Message from @>_
Discord ID: 500881484526125056
yeah, you see what the CDUSPD wants to do with the AfD and they aren't even that right wing.
they are just a bunch of people that took out the Programm of the CDUSPD and FDP from like 30 years ago, threw it in a blender and made it their own.
Don’t they call you a Nazi for waving the flag in Germany? Seems like the bar is low there.
Hmm
what happened to trump?
got called a Nazi.
```Don’t they call you a Nazi for waving the flag in Germany? Seems like the bar is low there.```
Yeah, but it seems that there are only a small bunch that really cares, many people aren't really political. They just don't know.
So it might be effective to go to marketplaces and shout there to deliver your message
tell them that the greens want to kill all men for example.
`Imagine if Germany had a slogan called "Make Germany Great Again`
if only germany was that woke.
time to wake up again germany and this time do real holocaust.
Only a matter of time to be honest...
But there is hope that the CDU gets rid of Merkel
crazy old cat ladies gathering is news now..
Just came post some high-tier dishonesty from the media
It seems to be a matter of basic fact, yeah.
I mean, it is an interesting thing to talk about.
Not sure how necessary it really is to show any appreciation for even the most respected confederates.
that's *spicy*
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1051523821642113025
**CORRECTION**: All the shit we just said was wrong.
"War will come"
All the shit they just said was intentionally wrong.
You mean with saudi Arabia??
FAKE.
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWS
Haha
What was the name of that news website that rates 4 news articles a day? Tim and Luke meet them at Anarcapoko last year.
!rank
There's nothing really false in these articles and they acknowledge how weak the results are. But if you do a survey of headlines today you'll find they're all very misleading.
Once you get to 1-2% of these DNA tests you're frequently talking about noise and random factors in the analysis.
This is literally <1%. Something like 0.5 to 0.09% native american. According to a set of partitions that are defined by looking at a group of people and just drawing an arbitrary line.
what did she originally claim? that she was native, or that she had a native ancestor?
these articles make it sound like she described her family history as having a native american somewhere far back
which is unremarkable but also not false?
I believe it had something to do with way overstating her native ancestry
but thats been a while ago
The latter from what I can tell. The implication would be used to "prove" the former.
You're talking about 6th or 10th generation. That's like 150 or 250 years ago. It could very well be noise as she hasn't released the raw results. Only the analysis performed by someone at Stanford.
Given the ages involved, you could almost disprove her argument if you could trace her family history that far back (but there's so many people at that point it would be hard to exhaustively show none had arrived before then--remember that the *United States* is only 242 years old).