Trump declares war on Minnesota

[Magical Realist]

LOL! Those were all free states ruled by their elected leaders. Remember slavery? Remember the stealing of indigenous people's lands? The immoral will of the people in action.

[Syne]

So what happened with Nazi Germany? What happened with slavery? What happened with the Stalinist genocide of millions of common folk? Or again the massacre of millions of peasants in communist China? All good huh? That's just four examples off the top of my head. Methinks your knowledge of world history couldn't fill a thimble.

LOL! Those were all free states ruled by their elected leaders. Remember slavery? Remember the stealing of indigenous people's lands? The immoral will of the people in action.

So you're both ignorant of what freedom is as well as completely ignorant of history.

No, the Nazis were not voted into power with an outright majority; they gained power through political maneuvering, conservative miscalculations, and exploiting legal processes, becoming the largest party in a coalition government after elections in 1932 and 1933, and then dismantling democracy with the Enabling Act after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. While they received significant votes, especially during the Depression, they never won over 50% in a free election, and their rise relied on backroom deals, intimidation, and manipulating the existing system.
...
No, Joseph Stalin wasn't voted into ultimate power in a democratic sense, but he was elected to key party positions, notably General Secretary in 1922, which he used to build a power base by controlling appointments, allowing him to maneuver and eliminate rivals after Lenin's death to become the undisputed leader by 1929, ruling through party control, not popular vote. While elections for the Supreme Soviet existed, they were tightly controlled "bloc" votes for party-approved candidates, giving the illusion of choice but not real power.
- Google AI

The communist dictatorship of China speaks for itself.
None of those three were elected in fair and open elections by free people.

And slavery is, by definition, not freedom. And no, the indigenous people didn't have any ownership claim on the land they were already warring with each other for.

You ignorant Dunning-Kruger sack of shit.

[Magical Realist]

they gained power through political maneuvering, conservative miscalculations, and exploiting legal processes, becoming the largest party in a coalition government after elections in 1932 and 1933, and then dismantling democracy with the Enabling Act after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. While they received significant votes, especially during the Depression, they never won over 50% in a free election, and their rise relied on backroom deals, intimidation, and manipulating the existing system.

Just like all populist regimes. They derived their power from manipulating the will of the masses. That's how all states maintain their power.

"The Nazis remained an insignificant, back-row minority until September 1930, following the crash of 1929, when they surged tenfold in Reichstag elections, then doubled that number in July 1932 elections. With 230 brownshirt delegates with swastika armbands, representing 37.3% of the electorate, Hitler commanded the country’s largest political movement. Social democrats trailed with 21%, and the communists with 14%. A dozen other centrist and rightwing political parties filled the remaining seats in the Reichstag’s vast glass-domed and wood-paneled plenary hall."

Same with Stalin:

"he was elected to key party positions, notably General Secretary in 1922, which he used to build a power base by controlling appointments, allowing him to maneuver and eliminate rivals after Lenin's death to become the undisputed leader by 1929, ruling through party control, not popular vote. While elections for the Supreme Soviet existed, they were tightly controlled "bloc" votes for party-approved candidates, giving the illusion of choice but not real power."

You ignorant Dunning-Kruger sack of shit.

LOL! You're embarrassing yourself again. Quit being a dog turd and learn some history beyond random Google AI summaries. Like this one:

"Legality is about following written rules enforced by the state, with formal penalties for violations, while morality is a personal or cultural code of right and wrong, guided by principles and values, with consequences often being social or internal. The key difference is that an act can be legal but immoral (e.g., adultery in many places), or illegal but moral (e.g., helping a fugitive when laws were unjust), though many laws are based on shared moral beliefs, creating significant overlap.

Legality (Law)

Definition: Rules created and enforced by a government or state to regulate behavior.
Enforcement: Formal mechanisms like police, courts, and prisons.
Consequences: Legal punishments (fines, jail time).
Scope: Applies universally and equally to all citizens within a jurisdiction.

Morality (Ethics)

Definition: Principles of right and wrong, good and bad, often based on culture, religion, or personal conscience.
Enforcement: Informal social pressure, guilt, or internal conscience.
Consequences: Social disapproval, personal regret, damage to reputation.
Scope: Varies widely between individuals, cultures, and religions.

Key Relationship & Differences

Overlap: Many laws (e.g., against murder, theft) stem from widely held moral beliefs, making legal and moral duties align.

Divergence: An act can be legal but morally questionable (e.g., certain business practices) or illegal but morally justified (e.g., civil disobedience against unjust laws).

Focus: Law focuses on external behavior for social order; morality often concerns internal intent and broader good.

Change: Laws can change as societal morals evolve (e.g., abolition of slavery), and vice versa."

[Syne]

they gained power through political maneuvering, conservative miscalculations, and exploiting legal processes, becoming the largest party in a coalition government after elections in 1932 and 1933, and then dismantling democracy with the Enabling Act after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. While they received significant votes, especially during the Depression, they never won over 50% in a free election, and their rise relied on backroom deals, intimidation, and manipulating the existing system.

Just like all populist regimes. They derived their power from manipulating the will of the masses. That's how all states maintain their power.

"The Nazis remained an insignificant, back-row minority until September 1930, following the crash of 1929, when they surged tenfold in Reichstag elections, then doubled that number in July 1932 elections. With 230 brownshirt delegates with swastika armbands, representing 37.3% of the electorate, Hitler commanded the country’s largest political movement. Social democrats trailed with 21%, and the communists with 14%. A dozen other centrist and rightwing political parties filled the remaining seats in the Reichstag’s vast glass-domed and wood-paneled plenary hall."

Adolf Hitler never won a majority in a free and open national election. He never received more than 37% of the vote in a free and open national election, but he argued that 37% represented 75% of 51%, and demanded political power. It was the political calculus by which the Nazi leader disabled, then dismantled, the Weimar Republic. Hitler exploited his 37% to gridlock legislative processes, to cudgel or crush the political opposition, and ultimately to undermine the country’s democratic structures. When Hitler had vowed in court, in September 1930, to destroy democracy through the democratic process, a judge asked, “So, only through constitutional means?” Hitler replied crisply, “Jawohl.”
- https://time.com/6971088/adolf-hitler-ta...democracy/ (the uncited source for your above quote)

You're still cherry-picking, just searching to affirm your own bias without bothering to comprehend what you read. Hitler exploited the legislative process. He didn't manipulate the masses in a free and fair election.
Pompous fatass Dunning-Kruger dipshit moron. You're either just smart enough to know that citing your source would completely undermine your argument, or you've just hoisted yourself on your own illiteracy... again.

Same with Stalin:

"he was elected to key party positions, notably General Secretary in 1922, which he used to build a power base by controlling appointments, allowing him to maneuver and eliminate rivals after Lenin's death to become the undisputed leader by 1929, ruling through party control, not popular vote. While elections for the Supreme Soviet existed, they were tightly controlled "bloc" votes for party-approved candidates, giving the illusion of choice but not real power."

I'm guessing the source for this one is you cherry-picking AI.

In 1922 Stalin was appointed as the party’s general secretary, a seemingly minor position but one that enabled him to oversee and manipulate party appointments. He filled the Orgburo and key leadership positions with friends and acolytes while working behind the scenes to forge alliances within the Politburo itself.
...
On Lenin’s death, Stalin took a lead role in giving public commemorations, organising his funeral and (against Lenin’s wishes) ordering that his body be embalmed and placed on public display. Stalin formed a troika – a three-way alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev – and with their support, assumed effective control of the Bolshevik party.
- https://alphahistory.com/russianrevoluti...of-stalin/

Again, manipulating political appointments, not the masses in free and fair elections.

You're such a moron, you just keep doubling down on stupid... faceplanting for everyone to see.

You ignorant Dunning-Kruger sack of shit.

LOL! You're embarrassing yourself again. Quit being a dog turd and learn some history beyond random Google AI summaries. Like this one:

It's so funny you don't see it.

Key Relationship & Differences

Overlap: Many laws (e.g., against murder, theft) stem from widely held moral beliefs, making legal and moral duties align.

Divergence: An act can be legal but morally questionable (e.g., certain business practices) or illegal but morally justified (e.g., civil disobedience against unjust laws).

Focus: Law focuses on external behavior for social order; morality often concerns internal intent and broader good.

Change: Laws can change as societal morals evolve (e.g., abolition of slavery), and vice versa."

Too bad you don't comprehend what you read beyond affirming your own bias.

[Yazata]

Minnesota in January?

The 1500 soldiers are from the 11th Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Richardson outside Anchorage Alaska. (See their unit logo below.) They are familiar with cold weather. That probably isn't why they were chosen though. Different units are available to NORTHCOM for contingencies at different times, depending on their training cycles and stuff like that. So the 11th was probably an on-call unit.

They haven't been ordered to Minneapolis, they have just been ordered onto alert status to be ready to deploy if necessary. Putting them on alert was probably intended to send a message to Tim Walz and the Minnesota leadership that they really need to cooperate with federal law enforcement and put a lid on anarchy in Minneapolis. Otherwise, President Trump will be forced to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Walz may or may not have gotten the message, since Minnesota National Guard hummvees were spotted headed into Minneapolis yesterday, ordered there by the governor. What happens now will depend on what Tim Walz intends to do with them. If he uses them to quiet the riots, then Trump's threat will have worked as intended. If he orders them to fight the US Army if it deploys to Minneapolis, things will go very badly for him. That's precisely how South Carolina challenged the federal government at Fort Sumter in 1860, and we all know how the Civil War turned out.

[Image: cKkiLUKP_400x400.jpg]

[Syne]

Trump doesn't even need to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops... in the cases of protecting federal officers, property, etc..

---

Chicago police chief defends ICE... and just commonsense sanity:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2Hg1LtNqoKU

[Magical Realist]

They haven't been ordered to Minneapolis, they have just been ordered onto alert status to be ready to deploy if necessary.

Trump going out of his way to make military young people miserable and useless. We've seen it all before. They all stand around looking intimidating and doing nothing. Can't arrest anybody or detain anybody. All part of Trump's big shit show. Pretty sure they didn't sign up for this.

---

they gained power through political maneuvering, conservative miscalculations, and exploiting legal processes, becoming the largest party in a coalition government after elections in 1932 and 1933, and then dismantling democracy with the Enabling Act after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. While they received significant votes, especially during the Depression, they never won over 50% in a free election, and their rise relied on backroom deals, intimidation, and manipulating the existing system.

Just like all populist regimes. They derived their power from manipulating the will of the masses. That's how all states maintain their power.

"The Nazis remained an insignificant, back-row minority until September 1930, following the crash of 1929, when they surged tenfold in Reichstag elections, then doubled that number in July 1932 elections. With 230 brownshirt delegates with swastika armbands, representing 37.3% of the electorate, Hitler commanded the country’s largest political movement. Social democrats trailed with 21%, and the communists with 14%. A dozen other centrist and rightwing political parties filled the remaining seats in the Reichstag’s vast glass-domed and wood-paneled plenary hall."

Adolf Hitler never won a majority in a free and open national election. He never received more than 37% of the vote in a free and open national election, but he argued that 37% represented 75% of 51%, and demanded political power. It was the political calculus by which the Nazi leader disabled, then dismantled, the Weimar Republic. Hitler exploited his 37% to gridlock legislative processes, to cudgel or crush the political opposition, and ultimately to undermine the country’s democratic structures. When Hitler had vowed in court, in September 1930, to destroy democracy through the democratic process, a judge asked, “So, only through constitutional means?” Hitler replied crisply, “Jawohl.”
- https://time.com/6971088/adolf-hitler-ta...democracy/ (the uncited source for your above quote)

You're still cherry-picking, just searching to affirm your own bias without bothering to comprehend what you read. Hitler exploited the legislative process. He didn't manipulate the masses in a free and fair election.
Pompous fatass Dunning-Kruger dipshit moron. You're either just smart enough to know that citing your source would completely undermine your argument, or you've just hoisted yourself on your own illiteracy... again.

Same with Stalin:

"he was elected to key party positions, notably General Secretary in 1922, which he used to build a power base by controlling appointments, allowing him to maneuver and eliminate rivals after Lenin's death to become the undisputed leader by 1929, ruling through party control, not popular vote. While elections for the Supreme Soviet existed, they were tightly controlled "bloc" votes for party-approved candidates, giving the illusion of choice but not real power."

I'm guessing the source for this one is you cherry-picking AI.

In 1922 Stalin was appointed as the party’s general secretary, a seemingly minor position but one that enabled him to oversee and manipulate party appointments. He filled the Orgburo and key leadership positions with friends and acolytes while working behind the scenes to forge alliances within the Politburo itself.
...
On Lenin’s death, Stalin took a lead role in giving public commemorations, organising his funeral and (against Lenin’s wishes) ordering that his body be embalmed and placed on public display. Stalin formed a troika – a three-way alliance with Kamenev and Zinoviev – and with their support, assumed effective control of the Bolshevik party.
- https://alphahistory.com/russianrevoluti...of-stalin/

Again, manipulating political appointments, not the masses in free and fair elections.

You're such a moron, you just keep doubling down on stupid... faceplanting for everyone to see.

You ignorant Dunning-Kruger sack of shit.

LOL! You're embarrassing yourself again. Quit being a dog turd and learn some history beyond random Google AI summaries. Like this one:

It's so funny you don't see it.

Key Relationship & Differences

Overlap: Many laws (e.g., against murder, theft) stem from widely held moral beliefs, making legal and moral duties align.

Divergence: An act can be legal but morally questionable (e.g., certain business practices) or illegal but morally justified (e.g., civil disobedience against unjust laws).

Focus: Law focuses on external behavior for social order; morality often concerns internal intent and broader good.

Change: Laws can change as societal morals evolve (e.g., abolition of slavery), and vice versa."

Too bad you don't comprehend what you read beyond affirming your own bias.

"Law and morality overlap but aren't the same; laws are societal rules enforced by the state for order, while morality involves personal or cultural beliefs about right/wrong, with some laws reflecting common morals (like murder prohibitions) but others serving secular purposes (traffic rules) or even conflicting with personal ethics, meaning an action can be legal but immoral (or vice versa)."

---

Springsteen's message abut ICE:

“I wrote this song as an ode to American possibility,” Springsteen said. “Right now we are living through incredibly critical times. The United States, the ideals and the value for which it stood for the past 250 years, is being tested like it has never been in modern times. Those values and those ideals have never been as endangered as they are right now.

“If you believe in the power of law and that no one stands above it, if you stand against heavily-armed masked federal troops invading an American city, using gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens, if you believe you don’t deserve to be murdered for exercising your American right to protest, then send a message to this president, as the mayor of the city said: ICE should get the f*** out of Minneapolis,” Springsteen continued, according to a video from the benefit posted to YouTube.

[Syne]

Never said law and morality were equivalent. But since you don't have the ethics to even admit your historical illiteracy, we won't be taking your whining about morality seriously.

[Magical Realist]

Never said law and morality were equivalent.

Backpedaling as usual. This gets so old. Move along now princess..

[Syne]

Never said law and morality were equivalent.

Backpedaling as usual. This gets so old. Move along now princess..

Deflection because you're illiterate about history.