I'll take that bet. Of course state law enforcement and Governor Walz will say that. They have multiple unidentified, as far as we know, people running from law enforcement who have shown no compunction with using deadly force and seem to have intentions that run contrary to the protests.
Do you actually think any of us are really going to stay home? That's not who we are. The Minnesotans that would be going in the first place represent what true Minnesotans are and won't be dissuaded by this.
This isn't completely accurate. I live in South Saint Paul and some of our police have Ford Explorers with no visible light bars and dark blue lettering on black paint.
I've seen state patrol make stops on 494 between the Wakota bridge and 35E in dark blue unmarked chargers.
They're relatively new I think but that same trend of low-profile police cars has started here now too.
Thank you for this comment. I live in Minnesota and expect that if they believe there's a safety concern this is what they should be saying.
Of course we're still going to go but it's only right for our representatives to make sure we, as Minnesotans, can make that decision with full understanding of the safety risks.
I had not seen that before but I'm not sure it applies. Perhaps the wording was poor to indicate my intent but it was not my intention to indicate "a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends" as that article says.
I was trying to communicate that making a broad statement, like OP did, that promoting Harry Potter online indicates transphobia or transphobic behavior by itself ignores both intent and context, which I think matters.
But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
I agree with everything you wrote up to this point. I'm not really a Harry Potter fan and I certainly don't think much of J.K. Rowling since she revealed her true nature but this last bit is a very slippery slope.
Long answer, it's really going to depend on the state and the laws there.
That said, common etiquette would be not to unless, as someone else pointed out, they had a very specific reason to suspect an illegal immigrant is in the vehicle. Usually, LEOs stick to their specific jurisdiction's unless they are asked to assist in another.
Typical federal agencies would notify and work with law enforcement, but sanctuary states have directed state and local law enforcement not to.
They are breaking the law and violating a US citizens constitutional rights, that's where America is right now.
No, it has nothing to do with the "Golden Dome" nonsense.
The US did all sorts of war game scenarios and plan making during and directly after WWII and they've never stopped.
There's actually probably a lot of countries who have done the same, though I'm not sure to the extent the US has.
The fact that the US has a plan like this by itself isn't newsworthy. Who it's coming from makes it noteworthy because, while the plan may have been created decades ago, it's a very unsubtle threat against another nation.
I agree that this is stupid, but understanding is important because this is how they weasel out of things. If confronted or challenged they'll say, "Oh, that plan was put together decades ago." Everything they do is done with cover because not only are they fascists, they're cowards too.
The contingency plan probably isn't about the people at all. It's likely the government has had a plan for a long time, maybe since WWII, about any number of countries including Greenland. Strategic points to either destroy or control. How to repel an invading force as well as how to invade against a repelling force.
That's who the US has become over the last 80 years.
And there's an argument to be made that a single sentence stating an opinion with no rationale or justification doesn't add to the conversation.
But let's be honest, whatever "etiquette" may be, people here vote how they want, for whatever reason they want.
If it matters that much to you then you might prefer an instance where downvotes are disabled. Or, if you use an app, find one, like Voyager, that allows you to turn vote visibility off.
Why worry so much about someone who downvotes and won't engage in discussion with you about what they downvoted?
As someone who was only just alive in 1985 though, I'm curious where you were in the US in 1985 and if you remember how big or widespread the news coverage was on the MOVE bombing?
The original question was should the US have entered in 1939. That word implies a moral perspective.
Should
verb
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
I can assure you, since it was my question, that should was used in reference to obligation or duty. So while it can be referencing correctness (morality), it wasn't.
The US was isolationist, but should it have been. Should any country be? (Draw your own historical parallels to today).
Assuming your asking about correctness then that would depend on the person answering's opinion and when they are answering from. Again, it is easy to say now, with access to all the information post-event but, clearly, in 1939 the reigning belief of the US population seems to have been "no".
America shouldn't be the world police, but it should help resource a world police force. And to be fair, the US did provide a huge amount of non military resources to Europe throughout WWII.
Here we agree, mostly. America also contributed 407,316 lives of its soldiers and 671,278 injuries to others.
I myself wonder if American hegemony would exist today if they had entered the war in 1939.
A large part of both the rise of America as a world power and world police role came about initially because of the war.
Between a form of legal profiteering in lend/lease, the huge industry boom during and post-war and the fact that Europe faced so much destruction and needed a lot of rebuilding, America's rise came about. Then, rather quickly after I'd say, the perversion of their role began into what it is today.
In my opinion, America should have worked to withdraw over time and let their allies take over the "policing" role in their areas of concern, or actually allow NATO to work as intended.
Edit: On a separate note, I appreciate the civil discourse and conversation. I am well aware of the faults America has, they are many.
Doesn't matter. A Grand Jury proceeding, as I understand it, is almost always controlled by the prosecutor and results in an indictment if they want it to.
There's no defense present or argument against indicting, it's just a prosecutor explaining why they think there should be an indictment and presenting their "case".
I think we can safely assume the DOJ prosecutor is operating on political orders and not in service of the country or the law.
I'll take that bet. Of course state law enforcement and Governor Walz will say that. They have multiple unidentified, as far as we know, people running from law enforcement who have shown no compunction with using deadly force and seem to have intentions that run contrary to the protests.
Do you actually think any of us are really going to stay home? That's not who we are. The Minnesotans that would be going in the first place represent what true Minnesotans are and won't be dissuaded by this.