Most of the stuff they label as communist or socialist actually sounds great.

I mean capped prices at the shop? Awful. /s

The bad bits of communism and Socialism are basically greed, corruption, and nepotism - and we have plenty of that anyway.

Wait, we’re not doing “woke” anymore?

As always, there’s a lot of nuance which is lost on Lemmy users.

It’s a question of exactly what telegram is being used for, what telegram the company can reasonably be aware of, what they’ve been asked to do, and what they’ve done.

Nonsense, they’re free to protest however they like. Choosing to do so outside the DNC is very clearly intended to undermine support for the dems, which will ultimately cause more suffering in Gaza.

This is very obviously a GOP strategy, to divide the dems base.

The left criticising the left, what a great idea.

It’s hilarious that’s his best strategy.

Did the DNC get more traction with the general public than the GOP equivalent, or nah?

Do we know which of the mods is involved? Obivously someone is but in that linked thread one of the mods claims that none of the mods are involved.

Snuff has been around for hundreds of years, but using it is still weird.

I’ve only ever seen former presidents referred to as “former president” in the third person and “mister” when addressed directly.

Anyone that’s ever had anything to do with the justice system understands that it is not intended to be fair.

Jury nullification is not “allowed”, you simply can’t punish a jury for returning a “not-guilty” verdict, for obvious reasons.

Disliking the victim is not a valid defense.

Honestly I’m so weary of this. Continue believing that juries make up the law as they like. Feel free to have the last word but I’m done.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think it’s a histamine response which is just directed at parasites in general.

I didn’t say it was a gotcha. I said it was a bit weird, which it is.

Did fox guy really refer to him as “Mr. President” ? Isn’t that a bit weird.

Yep - “the police know everyone of them”

They said the 1905 one was cut into multiple gems?! Seems such a waste.

Honestly I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

That’s a pretty polite way to encourage someone to clarify their position IMO.

If you interpret that as an accusation of being crazy and not making sense, I think that says more about you than it does about me.

you now admit that judges can determine a guilty or not guilty sentence

As I’ve been repeating ad nauseum, that is not the role of the judge in a criminal trial with a jury present.

a jury is meant to function outside of the established law by definition and instead focus on law as the people use and understand it

This is patently false. A jury determines whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. That’s it. There is no “we feel sad for the defendant” option. Read the transcript of any trial and see how the judge instructs the jury. Jurors do not make up the law “as the people understand it”.

Chrystal, a girl who was sex trafficked most of her teens and is still young, wouldn’t know whether it’s better to go to trial or not.

That’s why “Chrystul’s” legal team advised her on her position and instructed her to take the plea deal - because a jury would find her guilty. Obviously, if Jurors just made up the law based on the vibe of a case, her legal advisors would have told her to go to trial because the jury would undoubtedly sympathise with her and find her actions reasonable.

They have jury nullification available literally specifically so juries can indeed nullify the law. That is part of the function of a jury. Just because that upsets you, doesn’t mean that’s not what they are for.

It’s preposterous to assert that part of the function of a jury is to nullify the law. You have absolutely no evidence in support of that. If this were true in any way it would be a component in every criminal trial ever heard by a court. Why bother disputing evidence when you can simply talk about the sad circumstances of the defendant. “The victim deserved to be murdered because they were an asshole”.

I suspect that you simply prefer to believe you live in a world where good will always triumph over evil. You might find this upsetting to acknowledge but any grown up understands that life just isn’t fair, and that bad things happen to good people.

The function of a jury is to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of the charges against them. There is no “we feel sad for the defendant” option.

Yes, you’ve been very clear from the start that you do not want to remove the bot. However, the feedback you’ve consistently received is that it provides no benefit, is misleading, reductive, and the best improvement you could make would be to remove it. You don’t seem willing or able to respond to that.

Ok, but we have juries instead.