Cherokee Nation tells Warren DNA test ‘useless to determine tribal citizenship’

There were 4-5 states that leaned Democrat that Trump had to win 2 of them. I believe he ended up winning 3 of them. They were viewed as “leaned Democrat” because Obama won them.

Overall the electoral college has benefited Republicans. We now have two of the last three Presidents losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college and both of them are Republicans. That isn’t a coincidence.

It doesn’t matter if you win by 5% or 50%. A state like NY or Calif can go to a Democrat and by millions of votes, but it doesn’t mean anymore than winning the state narrowly.

Obviously the sway can change where it benefits Democrats but not anytime soon.

 

I didn't really see the article making an argument against Warren being 1/1024th Native American, so there was nothing to address or respond to. It was really just saying, "hey it could be more than 1/1024th", which is true, she could have as much as 1/64th....but the point is that even that would make her Fauxcahantas....it's not a significant heritage which was the point.

 

I get that the popular vote doesn't matter. And I know it is infuriating when it seems the will of the people doesn't matter, but our founding fathers really thought about individual State rights. Hence, the two Senators from each state. Not arguing or debating that issue at all.

Was just truly confused because I misinterpreted the commentator's to be saying it was a structural issue that would make it hard for any Republican in the near future to take the Presidency. Looks like that may have shifted.

Thanks for the info.

 

Everyone in this saga just looks silly and childish lol. That's the state of USA politics.

 

As per Nikki Haley, the soon-to-be former UN Ambassador,

Actually, when the president found out I was Indian-American
he asked me if I was the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren."​

https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-al-smith-dinner-donald-trump-jim-gaffigan-1177328​

 

Nikki Haley in 2020

 

2024!!!!

 

I don't know if the country is ready for a second term

 

from The New Yorker

Money quote:

"The woman who is hoping to become the most progressive Democratic nominee in generations is not merely letting herself get jerked around by a Trumpian taunt. She is also reinforcing one of the most insidious ways in which Americans talk about race: as though it were a measurable biological category, one that, in some cases, can be determined by a single drop of blood. Genetic-test evidence is circular: if everyone who claims to be X has a particular genetic marker, then everyone with the marker is likely to be X. This would be flawed reasoning in any area, but what makes it bad science is that it reinforces the belief in the existence of X—in this case, race as a biological category... Warren... has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people—and she has pulled her supporters right along with her."​

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...d-promotes-insidious-ideas-about-race-and-dna

more at the link

 

Trump will almost certainly be re-elected barring a complete economic collapse much to the chagrin of the left. I am sure there will be an epidemic of head explosions if and when that happens. He has been an excellent President so far if you concentrate on what he does instead of what he says and tweets. The economy is booming and will only get better. Presidents with booming economies are almost assured to win re-election. Plus, he has tried to keep his campaign promises. Many people who did not like him in 2016 will be enthusiastically voting for him in 2020.

 

hard to respect someone who white-washes their name and converts to Christianity for political purposes

 

You didn’t have a problem with Shillary and Blasey Ford white washing.

 

Ready or not, stock up on your kleenex.

 

I still don’t understand why it is pernicious to use biology to understand one’s ancestry. Is it just because certain biological markers for ancestry aren’t 100% reliable?

 

You might want to look up the term

 

When you're getting down to 1/1000, yes. Its said the DNA you're born with will not be the same DNA you may have now. Outside influences, such as viruses can change DNA.

These types of tests are useful to map relatives.

 

My understanding is that using biology to determine race isn't reliable because race is mostly a social construct. There's a larger umbrella of "populations" (pigmies , swedes,etc...) share general traits but that has diminished greatly over time due to migrations and intermingling.

Researchers find that there were more genetic differences between ones population than there were when comparing among different populations. Some traits known for one population, like sickle cell, could spring up in a different part of the world through its own evolution.

But this strictly about race and not direct ancestry. We have a general habit confounding scientific observations with our general perspectives of race...

Some more research found this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-accurate-are-online-dna-tests/

When it comes to ancestry, DNA is very good at determining close family relations such as siblings or parents, and dozens of stories are emerging that reunite or identify lost close family members (or indeed criminals). For deeper family roots, these tests do not really tell you where your ancestors came from. They say where DNA like yours can be found on Earth today. By inference, we are to assume that significant proportions of our deep family came from those places. But to say that you are 20 percent Irish, 4 percent Native American or 12 percent Scandinavian is fun, trivial and has very little scientific meaning. ​