US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 78
Posts: 1,119
Original Posting by obgraham:
Don't know if many of you caught Trump's interview on "60 Minutes" tonight.
By far the best interview I've every heard him give. He handled that aggressive old bag like playing a Strad. Said a couple of silly things, of course, like always, but made his points, didn't get drawn in by her efforts to catch him up. The man is really coming into his own now.
Naturally, the media tonight is all over him about how he messed everything up, more proof that he's just fine.
Don't know if many of you caught Trump's interview on "60 Minutes" tonight.
By far the best interview I've every heard him give. He handled that aggressive old bag like playing a Strad. Said a couple of silly things, of course, like always, but made his points, didn't get drawn in by her efforts to catch him up. The man is really coming into his own now.
Naturally, the media tonight is all over him about how he messed everything up, more proof that he's just fine.
On Stahl’s first question, about whether Trump still thinks climate change is a hoax, the president dodged by saying “Something’s happening.” He then completely reversed course and declared that climate change is not a hoax and that “I’m not denying climate change.” Trump also falsely said the climate will change back again, even though the National Climate Assessment approved by his White House last year said that there was no turning back, Coming into his own as they say...
On North Korea, Trump went on to insist that Kim had agreed to denuclearization, a goal long sought by U.S. presidents. Kim actually has only signed a nonbinding statement of goals — and the goal to “work towards complete denuclearization” was listed third. The communique the two men signed was far less detailed than the declaration issued by North and South Korea more than a quarter century ago, with little consequence. Coming into his own as they say.
On trade, Trump continues to suggest that deficits mean the United States is losing money: “I told President Xi we cannot continue to have China take $500 billion a year out of the United States.” That’s wrong. The trade deficit just means Americans are buying more Chinese products than the Chinese are buying from the United States, not that the Chinese are somehow stealing U.S. money. The trade deficit with China is not $500 billion, as he told Stahl; it was $335 Billion in 2017 according to U.S. government figures. The United States imported $505 billion of goods from China, so maybe that’s where Trump gets his number. To top it off, Trump denied to Stahl that he ever said he was engaged in a trade war with China, even though he has said and tweeted it many times, including on Fox News last week. He insisted he had only called it a “battle” — a term he has used at times — but was now suddenly downgrading it to a mere “skirmish.” Coming into his own as they say.
I could go on, but I think the message is there relative to Trump coming into his own. He did say one thing to Stahl that was 100% true, “I’m president, and you’re not.” Everybody knows that for the most part. Reality is that what you see and hear is the best it can be, Trump is already in his own.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 1,550
Call me Harald ....
Funny enough, I just sent in a sample to 23andMe. When I was in the States my sister had me do this, and she showed me her profile (same as mine, basically, except for me being a male and her being a female).
From what I have been told I'm mostly of Irish descent and also partly of French descent, but the profile shows some "Scandinavian" too. How nice! I am changing my name to Harald and styling myself a Viking from here on, because it is so much better than claiming descent from a long and humble line of bog-trotters and snail-gobblers.
Move over, Per; there's a new dragon ship anchoring in your fjord! Line the women up on the shore to await my arrival, if you please.
Or not .... I think it takes more than what I got to call oneself a Viking, since they were just part of the population of Scandinavia. If I share part of their DNA that might be just because some distant Irish ancestor could not run as fast as a Viking, nor as fast as her cow. I guess I will just have to stick with my claim to be The World's Greatest Pilot.
Elizabeth Warren was caught out a long time ago faking membership in the Cherokee tribe. Essentially, as with my failed stab at Haraldhood, it takes more than DNA to style yourself a Cherokee, or a Viking. It's partly racial, but mostly cultural. Trump, now, do we need to test his DNA to prove that he's been 100% a jerk his whole life long? DNA has nothing to do with that, just as Warren's has nothing to do with her being Cherokee, nor mine with me being a Viking.
I think it's a mistake to try to wriggle out of what Warren had been caught doing, obviously posing as a Cherokee, by using this DNA test. On the other hand, that she has some Amerindian in her ancestry, as do almost all non-Amerindians who have been here for more than just a few generations ... I think Trump should pay up on his loud offer of a million bucks simply because she did take that test he was asking for, and passed it in that, yes, she's somewhat an "Indian."
What next from Trump? "No, no, I meant from like Kerala or Gujurat: that sort of Indian!"
Typical Trump, that now he wants to give Warren the DNA test himself. What, he's going to hold the little container while Warren drools into it? This I want to see, those tiny hands that can hardly hold a water bottle trying to hold that sample container steady. That should make for excellent television! Drool on him, Pocahontas! That will freak him out.
"I was a clog-teaser at Roosterama. I used to enrage the bantams before the big bout." And how was that done, dear readers? By dressing up like an egg and sitting on them ... but you probably knew that already.
Now we return to our regular coverage ....
From what I have been told I'm mostly of Irish descent and also partly of French descent, but the profile shows some "Scandinavian" too. How nice! I am changing my name to Harald and styling myself a Viking from here on, because it is so much better than claiming descent from a long and humble line of bog-trotters and snail-gobblers.
Move over, Per; there's a new dragon ship anchoring in your fjord! Line the women up on the shore to await my arrival, if you please.
Or not .... I think it takes more than what I got to call oneself a Viking, since they were just part of the population of Scandinavia. If I share part of their DNA that might be just because some distant Irish ancestor could not run as fast as a Viking, nor as fast as her cow. I guess I will just have to stick with my claim to be The World's Greatest Pilot.
Elizabeth Warren was caught out a long time ago faking membership in the Cherokee tribe. Essentially, as with my failed stab at Haraldhood, it takes more than DNA to style yourself a Cherokee, or a Viking. It's partly racial, but mostly cultural. Trump, now, do we need to test his DNA to prove that he's been 100% a jerk his whole life long? DNA has nothing to do with that, just as Warren's has nothing to do with her being Cherokee, nor mine with me being a Viking.
I think it's a mistake to try to wriggle out of what Warren had been caught doing, obviously posing as a Cherokee, by using this DNA test. On the other hand, that she has some Amerindian in her ancestry, as do almost all non-Amerindians who have been here for more than just a few generations ... I think Trump should pay up on his loud offer of a million bucks simply because she did take that test he was asking for, and passed it in that, yes, she's somewhat an "Indian."
What next from Trump? "No, no, I meant from like Kerala or Gujurat: that sort of Indian!"
Typical Trump, that now he wants to give Warren the DNA test himself. What, he's going to hold the little container while Warren drools into it? This I want to see, those tiny hands that can hardly hold a water bottle trying to hold that sample container steady. That should make for excellent television! Drool on him, Pocahontas! That will freak him out.
"I was a clog-teaser at Roosterama. I used to enrage the bantams before the big bout." And how was that done, dear readers? By dressing up like an egg and sitting on them ... but you probably knew that already.
Now we return to our regular coverage ....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 572
Like I pointed out, if the Left and their Turbine-like acolytes are in a tizzy over Trump's interview, that's proof enough to me that he did a great job.
He had to interrupt the harpy who kept interrupting his answers. Then when she didn't like the answer, "oh I'll change the subject."
And tell me this, Turbine -- considering this was a "get" interview for a high profile media person like Stahl, in the lead-in to an election, why was it that there were Zero questions about substance: Economic advancement, low unemployment -- you know, the stuff that affects average Americans, rather than Harvard academics? Was that an interview by a News Reporter, or was it one by a Political Opponent?
He had to interrupt the harpy who kept interrupting his answers. Then when she didn't like the answer, "oh I'll change the subject."
And tell me this, Turbine -- considering this was a "get" interview for a high profile media person like Stahl, in the lead-in to an election, why was it that there were Zero questions about substance: Economic advancement, low unemployment -- you know, the stuff that affects average Americans, rather than Harvard academics? Was that an interview by a News Reporter, or was it one by a Political Opponent?
Plastic PPRuNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,841
Opinion thread. No discussion, no ratiocination, nothing too hifalutin' - message understood pard!
{opinions are like assholes, etc.} so none of us should bother to read 'em. M'kay.
Brooks opinion piece was a POINTER -> (get it? a pointer -> hello?) to the original study by Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres and Tim Dixon. Brooks (in whom I have NO interest) piece was thought-provoking and LED me to the proper original study "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape" - evidently you are mistaking the monkey for the organ-grinder.....oh dear me!
I suppose that you won't read (tl:dnr) the actual study (a pity, because it is very relevant) because you know miraculously that it must "lack truthiness".
Coming back to Pocahontas, Nowhere does Bustamante say that, "...he found there was not sufficient North American native material in the DNA databases, because those native Americans tend not to participate in that activity." {What activity? Sex with whitey? Giving blood samples? The mind boggles!}. Nor does he say, "..The tests were against people from Mexico, Peru, and Columbia.". That he does say is, "...37 from across the Americas with Native American ancestry...". This does NOT exclude Native North Americans.
"The total length of Native American segments observed in the individual is greater than the average value for the reference individuals <snip> by 10.5-fold (corresponding to 4.9 standard deviations) for the individuals from Utah." It may well be that a lot of American whites have SOME Native American blood, but it seems as though Warren has more than whites in Utah {perhaps it has something to do with the Mormons?}. And, "The segment on chromosome 10 observed in the individual is larger than any of the segments identified as having Native American ancestry in any of the 185 reference individuals." Finally, "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."
Now AFAIK, Warren has never claimed to be a pure-blood American Native, merely that there was a family legend that there was a Native American ancestor in her family. Her DNA analysis confirms that this is very likely true. If it was me, I'd be rather proud of that {as many white Americans are} and feel some small degree of kinship.
And, according to the "One Drop Rule", once historically prominent in the United States, asserting that any person with even ("one drop" of black blood) is considered black, she could certainly be considered a half-breed....
Yes, you are definitely a Traditional Conservative, perhaps even a Devoted one - congratulations!
Exhausted Majority Mac
;-)
{opinions are like assholes, etc.} so none of us should bother to read 'em. M'kay.
Brooks opinion piece was a POINTER -> (get it? a pointer -> hello?) to the original study by Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres and Tim Dixon. Brooks (in whom I have NO interest) piece was thought-provoking and LED me to the proper original study "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape" - evidently you are mistaking the monkey for the organ-grinder.....oh dear me!
I suppose that you won't read (tl:dnr) the actual study (a pity, because it is very relevant) because you know miraculously that it must "lack truthiness".
Coming back to Pocahontas, Nowhere does Bustamante say that, "...he found there was not sufficient North American native material in the DNA databases, because those native Americans tend not to participate in that activity." {What activity? Sex with whitey? Giving blood samples? The mind boggles!}. Nor does he say, "..The tests were against people from Mexico, Peru, and Columbia.". That he does say is, "...37 from across the Americas with Native American ancestry...". This does NOT exclude Native North Americans.
"The total length of Native American segments observed in the individual is greater than the average value for the reference individuals <snip> by 10.5-fold (corresponding to 4.9 standard deviations) for the individuals from Utah." It may well be that a lot of American whites have SOME Native American blood, but it seems as though Warren has more than whites in Utah {perhaps it has something to do with the Mormons?}. And, "The segment on chromosome 10 observed in the individual is larger than any of the segments identified as having Native American ancestry in any of the 185 reference individuals." Finally, "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."
Now AFAIK, Warren has never claimed to be a pure-blood American Native, merely that there was a family legend that there was a Native American ancestor in her family. Her DNA analysis confirms that this is very likely true. If it was me, I'd be rather proud of that {as many white Americans are} and feel some small degree of kinship.
And, according to the "One Drop Rule", once historically prominent in the United States, asserting that any person with even ("one drop" of black blood) is considered black, she could certainly be considered a half-breed....
Yes, you are definitely a Traditional Conservative, perhaps even a Devoted one - congratulations!
Exhausted Majority Mac
;-)
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by Dea Certe
A major disaster in Florida and trump’s concern is Warren’s DNA?
Then she got laughed out of the room. Boy the Dem women have made an uphill battle for the coming election. First DiFi rolls out her dick and walks all over it with cleats at the confirmation, then Pocahontas gives us her DNA fodder for laughs, and now Hillary making ridiculous statements about her hubby and his affairs being between two consenting adults(ya know, a 40+YO married man who is the most powerful person on Earth, and a 22YO college intern from Piscataway or something) and not an abuse of power. The #MeToo girls sure have plenty of reason to sit on their hands this election, or pull the handle for the opposition. What a massive CF.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 82
OK, fine. If Warren can claim to be Native American, then so can I(and every other white American). For the future, I will list myself as a minority on all applications for grants, jobs, tenure, and federal exceptions for affirmative action. It's only fair.
Goose, gander doncha know. Notwithstanding the Cherokee told her to go get bent.
edit to add: HuffPo stands up for once: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b055bc947a6e13
That's about as definitive as it gets. And, I am shocked that HuffPo delivered this.
Goose, gander doncha know. Notwithstanding the Cherokee told her to go get bent.
edit to add: HuffPo stands up for once: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b055bc947a6e13
That's about as definitive as it gets. And, I am shocked that HuffPo delivered this.
Last edited by ethicalconundrum; 16th Oct 2018 at 22:53.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 78
Posts: 1,119
obgraham,
I'm not in a tizzy, I was just pointing out discrepancies in your take of 60 Minutes' Trump interview and actual facts that you missed.
obgraham, I hate to tell you but there isn't a need for a "get" interview, Trump is very, very proficient at "getting" himself. Today, Trump pointed out that Sears has been badly managed for years. I wonder if Trump knew his Treasury Secretary was on the Sears board from 2005 until 2016 and before that as a director for years at K-Mart before he spoke? Probably not and it wasn't a "get" interview. Speaking about the economy, the tax changes Trump likes to take full credit for have been a boon to the corporations with profits after taxes soaring to the highest levels ever seen. But, that fact doesn’t equate with the lowered tax rates. Revenues coming into the Federal Government from corporations are going down, not up and are not expected to rise anytime soon. So what happens when the economy starts to slide? It doesn't take a Harvard degree or a Wharton economics degree to know what is going to happen. But Trump is coming into his own...
Like I pointed out, if the Left and their Turbine-like acolytes are in a tizzy over Trump's interview, that's proof enough to me that he did a great job.
And tell me this, Turbine -- considering this was a "get" interview for a high profile media person like Stahl, in the lead-in to an election, why was it that there were Zero questions about substance: Economic advancement, low unemployment -- you know, the stuff that affects average Americans, rather than Harvard academics?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 572
Mac, please. You need to broaden your web-reading a bit. I said I read the Bustamante report. No point in requoting what it said.
Plenty of others in the last 48 hours have pointed out that the comparison database is lacking in native American samples. Primarily because the tribes want to maintain their authority over who is and who is not eligible to be a member. They don't want to relinquish that to modern technology. As a result, by and large tribal members have not contributed their DNA in their proportion in society. To make up for this, the databases now include samples from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru. It's yet to be determined how this affects the validity in terms of native American DNA.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your interpretation. However, I didn't make this up, and neither did Trump. The leader of the Cherokee Nation, however, is not happy with the Senator's claim.
Plenty of others in the last 48 hours have pointed out that the comparison database is lacking in native American samples. Primarily because the tribes want to maintain their authority over who is and who is not eligible to be a member. They don't want to relinquish that to modern technology. As a result, by and large tribal members have not contributed their DNA in their proportion in society. To make up for this, the databases now include samples from Mexico, Colombia, and Peru. It's yet to be determined how this affects the validity in terms of native American DNA.
I'm sorry if this doesn't fit with your interpretation. However, I didn't make this up, and neither did Trump. The leader of the Cherokee Nation, however, is not happy with the Senator's claim.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred
Do the Democrats have any kind of realistic chance n the midterms? I see the press, including The Economist, is full of stories that they have a chance to pick upsome seats...but even from this distant vantage point all can see that the Democrats are a hapless group at the moment without a clear message and skilled only in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Too bad this so called party oposite is an effete shell of what an opposition should be. What are they offering other than they are not Trump?
Too bad this so called party oposite is an effete shell of what an opposition should be. What are they offering other than they are not Trump?
that would give Trump a run.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by BAengineer
I certainly agree - its as though they dont want to win. Personally I'd like them to tell Beto O'Rourke to stop messing around in Texas and make him their candidate in 2020.
that would give Trump a run.
that would give Trump a run.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 1,550
Apples and oranges ....
Two different things are being mixed here: what DNA can show, and membership in one particular Amerindian tribe. Warren has a history of making unsupported claims to being a member of the Cherokee tribe, when this is something that can not be proven or disproven by a DNA test. (Anyone who knows the history of Amerindians must know that tribes had even adopted "whites" as members of their tribes. Anyone who is unaware, have a read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanah_Parker
Quanah Parker was a Comanche whose mother, Cynthia Ann Parker, was also a Comanche and a white woman, perhaps whiter than Elizabeth Warren. Cynthia Ann Parker would have "failed" her DNA test, but she was still a Comanche.
We are being invited by both Trump and Warren to bark up the wrong tree, because DNA can not prove or disprove membership in an Amerindian tribe. Membership does not have to be a matter of race, as shown by historical example. (Even further back, any possible survivors of the Roanoke Colony probably ended their lives as members of local Amerindian tribes.)
Warren had been caught out using her spurious claim of Cherokee affinity to gain advancement in academia. With hindsight I'm sure she regrets having done that, but too late. I think the Democrats need to move on and look at other possible opponents to Donald Trump for 2020.
Joe Biden is another one. He was caught using elements of Neil "Kinnochio" Kinnock's biography as his own for a stump speech during his failed run for the presidency in 1987. You don't think Trump would be all over him for that, when for once Trump would not even need to lie about Biden's being a clumsy liar, one even more clumsy than Trump himself? What Biden did was right up there with the way Melania copied Michelle Obama's speech, except that Melania was not even running for dogcatcher.
Any possible opponent of Trump's has to be seen to be reasonably truthful in order to be an alternative to openly lying Trump. That fact should put both Warren and Biden out of the running. In the same way, what were the Democrats thinking to have Hillary "I landed under sniper fire" Clinton run against Trump?
Finding a reasonably truthful Democratic politician is going to be difficult, but it should be possible.
Quanah Parker was a Comanche whose mother, Cynthia Ann Parker, was also a Comanche and a white woman, perhaps whiter than Elizabeth Warren. Cynthia Ann Parker would have "failed" her DNA test, but she was still a Comanche.
We are being invited by both Trump and Warren to bark up the wrong tree, because DNA can not prove or disprove membership in an Amerindian tribe. Membership does not have to be a matter of race, as shown by historical example. (Even further back, any possible survivors of the Roanoke Colony probably ended their lives as members of local Amerindian tribes.)
Warren had been caught out using her spurious claim of Cherokee affinity to gain advancement in academia. With hindsight I'm sure she regrets having done that, but too late. I think the Democrats need to move on and look at other possible opponents to Donald Trump for 2020.
Joe Biden is another one. He was caught using elements of Neil "Kinnochio" Kinnock's biography as his own for a stump speech during his failed run for the presidency in 1987. You don't think Trump would be all over him for that, when for once Trump would not even need to lie about Biden's being a clumsy liar, one even more clumsy than Trump himself? What Biden did was right up there with the way Melania copied Michelle Obama's speech, except that Melania was not even running for dogcatcher.
Any possible opponent of Trump's has to be seen to be reasonably truthful in order to be an alternative to openly lying Trump. That fact should put both Warren and Biden out of the running. In the same way, what were the Democrats thinking to have Hillary "I landed under sniper fire" Clinton run against Trump?
Finding a reasonably truthful Democratic politician is going to be difficult, but it should be possible.
Last edited by chuks; 17th Oct 2018 at 07:11.
