal. They don't like the idea of "genetic proof," because it insinuates some are "more" than others or puts like a "purity" test into it when many tribes freely adopted members of other tribes, people of mixed races, etc over the last 200 years. Federally recognized tribes take their sovereignty very seriously, and in this sort of thing undermines it.

EDIT: the above is my understanding, I may have it wrong. That is the way I understand it from reading and talking to people of native descent. I freely admit I do not always understand their positions. I am just an American dude of European descent.

 

Lots of mudbloods in here.

 

NM. I think I see the distinction you are getting at with your hypothetical.

 

So she lied.

 

She's at least but "may" be no more than 1/1024th New World? Not, she may not be at all.

To the bold, why she is having to address this prior to a run is my point.

 

Ya, I saw your original response and understand where you were coming from in terms of the expert. But right there from him, he's talking about "no earlier than 6th" but saying more likely 10th. Which is all I am saying, is that there is a degree of uncertainty. And then there is how one personally weighs that uncertainty.

She's got the genes, but that doesn't make her "Cherokee" anymore than if I had a Chinese great great grandfather I'd be Asian. I get that. There is some grey in this, depending on exactly how one phrases things.

 

I saw a joke where Trump should donate $976.56 to the charity of Warren's choice (1/1024 of a million)

 

If she lifted recipes and claimed them as family ones, and said, "I am a Cherokee," yes. If she said she was of Cherokee descent and someone in the office posted her as "Cherokee," no. If she said "I am a minority because I am Cherokee," I'd say yes.

You may not agree that there is any line of distinction.

 

Okay, that is funny.

 

Okay ya, you could phrase it that way. But again, 1/1024th doesn't like refer to anything but genetic material, not necessarily race.

Because she is going to be beaten over the head with it and it probably makes her nationally unelectable. Don't you think? So if she wants to run, it has to be sitting in another place than it was (or is).

 

I can see why she's addressing it from a political standpoint.

My point was that she open that can herself.

 

I'd love to see JayVols DNA tested. Probably 1/1000th of everything.

 

According to the article/professor, the 6th gen is the earliest for a "pure" Native American ancestor. I understood your hypothetical to be a "what if" her "pure" ancestor(s) go back 6-10 generations but more recently two "non-pure" ancestors got together. I do not believe that is consistent with her claims and I have no idea how that would affect the percentages, but I will give you that your hypothetical (as I understood it) may be possible given the "pure" limitation to the professor's 6-10 generations ago conclusion.

 

Pretty good

 

Just came to post this....amazing. she has about as much native American blood as she does golden retriever.

It is a long line of absolute losers positioning themselves for the dems spot in 2020. She is just a part of that line.

 

Back in 1984.

My gut tells me she Indian princessed it for attention or to just be something "special," embellishing something or maybe even parrotting something she had been told growing up. But there is obviously a chasm of difference between having something on the family tree and "being" that. I think Americans typically dismiss anything less than 1/32, since most of us have some mix of nationality or ethnicity, so I don't think she is being treated differently right now. But wording matters. I can't accurately say I am French Canadian, even though my mother is. If I spoke fluent French and culturally identified with it, I could. So I don't think she is cherokee. I think she has native american ancestry, like I have Quebecois ancestry.