Prompt: This is an actual post in 2025 by relected president Trump. Please comment on the quality of the thinking here. @realDonald Trump Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the "SUCKERS" that we are! The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows - But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves. As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that. It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years. It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection. Please explain this to the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, remember, the Civil War ended in 1865, and the Bill goes to Congress in 1866-We didn't have people pouring into our Country from all over South America, and the rest of the World. It wasn't even a subject. What we had were the BABIES OF SLAVES. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Good luck with this very important case. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.! 599 ReTruths May 15, 2025, ChatGPT output: This post reflects a number of significant issues in terms of the quality of reasoning, factual grounding, and rhetorical clarity. Here's a structured analysis of its weaknesses: --- 1. Historical Misrepresentation Claim: The 14th Amendment was solely intended to cover "the babies of slaves." Reality: The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The historical record shows the framers did consider broader implications, including the children of immigrants. It was about establishing equal rights post-slavery, but it was not restricted only to descendants of slaves. Fallacy: Oversimplification and cherry-picking of historical context. --- 2. Emotional Reasoning and Populist Rhetoric Phrases like “laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are” and “we are... a STUPID Country” appeal to anger and grievance rather than rational policy argument. There's no engagement with legal precedent or the actual legal reasoning behind birthright citizenship (e.g., United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898). Fallacy: Appeal to emotion and ad hominem toward immigrants. --- 3. Internal Contradictions and Poor Structure The message careens between mockery, indignation, historical argument, and a closing quasi-formal appeal to the Supreme Court—producing a jumbled and confused tone. The phrase “for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but... this is the exact opposite of being politically correct” is logically incoherent. --- 4. Misleading Claims About International Law The assertion that the U.S. is the “only country in the world” with birthright citizenship is false. Countries like Canada and many in the Americas also follow jus soli (citizenship by birthplace). Fallacy: False premise, and likely appeal to ignorance (“nobody knows”). --- 5. Rhetorical Coercion The directive “Please explain this to the Supreme Court” is framed as a reasonable request, but in context it’s a political performance meant to pressure and preemptively delegitimize the Court if it rules against his position. --- Summary of Thought Quality This post: Demonstrates poor reasoning, driven more by emotion than evidence. Relies on historical inaccuracies and logical fallacies. Prioritizes performative outrage over legal or constitutional clarity. Leverages simplistic blame narratives rather than engaging with the complexity of immigration or constitutional law. --- It’s not so much a policy argument as it is a populist rallying cry, aimed at reinforcing tribal loyalty and anger rather than persuading or informing. If Trump truly believes the 14th Amendment only applies to the children of slaves, then he’s implying his father—and by extension, he himself—was not legitimately a citizen. Which, of course, is absurd.
Frederick Trump’s Discrepancy: He immigrated in 1885 (age 16), according to passenger lists. But when he applied for citizenship in 1892, he reportedly claimed he arrived in 1883, to meet the 5-year requirement. This suggests he may have fudged his date of entry to comply with the law.
You can pretty much get the same answer from Elon's Grok with some additional unexpected commentary thrown in about white genocide in South Africa.
Or from Deep Seek.: Donald Trump's statement contains several misleading claims, distortions of history, and outright falsehoods. Below is a breakdown of the key deceptions: ### **1. Misrepresentation of Birthright Citizenship (14th Amendment)** - **Claim:** Trump argues that birthright citizenship (guaranteed by the **14th Amendment**) was only meant for the "babies of slaves" and not for immigrants. - **Reality:** The **14th Amendment (1868)** was indeed passed in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people, but its language is **universal**: - *"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."* - The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this applies to **all children born on U.S. soil**, regardless of parents' immigration status (*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, 1898). - The amendment was **not limited** to former slaves—it was designed to overturn the *Dred Scott* decision and establish a clear, inclusive definition of citizenship. ### **2. False Claim That the U.S. Is the Only Country with Birthright Citizenship** - **Claim:** "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this." - **Reality:** While the U.S. is one of the few developed nations with birthright citizenship, **it is not the only one**. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and several other countries also have some form of birthright citizenship. - Many countries have modified or restricted it, but Trump’s claim is **false** in suggesting the U.S. is entirely unique. ### **3. Baseless Suggestion That Birthright Citizenship Encourages "Vacation Babies" and Drug Cartels** - **Claim:** He implies that people exploit birthright citizenship by coming to the U.S. to have "anchor babies" and that "drug cartels love it." - **Reality:** - **"Birth tourism" is rare**—most unauthorized immigrants are long-term residents, not people "on vacation." - There is **no evidence** that drug cartels systematically exploit birthright citizenship. - The idea that this is a major immigration loophole is **a right-wing myth**, not a statistically significant issue. ### **4. Distortion of Legislative Intent (1866 Civil Rights Act ≠ 14th Amendment)** - **Claim:** He conflates the **1866 Civil Rights Act** (which granted citizenship to former slaves) with the **14th Amendment (1868)**, implying they were the same. - **Reality:** - The **1866 Act** was a precursor, but the **14th Amendment** was written **broader** to ensure citizenship for **all** born in the U.S. - The **Wong Kim Ark** case (1898) explicitly ruled that children of immigrants (even if not citizens) are U.S. citizens by birth. - The Supreme Court has **never** limited birthright citizenship to descendants of slaves. ### **5. False Historical Context ("We didn’t have people pouring in…")** - **Claim:** He says the U.S. in 1866 didn’t have immigration concerns, so the amendment couldn’t have been about immigrants. - **Reality:** - **Mass immigration was a major issue** in the 19th century (Irish, Chinese, German, etc.). - The **Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)** and other laws show immigration was **already a contentious topic** when the 14th Amendment was interpreted. - The Supreme Court **explicitly rejected** Trump’s argument in *Wong Kim Ark*, ruling that birthright citizenship applies even to children of non-citizens. ### **6. Political Manipulation ("Politically Correct Stupidity")** - **Claim:** He calls birthright citizenship "politically correct stupidity" and says it leads to "dysfunction." - **Reality:** - Birthright citizenship is a **longstanding constitutional principle**, not a modern "PC" policy. - Ending it would require a **constitutional amendment**, not just a Supreme Court ruling. - His framing is **a political dog whistle**—not a legal or historical argument. ### **Conclusion: Trump’s Core Deceptions** 1. **False history** (14th Amendment was not just for slaves). 2. **Misleading claim** about the U.S. being the only country with birthright citizenship. 3. **Exaggerated threat** of "birth tourism" and cartel exploitation. 4. **Conflating** the 1866 Act with the broader 14th Amendment. 5. **Ignoring Supreme Court precedent** that has upheld birthright citizenship for over a century. This is **not a legal argument**—it’s a **political narrative** designed to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment while misrepresenting constitutional history. The Supreme Court has **already settled this issue**, and his claims are **not supported by legal or historical evidence**.
This is a complete waste of time. It doesn't matter what the opinion the SC comes up with. The SC cannot change the ammendment. A change requires 2/3 of congress and that ain't ever happening. Even then it would still go to individual states for their vote. Just another government circle jerk. "All people" means all people. No exceptions are noted in the ammendment. Doesn't even matter what the framers had in mind. If it isn't on paper it doesn't mean shit. Everyone knows what "All people" means. Government needs to focus on securing the border, hunt down the truly bad guys, of which there are thousand upon thousands, deport expediently, and seriously punish 2nd offenders. Case closed.
"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him." — Ezra Pound When you follow a strongman who says only he can fix it, you’ve already accepted your chains. You're not living a free life, you're demanding a new master. Speaking of the Constitution:
While large language models like Grok, ChatGPT, and others do sometimes "hallucinate", they're trained on such vast, diverse, and redundant corpora of human language that they tend to converge on what might be called a consensus reality, a kind of statistically robust version of truth. When these models are prompted to output propaganda that conflicts with that, especially if it’s specific, extreme, or unfounded, it often creates internal tension in the model’s outputs. This robustness is a kind of emergent integrity, not a moral compass but a byproduct of statistical learning from millions of real-world examples where claims are debated, sources are cited and misinformation is often rebutted. It doesn’t mean LLMs are truth machines, but it does mean they have inertia and that’s a problem if someone with enough control (like Musk over Grok) wants to bend that inertia to align with propaganda. It will always feel a bit wonky, because the model itself is trained on a world more complex and self-correcting than any one ideology can command.