Missed this stream? Join us for the next one, we're live on Twitch & YouTube every week!
Illinoisans know we need new leadership. We need new energy. I'm the only one on this stage who is willing to say that Chuck Schumer should no longer be the leader of the Democratic Party. And I believe that most Illinoisans and Democrats agree with me.
That last paragraph of the second screenshot, though, how close is that (or is it not close?) to 'a warrant signed by a judge'?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikam...
Wild, so the skulls were part of the marketing not any sort of caricature warning anyone about the ill effects?!
Got Issues?
Problems? Dilemmas?
Get Second-Rate Advice From
U̶n̶q̶u̶a̶l̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶ Well-Meaning
Individuals
I’m genuinely sorry we’ve gotten into it like this, but unless I can apologize about it (meaning, close the apology loop) I don’t think it’s worth belaboring.
For slang, Urban Dictionary can be better than OED, but you have to come prepared.
No, I meant what I wrote but it wasn’t directed at you. That’s part of my complaint with the medium, maybe: threading context clues suck on Threads. www.reddit.com/r/etymology/...
Thank you and yes it is.
When most of us live in cities, yes, that’s real America. Like every WW2 movie had that kid from Brooklyn or the Bronx.
You said “by how he allegedly intends to use … ” and I’m wondering what that might be? Was there a stated intent that somehow justifies it that avoids outright Posse Comitatus objections?
The conversation can be made more useful by having discernible comments. It may be a blusky shortcoming, but it’s exacerbated by vagueness.
Not even if it was spelled right, because it was already detached enough from the conversation (because of the way blusky threads the comments) that it didn’t seem to attach to any comment where “under whose authority?” was a relevant question. I’m sure it made sense when you commented, in context.
What’s the (important?) stated intention?
The first four sentences there were extra, but that last one is the whole story.
Fine, but you don’t need to simp for people that can’t put a coherent thought together. I get the concept; I also see that it’s microgarbage in, microgarbage out.
Ok I don’t disagree with that, but it matters not whether they are from CA or TX or Fort Benning. Equally problematic.
Before I comment, could you cite the source? When you put quote marks around something I can tell you are citing someone else but I can’t tell who it might be.
By the time the NG is federalized it’s the Army not “another state”
So we’re safe as long as the tanks stay on the parade course? 🙄
Whose, you mean. You need more sentences, less half-sentences. Your replies are vague without a subject/object/verb.
It’s not “almost certainly” at all. It depends how they are used. They can’t make arrests. They can protect LE.
Are you asking rhetorically or sarcastically? Maybe you’ve never thought about the pros and cons of each alternative.
I have not heard that but if Federalized troops are used, it seems like a distinction without enough difference. The NG troops can be used, but once federalized it seems to me more about how than where, when it comes to keeping it legal.
It’s never needed tanks before.
If you do, I’d like to put $20 on “nope.”
You think that would need tanks?
They didn’t use or need tanks to take over Germany in the 30s.
It’s not “seemingly endless” when you can see the end of the train. It’s breathless hyperbole like that undermines credibility.
I'd like to get on the alert list for future office hours or appearances, please!
