- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump has officially petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to END birthright citizenship
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:20 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:20 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You completely misunderstood/misrepresented what I said
No, this is what you said
quote:
Shitting out citizens is so patently absurd that I would have to question the mental competence of anyone espousing for it. And if the premise of your argument is “it’s the law therefore it must not be absurd” then you are no better than someone who advocates stoning a woman for adultery based on biblical precedent. Stupid laws are stupid. And people legitimizing stupid laws are behaving stupidly.
It's a completely dishonest framing to make any response thereto absurd within that framing.
And you completely ignore that "stupid laws are stupid" isn't a relevant argument. If the amendment is stupid, the proper response is to amend the Constitution (again). That's the entire point of the amendment process.
1
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:22 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I am saying is that a Court has more than enough wiggle room to find that birthright citizenship does not apply to people born here from parents who do not permanently reside here (whatever that exactly means)
That could affect the birth tourism people, but not the illegal immigrants domiciled here, unless they want to both (1) ignore what domicile meant at the time and (2) upend current federal definitions of domicile, which do not require legal status.
Illegal immigrants can be permanently domiciled here.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
t's a completely dishonest framing to make any response thereto absurd within that framing.
Is not the same as
quote:
And if the premise of your argument is “it’s the law therefore it must not be absurd” then you are no better than someone who advocates stoning a woman for adultery based on biblical precedent.
Will you keep doubling down on your dishonesty? I think you will. Let’s see!….
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:32 pm to Robin Masters
It's funny that you ignore this
Which is the referenced framing.
I addressed the other comment directly.
If the law is "absurd", then change it legally. In this instance, amend the Constitution.
*ETA: before you crawfish and double down on the strawman, note the "and" in the initial response separating the 2.
quote:
Shitting out citizens is so patently absurd that I would have to question the mental competence of anyone espousing for i
Which is the referenced framing.
I addressed the other comment directly.
If the law is "absurd", then change it legally. In this instance, amend the Constitution.
*ETA: before you crawfish and double down on the strawman, note the "and" in the initial response separating the 2.
quote:
You're declaring it unilaterally absurd and then proclaiming any response is akin to literal stone age barbarism.
This post was edited on 9/28/25 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 9/28/25 at 2:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which is the referenced framing. I addressed the other comment directly. If the law is "absurd", then change it legally. In this instance, amend the Constitution. *ETA: before you crawfish and double down on the strawman, note the "and" in the initial response separating the 2.
You could have just said, “sorry I misread your post” and then addressed it honestly. But that’s not your style. Every day you start anew reminding everyone why you are universally loathed on this board.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's funny seeing you back after you bowed out earlier. But it is not shocking to see you unable to correctly summarize things. That's on brand.
Nah, that's in your head.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 4:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which, prior to this discussion, has been the preferred Constitutional analysis on here for at least 20 years.
Still is despite your blathering.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 4:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
Supreme Court hasn’t ever ruled on constitutional standing of that issue. May not take an amendment
Posted on 9/28/25 at 6:33 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
You could have just said, “sorry I misread your post” and then addressed it honestly.
Holy shite. Mr. Dishonest Framing tripling down even when broken down for him piece by piece.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 6:34 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Still is despite your blathering.
Your white flag was raised pages back.
You can still participate by responding properly and not pulling a drive by gotcha attempt like VOR.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 6:34 pm to ArkBengal
quote:
Supreme Court hasn’t ever ruled on constitutional standing of that issue.
Standing for what, specifically?
Posted on 9/28/25 at 6:37 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Nah, that's in your head.
Objectively wrong. That screen shot was taken a minute prior to this post.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 6:40 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Such a simple law is made so complicated here in the USA.....
This one is totally simple!
This one is totally simple!
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Holy shite. Mr. Dishonest Framing tripling down even when broken down for him piece by piece.
I said a very specific type of argument for birthright citizenship was like suggesting women who commit adultery should be stoned. You then said I suggested ANY argument against birthright citizenship was in that same vein.
It’s not a big deal and a decent person would recognize the error and move on. You apparently are not that person. The fact you can’t admit the mistake reveals far more about you than the mischaracterization you made about me.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Objectively wrong. That screen shot was taken a minute prior to this post.
What do you think that proves? Hint.... you're doing it again.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:05 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
I said a very specific type of argument for birthright citizenship
Yes, and that argument is discussing the actual law, ultimately
And you ignored the response to your "absurd" comments
quote:
I agree. That's why we have an amendment process.
Why do you keep ignoring this? There is a solution and that's the solution.
...why?
Is it because the amendment process is the "the law is the law" argument you already compared to death by stoning?
quote:
. The fact you can’t admit the mistake reveals far more about you than the mischaracterization you made about me.
Quadrupling down.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:06 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
What do you think that proves?
You bowed out of any honest discussion by failing to even state a position, let alone defend one.
You've since just shown up for snipes and no substance, as is to be expected.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
Here is your comment:
Which was a reply to mine:
You’re just wrong.
quote:
then proclaiming any response is akin to literal stone age barbarism.
Which was a reply to mine:
quote:
Shitting out citizens is so patently absurd that I would have to question the mental competence of anyone espousing for it. And if the premise of your argument is “it’s the law therefore it must not be absurd” then you are no better than someone who advocates stoning a woman for adultery based on biblical precedent. Stupid laws are stupid. And people legitimizing stupid laws are behaving stupidly.
You’re just wrong.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:12 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
If it's retroactive he'll lose every single latino vote we fought so hard to get. If it's not, most of them will agree with it.
Posted on 9/28/25 at 7:14 pm to Robin Masters
The "absurdity" position was addressed directly. You've ignored me pointing it out...4 times now?
Again, just showing your lack of honesty.
I literally just did in the post to which you just replied....again, why?
If your position is the law is absurd, then there is a process to amend it.
But that would require using "the law", which means the amendment process must not be absurd, which, I suppose means that bringing up the amendment process is stoning a woman. Is that why you've continued to ignore it? Or are you showing how your dishonest framing is being used?
Again, just showing your lack of honesty.
I literally just did in the post to which you just replied....again, why?
If your position is the law is absurd, then there is a process to amend it.
But that would require using "the law", which means the amendment process must not be absurd, which, I suppose means that bringing up the amendment process is stoning a woman. Is that why you've continued to ignore it? Or are you showing how your dishonest framing is being used?
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News