Mailinator works well, if they don't block mailinator.com address in the form. Just enter [email protected]. Like [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], etc. You can then check emails going to that address on Mailinator's website over the next few days to see if they replied to that address. No need to actually setup the mailbox, so it's perfect for throwaway email addresses.
However, some places have gotten wise and refuse to accept mailinator.com addresses in forms.
...the police officers approached him with guns drawn, simply because he was a Black man.
-Ben Crump, the attorney for the Floyd family
The video clearly shows that the officers did not approach Floyd with "guns drawn". The officer that approached Floyd did not draw his weapon until Floyd refused to comply with the officer's request for both hands to be where the officer could see them. That's a situation where a lot of officers can get shot, and Floyd's refusal to do so put the officer in a life threatening position. Floyd did not comply until after the officer's weapon was drawn. Even then, Floyd was not completely compliant. He kept moving his hands, not sitting still, refusing to get out of his vehicle, and refusing to get into the police car. Again, putting the officers in dangerous positions.
Compare that to the video of the officer on the other side of the vehicle. The passenger on that side, also black, was much more compliant with the officers requests. Was much more relaxed and not combative or defiantly refusing the officer's requests. That officer did not draw his weapon, as his suspect was not putting him in a dangerous situation.
As this video shows, he never posed any threat
-Ben Crump, the attorney for the Floyd family
After this quote, I have to wonder if Mr Crump has even seen the video. Or is he hoping people will not see it, and just take his word for it? Floyd was posing a threat to the officers for almost the entirety of the video. Consistently defying their requests, struggling against them, and obviously lying about everything.
Irony: a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
A man with a sign that says "abolish police" calls the police to report the sign is missing. Yep, it's not just "at first blush", it's pretty much the definition.
No, what I am saying is true. With the possible exception of the Israeli story, which I pointed out may not have happened. But still used it as an example.
That a US citizen may naturalize in a foreign state with out risk to their US citizenship actually says the US recognizes dual citizenship
No it doesn't. You are confusing what the US government recognizes and what is true in practical terms.
-
It is true that the US does not recognize dual citizenship.
-
It is also true that the US State Department realizes that another country can grant citizenship to a US citizen without the US citizen denouncing their US citizenship.
Point one is true. It is true because the US law says nothing about dual citizenship. It does not recognize it, but it also does not explicitly abolish it. Because it does not explicitly abolish it, or address it, the US State Department is dealing with people who claim dual citizenship in practical matters. In absence of US law stating one way or the other, the US State Department has decided to take a neutral approach with those that claim dual citizenship. However, that absolutely does not mean that the US recognizes dual citizenship.
So, point two is true. However, point two being true does not mean the US recognizes dual citizenship, as it is not US law. It's State Department policy on an issue that US law does not cover. Which is capable of changing purely on the whim of the Secretary of State, unless it contradicts established law. And since there is no established law in this concern, US State Department policy is whatever the Secretary of State says it is.
What does all that mean? It means that unless Congress enacts a law recognizing dual citizenship, or the Supreme Court rules on an issue involving dual citizenship, dual citizenship is not part of US law. Therefore, the US does not recognize dual citizenship. End of story.
I'm sorry if that destroys an illusion of yours, but that's life. You can keep saying you have dual citizenship. I say that my wife and son are dual citizens. Because in practical terms, it's true. However, that still doesn't change the fact the the United States does not officially recognize dual citizenship.
There is no need to argue any further. If you wish to prove me wrong simply point to the section of US law, not department policies, but actual US law, that says dual citizenship exists and to which countries it is recognized? I'm not going to wait, because I know you can't point to what doesn't exist.
My wife and son have dual citizenship, and I looked up the State Department's guidelines on it several years ago when my wife was registering our son as a citizen in Mexico. The text now is essentially the same as then. And that website says what I said in my comment, just in different terms.
U.S. law does not mention dual nationality
That says the US does not recognize dual citizenship, as there is no mention of it in US law.
Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.
That says the state department recognizes that other countries may grant citizenship to an American citizen without the American citizen taking explicit action that denounces their American citizenship.
Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws.
This is the only part that had any substantial changes. Yet, the young Israeli example I gave would still play out the same. The US government would not be able to intervene in preventing the country of Israel from drafting the young Israeli/US citizen, because he is subject to Israeli law. He would have to renounce his Israeli citizenship in order for Israeli law to no longer apply to him, and the US State Department would not intervene until then. The only difference would be that the State Department would no longer tell him he is one or the other. The end result would still be the same, the State Depart wouldn't lift a finger until he renounces his Israeli citizenship.
It's more nuanced than that. The US does not recognize dual citizenship, but they do recognize that another country can grant citizenship to an American citizen without the American citizen taking explicit action that denounces their American citizenship. And that getting a foreign passport for travel convenience does not constitute renouncing your American citizenship.
What that means is an American can get duel citizenship without publicly renouncing their American citizenship. Especially through marriage or birth.
However, if there is ever a situation where you need the US government to intervene on your behalf with the other government, then you have a tough choice to make.
For example, I read one story where a young man had dual Israeli and US citizenship, was living in Israel, and was being told by the Israeli government that he was being drafted into the Israeli military. He went to the American consulate and tried to get help from the US government to avoid Israeli military service. The US response was, "why does Israel think they can draft you?" His response was "I'm an Israeli citizen". "Oh, so you're not an American citizen, sorry we can't help you." "No, I am an American citizen, I have dual citizenship!" "No, you're either an American citizen or an Israeli. If you want our help, you're going to need to choose which it is."
I don't know if that story is true or not. However, it does illustrate the State Departments position on dual citizenship.
Here's a youtube video where you can hear the gun shots, and some of the aftermath:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NwwtrNVn4
You can hear about five shots, then a few seconds later about three other shots followed by a bang. The first set of shots sound different from the second set. The first set are from the AK, the second set is from a handgun. There is no way it was the other way around. The AK is NOT going to make a little firecracker style sounds next to a handgun.
What does that mean? The guy with the AK fired first, and then learned that some people aren't pussies.
there is nothing “unsure” of the context
I would disagree with this. "The media" as used in his statement could easily be referring to different entities and not a singular group, in a similar way as one would use "the people".
In fact, his usage of "are" signifies that.
So, you're wrong. Just accept it and move one.
Good day.
See Gobberwarts and Recusant_Apparatchik's responses above:
Grammar Monster (Gobberwarts) - https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/media_singular_or_plural.htm
MLA (Recusant_Apparatchik) - https://style.mla.org/media-singular-or-plural/
The MLA says:
If you're unsure, play it safe and treat "media" as a plural. (This is even true for those following US convention, which encourages writers to treat collective nouns as singular.)
So, according to the MLA, "Media are" is correct, and "Media is" is acceptable.
If you want to go further, as to why your argument is fundamentally wrong:
When speaking of a group, despite the plurality, it is contextually singular
Under that "guidance", it would be "people is" instead of the correct "people are".
This is where you want to drop it.
It's not technically incorrect. It depends on how inclusive the group you are referring to is. "Everyone is" is correct, because everyone includes everyone. You can't have two different "everyones". You can use "are" or "is" with media, depending on whether you are referring to them as separate outlets or one cohesive entity.
Take "the United States" for example:
The United States are separate states.
The United States is a collection of separate states.
Both are acceptable.
So, "the media is so stupid" is correct, but "the media are so stupid" is also correct. Both are acceptable.
It actually does matter, they need to pick the one with the least damaging baggage.