• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About youngrebelfan40

  • Rank
    Real World 'Merican and Liburul Bashur
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Team
  • Gender
  • Location
    Gucci Row
  • Interests
    Sanchizing Fools

Recent Profile Visitors

14,144 profile views
  1. Congress' low approval rating is actually sort of funny. Most people actually like THEIR representative (obviously, they voted them in) but hate the unnamed mass of "others" that are inhibiting bipartisan agreement. Hint, your representative isn't some magical unicorn, they're usually a part of the same problem you complain about when you talk about Congress in general.
  2. @halfmanhalfbronco actually is pretty intelligent and this rarely argues in false equivalences from what I've seen. He doesn't need that crutch because he can reason, even if he's wrong. Unfortunately that's not the case for most Trumpkins on here.
  3. The false equivalences coming from Trumpbots continue to be staggering.
  4. It's indicative of a larger problem. And even if it didn't matter (Montana party leadership apparently thinks it does), it would still be wrong.
  5. North Carolina and Wisconsin are swing states and have recently had voter suppression laws overturned by courts. Besides, of course it matters at the state level in Montana, even if it matters less on the federal level.
  6. I mean, if we're going to knock presidents for being racist you'd have to eliminate like 42 or 43 of them (including Trump). I am disappointed that my colleagues ranked JFK so high. He was a complete media creation who almost got us into thermonuclear war. The best thing that happened to his legacy was his assassination.
  7. Hardline opposition to illegal immigration isn't automatically racist. However, much of it in the United States carries those undertones. In fact, a majority of this belief in our political context does.
  8. Start building the camps!
  9. Ouch, this is sad. You're going the way of WyomingCoog with your failure to see reality and your money smack Ill tell you what, just because I care, I wont reply to you further and take more of your time. Based on this conversation, it seems like you certainly need it to study. After all, we wouldn't want this to go the way of your writing career, now would we?
  10. You blatantly misrepresented Plyler by stating that the children in that case were citizens. It's really not an extrapolation, it's clearly precedent at this point. Now you're wriggling and trying to shift goalposts but you should probably just stick to working harder in school so you don't make yourself look like an idiot when talking about law, 1L.
  11. You said "no constitutional rights", which is patently false. Then you misrepresented Plyler. Don't try to spin it now after the fact. Just study harder and get back to me. You 1L types are adorable.
  12. Aren't you the one who first asserted that illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights, then when proven wrong changed that to rights outside of due process, then when proven wrong again on the case facts of Plyler are being all surly? Hit the books a little bit harder and stop blaming others Joe.
  13. Hardly. Glad to have educated you today though. Cheer up, I'm sure the status quo of certain rights being extended to individuals based on personhood will be challenged soon.
  14. No, the children in Plyler were those who were not legally admitted and are not citizens. The children themselves in that case were illegal immigrants, and they were ruled to have equal protection under the law. I never said full privileges or immunities. Speaking of disingenuous...
  15. Yeah, many people who believe that entire classes of people don't have human rights fail to see their beliefs taken to their logical conclusion