ADVERTISEMENT

The SOB truly doesn’t know the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee

crazed_hoosier2 said:
While I agree that it does, I'm not sure how much it does to most people. And I have no choice but to include myself in that. I voted for Donald Trump before, knowing full well what kind of person he is.

At the end of the day -- at least at that time -- I guess the balance of the Supreme Court mattered more to me than the fact that Donald Trump is a lecherous, narcissistic, vulgarian con artist. As I've said here before, I'd be lying if I said that I regretted that vote...because I think the courts are putting out the kinds of decisions that I've wanted to see for most of my adult life. And I think it has (unfortunately) become the single most important public institution in our country.

And it's also not lost on me that many Trump critics (not saying you're one of them) who cite his character had no problem supporting Bill Clinton through all his....foibles.

Beyond making them hypocrites, I think this demonstrates that character probably doesn't matter to people all that much....it just depends on whose character you're assessing.
Click to expand...
Justices were one of the good parts of Trump's Presidency.

Works the other way too on the bolded part. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that many that have no problem with Trump's character had big problems with Clinton's. We have hypocrisy in politics. Who'd would have thunk it. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Aloha Hoosier said:
Justices were one of the good parts of Trump's Presidency.

Works the other way too on the bolded part. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that many that have no problem with Trump's character had big problems with Clinton's. We have hypocrisy in politics. Who'd would have thunk it. ;)
Click to expand...

It absolutely does work both ways - for many people.

But not for everybody. If somebody genuinely predicates their votes on character and refused to support both Clinton and Trump on that basis, then more power to them.

I will say that it matters to me. But clearly it mattered less than the courts did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Mas-sa-suta said:
Post your addy....
I'll send you one of those quick-learn Spanglish kits.
Click to expand...
If you can sleep soundly at night, then you do you. I’ll respect the disagreement but don’t have to stand for you mocking me because I care about people who have done nothing wrong to deserve the awful situations they’re born into
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
It absolutely does work both ways - for many people.

But not for everybody. If somebody genuinely predicates their votes on character and refused to support both Clinton and Trump on that basis, then more power to them.

I will say that it matters to me. But clearly it mattered less than the courts did.
Click to expand...
I voted for Bush and Dole. I can still hate Trump for his horrific character, right?
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
It absolutely does work both ways - for many people.

But not for everybody. If somebody genuinely predicates their votes on character and refused to support both Clinton and Trump on that basis, then more power to them.

I will say that it matters to me. But clearly it mattered less than the courts did.
Click to expand...
Trump fumbled the SCOTUS appointments no?

ACB has Sandra Day O’Connor written all over her. Go in a Conservstive, leave a leftist.

Kavanaugh sucks.

Gorsuch is okay although the Bostock decision is unforgivable.

In a vacuum none of them are terrible picks. But Republican's are late to the game. We needed to replenish with some hard MF’ers like Alito and Thomas. People who we know where they stand when cases come before the court that have ramifications for hot button political issues of the day.

That’s the game the Democrats are playing. Banshee woman after banshee woman. We can’t have Republican appointed justices falling out of line because guaranteed the Democratic appointed ones never will.

Leave the quaint notions of an independent judiciary at the door, that’s not the world we live in. It’s a political weapon.
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
It absolutely does work both ways - for many people.

But not for everybody. If somebody genuinely predicates their votes on character and refused to support both Clinton and Trump on that basis, then more power to them.

I will say that it matters to me. But clearly it mattered less than the courts did.
Click to expand...
I'd say that it matters to me more than many because we had standards to live to. Clinton's affair with a WH intern was the relative equivalent to me having an affair with a (very hot chick, of course) officer or enlisted on the ship. It's fraternization and conduct unbecoming and I would have been fired and lost my career. Likely an NJP for some punishment on the way out the door. During the Clinton scandal I still remember a reporter, I think in Florida, who pointed that military standard out to a Democratic Florida Representative or Senator and pointed out that Clinton was the CinC. The guy responded that "well, the military's standards are too high" or words to that effect (it has been a minute).

That and other character issues led to me not being able to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat in 2016. In fact, I've voted straight party Republican in the last three elections. Just not for Trump.

None of it matters now, President Trump is our President. I wish him the best on everything he's said he'll do which I agree with. There's a lot, actually, along with some stuff that seems dumb, but every President has some dumb here and there in his agenda.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazed_hoosier2
Aloha Hoosier said:
I'd say that it matters to me more than many because we had standards to live to. Clinton's affair with a WH intern was the relatively speaking as me having an affair with a (very hot chick, of course) officer or enlisted on the ship. It's fraternization and conduct unbecoming and I would have been fired and lost my career. Likely an NJP for some punishment on the way out the door. During the Clinton scandal I still remember a reporter, I think in Florida, who pointed that military standard out to a Democratic Florida Representative or Senator and pointed out that Clinton was the CinC. The guy responded that "well, the military's standards are too high" or words to that effect (it has been a minute).

That and other character issues led to me not being able to vote for either the Republican or the Democrat in 2016. In fact, I've voted straight party Republican in the last three elections. Just not for Trump.

None of it matters now, President Trump is our President. I wish him the best on everything he's said he'll do which I agree with. There's a lot, actually, along with some stuff that seems dumb, but every President has some dumb here and there in his agenda.
Click to expand...

I do think you’re consistent and earnest about it. That’s what I was trying to imply.

But, honestly, I think you’re the exception and not the rule…among both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly said:
Trump fumbled the SCOTUS appointments no?

ACB has Sandra Day O’Connor written all over her. Go in a Conservstive, leave a leftist.

Kavanaugh sucks.

Gorsuch is okay although the Bostock decision is unforgivable.

In a vacuum none of them are terrible picks. But Republican's are late to the game. We needed to replenish with some hard MF’ers like Alito and Thomas. People who we know where they stand when cases come before the court that have ramifications for hot button political issues of the day.

That’s the game the Democrats are playing. Banshee woman after banshee woman. We can’t have Republican appointed justices falling out of line because guaranteed the Democratic appointed ones never will.

Leave the quaint notions of an independent judiciary at the door, that’s not the world we live in. It’s a political weapon.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. In fact, I think that Trump did a better job than Bush41 and Bush43. Souter was a disaster - 41 basically nominated a reliably liberal justice. At least as bad as Ford nominating JP Stevens.

Roberts has been unpredictable - but tends towards a pragmatism that can be frustrating.

I haven’t had too many gripes with Trump’s picks. I understand the angst at Gorsuch over Bostock and really don’t think the people who wrote and/or voted for the CRA intended for the word “sex” to mean anything beyond male or female.

So it suggests that Gorsuch is more of a textualist than an originalist. And I do think originalism is the proper approach for judges.

Thing is: you always have to consider the alternatives. Trump ended up with 3 SC picks in one term - two of which because of a justice’s death. And I’m pretty sure I’d rather have 3 justices like Gorsuch or Kavanaugh than 3 justices like Sotomayor or Brown Jackson.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier and Aloha Hoosier
The Original Happy Goat said:
Yes, my reading is that they spent a lot of time worried about the details with Indians, but seemed to pretty much all agree the Chinese would be citizens. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Well, here's the quote that, to me, calls it into question. It's from Sen. Jacob Howard, who authored the Citizenship Clause.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.​
​
There are a couple ways to read that rather sloppy sentence. Was Howard intending to exclude only those children born to foreign diplomats? Or was he intending to exclude all children born to foreigners -- including those who are foreign diplomats?

Obviously, the question comes down to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in this context. And that was true in May 1866 when the Senate was debating this and it's true now.
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
Well, here's the quote that, to me, calls it into question. It's from Sen. Jacob Howard, who authored the Citizenship Clause.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.​
​
There are a couple ways to read that rather sloppy sentence. Was Howard intending to exclude only those children born to foreign diplomats? Or was he intending to exclude all children born to foreigners -- including those who are foreign diplomats?

Obviously, the question comes down to what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in this context. And that was true in May 1866 when the Senate was debating this and it's true now.
Click to expand...
Howard did not author the citizenship clause. I believe it was written by Benjamin Wade. See Wade's comments at the link below.

digital.library.unt.edu

The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress

The Congressional Globe contains the records for sessions of the U.S. Congress including summaries of proceedings, letters, speeches, and some legislation for the Senate and House of Representatives.
digital.library.unt.edu digital.library.unt.edu
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions and The Original Happy Goat
Noodle said:
Howard did not author the citizenship clause. I believe it was written by Benjamin Wade. See Wade's comments at the link below.

digital.library.unt.edu

The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress

The Congressional Globe contains the records for sessions of the U.S. Congress including summaries of proceedings, letters, speeches, and some legislation for the Senate and House of Representatives.
digital.library.unt.edu digital.library.unt.edu
Click to expand...
Seems pretty clear to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
WhyisIUBBcursed said:
If you can sleep soundly at night, then you do you. I’ll respect the disagreement but don’t have to stand for you mocking me because I care about people who have done nothing wrong to deserve the awful situations they’re born into
Click to expand...
I sleep very soundly.

I mock the hypocrisy of liberals who will throw out their supposition of how Christians should comport themselves in their reactions to a government $36Trillion in debt, with veterans living on the street, veteran suicides at frightening rates, spending $Billions (borrowed) to house, feed, clothe, educate, pay, provide free Healthcare to foreign nationals who have never contributed one red cent to building this society.
These same liberals will argue about Christian values, then become apoplectic arguing about 'separation of Church and State'.

Your hypocrisy is sickening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mohoosier and Joe_Hoopsier
I’m liberal on some issues and conservative on others. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be. We’re all hypocrites but I’d rather be compassionate toward my fellow mankind than not so if that makes me a hypocrite…. 🤷. I’m staunchly anti abortion AND anti death penalty. I believe that as Americans we all have every opportunity for success and therefore shouldn’t be propping so many deadbeats but this country was built on the backs of immigrants and I think we still invite those who have been vetted and give them a head start with some short term aid then let em roll. I believe soccer is a great sport but would rather watch futbol Americano. I love Lima beans and fried chicken. I believe God is good all the time and I believe nobody ever wins a convert by beating them over the head with it. I believe Fauci and the perpetrators in Wuhan are mass murdering criminals and I believe COVID was real and the vaccine worked. I was thrilled to live in a red state during lockdowns and I was embarrassed to be a registered Republican when the Jan 6 attempt at a coup occurred. Enough or do you want more?
 
WhyisIUBBcursed said:
I’m liberal on some issues and conservative on others. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be. We’re all hypocrites but I’d rather be compassionate toward my fellow mankind than not so if that makes me a hypocrite…. 🤷. I’m staunchly anti abortion AND anti death penalty. I believe that as Americans we all have every opportunity for success and therefore shouldn’t be propping so many deadbeats but this country was built on the backs of immigrants and I think we still invite those who have been vetted and give them a head start with some short term aid then let em roll. I believe soccer is a great sport but would rather watch futbol Americano. I love Lima beans and fried chicken. I believe God is good all the time and I believe nobody ever wins a convert by beating them over the head with it. I believe Fauci and the perpetrators in Wuhan are mass murdering criminals and I believe COVID was real and the vaccine worked. I was thrilled to live in a red state during lockdowns and I was embarrassed to be a registered Republican when the Jan 6 attempt at a coup occurred. Enough or do you want more?
Click to expand...
You have no duty to explain your
opinions to me or anyone else.
 
WhyisIUBBcursed said:
I’m liberal on some issues and conservative on others. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be. We’re all hypocrites but I’d rather be compassionate toward my fellow mankind than not so if that makes me a hypocrite…. 🤷. I’m staunchly anti abortion AND anti death penalty. I believe that as Americans we all have every opportunity for success and therefore shouldn’t be propping so many deadbeats but this country was built on the backs of immigrants and I think we still invite those who have been vetted and give them a head start with some short term aid then let em roll. I believe soccer is a great sport but would rather watch futbol Americano. I love Lima beans and fried chicken. I believe God is good all the time and I believe nobody ever wins a convert by beating them over the head with it. I believe Fauci and the perpetrators in Wuhan are mass murdering criminals and I believe COVID was real and the vaccine worked. I was thrilled to live in a red state during lockdowns and I was embarrassed to be a registered Republican when the Jan 6 attempt at a coup occurred. Enough or do you want more?
Click to expand...
You have a very nuanced view of the world and we could all learn a lot from you. It’s clear you are impervious to political groupthink.

What is your secret?
 
crazed_hoosier2 said:
OK, game’s depressing. So I found it. It starts at the middle of page 43 of 401 of the document. It’s page 41 by the numbers printed at the bottom of the page.

A lot of discussion about the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” specifically as it applies to Indians (which all debaters seem to agree would be excluded from the amendment’s definition of a citizen).

One Senator (Edgar Cowan) asks rhetorically early on: “Is the child of a Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?”

Food for thought.

Congressional debate on 14th Amendment
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sglowrider

How to Persuade a Trump Supporter to Reject and Resist Trumpism

Replies
38
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
billyhillui
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back