That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
There will almost certainly be a woman on the Dem ticket in 2020. Absolutely so if Biden (whose baggage from the Anita Hill hearings has returned this year) is the nominee.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:39 pm On Biden, though, he's 100% going to run, so you'll very likely have the opportunity to vote for him. His age concerns me, but...as long as he picks a reasonably young competent VP (Booker seems young-ish), I think that's fine.
TWINSIESHolman wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:02 pmThere will almost certainly be a woman on the Dem ticket in 2020. Absolutely so if Biden (whose baggage from the Anita Hill hearings has returned this year) is the nominee.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:39 pm On Biden, though, he's 100% going to run, so you'll very likely have the opportunity to vote for him. His age concerns me, but...as long as he picks a reasonably young competent VP (Booker seems young-ish), I think that's fine.
Biden/Harris? Harris is only 53.
She's not the presumptive front-runner.Kraken wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.
That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.
It's utterly impossible for him to talk about female opponents without criticizing their appearance.Captain Caveman wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:16 pm https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 1721759744
Eww. Not at all creepy there, Donald.
Does he think DNA testing is a gynecology exam or something?
You're talking to the guy who thinks that Bernie would have won in 2016. That looks like a front runner to him.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:17 pmShe's not the presumptive front-runner.Kraken wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.
That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1 ... 6873985029
Though her (nascent) campaign has done a good job over the past month or two to give that impression.
Kerry?
By "test her personally", I assume Trump means he wants to do the DNA extraction, PCR, and genetic analyses himself. No one has ever used a pipette better than him.Captain Caveman wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:16 pm https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 1721759744
Eww. Not at all creepy there, Donald.
Does he think DNA testing is a gynecology exam or something?
That's good news, then. I'm unapologetically on Team Warren, but I could get behind Biden if that's how the cards fall.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:17 pmShe's not the presumptive front-runner.Kraken wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.
That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.
Though her (nascent) campaign has done a good job over the past month or two to give that impression.
Cite?Rip wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:53 am Christ half the people in America have as much native american blood as she does, what a joke.
Just the one. They're basically asking about everyone who might plausibly run for President at this point. I think it's very unlikely that Kerry will run, but he'd be a plausible candidate if he decided to.
Which says to me emphasizing possibly is baiting to mean the opposite of what it is meant to mean by ignoring the qualifier and 1/1024 that is being thrown around is arbitrary. The suggestion to me is that there was pureblood Native American between 1/64 and 1/2048, not that there is a total mix of 1024.Conclusion
. While the vast majority of the individual’s ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual’s pedigree, likely in the range of 6- 10 generations ago.
My understanding is that the DNA results indicate that she is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. (Obviously the conservative media sources are only using the latter number).LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:51 am I Warren is publishing her claims, I care but not enough to go poking for myself. It's just not that big of a deal to me.
But more importantly what is flat out weird to me that random Internet sources the NY Times for general findings about DNA to compare Warrens specific claims but doesn't source Warren's actual claims. I don't know what she claims but his method calls my attention to it and screams shell game at me.
Or is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.
CNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:51 amOr is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.
Six generation, at the generous side isn't way back. I sat amazed and talked to family three generations back in the 70s, when I was young and was totally fascinated how they were an actual living gateway to "the old west". Some of the claims were easily sourced and you can see the familial resemblances to whom they talk about. Others felt like tall tales, for which my mother has been scap booking and searching archives to learn fact from fiction for years.Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:58 amCNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:51 amOr is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.
One thing I'm curious about is that apparently Warren has said that her parents eloped because her father's parents said that he couldn't marry Warren's mother, because the mother's family was part-Cherokee and part-Dakota. Is this substantiated? It seems like something that should be reasonably provable (that her parents eloped for that reason, even if the families' beliefs about her heritage were at least partially off).Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:58 amCNN is saying she may have American Indian mixed in 6 to 10 generations prior. Her claims have always been based on family recollections, which can be dubious. So she thinks she's telling the truth by her own family's word, a test shows she's right - but it goes way back - and Trump is flatly refusing to pay up the $1m charitable donation he wagered on this.LordMortis wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:51 amOr is it generally accepted that the claim is "Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American"? where possibly is even emphasized for some reason? Again, it means too little for me get Izzy with it, but now whomever Mr Ahern is, I don't trust him. *shrug* That's my bias, I guess.
Umm, actually....Holman wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:34 am
(The conservative claim that "most Americans are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren" is ridiculous unless you believe DNA is somehow transmitted through the air.)
Unless you were Cherokee. The Cherokee apparently married into 95 percent of the population if we are to believe everyone who collects paintings and figurines of eagles, wolves and horses in this country.Holman wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:34 am Even if they were, the incidence of actual intermarriage between Natives and settlers was very very low.
Trump is already on the warpath against her on Twitter (amongst other women Trump has attacked today), so yeah, I think Warren self sabotaged any real hope she has of winning in 2020.Kurth wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:11 am This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.
What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?
I am inclined to agree that doing the test is silly. At the same time, though, I can see some logic to doing this now. Warren doesn't give a shit about headlines about this now, she only cares about headlines about this in 2020 (and somewhat in 2019). So get this out now, let Twitter burn through this, and move on. Not that anything she can do will ever get rid of this, but to make as much of this an "old issue" as possible going into the campaign.Kurth wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:11 am This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.
What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?
Trump attacking her personally probably raises her chances of winning the Democratic primary.pr0ner wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:17 amTrump is already on the warpath against her on Twitter (amongst other women Trump has attacked today), so yeah, I think Warren self sabotaged any real hope she has of winning in 2020.Kurth wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:11 am This Warren DNA test should absolutely preclude her from running. Not because the results are, at best, tenuous in their support of her claims, but because of the sheer stupidity of the exercise.
What did she think she was going to accomplish? This issue wasn’t even in the news cycle and hadn’t been for ages. Did she think this was going to inoculate her from further attacks by Trump and the Trumpsters? Are you kidding me? The results could have been ironclad, and we all know it wouldn’t have mattered one bit. She’d still be Pocahontas. You can’t make a bully shut up by proving his taunts and teasing are merit less. He (and his followers) don’t give a shit. Has no one on Warren’s campaign ever been at or watched an elementary school recess?
Is that their percentage of Native American DNA?El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:17 pmShe's not the presumptive front-runner.Kraken wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.
That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1 ... 6873985029
Jaymann wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:24 amIs that their percentage of Native American DNA?El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:17 pmShe's not the presumptive front-runner.Kraken wrote: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:50 pm I still think Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, but that's spilt milk not worth rehashing. He is not the right man for '20. Sanders is a pedantic progressive. Warren is a pragmatic progressive who doesn't have the old-man-yelling-at-cloud thing going against her. Warren's politics align closely with mine (she's a little too conservative, but one must adapt) and I hope she goes all the way.
That said, she's the presumptive front-runner before campaigning even begins, and having that target on one's back is not an enviable position. There's only one way she can go from there, and she's got to spend two years preventing it. I hope she spends a year just building her organization and sniping from the sidelines. Let someone else be the lightning rod for awhile.
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1 ... 6873985029
Clearly you and Ahrens have a desired conclusion, so you're ignoring that Warren is also 'possibly' 1/64th, which is 1.5%, much higher than the average the survey of merely 160,000 people found. The one where one of the co-authors said there was likely survey bias.