Warren calls Trumps bluff, proves native american heritage.

[Zymologist]

I’m glad the official statement by the Cherokee Nation hasn’t been ignored, or anything.

[Terraceth]

It seems that Native Americans disagree

Source: New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.

© Copyright Original Source

So if 10% (or 20%, depending on which result you use) of them finding it offensive isn't enough for you to consider it a problem, what percentage is required for it to be an issue?

[JonathanL]

If Warren is Native American on account of at most 1/32nd Native American ancestry, then I'm a cyborg on account of my pacemaker.

[rogue06]

So if 10% (or 20%, depending on which result you use) of them finding it offensive isn't enough for you to consider it a problem, what percentage is required for it to be an issue?

In this climate I think we could find at least 10% of a given population finding anything offensive.

[lilpixieofterror]

If Warren is Native American on account of at most 1/32nd Native American ancestry, then I'm a cyborg on account of my pacemaker.

The collective welcomes you, 2 of 10.

[Tassman]

Two things are really amazing...

A) That Warren would actually make the giant error of making this an issue again

Warren NEVER made it it an issue, Trump with his relentless "Pocahontas" crap made it an issue. Just as he did with his 'birtherism' crap re Obama.

2) The profound ignorance and/or dishonesty of the left who ignore the evidence, twist Trump's words, and demand he pay

"President Donald Trump offered to donate $1 million to a charity of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's choice if she would take a DNA test to demonstrate that she had Native American ancestry". "TRUE".

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...ion-offer-dna/

You and Trump are liars to pretend otherwise. So what's new?

[Cow Poke]

Warren NEVER made it it an issue, Trump with his relentless "Pocahontas" crap made it an issue. Just as he did with his 'birtherism' crap re Obama.

And she fell right into his trap.

"President Donald Trump offered to donate $1 million to a charity of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's choice if she would take a DNA test to demonstrate that she had Native American ancestry". "TRUE".

Total dishonest misrepresentation of what was said, so FALSE.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...ion-offer-dna/

Watch the video and see what he actually says.

You and Trump are liars to pretend otherwise. So what's new?

The video shows you to be the liar. You provide the link with a perversion of what he said, but the link shows in his own words.

[Tassman]

And she fell right into his trap. .

If you think that that lying, sexist, racist bigot is clever enough to set traps, then you're stupider than he is. He has the subtlety of a warthog.

[CMD]

"Let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas, right? I promise you I will do this. You know those little kits they sell on television for two dollars? I’m going to get one of those little kits. And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she’s of Indian heritage, because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That’s her only evidence, that her mother said she had high cheek bones. We will take that little kit, and say . . . but we have to do it gently . . . because we’re in the Me Too Generation, so 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. 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. And let’s see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we’ll hold that for the debates."

In what universe does this sound like somebody making an entirely serious, completely legitimate offer?

[CMD]

And even it was a serious offer, "I have a tiny little insignificant fraction of Native-American DNA" would satisfy a challenge to "show that you're an Indian" in the same way that "I once removed a splinter from a friend's hand" would satisfy a challenge to "show that you're a surgeon."

[oxmixmudd]

Isn't it funny how your memory can play tricks on you? I, on the other hand, remember Trump getting fed up with liberals asking him if he would disavow David Duke even though he had repeatedly and explicitly disavowed him. And I even have the video to prove it.

Oh, I remember him doing that too. It doesn't change the fact he hemmed and hawed and then finally actually said something meaningful - only when pushed. Only when it looked like he'd lose more support not rejecting the endorsement that he would gain by remaining silent.

The point at the time was this: Duke endorsed him. And he refused to reject the endorsement publicly. With an endorsement from someone like Duke, something said in the past* means nothing. it must be rejected, and it must be rejected very soon after the endorsement or you've implicitly told his (Duke's) followers you are with them. Any delay at all is acceptance of their pat on the back. Because they know anyone they endorse has to publicly reject them eventually. But by delaying the endorsement as long as he did, he implicitly accepts their endorsement. It's just how it is.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

And that is not even slightly surprising.


Jim

*not to mention the fact one of his earliest tactics was to ask who David Duke was. So you really can't have it both ways MM. If he disavowed him in the past, he knew who he was when he endorsed him and asking "who is Duke" was a delay tactic or outright lie. If he didn't know who he was, then he would not have been able to disavow him in the past.

[oxmixmudd]

Warren NEVER made it it an issue, Trump with his relentless "Pocahontas" crap made it an issue. Just as he did with his 'birtherism' crap re Obama.



"President Donald Trump offered to donate $1 million to a charity of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's choice if she would take a DNA test to demonstrate that she had Native American ancestry". "TRUE".

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...ion-offer-dna/

You and Trump are liars to pretend otherwise. So what's new?

Tassman,

Trump didn't say 'of Indian descent'. He said"

[CITE]if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian[/QUOTE]

The only way that test can show she's an Indian is if

1) >50% of her DNA is Indian
2) x% of her DNA is Indian and x meets a legal definition of Indian
3) Some American Indian Nation will accept x% and declare her officially Indian

None of those criteria are met. Trump by hook or crook avoided having to pay up by not specifying what he meant by "show she's an Indian", and she just doesn't meet any of the criteria that would be required to establish membership in any Indian Nation or to meet any Federal Government definition of the term.

Had he said "of Indian descent" (which is how the article interprets what trump said, not what he actually said) he would be obligated. As it is he's just going to be his normal nasty self and continue to dig at her on it. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with Trump is to think like the schoolyard bully he is. We are all back in 6th grade when it comes to Trump. To deal with him one must act like one is dealing with a 6th grade bully on the playground.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

"Let’s say I’m debating Pocahontas, right? I promise you I will do this. You know those little kits they sell on television for two dollars? I’m going to get one of those little kits. And in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims that she’s of Indian heritage, because her mother said she has high cheek bones. That’s her only evidence, that her mother said she had high cheek bones. We will take that little kit, and say . . . but we have to do it gently . . . because we’re in the Me Too Generation, so 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. 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. And let’s see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no, but we’ll hold that for the debates."

In what universe does this sound like somebody making an entirely serious, completely legitimate offer?

Yes. He has the money and "I will tell you this" is a promise to do what follows. But He's not on the hook for it because she didn't prove she is an Indian, she only showed she has an Indian ancestor sometime in the last 200 years, maybe the last 100 if its close to 1/32.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Oh, I remember him doing that too. It doesn't change the fact he hemmed and hawed and then finally actually said something meaningful - only when pushed.

Fake news. He consistently, explicitly, and unequivocally denounced Dave Duke on multiple occasions going as far back as 2000; but the media kept pestering him, trying to turn the whole thing into a manufactured crisis. It was like:

Trump: "I disavow David Duke. He's a bad a person, and I want nothing to do with him."

Media: "OK, but we have to ask, when are you going to disavow David Duke?"

Trump: "I just did, but I'll do it again if it'll make you happy."

Media: "So you'll only disavow him to make us happy?"

Trump: ""

The point at the time was this: Duke endorsed him. And he refused to reject the endorsement publicly.

Fake news. Duke endorsed Trump on February 25, 2016. At a news conference the next day, this exchange took place:

Bubble-headed Reporter: "How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?"

Trump: "I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?"

Just reading the text almost makes it sound dismissive, but here's a screenshot of his body language as he said it:

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 8.46.12 AM.jpg

He was very strong and resolute in his disavowal.

[oxmixmudd]

Fake news. He consistently, explicitly, and unequivocally denounced Dave Duke on multiple occasions going as far back as 2000; but the media kept pestering him, trying to turn the whole thing into a manufactured crisis. It was like:

Trump: "I disavow David Duke. He's a bad a person, and I want nothing to do with him."

Media: "OK, but we have to ask, when are you going to disavow David Duke?"

Trump: "I just did, but I'll do it again if it'll make you happy."

Media: "So you'll only disavow him to make us happy?"

Trump: ""


Fake news. Duke endorsed Trump on February 25, 2016. At a news conference the next day, this exchange took place:

Bubble-headed Reporter: "How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?"

Trump: "I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?"

Just reading the text almost makes it sound dismissive, but here's a screenshot of his body language as he said it:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32198[/ATTACH]

He was very strong and resolute in his disavowal.

Source: CNN exchange with Trump 2/282016

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?”

Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”


Tapper: “But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support?”

Trump: “Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.”

Tapper: “The Ku Klux Klan?”

Trump: “But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.”

Tapper: “Okay. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but…”


Trump: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”

Tapper: “All right.”

© Copyright Original Source

Sooooooooo ...

How did Trump disavow Duke in the past and end up with THAT exchange*? This is a perfect example the hemming and hawing I'm talking about.


Jim

*the answer is fairly obvious. Trump had a 'change of heart' and was willing to dodge to keep Duke and his crew 'on board' with his campaign.