Okay! I'll take the challenge. I recommend the video, because it's acted out amusingly, very entertaining:
But here's the text, because Trump did say "you better read that again." And reading is great for the kind of textualism that any lawsuit to enforce a contract would have to focus on:
But let's say I'm debating Pocahontas. I promise you I'll do this: I will take, you know those little kits they sell on television... learn your heritage!... And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she is of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That;s her only evidence, her mother said we have high cheek bones.All right, the conditions for accepting the offer by taking the test have not yet arisen. There has been no debate and certainly no proclaiming of Indian heritage in the middle of a debate. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would ever make the relevant proclamation. But she certainly hasn't done it yet.
We will take that little kit -- but we have to do it gently. Because we're in the #MeToo generation, we have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kit, and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm, even though it only weighs 2 ounces, and we will say: I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian.So the test to be taken is the one that Trump would toss to Warren in the middle of a debate. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, and who thinks it ever would happen? Trump isn't going to throw something at Warren during a debate, even gently. It's a comical scenario, and we don't even need to argue with people who might say he really meant it, because it's plainly true that Trump has not yet tossed a DNA test kit at Warren during a presidential debate. She has not taken that test, and that's the only test he spoke of, and it's all purely hypothetical. There's no offer to accept, and what Warren did wasn't what Trump was talking about.
But if somehow a court would say that the test she did (allegedly) take is good enough, there would still be the question whether the result "shows [she's] an Indian." I don't think it does, but can you imagine Warren bringing a lawsuit and trying to convince a court that a DNA test indicating 1/32nd or only 1/1,024th Native American genes "shows you're an Indian"? I think it would be worth it to Trump to pay the $1 million to get her to do that.
Posts
467 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 467 of 467Dear Ms A:
Your analysis is right on the money, every jot and tittle of it.
Quinn doesn’t realize that Latino’s have Native American DNA because the Spaniards had many children with native Americans from The American Southwest to Mexico to South America.
If I remember correctly, and the bedpan commando probably doesn't, the DNA studies are autosomal DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is maternal and shows that Indians were the mothers and Spaniards were the fathers of most Mexican children in the era of the Conquest.
Autosomal DNA is not reliable as an index of ancestry, in those examples.
PPPT:"Blogger President Pee-Pee Tape said...
A retarded person could literally not come up with a comment as dumb as the one posted at 8:43."
And you should be swatted and smeared like an insect against a window and the whole world should have the pleasure of looking at your pea brain and entrails dribbling. Retarded piles of shit like you should be slaughtered and thrown to rabid dogs. You are a turd of a human being. You add nothing of value to humanity. You're a repulsive, useless, diseased, scab on the human race. Your ugly, nasty, vicious, violent demise cannot happen soon enough.
PPPT is Inga, educated beyond his intelligence.
However, his comments are always imaginative, fresh, original, humorous and sensible.
I always feel smarter after reading them.
Under nazi law you were considered a Jew when one of your grand-parents was one.
That is 1/4 Jewish == Jew.
It is good to see that modern so-called 'anti-racist' society is so evolved that it only takes 1/32 or less (to 1/1024 and beyond?) of 'something' to be able to claim to be 'something' with privileges, as long as the PC-crowd agrees with it of course.
Inga, I didn't say I defended Fundamentalist Mormons. I don't. Our state prosecutes them, and I approve of it.
However, you have no problems at all with Muslim child brides, do you? You are radio silent on Rotheringham, on other places.
You cannot be more hypocritical on this, since you accuse Republicans of Muslim bigotry all day long, every day, every time someone speaks up against this.
Child brides are a feature of Islam, not a bug. Mohammed himself took a six year old, consummating it at age 9. You demand we let in millions of these people, including their child brides. And you reject any and all efforts to say that is wrong as bigotry and hatred.
Fundamentalist Mormons go to jail in Utah. But you demand we let in millions of Muslims, and we cannot criticize them at all.
Rotheringham England, run by liberals like you, is full of child rape gangs of Muslims, aided, abetted, and shielded by leftists. You've never, ever condemned it. So don't you dare start claiming you have some sort of moral objection to child brides by fundamentalist Mormons, since you agitate and advocate importing Muslims by the horde and come out in full broadside against any criticism of Islam as "racist, bigoted hatred that has no place in civilized society!" Child brides and child rape and all, you love Muslims. So don't you dare peddle your hypocrisy on this. I say we jail any child rapist, regardless of religion. You want to import them by the millions. Some "defender of women" you are. You and your leftist ilk make me sick. Yes, let's turn America in Stockholm, where women are raped daily by Muslims! That's your policy, and you have the effrontery to say you oppose child rape? Only when done by Fundamentalist Mormons, but never, ever by Muslims, of course.
Or, you know, leftist politicians and movie producers. Bob Menendez and Roman Polanski are a-ok with you, just like Bill Clinton.
PPPT should be beaten beyond recognition at every opportune moment. He is a human tumor who should be stomped into oblivion.
Come to think of it, all this 1/x of something racialist BS seems almost to be a circumvention of "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States ...".
“However, you have no problems at all with Muslim child brides, do you? You are radio silent on Rotheringham, on other places.”
Again Vance hears voices in his head telling him what “Inga thinks”.
Trump doesn't owe her anything based on this info but I think it would be hilarious if he'd donate the money to the Cherokee Nation Warrior Society (open to all honorably discharged tribal members) or Native American Veterans Assistance. https://nativevets.org/about-us/ . The left's reactions would be hilarious.
Birkel said...
Me: But I bet your Trump hatred stops any actual thinking about that technique.
Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire: Why? Why should I care about that lawsuit?
The arguments are easier when one side gives up immediately.
Thanks, fopdoodle.
Hey, assclown. I gave it a quick read. So that you can choke on this; I don't care about this lawsuit, and I never did. I liked Stormy Daniels' basic story -- that Donald Trump was schtupping her in a Nevada hotel room shortly after Melania gave birth to their son. That story has never been credibly challenged, and it now seems clear that Trump lied about it in almost every way imaginable.
Stormy Daniels' lawsuit against Trump -- for, inter alia, defamation -- was an afterthought for me. Indeed, my prejudices and preferences are such that I am glad that she lost. I hate Michael Avenatti, post-Kavanaugh, and I think the defamation claim was garbage.
But here's the really funny part. Remember back during the early days of the 2016 campaign, and Trump didn't like all of the negative stories about him in the press? And Trump began to repeatedly bloviate in different interviews about how he would like to "open up the libel laws." Trump, it seemed, wanted to be able to use libel laws to more aggressively sue people in the media who he thought were treating him unfairly. Althouse did a post about it; she thought it might be the longest post she ever wrote.
Anyway; that was a time when Donald Trump thought of himself as a perpetual plaintiff in possible defamation actions. Here, in this Stormy Daniels lawsuit, Trump was the defendant. With lawyers who were using all of the usual legal defenses to defamation cases.
Lucky for Trump, that before today, nobody had ever gotten around to "opening up" the libel laws in California, Texas or New York before today's California U.S. District Court decision.
It had been a baseless, dumb, laughable position, that Trump had tried to lay out; changing the laws of defamation actions (to what? how? state-by-state? how could those laws ever be federalized? what did Trump ever really want?).
I have to ask: was this decision in Clfford v. Trump rendered by "a so-called judge"? Or was the case decided by a real, true, United States District Court judge? I'm just trying to learn the Trump legal terminology so that I can apply it correctly in the future.
Really Inga? Then surely you can point to your numerous vociferous denunciations of leftist run Rotheringham? You can point to your constant drumbeat of "keep out the Islamic Sharia law?"
Of course not. I've brought up Rotheringham before, and so have several others. You've always been silent. Just like it took you 11 months to decide that killing Republicans was bad, you have never as far as I know said that the leftist Islamic fetish, where it's bigotry to oppose anything Muslims do, is bad.
And when Trump wanted to keep out violent Muslims, you spent months accusing him and everyone else of bigotry and hatred. Hey, guess their desire to rape female children is something you support, because keeping out people who want to do that is "bigotry and hatred."
Right, Inga? Or are you going to claim you oppose unlimited Islamic immigration and sharia law being implemented in our country, like it has in Dearborn and London and Rotheringham? What's a little child rape when it furthers the liberal goal of "tolerating Islam!" while calling all Christians "promoters of the Handmaids Tale!"
Islamic society literally is the Handmaids tale, but you support it and call everyone who doesn't support it "bigots."
Oh, and Chuck, as I recall, also is a huge, huge fan of unlimited Islamic immigration to America, especially from countries that are lawless and have lots and lots of violent Islamic men who absolutely love raping women.
Chuck, along with Inga, certainly criticized and fought Trump when Trump wanted to keep that kind out.
And Linda sarsour of the so called women's March, is a chief proponent of that world view
I accept your surrender, Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire.
Why these threads that end up as Ritmo and Inga threads are a waste of time.
In other news aktay the Turkish version of plouffe or surkov, seems to going Emily nutella with his pinning the kingdom down
Let's assume that everything Chuckles says about Trump is right. That would certainly make Trump an asshole. Almost as big an asshole as Chuckles is.
what did Trump ever really want?).
Shit. That's easy.
To Make America Great Again.
This just in, repeat edition:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-approval-improves-dems-lead-house/story?id=58469893
But inside the 66 districts that are tossups, or only leaning toward one party or the other — the majority makers, or breakers — that lead evaporates into a 46-47 Democrats v. Republicans race.
So in the battleground districts, Republicans have a one point advantage.
I'm your typical Honky-American, of German, Scottish, Irish and English heritage for the most part. My mother was an accomplished genealogist, and she was able to trace virtually all of my heritage in America, and a substantial amount in Europe. One of her discoveries is that my 6x great grandfather was a North Carolina Cherokee. He owned a plantation with four slaves and married a white woman.
Warren did not just claim some distant genetic connection to a generic NA ancestor. She had a story about a specific grandmother being part Cherokee. So generic me so American ancestor in 1709 won’t cut it. The Cherokee say she lies. She has no answer.
Chromosomes contain the DNA. We get 2 from each parent, 46 in all. So, with no cousin marriages going back, 23 from each parent, average of 11.5 from each grandparent, we'll round to 12. On average, 6 from each great-grandparent. On average, 3 from each 2-great-grand-parent. 1.5 from each 3-great-grandparent, round to 2. 1 from each 4-great-grandparent. So with no cousins marriages, there's one of your 5-great-grandparents you've got no chromosomes or DNA from. One of them has been bred out from your gene pool. They may be in someone else's.
Going back to all my 6-great-grandfathers in the United States, I have no Indians in my heritage. That's 128 people, no cousin marriages in that many generation in the U.S. Which is actually pretty rare. Going to my 4 g-grandfather in England, no Indian blood or cousin marriages. (as far back as I can trace) Doubtful any Indian blood before that. 2-great-grandfather on another line takes me back to Ireland, and past 3G can't be traced; I'm certain there are cousin marriages and a collapsed three, but also certain no Indian blood.
Past 5 g-grandparents, you're looking at random noise. Along with random mutations. A DNA match with someone showing a common ancestor 7 generations back, could be 7, could be 17. And with cousin marriages, impossible to actually determine. All people have some DNA in common. That's what makes us people. You and I share DNA with Indians, blacks, Asians, whoever, wherever. Question is, where do we get the common DNA from? Her test doesn't show she has Indian ancestry 10 generation back. It really doesn't show Cherokee DNA, since Cherokee samples to DNA studies are virtually non-existent. It shows a probability she may have some North American native ancestry. Maybe. Just as likely she shares a common ancestor with those Native Americans from an either further back ancestor.
Has anyone ID’d the cheekbone allele?
Vance said...
Oh, and Chuck, as I recall, also is a huge, huge fan of unlimited Islamic immigration to America, especially from countries that are lawless and have lots and lots of violent Islamic men who absolutely love raping women.
Chuck, along with Inga, certainly criticized and fought Trump when Trump wanted to keep that kind out.
So you are back to your nasty old habit of making up shit about me, eh?
I never wrote anything remotely like what you suggested. I did write that Trump was a dumbfuck for having suggested a "Muslim ban." Trump never got a "Muslim ban," and at the end of that fight, Trump's lawyers and Trump's supporters were all arguing, But it's not a Muslim ban!" Which was my point from the beginning.
Consider this question: If we didn't have the 2 term Presidential limit, and the Democrats put out a ticket of Bill Clinton and Roman Polanski, with a platform of "Keep Abortion safe and legalize child rape!" and the Republicans put out Romney/Pence, the Squeaky Clean ticket....
Does anyone at all doubt that Inga, Howard, Ritmo, etc would campaign hard for the Clinton/Polanski ticket? They would claim that Romney and Pence hate women and that women are best suited by the Clinton Polanski side? And they'd proudly announce, "Better a rapist than a Mormon/Christian!"
We all know they would cheerfully, nay, gladly, pull the lever for Clinton/Polanski. And they would say it's the best thing to do, for sure.
Given that scenario, how can anyone possibly believe the left's protestations to love women and be their best advocate, when they wouldn't hesitate at all to vote even a ticket like Clinton/Polanski? Or, try Clinton/Zombie Ted Kennedy--surely a paragon of respecting women, much much better than a Romney/Pence ticket, I'm sure.
LLR Chuck has never been the same since Trump exposed Chucks hero Dickie Durbin as a empty suit. And then Trump called out Chucks "war hero" faker Blumenthal!
It was all simply too much for Chuck.
So many years Chuck had invested in creating this impression of competence and effectiveness on the part of these substanceless hacks and Trump comes along and blows all of Chucks work out of the water in about 17 seconds. And it was effortless!
Chuck has literally never recovered from that.
Chuck, are you seriously claiming that you supported Trump in his goal to keep out people from Yemen, Iran, Syria, and other Islamic cesspools? Really?
Because that's straight up revisionism, right there. You pounded the "Bigoted Trump" drum for months over that. Which, you know, means that you agree with the whole idea of immigration from those countries.
Again Vance hears voices in his head telling him what “Inga thinks”.
Good point. The leftist worked hard ignoring the Rotheringham scandal, hence no talking points sent out hence, no words to be regurgitated. All makes perfect sense.
Vance, this is the part of the conversation where we are all supposed to pretend that LLR Chuck is all about those "muh conservative principles" when, as we all have seen demonstrated, uh, not so much.
iowan2: "Good point. The leftist worked hard ignoring the Rotheringham scandal, hence no talking points sent out hence, no words to be regurgitated. All makes perfect sense"
Precisely.
What the lefties in Britain literally did was investigate and arrest anyone who spoke negatively about this massive muslim rape grooming gang that targeted over 1,400 girls over 10 years.
In the US, lefties like Inga simply have to pretend it never happened.
Not to worry. As we have seen with the lefties/LLR push for hate speech crimes (so Orwellian) they hope to have the same system in place here in the US in the future to help them cover up the massive rape culture in the islamic world.
Vance said...
Chuck, are you seriously claiming that you supported Trump in his goal to keep out people from Yemen, Iran, Syria, and other Islamic cesspools? Really?
Because that's straight up revisionism, right there. You pounded the "Bigoted Trump" drum for months over that. Which, you know, means that you agree with the whole idea of immigration from those countries.
No, you jackass. I didn't address that. Actually, I did sort of. Because my point all along was that by making colossally dumb comments about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," Trump risked making very bad law for subsequent presidents, who really should be able to enforce the borders and secure the safety of Americans from legal and illegal immigrants.
I pounded the "bigoted Trump" drum, because Trump was saying so many inexplicably, indefensibly bigoted things. Actually; never mind the "bigoted" part. I don't even care a whole lot about what kind of bigot Trump is. I care more about the things he does and says that are legally indefensible.
LLR and "Brian Stelter republican" Chuck: "I pounded the "bigoted Trump" drum, because Trump was saying so many inexplicably, indefensibly bigoted things."
LOL
Nope.
You pounded that drum because that was the lefty/dem narrative. It's as simple as that.
Period.
Inga, Elizabeth Warren is not going to get get nomination, let alone win the election, ya goof. No one who doesn't live in a blue bubble is going have any reason to vote for another naggy blond old white lady who hasn't done an honest day's work in her life but somehow grifted her way into piles of money.
"Inga, Elizabeth Warren is not going to get get nomination, let alone win the election, ya goof."
Inga doesn't understand that the far far left is going to capture the dem nomination and the far far left is far far too invested in identity politics to allow fauxahontas to get away with her ridiculous heritage lie.
In fact, something tells me she will get warned early on how ugly it will get and that it will be better if she just steps away.
Only Hillary will stand in the way of Kamala the moron or T-Bone Booker.
Biden will be threatened with forcible plugs removal and the pics of him with all those young girls are not going away.
Really simple: Is it bigoted to be against people who rape female children, have sex with animals, abuse women in all sorts of ways, and want to come here to America to implement all of that here, along with throwing LGBT off of roofs?
Is that bigoted to oppose that? Chuck says yes. Inga says "of course! Why should we keep that out?" The entire left and most of the GOPe loves the idea of tons of Islamic fundamentalists here.
After all, it's bigoted to oppose all of that, right?
Vance said...
Really simple: Is it bigoted to be against people who rape female children, have sex with animals, abuse women in all sorts of ways, and want to come here to America to implement all of that here, along with throwing LGBT off of roofs?
Is that bigoted to oppose that? Chuck says yes. Inga says "of course! Why should we keep that out?" The entire left and most of the GOPe loves the idea of tons of Islamic fundamentalists here.
After all, it's bigoted to oppose all of that, right?
No, Vance; absolutely none of that represents my views.
If you want to know what my views are, ask. If not, then leave me out of your insane rants.
There are a lot of assholes posting comments on Althouse's blog. But I think you might be the stupidest of those assholes. You keep doing stuff like this; posting bizarre, off-the-wall strawman arguments as if I supported them, and then conclude by saying, "Right?"
Wrong.
Do us both a favor and ignore everything I write here. I'm not writing for you, and certainly not about you. Unless and until you repeatedly troll me like you have on this page. I really don't want to have anything to do with you. So leave me out.
Self-Described Smear Merchant Chuck: "Do us both a favor and ignore everything I write here. I'm not writing for you, and certainly not about you. Unless and until you repeatedly troll me like you have on this page. I really don't want to have anything to do with you. So leave me out."
What a strange position for a self-described Smear Merchant who voluntarily aligns himself with every anti-conservative lefty inspired Smear to take.
So very very strange.
Unless,....unless......
Diversity passes #Judgment. Warren is insufficiently colorful.
Jim Daniels shows up to show everyone the civilized side of conservatism's love of retardation:
And you should be swatted and smeared like an insect against a window and the whole world should have the pleasure of looking at your pea brain and entrails dribbling. Retarded piles of shit like you should be slaughtered and thrown to rabid dogs. You are a turd of a human being. You add nothing of value to humanity. You're a repulsive, useless, diseased, scab on the human race. Your ugly, nasty, vicious, violent demise cannot happen soon enough.
10/15/18, 9:16 PM
And these are the "people" who need to restrict the vote and our rights and entitlements in order to stay in power. Geez, I wonder why?
Keep foaming at the mouth there, Jim.
Bottom line is that Warren shares no common experience with Native Americans. My DNA shows I am 8% Jewish and .1% Asian. My upbringing shows I am an Irish Catholic girl, and have no common life experience with Jews or Asians.
Interesting that liberals always want to push the blood thing, like Nazis, pro-slavery groups and other fascist groups.
Warren benefited from lying about her race, and likely took spots that might have been filled by people who were from a minority.
"... and who thinks it ever would happen?"
Those who got rich because they knew Trump would be potUS.
Those who didn't get rich because they didn't know Trump would be potUS.
Betwixters.
I think this graphic represents the DNA results pretty accurately:
https://twitter.com/AntiTroII/status/1051996604465602560/photo/1
Inga says this vindicates Warren, and all Republicans and Trump should be ashamed of themselves for ever having questioned her.
Seriously.
And remember, everyone. This is coming from the people who think "cultural appropriation" is a thing. A girl wearing a chinese dress to her prom was evil according to them. But if she had said she WAS chinese, and backed it up with a DNA test showing she had 0.097% chinese ancestry, and she had checked the box as chinese to get consideration as a minority even though the other 99.903% of her was whiter than Ivory Snow, then it woulda all been totes okay.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_million_dollar_challenge_wasnt_an_enforceable_contract_11th_circuit/?icn=most_read
I always thought an I bet you a million bucks thing was the definition of unenforceable.
"Ahahahahaha goodness this is some amazingly bad reading."
That's how you get more Trump, Sheldon. When you give your opponents a charitable reading, as Althouse does, it's tough to be critical of YOU.
Do you not wonder why conservatives flock here? HERE? To Althouse?
Goodness. A lot of us would probably vote for her if she ran for something. But not you...
So 3 weeks before elections Dems will be distracted by debating whether Trump owes, is a liar, is a ......thus consuming some oxygen. The keystone cops known as Dims keep rolling
Not everybody can appeal to a Stanford geneticist to run tests on one's genome and interpret the results. To me, it seems more likely that she did this in order to try to vindicate her story, after the run-of-the-mill genetic tests failed.
Presumably, if any of us got their genomes tested by a world-class population geneticist, he or she would find all sorts of interesting facts about our genomes. It's hard to make a straight comparison with the usual ancestry tests.
Agree with MB.
She did the other tests and they showed Nada.
And no discussion of noise, or below what % is suspect.
Betty Hutton said it best in 1950:
Here's my DNA test
Listing herself as a woman of color at both the University of Pennsylvania Law School and at Harvard was a misrepresentation.
The Universities and Warren have been caught with their pants down. The article from the NY Times referenced by commentators above indicating that the average European American has a higher percentage of Indian genes than Elizabeth Warren makes those representations an embarrassment. Harvard and U of Penn are representing themselves as more diverse than they are and therefore have less incentive to find true diversity hires. Having a family story about an Indian ancestor is one thing, using it to define yourself in official University registries is quite another. The fact is the test could only say there is a high degree of probability that she has an infinitesimal amount of DNA that looks to be related to South American Indian DNA, an amount lower than that carried by the average European American. The amount of DNA proved is not enough to define her as an Indian. So, shame on her and Harvard for listing her as such, whether or not she did not gain any preference for this assertion. As far as I am concerned the Universities are lying about that fact and the truth is they shamelessly benefitted from her claim. All of this makes a mockery of Indian identity and suffering, shout out to the Cherokee nation for their condemnation of Elizabeth Warren and for their disowning her claims, and makes a complete mockery of the whole idea of affirmative action. I think Elizabeth Warren's chances for being the Democratic candidate have just imploded. How delicious!
“I think Elizabeth Warren's chances for being the Democratic candidate have just imploded. How delicious!”
I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. Warren’s proof she wasn’t lying is more than enough for Democrats. What’s delicious is all you folks trying so hard to turn this into a negative. It’s not. Warren will bring out the base in droves.
Warren’s proof she wasn’t lying is more than enough for Democrats.
Unfortunately for Democrats, you need more than Democrats to vote you into office.
Shorter Royal ass Inga:
Democrats' blind pursuit of power does not pause for things like truth.
Well, Birkel, when has it ever? These are the same people who think Stalin was a role model, and they proudly wear Che Guevara shirts. If they gladly support state sponsored murder, why would the truth stop them?
Warren won this and proved you all wrong. I have no need to surrender, we won, you lost.
This is the stupidest thing Inga has ever said in this blog’s history. And that’s saying something. If Inga is representative of 1/3 of the women in this country, then the 19th amendment needs to be repealed forthwith. It’s the only way to save this dying nation.
I Callahan,
I'm afraid "the stupidest thing Inga has ever said" is impossible to prove. There are so many valid entries in that contest that it's all just a matter of taste, preference, and temporal closeness.
Trump needs to take a test. Prove he is more Indian than Warren.
"I credit her with telling truth. She was simply repeating what her family had told her, and she accepted it. Would you discount your parents' accounts to you of your ancestry? Would you feel compelled to reject what they told you until it had been confirmed by DNA testing? "
Would you check the Native American box on an application form based on that? Remember, the form does not allow "All of the above".
I have a LOT cleared path to NA ancestry then Senator Warren. And a higher percentage than even the optimistic side of her range. Yet I would never use that fact to claim NA preference.
Despicable.
"I assume very few Americans have any trace of indigenous American heritage."
That's ridiculous. The longer a family has been in America, and the more lineages going back to colonial times, or close to it, the more chancees a person has to have at least a TRACE of Indigian blood. Even someone who has seven great-grandparents who immigrated from the Eastern hemisphere could have Indigian blood from the eighth. This is simply basic logic, which explains why you can't grasp it.
One thing I rarely see mentioned is the fact that Elizabeth Warren's academic resume is, for all intents and purposes, disqualifying for becoming a law professor. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of Houston and her law degree is from Rutgers (current U.S. News ranking: 74). If you are Caucasian and didn't graduate from a top-5 law school in the top 10% or so of your class, your chances of being hired for a tenure-track law professor position anywhere -- even at the bottom tier law schools -- are minuscule in any given year. For Warren, at the beginning of her career in the late 70s, being a woman would have helped, but nowhere near enough to offset her lackluster academic credentials (did I mention Rutgers Law is ranked 74th?), even allowing for the possibility that the hiring climate was less competitive back then. Anyone know whether she played the Native American card when applying for her first tenure-track job at Houston Law back in 1978?
Blogger Anthony said...
All this is good for is to give the news organizations license to say "See! She's really part Native American!".....10/15/18, 5:50 PM.
Well maybe in the MSM industry. But the DNA test did not prove that at all. If anything it proved that maybe she was Incan, since the comparison test had more Colombian and Peruvian DNA as a comparison. But Warren's claim of being part Cherokee is bogus as of this AM and for the future. The article did say there is no DNA available from Cherokees.
Flashback Elizabeth Warren says her parents had to elope because her mom was part Cherokee/part Delaware.
‘I knew my father’s family didn’t like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware, so my parents had to elope’
https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-elizabeth-warren-says-her-parents-had-elope-becaus
Warren’s proof she wasn’t lying is more than enough for Democrats. What’s delicious is all you folks trying so hard to turn this into a negative. It’s not. Warren will bring out the base in droves.
That's hilarious. You're too stupid to realize just how stupid you are and how you're being conned.
But keep it up. Shout it from the hilltops about how Elizabeth Warren made the rest of us look like fools with this DNA test.
Do it.
I was just reading about the NPC meme that has SJWs bawling. This was the first I heard of NPCs; but it certainly helped to explain Pee Pee.
Post a Comment