Hello:

My question is mostly for tom, cause he knows a whole lot more about this crap than I do..

So, what went WRONG in the world? Seems like we were headed in one direction and then, rip zap, we turned HARD RIGHT. Who did it? How can we fix it? SHOULD we fix it, or do you kinda like it?

excon

Hi Ex

If we can't dump the dufus, we have to put the loonis back in the box. Will know more after silly season.

Hi Ex, if there is one thing that sent the world right it was unwanted immigration, people will put up with a lot but invasion just isn't one of those things. Doesn't matter how you swing it none of us want to be responsible for the world's ills

You're on to something Clete, and I respectfully submit that the right has gotten great at painting other people as unwanted because they are bad people that want to take your stuff. I get the fear of them taking over the country and overwhelming the "natives" and changing the FLAVOR of the country. Exploiting that fear for political gain is the game the right has exploited very well.

Hi Ex, if there is one thing that sent the world right it was unwanted immigration, people will put up with a lot but invasion just isn't one of those things. Doesn't matter how you swing it none of us want to be responsible for the world's ills.

I don't think that's all there is to it, but you have made a really good point. Perhaps it is not so much the immigration itself as it is the lawless aspect of it, of having a federal government that just ignores the law.

Trump lit nothing . He just took advantage of it . Brexit started before his candidacy . Nations are becoming tired of the terms the " international order " imposes on them . The globalist assumed that people over time would abandon culture ,nation ,borders ,identity ,and most important ,self rule . They were wrong . Do you have a say over who represents you at the UN ? No they are appointed . Do you have a say in the rules they impose ? No . Not one person in Europe votes for the ministers of the EU and yet they have to live under every administrative decision Brussels makes . Unaccountable multilateral bureaucracies make decisions that impact everyone in the world and we don't even know the names of the people making the call.
This is not a move to the right . The WTO anarchist protesters are hardly right wingers . Bernie Sanders and Trump's position on trade is virtually identical . This is self determination vs submitting to an international "order " that imposes dictatorial rules on nations . We have it easier in the US because we are the top dog. What happens to other nations when the IMF imposes rules on how they conduct their economy ? Is that liberty ?

What happens to other nations when the IMF imposes rules on how they conduct their economy ? Is that liberty ?

Liberty. That great, forgotten word.

Unaccountable multilateral bureaucracies make decisions that impact everyone in the world and we don't even know the names of the people making the call.
This is not a move to the right .

Is that liberty ?

Hello gain, tom:

I'm not sure what you're talking about.. I'm talking about the new right wing regime in Brazil, the older ones in the Philippines, Turkey, Pakistan, and the ever present Saudi's.. I'm sure there's more that I don't To me, their rise to power DOES signify a rightward shift..

No?

excon

Hello excon:

Would the world become a nicer place if there was only one huge right-leaning country (all citizens are right thinkers) and only one huge left-leaning country (all citizens are left thinkers) and a third huge country whose citizens are neither?

Curious Carol

You pretty much have that already just a few national boundries thrown in

Ex why are you projecting the actions of tyrants onto the "right leaning " Jail Bolsonaro ? There is zero evidence that he will govern as a jackboot dictator . All the other nations you name are and have been governed by thugs for years including the Philippines who previously had Marcos ,the Aquino oligarchy before
Duterte
. As you know I have not accepted the conventional wisdom political right-left spectrum . In my view the extremes of the true spectrum is Tyranny - Liberty or statism or the real extreme globalism on one side and individualism on the other .The left right spectrum is only good for the smear and labelling .
To me the real change is happening is a rejection of the globalist agenda. It is why Merkel is on her way out in Germany .It is why Europeans are beginning to rediscover national identity .



(https://www.google.com/search?q=Jair+Bolsonaro&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLSz9U3MEkrt6hMUYKw000LjQy0-AJSi4rz84IzU1LLEyuLASOsIvAqAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMn4iLmsPeAhXNY98KHZk6CH8QxA0wDXoECAcQP Q)

It is why Europeans are beginning to rediscover national identity .

You could hope, but much of it is a reaction to a dill like Merkel who opened her borders and invited criminals and rapists in. At least you leader is that kind of dill

This national identity thing is fueled by fear and hate Tom, and not pride and accomplishment. That's what makes it really dangerous as a tool of exploitation by haters. What you thought it is only terrorists and dictators who take advantage of desperate people in desperate times? We both know that national identity is but the code word for racial purity and segregation which only serves to keep the tribal mentality alive and well and growing among the human race.

We both know that national identity is but the code word for racial purity and segregation

It apparently is to you, but not to many of us. To me it is a symbol of commonly held core beliefs. I don't care what a person's skin color is. I do care if they cherish the principles of the Constitution.

commonly held core beliefs
We can't share and incorporate or at least respect each other's different beliefs, cultures, languages?

This national identity thing is fueled by fear and hate Tom, and not pride and accomplishment. That's what makes it really dangerous as a tool of exploitation by haters. What you thought it is only terrorists and dictators who take advantage of desperate people in desperate times? We both know that national identity is but the code word for racial purity and segregation which only serves to keep the tribal mentality alive and well and growing among the human race.
except that one of America's great national identities is the melting pot creating one common culture . Our national identity comes from a common belief that our rights are not granted to us by government but are self evident rights of humans .
"The people are the very substance, the living and free substance, of the body politic. The people are above the State, the people are not for the State, the State is for the people."(
Jacques Maritain )


Frankly I am tired of having to defend myself from charges that my beliefs are dog whistles and code for racism ;racial purity and xenophobic .They are nothing of the kind. People from all over the world come to this country to share in the ideals of what it means to be American .Take away our culture and identity and we cease being American.

We can't share and incorporate or at least respect each other's different beliefs, cultures, languages?

Depends on what those beliefs and cultures are. Many people in the United States believe that racism is just fine. Do you respect that? Others believe that stealing is fine as long as you don't get caught. Is that one worthy of respect?

I understand what you're saying. I actually am a proponent of tolerance, but there must be a core group of beliefs around which we rally. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Might point out that you can't get to "equal" without first going through "created".

Depends on what those beliefs and cultures are. Many people in the United States believe that racism is just fine. Do you respect that? Others believe that stealing is fine as long as you don't get caught. Is that one worthy of respect?
I may disagree with someone but will do so RESPECTFULLY.


I understand what you're saying. I actually am a proponent of tolerance, but there must be a core group of beliefs around which we rally. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Might point out that you can't get to "equal" without first going through "created".
Please explain.

In that passage of the Declaration, Jefferson expresses that the basis of equality is the fact that we are all created by God. Thus he said, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator..." If we are not created by God, then there is no basis at all for any equality. We would be no more equal than crickets are equal to dogs.

In that passage of the Declaration, Jefferson expresses that the basis of equality is the fact that we are all created by God. Thus he said, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator..." If we are not created by God, then there is no basis at all for any equality. We would be no more equal than crickets are equal to dogs.
Jefferson didn't say "created by God"; he simply said "created...by their Creator" (leaving a huge opening there as to the definition of "Creator"). Stephen Hawking was undoubtedly pleased that Jefferson left God out of that process and kept it generic. And your last sentence makes no sense.

yes and many of the framers /founders and people of the enlightement used the word 'providence ' . But we all know what they meant.

Jefferson didn't say "created by God"; he simply said "created...by their Creator" (leaving a huge opening there as to the definition of "Creator")

Please don't tell me that you mean for that statement to be taken seriously. Do you honestly think that Jefferson was referring to some creative agent outside of God? Besides, if we have all been "created" by, for example, evolution, then we are right back to having no basis for equality. Equality can only come into play when we can all trace our lineage back to the creative agency of God, with the idea that we are equal because He says it is so. Does evolution, or any other "creator", give you any grounds for claiming universal human equality?

Now we can debate which god Jefferson might have had in mind, but it's unreasonable to suggest that some impersonal force could have "endowed" us with anything.

Now we can debate which god Jefferson might have had in mind, but it's unreasonable to suggest that some impersonal force could have "endowed" us with anything.
Jefferson was a Deist, so I'll give on that one. Just as humans are all created equal, so ants are created equal, as are all lions.

"Jefferson was a Deist, so I'll give on that one. Just as humans are all created equal, so ants are created equal, as are all lions."





Ants and lions are equal to what?

"Jefferson was a Deist, so I'll give on that one. Just as humans are all created equal, so ants are created equal, as are all lions."





Ants and lions are equal to what?

Each other an ant is equal to an ant a lion is equal to a lion and a human is equal to a human

Do you honestly think that Jefferson was referring to some creative agent outside of God? He meant the giant cosmic muffin .

Jefferson had some obsession on this topic . He wasted his time making his own bible by carefully cutting out any reference to a deity . Deism gives props to God creating everything . The difference was the God ,after the creation took the rest of eternity off ,leaving us to our own devices without any intervention .

Now the thing is that Jefferson was not the sole author of the Declaration . He was more of a transcriber ;he polished up the textual language . There was a committee of 5 that included Jefferson who wrote the Declaration. John Adams ,Ben Franklin ,Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman all contributed to the Declaration. And thankfully Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was drafted and debated . Jefferson was one of many founders . His religious beliefs were his religious beliefs .Others were deists also or held hybrid beliefs of Deism and various Protestant orthodoxies . Others were Christian . Most held on to their membership in a church even if they held deist beliefs .Church represented much more than religious participation. The church was an integral part of the social life of the colonist .

The religious leanings of the founders, while interesting, is totally irrelevant to the overall intent of self governing. The words, "In order to form a more perfect union...", was the stated intent of the constitution. That left the door open to the many adjustments made, and yet to come, recognizing that men change and evolve is many ways. That's just the natural process of GROWTH, from the original states to what we now recognize as America, a nation of immigrants from all over the world and not just Europe, and that's the conflict isn't it? Euro immigrants wanted no changes to the America they envisioned which was the whole purpose of another governing mechanism, the electoral college which maintained that only those of a certain class could be president. That was their sole intent, but as we know many other groups were patently excluded from the all men are created equal.

So while they had lofty INTENTIONS (Or goals?), they themselves fell short of the words they wrote as the overall guide to govern this country. The words and intentions of the founders pale in the actual history of forming that more perfect union. Even then the talk was the easy part, but walking the walk is still a works in progress. Not everyone is even willing to put them on some grand pedestal for making the plan as the implementation is a messy one, since we still argue over who implements it and how, or the very meaning of the words.

Euro immigrants wanted no changes to the America they envisioned which was the whole purpose of another governing mechanism, the electoral college which maintained that only those of a certain class could be president. That was their sole intent,

What makes you think that?

This would be a start:

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/



As Alexander Hamilton writes (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68) in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html) by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

So a fear of the population being duped was the difference between a direct democracy and a republic, while having some logic, the unspoken motive was keeping power and authority in the RIGHT hands, and lends credence to the notion of defining shepherds from the sheeple. While we have evolved and made changes,



The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves got an even worse deal, as a slave officially was counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted (male) former slaves the right to vote. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

Obviously we still need further adjustments in my humble opinion. Its an ongoing process, which understandably has a lot of resistance, as any change does. I fully recognize that resistance to change is a part of the process.

[Euro immigrants wanted no changes to the America they envisioned which was the whole purpose of another governing mechanism,the electoral college which maintained that only those of a certain class could be president. That was their sole intent,]





What tal means by that is that he thinks the framers were thinking of the Black vote . This of course is absurd since the Framers were not in any position to grant sufferage to Blacks if their goal was creating a nation from 13 states .
Really tal you need to take a course on the Constitution. That is unless you are content with your fractured fairy tales . The divide was big vs small states .Small States like Rhode Island were afraid of the power large States like Virginia would have under a system where states were equally represented by direct suffrage . How is it that the emperor was elected under an electoral college system if it was meant to be exclusionary ? What would've happened without the electoral college in 1992 when Bubba achieved a plurality but not a majority . The whole electoral system would've been thrown into chaos ;just like in 1800 when they voted under rules before the 12th amendment . 2016,Evita won the popular vote,but she only received a plurality (48 percent)and not a majority; third party candidates took the rest. If we did not have the electoral college today then the only thing candidates would need to do is campaign and represent the interests of a hand full of urban centers . Of course that is the Democrat strong hold and of course they want to eliminate the Electoral College so they can consolidate a dictatorial control of the country .

Now you think the framers were monolithic on this issues and had some kind of group think ? Views on how to select the President went from one extreme James Wilson of PA who wanted direct national vote to Roger Sherman of Connecticut who wanted Congress to select the President . The point was debated furiously throughout the Convention. It was Madison who wrote down the COMPROMISE where the Electoral College was created and in turn saving the Convention from failure . Art 1 Sec 2 is the most thought out and detailed part of the Constitution.


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii#tooltip-1)


1860 Abraham Lincoln received 39 % of the popular vote but won the Presidency because of the Electoral system . Would slave had been freed in 1865 had someone else elected by popular vote had won ?

the unspoken motive was keeping power and authority in the RIGHT hands

The "unspoken motive"? So that means that they never actually said or wrote what you alleged, but you believe it is so anyway. The passage you copied seems to me to say that they recognized the importance of selecting a truly competent person to be the president, and the electoral college was to make sure that took place.

When Lincoln was elected, they nicknamed him the "railsplitter". It was not intended to be compliment. If the idea was to prevent the common man from becoming president, then Lincoln would have never gotten in.

Let me be clear Tom, it wasn't about race at all back then, except as I pointed out, but CLASS, which I will define as well heeled landowners. Given the circumstances the certain sheeple could vote on whomever the "ruling elite class" so chose. Who they deemed qualified. That all goes back to what I originally posted that writing the words were the easy part. We still struggle with the meaning and desired outcome behind them.

Wonder why that is?

The "unspoken motive"? So that means that they never actually said or wrote what you alleged, but you believe it is so anyway. The passage you copied seems to me to say that they recognized the importance of selecting a truly competent person to be the president, and the electoral college was to make sure that took place.

When Lincoln was elected, they nicknamed him the "railsplitter". It was not intended to be compliment. If the idea was to prevent the common man from becoming president, then Lincoln would have never gotten in.

Obviously you are having difficulty wrapping your head around the concept put on paper, and the practical reality of living up to those words. You obviously no nothing of Lincoln and his history in politics, or the role his election played on the civil war. Indeed Lincoln was not just a rail splitter, but a lawyer that served in the congress. In short, part of the ruling class elites of that time.

You obviously no nothing of Lincoln and his history in politics, or the role his election played on the civil war.

Finishing up a 750 page book on Lincoln right now, so please don't tell me I don't know anything about Lincoln.

You need to learn to read a little closer. I never suggested he was "just a railsplitter". That's what his detractors called him. He spent most of his life as a country lawyer and statewide politician. He only became somewhat well-known nationally a few years prior to the 1860 election.

Let me be clear Tom, it wasn't about race at all back then, except as I pointed out, but CLASS, which I will define as well heeled landowners. Given the circumstances the certain sheeple could vote on whomever the "ruling elite class" so chose. Who they deemed qualified. That all goes back to what I originally posted that writing the words were the easy part. We still struggle with the meaning and desired outcome behind them.

Wonder why that is?
any pretense of that false notion was destroyed by the election of Andrew Jackson;who happened to be the 1st President who did not come from the framers "class " (oh that ugly Marxist word again) . Before that Jefferson attempted to be the rep of the "common man " ,but his pretenses were way off. Who are you fooling ? You have supported the entrenched elites for some time now. Are the Clintoons
the common man ? (yeah I guess Bubba was sorta except that he was embraced by the political and cultural elites in the Dem sphere )Obama was selected by the elites . So was Evita . The Dems made sure the outsider was all but shut out of the process in 2016 . I could argue the last time the Dems took the plunge was in 1976 . Before that it was one term of Truman.

If you noticed I purposely avoided any specifics of the elite class or who they choose. That's tribal thinking (And Carter was a Governor, as was Clinton, and for sure anyone but Obama would have given my vote to McCain... though the choice of Palin was a REAL deal breaker.), but the electoral college as an election institution is but another tool to rig things in for the ruling class.

If nothing else the election of the dufus has pointed out our flaws and brings in question how effective our system of checks and balances really is. Or are it the humans charged with making it work proved incompetent, and fall to the whims of the highest bidder. Maybe the confluence of both is true. Getting rid of the EC would be where I start my tweaks, removing the money factor comes next, and adding a system of verification both socially and financially to fully vet these hopefuls for top office (Or any high government office for that matter!), would be my preferences.

I realize that those things are easier said than done but this self governing thing needs some adjustments for sure. This ain't 1776, 1865, or 1945. This is the 21st century and nostalgia about the good old days only works for some. The rest of us are still waiting for the deeds to catch up to the words.

Ah the good ole days, back when fairness ruled and very few could vote and mess up the status guo

no tal ....as I said ;the electoral college forces candidates of the elites to go out into the heartlands and meet the folks in flyover land . Of course for the most part they ignore their needs and instead listen to what the Barbara Streisand's of America think. Without the electoral college there is no Federal system.


The party that runs against money in politics had a huge financial edge in this one ;thanks to the elites ... maybe you are right .

Kimberly Stassel of WSJ skewers Elizabeth Warren and lends a little argument in favor of Ex's op that the world is going "right wing" (without all the pejoratives implied in that term) ..................................


Tuesday’s midterms served up mixed results, handing both parties big wins and big losses. It will take some time to sort out what it means. Yet the evening did nonetheless provide one total, complete, unalloyed loser: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
For a decade Ms. Warren, 69, has been busy trying to remake Washington in her progressive image. Her role in creating a new financial regulatory apparatus gave her outsize influence over the bureaucracy. Her successful 2012 Senate bid gave her a megaphone to rail against “billionaires, bigots and Wall Street bankers”—and Donald Trump. The left begged her to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016 and rebrand the Democratic Party as a populist, progressive force. Ms. Warren demurred, leaving the field to Bernie Sanders.

She instead carefully designed this year’s midterms as her launchpad to the presidency. Ms. Warren seeded into key races several handpicked progressive protégés, in particular Richard Cordray, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (who ran for Ohio governor), and a former law student, Katie Porter (who ran in a California House district). Ms. Warren geared up a shadow war room, built ties with some 150 campaigns, directed millions of fundraising dollars to select candidates, and thereby earned chits. She dispersed staffers to early primary states and crisscrossed the country herself. A week ago she was dominating Ohio headlines at rallies for Mr. Cordray. If Mr. Trump was on the ballot nationally, Ms. Warren was on it in the Buckeye State.

The lead-up to Tuesday had already been brutal for her. Hoping to elbow her way back into the headlines after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ms. Warren chose in mid-October to release a five-minute video and piles of documentation aimed at proving she really is at least 1/1,024th Native American. The ridicule was ruthless, matched only by the anger Democrats directed at her for distracting from the election.


But Tuesday compounded the disaster. Ms. Porter—who campaigned in Orange County on single-payer health care, expanded Social Security and debt-free college—flamed out to two-term Rep. Mimi Walters. In Ohio, Mr. Cordray lost to Attorney General Mike DeWine. And in Indiana, in what many claimed was the closest of that state’s House races going into the midterm, Republican Rep. Trey Hollingsworth blew out Warren-endorsed Liz Watson, 59% to 41%.
These results reflected a national collapse by progressive candidates. National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar put together a list of nine progressive candidates as a “test” of “lefty strength.” They included gubernatorial candidates Andrew Gillum of Florida and Ben Jealous of Maryland and Leslie Cockburn, who ran in one of Virginia’s most vulnerable Republican congressional districts. They went 0 for 9. Indeed, outside safe Democratic districts, the left-wing movement took a complete bath—including in House races in Nebraska’s Second, New York’s 24th and Pennsylvania’s First districts. Progressive candidates were Democrats’ biggest gift to Republicans Tuesday night.
But by far the biggest repudiation of Ms. Warren was in her own liberal state. She endorsed a ballot initiative that would have mandated nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals; voters destroyed it, 70% to 30%. She rallied for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Gonzalez, who lost to Republican Gov. Charlie Baker by 34 points. And while Ms. Warren dispatched her own Senate challenger on Tuesday, she underperformed the state’s top Republican. Some 1.7 million voters went for Mr. Baker; 1.6 for Ms. Warren.
She put on a brave face Wednesday, when she told a crowd at Brown University that many Democrats coming to Washington ran “on a very progressive agenda that government is an important part of our lives.” She failed to mention that nearly all of them won in deep-blue districts that would have voted for a ferret with a D next to its name. These are not areas that win the presidency. The center-left think tank Third Way reports its team watched “every one of the 967 ads that Democrats ran in competitive House districts since Labor Day, and just two candidates mentioned either Medicare-for-all or single payer.” Both lost.
Elections have a way of clearing the board, bringing forth new faces that eclipse those from prior cycles. That—along with Ms. Warren’s terrible night—is what should concern her. Democrats didn’t get the blue wave they wanted, but they are still fired up to beat Mr. Trump in 2020. And they showed a thirst for new names and personalities that might get them there. The Democratic bench has over this past year become wider and deeper—Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Holder, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick, Michael Bloomberg.Ms. Warren? She is looking more like old news.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-loser-elizabeth-warren-1541721305

I was really surprised that she came out with the 1/1024th native blood information. It just basically proved that she was being less than honest about her heritage.

I was really surprised that she came out with the 1/1024th native blood information. It just basically proved that she was being less than honest about her heritage.
She, born in Oklahoma, has always said it was "family stories passed down through generations." We ALL have family stories passed down through the generations. (Wanna hear some of mine?)

And yet there's this rule that was generally (and unfortunately) accepted as truth:

"The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood) is considered black (Negro in historical terms), its implications of racial purity being that anyone unable to pass for white in the context of the US racial hierarchy is assigned the lower status of being non-white or colored. This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into the law of some states in the early 20th century."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

Why can't we give Elizabeth Warren the same "authenticity"? And hey, send your saliva to Ancestry to find out who you are.

She, born in Oklahoma, has always said it was "family stories passed down through generations."

It went much, much farther than that. https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

Find out who I am? I already know that. Unlike Senator Warren, I'm not claiming to be something I am not.

Find out who I am? I already know that. Unlike Senator Warren, I'm not claiming to be something I am not.
But she IS!!!!!!!!

You might be very surprised by what shows up in your DNA.

You might be very surprised by what shows up in your DNA. I spit in the tube because my family insisted on it . I think the only real value to it will be if I become rogue . Then the police can obtain my dna sample . As for determining my heritage ? A complete waste of money. I can trace my family tree to the Norman invasion of Italy .My name implies a direct link to the Norman King Roger . So you would think my dna would have some traces from Northern France . Maybe at least 1/1024 %


There is one and only one issue with her claim. She used it to claim minority status at to gain an advantage when seeking professorships . Who was denied those positions because of her fraud ? We will never know .

But she IS!!!!!!!

Well then, there are now two people who believe that Warren is native, you and her.

She used it to claim minority status at to gain an advantage when seeking professorships . Who was denied those positions because of her fraud ? We will never know .
What advantage did she get? She certainly was worthy of any advantage just because of her skills and intelligence. And those check-the-box culture questions on forms are so stupid anyway. Who cares if you're a descendant of a Norman king or if I'm a product of German farmers. It's who we are and what good we can accomplish that matter.

What advantage did she get? Hard to say, and maybe it was zero, but it was still a ridiculous lie. I think she would have been better off if she had just confessed to having been careless with the truth instead of that silly DNA test amounting to nothing approaching real indian heritage. Most of us have done dumb things in our lives and she would have been but very little different in the eyes of most people. She certainly is more honest than the most recent democrat nominee for pres.

No ;it was a feather in Harvard's and Penns hat to claim they had a native professor . Harvard made the claim in 1995-6 when she worked there . She was listed in 2005 by Penn as a minority in their Minority Equity Report . On page 16 of the report, she is listed as a winner of the school’s Lindback Award in 1994. Her name is italicized and bolded to indicate her status as a minority faculty member.(table 11)
https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/volumes/v51/n31/pdf_n31/minority_equity.pdf

I Told Harvard, UPenn I Was Native American: Warren (http://www.newser.com/story/147131/elizabeth-warren-i-told-harvard-upenn-i-was-native-american.html)

Let me know when you get around to discussing a real liar and cheater will you?

What advantage did she get? Hard to say, and maybe it was zero, but it was still a ridiculous lie.
It had not yet been proven *cough* and it was something she had been told all her life. Even you, tomder, in the same situation, would have checked that box.

It had not yet been proven *cough* and it was something she had been told all her life. Even you, tomder, in the same situation, would have checked that box

IF IF IF that's truly the case, then why wouldn't she just admit that she was "mistaken" and move on? Why the DNA test? And even worse, why use the results of the DNA test as supposed proof of her claim? She has only made matters worse for herself by using a strange story to support an even stranger story.

Why the DNA test?
Because she too wanted to know for sure.


why use the results of the DNA test as supposed proof of her claim?
She has more Native American blood running in her veins than you and I do.

Dr. Carlos Bustamante, a professor of genetics at Stanford University, said an analysis of Warren’s genome turned up evidence of Native American ancestry.

"In the senator’s genome, we did find five segments of Native American ancestry, with very high confidence, where we believe the error rate is less than one in 1,000,” Dr. Bustamante says.

She has more Native American blood running in her veins than you and I do.

How would you know that? You have no idea what my ancestry is.

Because she wanted to know for sure? That would have been a good thing to know before she started checking boxes.

How would you know...
Do you have Native American blood running in your veins?


Because she wanted to know for sure? That would have been a good thing to know before she started checking boxes.
If you had been told since birth that you have Indian blood running through your veins, which box would you check?

Do you have Native American blood running in your veins?

Ahh, but you are asking a little on the late side!

I hope I would have had enough sense to realize that checking the box was a serious issue, and would have made sure I had it right.

As it turns out, if she was told she had "Indian blood running" through her veins, then someone owes her an explanation.

If you had been told since birth that you have Indian blood running through your veins, which box would you check? please ...you have more integrity than that . And those dna tests to determine ancestry are a joke IMO . They know by my name that my family is from Italy ,and what region because my family name is prominent in Southern Italy and Sicily. They know from other information provided that I have Irish blood and guess that anyone from Sicily probably has some African blood . Wow ! that dna cr@p is amazing !!!

So by Warren's standards I could claim minority status for admissions purposes . Or maybe I'd just self identify as a minority women since the standards of proof have been lowered to such levels .

Hello:

Here's who I am..

https://www.myheritage.com/dna/ethnicity/intro/D9R7CP1FCT9JGSRI5T87ACI8E1KMGH1LEKRNKM9BCDMNKQ3GE9 JK4LAC6HD38R25F5SJ4DRPE50KUQ3ACL878JI2CD732GR2ED73 2MG?utm (https://www.myheritage.com/dna/ethnicity/intro/D9R7CP1FCT9JGSRI5T87ACI8E1KMGH1LEKRNKM9BCDMNKQ3GE9 JK4LAC6HD38R25F5SJ4DRPE50KUQ3ACL878JI2CD732GR2ED73 2MG?utm)

Doncha just love the music?

excon

You must have taken a different boat than I did. Nice music though but what happened to the drummer?

Hey Tal, what about the banjo picker?? Where was he?

Here's my heritage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrlqQ1_vZVE

Enjoy!!