(10-17-2018, 01:31 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 12:57 PM)The Real Joker2 Wrote: 1) They did not use Cherokee DNA, they used Mexican and other Central American DNA that they think might be related. They also proved that she is a liar. She claimed she was Cherokee at Harvard. Cherokee standards for such claim is 1/16th Cherokee to be eligible. She is at BEST 1/64th and could have as little as 1/1024th. So no, there is not proof.
2 & 3) She claimed Cherokee status at Harvard, google it if you are not aware of the topic. If she was abiding by Cherokee standards, that meant she was claiming she was at least 1/16th Cherokee. It is the entire reason she is being mocked for her false claim.    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-native-ameri/

The link you posted doesn't work. But I did find the politifact article on the topic.
The article confirms what I am saying.
You are equivocating between "native ancestry" and "tribe."
Her native ancestry is small but undeniable.
The Cherokee tribe has the prerogative to set a threshold for membership.  It could be 1/8th, it could be 1/1024th, it wouldn't matter.  Warren never claimed to be a member of the tribe.  She claimed her ancestor was a member.
As for the advantages, again from your article,  "there is no proof Warren gained any special advantage in her career," and "when applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status."

So you believe it shows Native American ancestry by using Mexican, Columbian and Peruvian DNA as a substitute for Indian DNA samples?  The fact that it came back with a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th using substitute measures for Indian DNA and yet you still seem to think this proves she was right? That shows how desperate the left is to believe what their masters tell them.

---