Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in other words you have simply made it based based on nothing. You don't see it as being her heritage but she does. What makes you right and her wrong?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-angers-prominent-native-americans-with-politically-fraught-dna-test/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfe81fdab2eb

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a statement. “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Cherokee Nation telling Elizabeth Warren to stop with her claims of Native American heritage.

pixelburp

It's that whole "be best" campaign that gets me: that the First Lady would choose to spearhead an initiative to speak out against cyberbullying of all things, while her husband is incapable of showing any restraint or common decency on the medium.

Oh sure, if you want parity then it's fair to claim that Daniels slung the first glob of mud in talking about the President's manhood (2018 ladies and gentleman), but it's not like we don't teach or children, or expect those in public office, to behave as the better person. "She started it" wouldn't be an acceptable excuse in the schoolyard.

But then it's all red-meat to the Lindsey Grahams and those who delight in a tough, hard talking President straight from the schoolyard.

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-angers-prominent-native-americans-with-politically-fraught-dna-test/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfe81fdab2eb



Cherokee Nation telling Elizabeth Warren to stop with her claims of Native American heritage.

Any chance you could come back to me on my answer to your point about the defamation case, or are you not interested in debate?

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

Any chance you could come back to me on my answer to your point about the defamation case, or are you not interested in debate?

I didn't know I was debating and personally I don't care if a person replies or not to points I make.

RobertKK

batgoat wrote: »

I can comfortably say that Clinton would never have messed up the US position in the globe to the degree that Trump has. If Clinton behaved remotely similar to Trump, there would be an effort to impeach her and I would applaud it tbh.

She did as secretary of State. Remember Obama had her when he told Romney he was wrong about Russia. Her reset button that she gave Lavrov ended up resetting things back to the cold war.
She had also talked about setting up no fly zones over Syria so she could help the terrorists backed by rogue nation Saudi Arabia who helped destroy Syria.
Obama says it was Hillary that pushed for the attacks on Libya where she helped terrorists again as ISIS took up resident, helped a migrant crisis grow, got the US ambassador killed because of that war and now slavery is present in Libya.
She was a walking disaster, as Obama said about Libya, a sh1t show...

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/16/elizabeth-warren-angers-prominent-native-americans-with-politically-fraught-dna-test/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfe81fdab2eb



Cherokee Nation telling Elizabeth Warren to stop with her claims of Native American heritage.

Ah, so its not an actual position you have, rather you are taking other peoples opinions as facts on the matter.

I didn't ask you whether she was a native american or not. I asked you about your understanding of what constitutes heritage. And you provided me with a quote from a renowned heritage expert?

But regardless of all of that, I still do understand what the problem is. She saw a loophole in the system and used it to her advantage. Isn't that simply being Smart. Shouldn't you laud her as being the best?

So what if others lost out, that isn't her problem is it?

So Trump games the system and the guy is a hero. Warren does it and somehow you have an issue with it, even calling into question whether she is qualified to take advantage of it.

You do know that Trump family name is not Trump, right? They changed it as they felt it would be more advantages to them. Isn't that just the opposite version?

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

I didn't know I was debating and personally I don't care if a person replies or not to points I make.

So no then.

Got it

ancapailldorcha

Can anyone explain why there's so much talk of whether or not Elizabeth Warren may or may not be part Native American.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

So no then.

Got it

Why are you looking to have an argument?

everlast75

RobertKK wrote: »

Why are you looking to have an argument?

I'm looking for a discussion.

Anybody can drop in, post a comment and then p1ss off when challenged. I was wondering if that's what you do and that appears to be the case

RobertKK

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can anyone explain why there's so much talk of whether or not Elizabeth Warren may or may not be part Native American.

Trump calls her Pocahontas and that she is telling lies about a Native American heritage.
Her DNA test showed 1/1024th and she is claiming it is hard evidence of her heritage.
The Cherokee Nation are telling her to go away as she is undermining Cherokee tribal interests with her continued claims.
Elizabeth Warren is a likely Democrat candidate in the 2020 presidential elections.

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm looking for a discussion.

Anybody can drop in, post a comment and then p1ss off when challenged. I was wondering if that's what you do and that appears to be the case

I will go back and read as I had more to do than read and reply to every post.

Captain Obvious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can anyone explain why there's so much talk of whether or not Elizabeth Warren may or may not be part Native American.

Republicans dug up her claims as having native ancestry and Trump used it to insult her and use racist language to her. He challenged her, on camera, to get a test and he'd pay 1 million to a charity of her choosing. She got the test and it showed native ancestry. He is now saying he never challenged her and also that he has to test her personally, a bit of a contradiction. It's just a story that perfectly highlights his racism and outright lying as well as the pathetic attempts republicans will go to to try and discredit someone.

joe40

jooksavage wrote: »

Stallingrad wrote: »

As much as I hate to say it, and it really pains me, but it would political suicide to put a woman against Trump for President, no matter how good she is, or how much we would like it to be

Having said all that, even if the Dems were to find some kind of Northern-born, southern-dwelling, liberal-leaning, conscientious gun-owning, country n' western-singin' consensus candidate, you'd have the same few voices in here talking about how "divisive" they are. You know - like Obama and not like the current POTUS.

Beto O'Rourke, is that who you have in mind

RobertKK

everlast75 wrote: »

Yes, it was a victory for Trump.

However, it has been appealed so let us see where that brings us.

Also Daniels related, Trump has caved in relation to the NDA enforcement issue. He is being pursued further in that case.
He is due to be diposed in the Zervos case.
He was an unidicted co-conspirator in felony cases regarding campaign fraud violations concerning his former lawyer.
He also paid out substantial damages in the case taken re Trump University recently.

So, its perfectly fine to swing in here citing this small Court victory, but your refusal to acknowledge that he is getting his sizeable ass handed to him elsewhere in the Courts, including by Avenatti, makes you seem myopic and disingenuous.

I have not been keeping track of the cases, but he was suppose to lose to Stormy Daniels is what I had read before and here she is having to appeal as she lost.
I can't comment on cases I know nothing about and people with biased opinion can see more in a case than is actually there, so I can't comment as it wold be just typing and posting stuff for the sake of typing which is what you have asked for.

RobertKK

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Republicans dug up her claims as having native ancestry and Trump used it to insult her and use racist language to her. He challenged her, on camera, to get a test and he'd pay 1 million to a charity of her choosing. She got the test and it showed native ancestry. He is now saying he never challenged her and also that he has to test her personally, a bit of a contradiction. It's just a story that perfectly highlights his racism and outright lying as well as the pathetic attempts republicans will go to to try and discredit someone.

and the secretary of State of the Cherokee Nation according to the Washington Post says:
"Hoskin said the tests cannot even reliably determine lineage among North or South American tribal groups."

Trump has thanked the Cherokee Nation for backing him up.

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

I have not been keeping track of the cases, but he was suppose to lose to Stormy Daniels is what I had read before and here she is having to appeal as she lost.
I can't comment on cases I know nothing about and people with biased opinion can see more in a case than is actually there, so I can't comment as it wold be just typing and posting stuff for the sake of typing which is what you have asked for.

That, RobertKK, is one of the best answers I have seen in ages.

You don't know anything about it, but thought you'd post something, but don't want to post anything else since you have no idea what the real story is.

But Trump won, so MAGA

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

That, RobertKK, is one of the best answers I have seen in ages.

You don't know anything about it, but thought you'd post something, but don't want to post anything else since you have no idea what the real story is.

But Trump won, so MAGA

No, I do criticise Trump too.

Some people are just a broken record and have set themselves up on a side rather than take things and look at them separately and then say that is bad or that is good.
For some it is like they are programmed to 'Trump is bad', he has done some bad some stuff, he has done some good stuff. Just like all presidents do.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

and the secretary of State of the Cherokee Nation according to the Washington Post says:
"Hoskin said the tests cannot even reliably determine lineage among North or South American tribal groups."

Trump has thanked the Cherokee Nation for backing him up.

Warren didn't say it was definitive, only that it supported her knowledge of her family tree.



The Cherokee nation were, in fact, very critical of Trump for putting Warren in that position in the first place.

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

That, RobertKK, is one of the best answers I have seen in ages.

You don't know anything about it, but thought you'd post something, but don't want to post anything else since you have no idea what the real story is.

But Trump won, so MAGA

Everlast had been crying he had got no reply, and it was the only reason I had replied to show how silly anyone is to go after anyone to reply to them.
Sometimes people don't know enough and then don't need to reply, but Everlast was crying 'Any chance you could come back to me on my answer to your point about the defamation case, or are you not interested in debate?' then continued with wanting a reply...

Leroy42

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I do criticise Trump too.

Some people are just a broken record and have set themselves up on a side rather than take things and look at them separately and then say that is bad or that is good.
For some it is like they are programmed to 'Trump is bad', he has done some bad some stuff, he has done some good stuff. Just like all presidents do.

Wow, what a low bar you set others, and I assume yourself.

So once somebody at some stage did something the same or worse, then you simply accept it.

Fair enough, I understand where you are coming from now at least.

Based on that position, there is literally nothing Trump can do that you would have any serious issue with. Shrug of the shoulders, what can we do!

jobbridge4life

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I do criticise Trump too.

Some people are just a broken record and have set themselves up on a side rather than take things and look at them separately and then say that is bad or that is good.
For some it is like they are programmed to 'Trump is bad', he has done some bad some stuff, he has done some good stuff. Just like all presidents do.

You're hilarious Robert. I'm dumbfounded that you could possibly think anyone who paid even the remotest attention to your postings in this thread would be taken in by the above nonsense.

Trump has lead to a huge increase in civilian deaths.

batgoat

RobertKK wrote: »

She did as secretary of State. Remember Obama had her when he told Romney he was wrong about Russia. Her reset button that she gave Lavrov ended up resetting things back to the cold war.
She had also talked about setting up no fly zones over Syria so she could help the terrorists backed by rogue nation Saudi Arabia who helped destroy Syria.
Obama says it was Hillary that pushed for the attacks on Libya where she helped terrorists again as ISIS took up resident, helped a migrant crisis grow, got the US ambassador killed because of that war and now slavery is present in Libya.
She was a walking disaster, as Obama said about Libya, a sh1t show...

She didn't do remotely similar. The US international reputation is entirely gone. They're making enemies out of allies, their president refused to condemn white supremacists, the president does not behave like any president before and to no benefit.

eire4

batgoat wrote: »

She didn't do remotely similar. The US international reputation is entirely gone. They're making enemies out of allies, their president refused to condemn white supremacists, the president does not behave like any president before and to no benefit.

The only people he seems to like internationally are nasty dictators like Kim in North Korea and repressive nasty governments such as Saudi Arabia or Putin's in Russia.
There is no doubt the more authoritarian and repressive he could make government in the US he would be and is all for.

B0jangles

eire4 wrote: »

The only people he seems to like internationally are nasty dictators like Kim in North Korea and repressive nasty governments such as Saudi Arabia or Putin's in Russia.
There is no doubt the more authoritarian and repressive he could make government in the US he would be and is all for.

To be fair, he also likes... looks down at list


Duterte.


Hmm...

everlast75

Crying? Really?

I was asking you to back up your nonsense.

Nevermind

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

So she loses a court case and in triumph Trump slanders her.

Great. Be expecting a new law suit by the end of the day.

Terrible alright. In retaliation she should go on all the late night shows and call him mushroom cock or something.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Terrible alright. In retaliation she should go on all the late night shows and call him mushroom cock or something.

She's not the president, don't you think the president should conduct themselves in a presidential fashion rather than behaving like a child?

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, what a low bar you set others, and I assume yourself.

So once somebody at some stage did something the same or worse, then you simply accept it.

Fair enough, I understand where you are coming from now at least.

Based on that position, there is literally nothing Trump can do that you would have any serious issue with. Shrug of the shoulders, what can we do!

No.

I criticised Trump yesterday over his response to Saudi Arabia killing Jamal Khashoggi, I described Trump putting economics ahead of morals as 'beyond disgraceful', as that is not leadership and just encourages the growth of crimes by telling people morals aren't that important if there is money to be made, or praising mad men who actually kill their own family members and make them appear good, this is so wrong.
I do thinking cutting the corporation tax was a good move, as it was too high, and no new wars is a good thing, though he needs to tone it down with Iran.

Like with Obama, agreeing to attack Libya was really wrong, the death and destruction it brought. But the Iran deal was good.

I don't have to be ideologically stuck to one side, I can say what I agree with and not.

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Warren didn't say it was definitive, only that it supported her knowledge of her family tree.

Why does she claim, as fact, to be Cherokee in a cookbook she wrote recipes for then? They were word for word copies from a French chef.