[Hindsite]

I agree it was stupid of Warren to play Trump's game. It's basically a repeat of the birther nonsense with Obama. It's reminiscent of Obama releasing his birth certificate, which was then claimed to be forged.

On the matter of facts. The professor who interpreted the test said it showed she had Native American ancestry 6-10 generations back. That's 1/64-1/1024.

This is a statement of the limitations of the test, but the latter figure is all that's been seized on by the right wingers, but this is a deception.

Also, based on the statement of the Cherokee Nation (which is negative toward Warren), the test doesn't show her heritage is from Mexico or Peru. According to their statement, the current tests can't distinguish between ancestry from North or South America.

So fuck the alternative facts.

Clearly, Warren paid for that campaign announcement, so the interpreter is attempting to make it look as good as possible for Warren by not stating all the facts fully. But even he was unable to actually truthfully verify any Cherokee heritage from the DNA. The interpreter in his announcement never actually stated what the DNA result determined her heritage to be. However, it certainly was not Cherokee American Indian.

[One Degree]

My very limited understanding of genetics made me believe it is possible to have genetic traits of native Americans without your ancestors ever setting foot in the Americas. Native Americans aren’t actually native after all.

[Ter]

Yes that is correct. Everybody came from somewhere else.
As for Warren, she would not have made it as an attractive squaw.
With her bony condition, I would be amazed if anyone would offer her father more than a flea-ridden old horse and a rainy teepee to take her off his hands.

[Crantag]

Clearly, Warren paid for that campaign announcement, so the interpreter is attempting to make it look as good as possible for Warren by not stating all the facts fully. But even he was unable to actually truthfully verify any Cherokee heritage from the DNA. The interpreter in his announcement never actually stated what the DNA result determined her heritage to be. However, it certainly was not Cherokee American Indian.

The Stanford professor is the primary source of the information.

But nowadays, an Internet rightwinger sees a conspiracy everywhere they look, it seems.

[Crantag]

And as it were, Warren was stupid as hell for doing this. But it's grossly inaccurate that the test showed 1/1024.

That was the upper limit. The lower limit was 1/64. 6 to 10 generations. An example of exponential mathematics.

I don't know shit about genetic testing.

It was a really dumb stunt.

I'll admit this is bias on my part, but I hope this is a temporary distraction.

I'll say why. Warren rose to power based on a platform of regulating banks, post 2008 collapse.

I've read some of her books, which were written pre-collapse, and which I read before she was a Senator.

I happened on them in course of research. There was plenty of dry legalize (she's a law scholar and my topic matter is economics), and there was some irrelevant and boring meandering; but there also were strong sections indicating a knowledge of realistic steps that could be taken to re-reglate banks, coupled with a consistent clear desire to see it through (though at time of writing I don't think she envisioned that she'd ever have political power).

Based on US history though, she probably won't succeed in re-regulating the banks. If she tries, she'll probably just be assassinated, like all the rest.

Andrew Jackson only succeeded despite a failed assassination attempt, in which a British agent saw two pistols misfire; an incredibly unlikely occurrence; Andrew Jackson surviving is an historical accident, if you will. And as for the agent, he pled insanity and was boated back to England, after a year or two in a mental ward. Look it up.

[Hindsite]

[Albert]

How dare you do this to Turtle Mitch! Jobs not mobs!

[One Degree]

I don’t think Trump supporters should trust McConnell, but this should not be done to anyone. What kind of lowlife gets their kicks tormenting people just trying to have a meal? They are insane.

[Godstud]

What kind of lowlife gets their kicks tormenting people just trying to have a meal?

What kind of lowlife blindly follows a populist asshole?

The people aren't (hyperbole alert) "tormenting" people trying to have a meal. They are tormenting a politician who is in charge of Republican efforts to repeal health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans and transfer those resources as tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. If that isn't a good enough reason alone for that, then you might be as morally bankrupt as he is.

[One Degree]

What kind of lowlife blindly follows a populist asshole?

The people aren't (hyperbole alert) "tormenting" people trying to have a meal. They are tormenting a politician who is in charge of Republican efforts to repeal health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans and transfer those resources as tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. If that isn't a good enough reason alone for that, then you might be as morally bankrupt as he is.

I keep forgetting you are the receptacles of all moral truths and have been entrusted by the deity to strike down the infidels. May Locke be with you.

[Godstud]

I don't get all upset when an asshole politician has his meal ruined by people whom lives he's trying to fuck over, at least. Get some perspective.

[skinster]

Why Is Russiagate Rumbling Into the 2018 Midterms?
The November 6 midterms are fast approaching, yet much of the media is still looking back to the 2016 elections, and specifically the alleged Russian interference in them.

The New Yorker (10/1/18) published a 7,000-word article headlined “How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump.” Considering other explanations for Trump’s victory and Clinton’s loss, such as her tactical campaign errors, gerrymandering, vote suppression, racism and the actions of James Comey for only a paragraph, it quotes one expert claiming, “It stretches credulity to think the Russians didn’t” win it for him.

Meanwhile, the New York Times (9/20/18) released an intensive 10,000-word history and analysis of the Trump/Russia story, explaining to its readers that it was Putin’s “seething” ambivalence towards the West and his “nostalgia for Russia’s lost superpower status” that were the driving forces behind Russia’s nefarious actions.

There is also a great deal of fear about supposed hacking of the upcoming midterms. USA Today (10/9/18) warned, “As Russia and perhaps other foreign governments seek to undermine democratic elections, Congress and states need to get serious about defenses.” The PBS NewsHour (10/11/18) quoted one official who noted, “Given our experiences of 2016 and what we saw the Russians attempt to do across the nation’s election equipment, the election infrastructure, we certainly have a degree of concern of what their capability is.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post (9/26/18) writes, “While Russia is clearly trying to influence the 2018 elections, this time the United States is prepared and taking action to counter it.”

There is little concrete evidence offered in these reports; see Gareth Porter in Consortium News (10/10/18) for a dash of cold water on the New York Times’ narrative. Yet even the lack of evidence is an ominous sign for some. The Daily Beast (10/8/18) published an article headlined, “No Evidence That Russia Is Messing with Campaign 2018—Yet.” Despite that lack of evidence, the article asserted that the US should brace itself: “Russia has an arsenal of disruption capabilities… to sow havoc on election day,” it said, and “everyone is expecting the 2016 shock and awe” again.

The concern of the media over Russian actions has not resonated with the public more generally; a July Gallup poll reported that the number of Americans who considered Russia a top problem for the country was less than 1 percent. On the subject of the midterms and threats to their legitimacy, NPR (9/17/18) found that large majorities feel voter fraud or suppression to be a much greater danger to election integrity than foreign interference. Yet these concerns are not addressed nearly as thoroughly by the media. A search for “Russia” and “election” in the New York Times database generates 4,489 stories since the start of 2017, as compared to just 234 for “voter suppression” and “election,” 306 “gerrymandering” and “election” and 727 “racism” and “election.”

The question is not whether Russia, like other countries with extensive intelligence apparatuses, seeks to influence the elections of foreign nations. The question is why corporate media are concentrating on foreign interference, and not the other threats to democracy. In a previous article (FAIR.org, 7/27/18), I argued that the Democrats are using Russia to deflect anger and discontent away from their own failings. If Russia is to blame, there is no need for introspection, nor to address the deep race and class divides in the country that are addressed by surging political movements on the left, from Sanders to Black Lives Matter, and exploited by Trump and the alt-right. The focus on Russia as the sole reason for Trump’s victory allows establishment Democrats to continue as normal, without need for radical internal or policy change. As Clinton said, “America is already great.” To deflect pressure from the left, they can construct a narrative to explain why they lost to the most unpopular candidate ever.

For corporate media, the story of Russia covertly influencing the country promotes a climate where they can re-tighten their grip on the means of communication by accusing alternative media on both left and right of being Russian-sponsored “fake news.” As previously reported (FAIR.org, 8/22/18), under the guise of protecting readers, big media companies like Google, YouTube and Bing have changed their algorithms, resulting in devastating drops in traffic for reputable alternative media sites. Alternative media has been deleted, de-ranked, de-listed and de-monetized, effectively sidelining them. In response to ostensible Russian meddling, media giant Facebook announced last week (Washington Post, 10/11/18) it had shut down over 800 US accounts and pages for “inauthentic behavior,” a term even more nebulous than “fake news.” Included in the 800 were several police accountability watchdog groups and other alternative media, adding to its recent (temporary) deleting of TeleSUR English.

However, the best example of fake news and “inauthentic behavior” by media outlets in the modern age remains the manufacture of consent for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, with the crucial assistance of corporate outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and NBC (FAIR.org, 11/1/01; 3/18/03; 10/23/17). Forty-five percent of Americans get their news from Facebook, but it seems doubtful the tech giant will remove accounts belonging to those publications.

While it is clear that Moscow has an interest in who the US elects and doesn’t elect, the media’s focus on Russiagate through the midterm elections has as much to do with its political utility as with the evidence. With President Trump accusing China of midterm interference (CNN, 8/26/18), it appears that both major parties have sown doubt into the process and have a pre-made excuse if they fail on November 6. Both sides undermining trust in the democratic process does not augur well for the future of US politics.
https://fair.org/home/why-is-russiagate ... lTGePb2XUE

[Albert]

[annatar1914]

I don't get all upset when an asshole politician has his meal ruined by people whom lives he's trying to fuck over, at least. Get some perspective.

The ''perspective'' of this sort of unhinged nonsense is that Liberals are going to be destroyed in the 2018 Mid-Terms, in what probably is going to be one of the biggest upsets in a long series of upsets from now on, until the Democratic Party disappears, going the way of the Whigs or Federalists.

And most will never figure out why it happened, unfortunately for them.

[Albert]

I would be surprised if the Democrat party will survive this. The things they stand for and what they have done, I know I will never take them seriously ever again.

[Zagadka]

Funny that the whole "making up complete lies in a PowerPoint show to invade a country" didn't do that for Republicans for you.

[One Degree]

Well, the odds of destroying the Democrats are not as good as a rational person would expect. They are totally indoctrinated to the point they can’t even comprehend an alternative view. I have known brilliant people who should easily out debate me who preferred to simply shut down discussion. They simply will not confront their own flaws. Huge numbers will vote Democrat without any knowledge other than labels and slogans. This election is not about their platform. It is about the effectiveness of their propaganda.

[Zagadka]

They are totally indoctrinated to the point they can’t even comprehend an alternative view.

In the same way that your main argument against single payer healthcare is "America is different"?

[One Degree]

In the same way that your main argument against single payer healthcare is "America is different"?

Sorry, I don’t see the relationship. Unless you are getting into the area that all our thoughts are the result of outside influences.

[Hindsite]

In the same way that your main argument against single payer healthcare is "America is different"?

Hasn't this whole thread gone off topic?