If you’re asking in good faith… Most of lemmy.ml is a tankie echo chamber that silences or outright bans any dissenting discussion.

Try bringing up the facts surrounding Russia, China, Cuba, or North Korea…

Only lies and good vibes for tankies are permitted.

Fair point.

As a note, I don’t recall all of them saying ‘Windows Server’ in the top left of that page.

It seems if you block an instance, folks from that instance can still post in other federated servers and be seen.

I don’t see an option for ‘muting’ on the midwest.social instance for individual users or other instances.

I am guessing it’s Boost or instance specific, where the application would sort back the output and selectively render replies. I don’t know.

Blocking users keeps their messages from appearing to you. Blocking an instance removes all user and community communications from your views. There might be more

All of this ignores this is not happening in a vacuum. Project 2025, trump, the supreme court selection of limited precedent and ignorance of other precedent…

This is a brick in the pavement of our descent into fascism. Hand waving it away as a wonderful clarification that enabled prosecution of the office is unreasonable.

They already ruled the Constitution and clear discussion in Congress during the original Amendment, invalid when the insurrection clause and States rights were revoked… Colorado ballot decision ftr.

They’ve shown their hand. They’re willing to select evidence, much like your review, that fits the narrative - ignoring any other facts.

It’s already being used to delay adjudication in clear abuses of power.

Law requires a certification from a board to practice. You’re of the opinion that examination that proves ones understanding of the law(bar exam, exhaustive study followed by proving that knowledge)— puts you on equal footing with that majority?

I continue to firmly dissent your assertion regarding the validity of your opinion, you have firmly claimed not to be a bar certified individual.

Being an expert in law here has weight. A majority of them feel this is a power grab. You’re welcome to hold opinions. Spouting endless review to make responses difficult isn’t helping you.

This is akin to you saying you know better how to file legal paperwork or act as a defense attorney because you read about it.

Do you also dospense medical advice?

yearse ?

Your argument seems to be, they already had this power - now the Supreme Court can stop them. When will that ever happen?

You’re glossing over the fact that they’ve declared entire sections of communication off limits going forward. This is new. This is not same old, same old. The Supreme Court is currently compromised. No-one is going to prosecute a republican president in this environment.

Everything they could do can be construed as official, immune, business after being elected when viewed through the right lens.

If this the president previously had immunity, why was Nixon pardoned?

The Supreme Court was free to interpret this as they saw fit. They’ve demonstrated that they’re not following precedent and are marching to their own beat.

Regarding the clear power grab, Denying the facts that the other changes the court has made will have untold effects on the ability of states that are gerrymandering based on race:

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/nx-s1-4977539/supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-harder-to-bring-racial-gerrymandering-claims

It’s ok to insurrection, if you do it right, also while president:

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5005999/supreme-court-jan-6-prosecutions

It’s also ok to use your official employees as president to carry out illegal acts and prevent them from testifying:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1198912764/consider-this-from-npr-draft-07-01-2024

Denying that folks who actually understand the law, like law professors, and Supreme Court Justices. There’s a difference between laypersons and experts in some fields. I’m not claiming to be an expert in neurology, law, or other fields. I’m deferring to people who have studied these field(s) and asking for their logic and expertise. You’re responding and relying on your logic.

The court is currently controlled by one party. One person openly claims credit for this, and definitely pushed the balance towards one direction.

Our congress is deadlocked by republicans when it comes to anything related to the former president.

They will not pass anything or see cases against their preferred president making them literally immune in practice.

The word soup from kava seems to indicate they feel, that because the president had so much power already, what’s the big deal if a little bit more gets added?

Folks who are scholars on the topic seem to think accumulating more power to the Executive and Judicial branches to be a bad thing.

As noted in Supreme Court rulings: The only parties who get to decide if a president is acting incorrectly would be if A. Congress successfully impeaches the president, B. They passed the supreme court’s review of what constitutes (non)presidential acts.

In reality both of these branches have been corrupted and owned by ‘conservative’ interests.

Rulings on SuperPACs, Citizens United, gerrymandering, presidential immunity, insurrection and more are laying the groundwork to remove additional freedoms or protections.

So this has the result of essentially making it possible for the controlling party of these to have a literal dictator whose communications with officials can’t be reviewed or considered in prosecution.

Folks who have a lot of experience working with legal matters are voicing concerns on this. This isn’t an appeal to authority, rather a matter of consulting folks who are experts and considering their opinions.

They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.

Odd, please cite your qualifications.

You know, the ones that makes your opinion more valid than the opinion expressed by the (dissenting) supreme court justices directly involved in the case?

what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence

Things that exist, can be scientifically proven. We have evidence for the presence of dark matter. This is a placeholder for something we don’t know what it is yet.

We don’t have evidence of gods in any way that can be tested.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” - hitchens razor

Bad faith debating.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If it’s possible, reproduce the claims. Until you can produce evidence of something, they are unfounded claims.

The Heaven’s Gate cult wrote things down and had a whole group of folks that would confirm the beliefs they had.

According to you, the burden of proof is on society.

So I challenge you in the same way you’re attempting here.

Prove the Heaven’s Gate cult wrong. They made very reasonable claims(according to them) and it’s up to you to prove them wrong.

That’s what you are doing. Until you can prove someone is able to do the things in your text(s). It’s a fable. You’re still arguing in bad faith.

New topic: provide your initial rules and conditions for entering responses.

Happened overnight too. /S

This isn’t an accurate account of history.

If you’ve studied any of the Roman empire in antiquity you’re actively acting in bad faith.

If not, why are you making things up? Why are you actively lying?

Constantine is reported as making it the state religion 300+ years after the alleged existence of yeshua.

Fact: when science holds an incorrect idea, based on observable evidence - the idea changes to match reality. If there were observable evidence of your imaginary sky guy, scientists would update their idea or theory to match the observable evidence.

Saying that there might be elephants living on top of clouds doesn’t make it true. Entertaining the idea without proof is not science or even theory.

Even with perfect faith, elephants still live on terra firma.

Science is about testable repeatable actions and concepts. Science describes what can be observed.

What can be observed and tested in your claims?

You’re making an incorrect assumption that says the burden of proof is not yours. I’m not making absurd claims about things that defy all logic and physical limits.

You are. The burden is on you.

Your invisible helper cannot carry this burden for you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Joseph Smith certainly looked at golden tablets to reveal the holy truth that black people have dark skin due to a curse upon them. /s

I’d argue there are contradictions all over the Bible.

Here’s a list:

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html

They’re not trying to force everyone to use the alternative product with this message. I think you can export the podcast subscriptions to a number of clients.