fatslob-:O said:
It's a lost cause to even try responding but I'll bite your bait ...
"I was talking about him saying we should consider a registry for muslims in the US." "And that is a straight up violation of the 14th amendment which does not apply to Chinese people in China, but does apply to Muslim people in the US."
I proved otherwise and the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you that you can't profile groups based on these factors but lo and behold this comes from you, "And no, that doesn't make Drumpf right because even if you can it may not be a good idea." so all of a sudden what I proved as a possibility means that I also have to disprove your opinion too ? Well what am I supposed to expect when desperate times calls for desperate measures ... *shrugs*
"Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting" to which he said absolutely none of that even when questioning about anchor babies and even if you meant that "he will strip of birthright citizenship" from anchor babies he also didn't claim that either in the interview with Bill O Reilly but here's where your jump in logic gets you into big trouble with your claim of "Donald Drumpf will deport anchor babies" when his last statement, "I'd much rather find out whether or not 'anchor babies' are actually citizens, because a lot of people don't think they are." in that piece makes it clear with that he has uncertainty of his own assertion ...
To put this into discrete logic, A implies B or that A does not imply B and that B implies C does not ALWAYS MEAN that A implies C therefore you can't ever be sure that your claim of Donald Drumpf is true since his compound statement DOES NOT ALWAYS RETURN TRUE in your case ... (i.e. it's NOT A TAUTOLOGY!)
So your statement that "Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US" is both false in the literal sense AND in the logical sense but what's more is that he NEVER affirmed that "he will strip anchor babies of their citizenship". Both very dumb and stupid statements that you made up and I clearly pointed out to be lies ... 
*Still waiting for you to admit that you've lied*
|
I proved otherwise and the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you that you can't profile groups based on these factors but lo and behold this comes from you, "And no, that doesn't make Drumpf right because even if you can it may not be a good idea." so all of a sudden what I proved as a possibility means that I also have to disprove your opinion too ? Well what am I supposed to expect when desperate times calls for desperate measures ... *shrugs*
No you didn't prove that. I said about 5 different times that I was referring to a Muslim registry in the US, and you brought up the Chinese immigration act. The Chinese immigration act refers to a nationality (not a religion). More importantly, it refers to people who are actually in China. People in China are not under the protection of the 14th ammendment. You obviously can't violate the constitutional rights of Chinese citizens, because they don't have any constitutional rights. It is legal to set quotas on immigration. I do not know if it would be legal to set quotas by religion.
The US Supreme court ruling you're referring to happened in 1889. You're referring to a time when Jim Crow laws were in effect, women couldn't vote and so on. Saying "the US Supreme court seems to disagree with you" is rather disingenuous. Since the Chinese exclusion act was repealed in 1943 there was an official apology from the house of representatives. http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/19/in-rare-apology-house-regrets-exclusionary-laws-targeting-chinese/ Whether such an act would be considered legal by the supreme court today is pretty iffy.
Creating a registry of US Muslims, which is what I was talking about, is a different matter altogether. Foreign nationals are not protected by the first, fourth, or fourteenth amendmant. Muslims living in the US are protected by all three. So, you didn't prove anything, because the case you brought up has nothing to do with creating a registry for Muslim citizens.
"Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting" to which he said absolutely none of that even when questioning about anchor babies and even if you meant that "he will strip of birthright citizenship" from anchor babies he also didn't claim that either in the interview with Bill O Reilly but here's where your jump in logic gets you into big trouble with your claim of "Donald Drumpf will deport anchor babies" when his last statement, "I'd much rather find out whether or not 'anchor babies' are actually citizens, because a lot of people don't think they are." in that piece makes it clear with that he has uncertainty of his own assertion ...
Dude, seriously, that whole thing you just wrote was one sentence. It is incredibly hard to understand. I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Use sentences of reasonable length.
Let's put the quote you plucked back into context. Because that piece only "makes it clear" when you ignore the rest of the interview.
Drumpf: "Bill I think you're wrong about the 14th amendment, frankly the whole thing with anchor babies and the concept of anchor babies. I don't think you're right about that."
Bill: If you were born here, you're an American. Period.
Drumpf: But there are many lawyers saying that's not the way it is in terms of this. What happens is they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby, no but Bill they're saying it's not going to hold up in court. Now it's gotta be tested but they're saying it's not going to hold up in court."
...
Bill: You are not going to be able to deport people who have American citizenship now, and the federal courts will never allow mass deportations without due process for each and everyone.
Drumpf: Bill I don't think they have American Citizenship. And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers-and I know some would disagree, but many of them agree with me- you're going to find they do not have American citizenship."
That's four times that Drumpf said he does not think they have birthright citizenship. Now, lets get to the part that you pulled.
Bill: Now there is a way to do it, and that is to try to get the constitution amended. Do you know how to do that?
Drumpf: It's a long process, and I think it would take too long. I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are actually citizens, because a lot of people are.
Bill: Why don't you test it out? Why don't you have your guys file a federal suit now?
Drumpf: We're going to test it out Bill. That's going to happen Bill.
You are again, intentionally or not, ignoring context. You can't take out one line where he says "I'd rather find out" and ignore the four times when he clearly says he does not believe birthright citizens are actually citizens. Nor can you remove the question he was responding to as you did. Or, I guess if you want to be technical again, you can, but it's incredibly misleading.
When you add in Bill's question, that completely changes the meaning of Drumpf's response. When Drumpf said "I'd rather find out", he was not expressing doubt about whether or not anchor babies had citizenship. He made his position clear 4 different times. "I'd rather find out..." was a direct response to O' Reilly's suggestion of a constitutional amendment. Meaning he'd rather challenge whether or not they actually have citizenship in the first place, as opposed to making a new amendment. And, he even SPECIFICALLY says that he's going to "test it out", or in other words, challenge it.
I'm not sure if you were intentionally pulling that quote out of context, or if it was an honest mistake, but there is no doubt that Drumpf does not think anchor babies have American citizenship. He even goes as far to say as he'd challenge their citizenship status. And there is no doubt from this interview that he is suggesting that he'd deport them.
If you need more evidence, this is from another interview with O' Reilly.
"Do you remember when you said about the 'anchor babies,' that there's nothing you could do about it? And I said, 'Yes there is.' And I was right about it,"
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-o-reilly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration-eisenhower-2015-11
Unfortunately, O' Reilly doesn't let him explain what he could do about it, but common sense dictates that he means you can challenge their legal status.
And from Drumpf's website
End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
We already know that Drumpf is not suggesting that he creating a new amendment which would ban future birthright citizenship, but challenging the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself which would retroactively strip citizens of their legal status.
When you choose to focus solely on one line, you can make it appear he has doubt. The full context of the interview shows that this isn't true.
To put this into discrete logic, A implies B or that A does not imply B and that B implies C does not ALWAYS MEAN that A implies C therefore you can't ever be sure that your claim of Donald Drumpf is true since his compound statement DOES NOT ALWAYS RETURN TRUE in your case ... (i.e. it's NOT A TAUTOLOGY!)
If you're going to try and use logic, you need to label A, B, and C. Without doing so, it gets really confusing, especially when writing it horizontally like that. And again, sentences man. I'll try my best though...
This is a misapplication of logic.
A= Drumpf wants to deport all illegal immigrants.
B= Drumpf believes "anchor babies" are not citizens.
C= Drumpf wants to deport anchor babies.
The error you're making is that you say A and B are dependent on one another, but that's not the case. The fact that Drumpf wants to deport all illegal immigrants and the fact that Drumpf believes anchor babies are not citizens are both independent of one another. Even if A is false, B is still true. C is the only item that is dependent on another, in this case both A and B. If A is true and B is true, then C is true. We agree that A is true, and I'm pretty sure I've conclusively shown B is true. Therefore, C is true.
To put it another way, we'll label illegal immigrants, A and anchor babies B.
Drumpf wants to deport all "A"s.
Drumpf believes all "B"s are "A"s.
Therefore Drumpf wants to deport all "B"s.
So your statement that "Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US" is both false in the literal sense AND in the logical sense but what's more is that he NEVER affirmed that "he will strip anchor babies of their citizenship". Both very dumb and stupid statements that you made up and I clearly pointed out to be lies ...
Awwwwww, I was just about to give you some credit for putting some thought into it, but then you have to ruin it. I've been pretty tolerant in not reporting you so far despite several opportunities, so no need to call me or my statements stupid. Especially when you're wrong. You did not prove that anything I said was dumb. You pulled a quote out of context, and used faulty logic.
In a literal sense, "yes he specifically said he would deport people born in the US" is indeed false. You caught me in a technicality, so good for you on that one I guess. Clearly would have been a better word than specifically. Still, the claim that he wants to deport people born in the US stands.
*Still waiting for you to admit that you've lied*
Well, I can't do that because then that would be a lie.
