S Cubed

853 posts

S Cubed

S Cubed

@SCubed285093

Katılım Şubat 2024
69 Takip Edilen17 Takipçiler
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@palmer5309 @Brumbpo__Tungus @TRHLofficial @ViolaLeighBlues Could an illegal immigrant be charged with treason if her provided material support to an enemy? No. You can't commit treason if you're not citizen. Also, this shows these illegals are not fully under the jurisdiction there of.
English
1
0
2
71
Jay Palmer
Jay Palmer@palmer5309·
@Brumbpo__Tungus @TRHLofficial @ViolaLeighBlues Because the Father of the Constitution himself affirmed Common Law Jus Soli in 1789, the writers of the 14th were Common Law attorneys who defined the meaning of "subject to the Jurisdiction" by the same concept of Allegiance in Common Law for 900 years.
Jay Palmer tweet mediaJay Palmer tweet media
English
1
0
11
7.5K
The Redheaded libertarian
The Redheaded libertarian@TRHLofficial·
I’m not reading all that. Can someone just tell me if the libertarians are in trouble again.
The Redheaded libertarian tweet media
English
344
68
1.9K
162.3K
State of the Union
State of the Union@CNNSOTU·
Jake Tapper to Rep. Elise Stefanik: “Is calling for wiping out an entire civilization bad or good?”
English
365
193
1.1K
532.1K
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@EWErickson You underestimate Paxton's popularity in Texas.
English
3
0
7
781
Erick Erickson
Erick Erickson@EWErickson·
The Senate races are now much more important, and the GOP is probably going to lose North Carolina and Ohio and spend so much to save Paxton in Texas that they don't win Georgia or Michigan.
Jan Crawford@JanCBS

BREAKING: Justice Samuel Alito NOT retiring. Sources close to Justice Alito confirm the Fox News report that he has decided not to step down this year. In addition, sources close to Justice Thomas tell me he’s not retiring. That indicates that this year, with the midterms on the horizon, Trump will not be making his 4th nomination to SCOTUS.

English
106
32
346
105.1K
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@EWErickson Why do you assume he can learn not to do this stupid shit?
English
0
0
0
23
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@JoshRos83402777 @AnnCoulter They didn't. The holding of Kim specifically mentions the parents having permanent domicile as a pertinent fact in their decision.
English
0
0
0
6
JoshRose
JoshRose@JoshRos83402777·
@AnnCoulter The reasoning in Wong applies to the children of the unlawfully present. Moreover, Wong identified three exceptions. Why did they leave out temporary visitors and the unlawfully present?
English
1
0
0
543
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter@AnnCoulter·
The New York Times neurotically insists that anchor babies’ citizenship is “well-established through the 14th Amendment and nearly 130 years of case law.” The Newspaper of Record is lying about the record. Actually, the idea that babies of illegals have won the citizen jackpot was invented by Justice William Brennan in 1982 and inserted as dicta—i.e., idle chitchat, not part of the court’s ruling—in a footnote. He cited no law, no constitutional provision and no court holding. There’s your “well-established” doctrine that anchor babies are citizens—Doctor Demento’s crayon scribbling on the Constitution in the 1980s. The legendary “130 years of case law” said to establish the citizenship of anchor babies refers to an 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, that took the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to freed slaves and gave it to a child of legal immigrants. Manifestly, the opinion in Wong had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Otherwise, Brennan wouldn’t have had to announce his personal opinion in 1982 that children born to illegals should be treated as citizens. It would already have been the law.
Ann Coulter tweet media
English
88
965
4K
88.2K
Nicholas Nehamas
Nicholas Nehamas@NickNehamas·
NEW: President Trump has turned the immigration courts into part of his vast deportation machine by pressuring judges to deny people asylum and firing those who do not comply. The asylum rate has fallen to its lowest rate in decades.
Nicholas Nehamas tweet media
English
5.9K
1.2K
7.4K
1.1M
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@AuronMacintyre Do you think they're lying, or truly kept in ignorance by their staffers?
English
0
0
0
25
Auron MacIntyre
Auron MacIntyre@AuronMacintyre·
Just one betrayal after another from people labeling themselves conservative We’ve gone from mass deportation to “I promise it isn’t amnesty this time really guys”
Rep. María Elvira Salazar@RepMariaSalazar

READ. THE. BILL. BEFORE. YOU. OPEN. YOUR. MOUTH. Calling the DIGNITY Act “amnesty” isn’t just wrong. It’s a deliberate distortion and it exposes just how little you know about the bill. This is enforcement first: zero tolerance for criminals, permanent border security, and hard, earned requirements to step forward and face the law, so American workers are protected, not undercut. Amnesty is the chaos you’ve defended, millions in the shadows, no control, no accountability, and a system that stopped working a long time ago. No shortcuts. No giveaways. No blanket forgiveness. That’s law and order. That’s DIGNITY.

English
75
462
4.2K
121.8K
captainviata
captainviata@captainviata·
@SCubed285093 @RyanCMullally u are complaining that you are unfairly charged with war crimes and i pointed out that no pissraeli or ziomerican has ever been charged with war crimes internationally, EVER
English
2
0
0
16
captainviata
captainviata@captainviata·
@SCubed285093 @RyanCMullally Only no israeli or american has ever faced justice at the ICC. Milosevic/Praljak etc committed 1% of the crimes the US and the Israelis have and an entire Hague commission was implemented based on their crimes. So what are you talking about
English
1
0
0
13
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@theswoderman @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally Because I don't care about hypotheticals. I'll discuss the morality or legality of specific actions or events. If you want to discuss hypotheticals over X, you'll have to chat with somebody else.
English
1
0
0
16
Nic, from the internet
Nic, from the internet@theswoderman·
@SCubed285093 @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally the character limit is plenty brother, it's a yes or no question. is the morality of the US's actions determined by whether or not the US decides to hold itself accountable? If you can't answer I can only assume you're sticking with your might makes right stance
English
1
0
1
16
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@theswoderman @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally I'm not getting into a philosophical discussion with a character limit. The US has committed no war crimes in this action. Those claiming otherwise are fools or propagandists. Expanding the discussion into pure hypotheticals over X is not something I'm interested in.
English
1
0
0
19
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@theswoderman @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally I'm saying only the US has the legal and moral authority to hold ourselves accountable for war crimes. Luckily, war crimes are not being committed by us, so it's not an issue.
English
1
0
0
23
Nic, from the internet
Nic, from the internet@theswoderman·
@SCubed285093 @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally so are you walking back your claim that it would be moral for the US to commit war crimes as long as we don't hold ourselves accountable for them? because like it or not that is what you agreed to. maybe you just didn't understand what you were replying to, that's fine.
English
1
0
1
11
S Cubed
S Cubed@SCubed285093·
@theswoderman @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally My context was entirely legal. If you want moral, the US is the most moral of the world powers. It would be immoral, and stupid, to subject ourselves to another power.
English
2
0
0
17
Nic, from the internet
Nic, from the internet@theswoderman·
@SCubed285093 @MRincorrection @RyanCMullally you're actually making a moral claim, not a legal claim. you agreed that the beauty of being a super power is that you can do whatever you want because no one else can hold you accountable. that's not a legal claim at all, it's a might makes right claim.
English
1
0
2
18

Keşfet

@palmer5309 @Brumbpo__Tungus @TRHLofficial @ViolaLeighBlues @CNNSOTU @EWErickson @JoshRos83402777 @AnnCoulter