A point about Elizabeth Warren's Native American Ancestry

[Nordberg]

It isn't proof you idiot. They did not use Cherokee DNA, the used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.

yes it is dumb shit. The test was done by Stanford Geneticist Bustamante . He said it said it showed 5 genome segments that that are common to American indian populations. It meant native american ancestry back 5 to 10 generations ago.
Genetic experts queried by "Science" said the results are trustworthy.
No she is not claming tribal anything. Nor does she mention Cherokee in the report. That is you and Rush doing that. Scientists accept Indian heritage. That was the point .

[Getin the ring]

look, I have an idea, this is such a winning issue for Democrats, why don't you run Pocahontas and Chief sitting Biden on a Prez / VP ticket

[Superfreak]

Try to focus. The question isn't whether she (correctly, as you'll recall) claimed she had Native American ancestry. The question is whether, as was asserted, she claimed it as part of applying to law school and applying for teaching jobs. If you have evidence to support that assertion, just share it. If not, it's OK to simply say, "yeah, there's no evidence to support that."

Again, you can be gullible and pretend she didn't. There is a reason she and Harvard touted her Cherokee ancestry. But do bury your head in the sand.

[Superfreak]

yes it is dumb shit. The test was done by Stanford Geneticist Bustamante . He said it said it showed 5 genome segments that that are common to American indian populations. It meant native american ancestry back 5 to 10 generations ago.
Genetic experts queried by "Science" said the results are trustworthy.
No she is not claming tribal anything. Nor does she mention Cherokee in the report. That is you and Rush doing that. Scientists accept Indian heritage. That was the point .

No, it did not moron. Try looking at the actual information. She absolutely said she was Cherokee. Period. The DNA study did not include Native American DNA. It SUBSTITUTED Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA for Native American DNA because there isn't much Native American DNA in the registry.

So again, AT most it proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American.

[Wolverine]

No, it did not moron. Try looking at the actual information. She absolutely said she was Cherokee. Period. The DNA study did not include Native American DNA. It SUBSTITUTED Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA for Native American DNA because there isn't much Native American DNA in the registry.

So again, AT most it proved she was between 0.1% and 1.6% Columbian/Peruvian/Mexican. It did not prove Native American.

She went full retard, you should never go full retard.

[Wolverine]

look, I have an idea, this is such a winning issue for Democrats, why don't you run Pocahontas and Chief sitting Biden on a Prez / VP ticket

Actually It's creepy uncle sitting Biden!

[Superfreak]

Try to focus. The question isn't whether she (correctly, as you'll recall) claimed she had Native American ancestry. The question is whether, as was asserted, she claimed it as part of applying to law school and applying for teaching jobs. If you have evidence to support that assertion, just share it. If not, it's OK to simply say, "yeah, there's no evidence to support that."

No, she was not correct. Not even close to correct.

[Oneuli]

then why did she put it on the application?

What application do you think she put it on? Be specific, please.

[Oneuli]

Again, you can be gullible and pretend she didn't. There is a reason she and Harvard touted her Cherokee ancestry. But do bury your head in the sand.

There are different reasons each did. With Warren, she was already a tenured professor, so it wasn't about career advancement or job security. It was likely about a desire to connect with that part of her ancestry. As for why Harvard did it, it was probably to head off criticism about having too little diversity among faculty.

[Oneuli]

No, she was not correct. Not even close to correct.

As you'll recall, she was correct. Now we know her DNA reflects the distant Native American ancestry that she claimed.

[Stretch]

Colombia, Peruvian & Mexican.

[Celticguy]

As you'll recall, she was correct. Now we know her DNA reflects the distant Native American ancestry that she claimed.

Native south or central american.

[Frank Apisa]

Colombia, Peruvian & Mexican.

There are no Colombian, Peruvian, or Mexican Native Americans????

Are you kidding...or what?

My guess would be a HUGE native American DNA component in MOST Colombians, Peruvians, and Mexicans.

[Frank Apisa]

Native south or central american.

NATIVE SOUTH OR CENTRAL AMERICAN...IS AS NATIVE AMERICAN AS NORTH AMERICAN.

[Superfreak]

As you'll recall, she was correct. Now we know her DNA reflects the distant Native American ancestry that she claimed.

again, no it does not show that. Try improving your reading comprehension skills. The DNA expert used Columbian, Peruvian and Mexican DNA as a substitute for Native American DNA. Even if we assume that is a good proxy, which is highly skeptical, she is only 0.9% to 1.6% 'Native American'. So yeah, her bullshit claim is highly doubtful.