Shamrock

The guy lies constantly. His promises are meaningless. He's mortgaged the future of the country in dozens of ways. He's systematically destroying our democratic institutions.

But we should somehow care that he's broken another promise? Wut?

Fortunately, this President and this administration can be trusted to follow the law. /s

That number is suspiciously close to MAGA support levels.

I don't think it's that hard to understand voting against one's self-interest--it can even be viewed as selfless.

E.g., I'm part of a socioeconomic class that is most likely to benefit from Repub policies, but I'm opposed to them because that's not the society/country/world I want to live in.

I liked the Chris Hemsworth one.

I think the crux of this discussion comes down to whether people want their representatives to simply be automatons that do what the majority of their constituents want, or do they want them to be leaders acting on core principles that sometimes are less popular.

One can only assume that Senator Cruz supports the abolition of the Electoral College.

Peak Bluesky. Topic is blatant racist thing done by Republican. And somehow that morphs into a critique of Dems.

"And right now media is ignoring."

No, they're not. thehill.com/homenews/adm...

Is there an original source for the data in this graphic?

I feel like you may have lost sight of the original discussion point, which was that "govt officials" should face "penalties for false or misleading information."

And I actually laughed out loud when you said lawyers & companies aren't allowed to lie like this. I'm sorry, but that's really naive.

This exchange is such a fantastic example of why this is unworkable. I'm certain this is not the role of courts to adjudicate. You are certain that it is. If we were both politicians, which one of us should be prosecuted under the new "Lying Law?"

I'm an engineer & would love a world where facts are not subjective. Alas, that's not the case, esp. for many political topics (e.g., "unemployment rate is 4.2%" is full of assumptions and caveats). Also, it's not the job of courts to establish facts but rather to resolve disputes under the law.

I guess I'm skeptical of our ability to reliably "prove" that something is definitively false. Or to discern between exaggerating or being honestly mistaken vs. outright lying. And once the law is on the books, it could easily be weaponized by authoritarian powers that control the truth.

Admit it. We all read this and went, "What are the Patriots up to this time?"

Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2018 – Statistical Tables

That doesn't make sense. The vast majority of most state's law enforcement is not at the state level. bjs.ojp.gov/library/publ...

I'm sorry you believe that only laws come from the state vice municipalities, but you're incorrect.

This will be my last response because I don't believe you are engaging in good faith arguments. And your logic is all over hte map. Take care.

To some extent--though most laws and funding generally come from the state.

My guess would be b/c (1) national guard members would be much more likely to side with the federal govt, and (2) ICE greatly outnumbers the local police. Either way, the ensuing chaos and conflict may be exactly what the Trump admin wants as an excuse to escalate and institute martial law.

Which elected officials shape law enforcement policy?

Obviously varies across the country, but for most jurisdictions, operational control of law enforcement is local. And decentralized control is generally a good thing if you're anti-authoritarian. publicwise.org/publication/...

Are you being deliberately ironic? Leaders of the executive branch having unfettered control over law enforcement is much more authoritarian than the alternative. Witness what's happening with Trump and the DOJ and DHS.

I'm sorry. I thought you were (snarkily) suggesting that b/c my comments might be seen as defending Walz that my post was actually *from* Walz.

Good question. Most favorable explanation--he wants people to see he's trying to do something. Least favorable explantion--he's being performative.

That's a totally fair question. I stand by my point there's very little he can do in this circumstance. But to suggest he needs to get out and protest in order to get arrested for show purposes is just silly. I guess that could appeal to people who like theater more than substance.

that's a clever way to avoid a substantive discussion

Sounds to me like you value political theater more than results.

So you think the governor can direct local PD, and you think that the guard wouldn't be immediately nationalized? Cool.

Minnesota Can Prosecute Jonathan Ross—But It May Not Be Easy States can prosecute federal officials for violating state law, depending on the specific facts and laws.

Great, you have a name. Now what? www.lawfaremedia.org/article/minn...

I'm not making excuses. I'm pointing out reality to a lot of folks on here who are understandably frustrated but behaving like children. I notice you haven't offered suggestions on what the governor should do differently.

You might be confusing the person with the position.

Of course the governor has many powers, but his options are highly limited in this situation against federal agents. Is it your position he needs to arrest members of ICE? That's not the role of a governor. That's the role of LEOs. Who do they arrest? On what charges? What if they're out of state?