You can seem reasonable and rational when you distinguish between your opponent’s truths and your opponent’s lies. John McCain earned a lot of respect when he rejected an attack on Obama and pointed out that Obama was a decent person and family man who merely disagreed with McCain on some political issues.

If you don’t want your opponent to appear reasonable and rational, don’t give them opportunity. Lie about everything, all the time. Lie when the truth sounds better. Lie so much that they never have the opportunity to do anything except call you a liar. Lie so much that your opponent loses credibility every time they rebut one of your lies.

Related: Gish Gallop

The screws don’t even reach through the drywall?

I think you finally found a purpose for AI.

Unusual? “Breathing” would struggle to break 60%. 75% is functionally unanimous.

Syncthing

Self-hosted. Open source. Your data stays on your own devices. Creates a shared folder on your laptop and your phone. Move a file into that folder on your laptop, and syncthing pushes it to your phone.

“Come on, guys, you’re gonna pop the bubble.”

Well, we’re pissing off the right people.

Everyone forgets the next line:

But if you try sometime, you’ll find you get what you need.

It’s a little clunky, but KryptEY is an on screen keyboard that can encode/decode messages. The encoded messages can be transmitted over any service.

OP is asking how to prevent abusers from seeing OPs content.

“Blocking” the abuser prevents OP from seeing the abuser’s content. “Blocking” does not prevent the abuser from seeing and interacting with OP’s content.

“Blocking” does not achieve OP’s objective.

That would be terrible for their recruiting metrics.

Well, it’s a story that glorifies cops, and it completely fails to mention ACAB.

You can discover who is doing it with Lemvotes

But no, you can’t block them. Here in the real world (as opposed to the dystopian centralized platforms that have largely supplanted public discourse), it is not possible to isolate a specific individual and deny them access to information provided freely to the rest of the general public.

Should their public engagement rise to the level of harassment, there are legal options you can take to compel their restraint. But downvoting everything you do does not rise to such a level.

28 USC 1441:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

1. State level murder charges are not a civil action.
2. The district courts of the United States do not have original jurisdiction over state-level murder charges.

28 USC 1442:

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:

(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

Apprehension or punishment of criminals: The president’s position is that ICE is repelling an invasion, not enforcing law. The president’s argument against Birthright Citizenship, and his entire justification for non-judicial deportation is that the immigrants in question are not “criminals”, but foreign nationals not subject to the laws of the United States. The detainees are not considered criminals; they are not afforded the rights of criminals. Since the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship, ICE actions in general are not for the apprehension or punishment of criminals.

Allowing the case to be moved to the district court on these grounds would set a more important precedent than the murder charge.

The other categories do not apply to ICE agents.

So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over

I don’t think that follows from their argument. It’s valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer’s evasion attempts by steering toward them.

The unprecedented lack of accountability on the part of the Federal government. To wit: Trump’s rampant misuse of the presidential pardon power.

We have seen the reverse from time to time: State courts failing to hold white defendants accountable for crimes against black victims. At that time, federal prosecutors were able to step in with their own prosecutions.

Ideally, both governments should be trustworthy and accountable, and justice could be achieved in either court in any case. Here, with the defendant being an agent of the federal government and the federal government behaving so egregiously, their position cannot be trusted.

That’s not a thing that can happen. The state supreme court can substitute another state judge, but the federal government does not have the power you describe.

I agree completely.

The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of “force” necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.

Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute,

Right. Understood. The state prosecutor files charges in a state court

and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial,

Right. The federal prosecutor files charges in a federal court.

[The feds] drop charges.

The only charges the feds can drop are the charges in federal court. So there are no more federal charges.

Are you saying the state would refile charges?

I’m saying the state never dismissed the charges in state court. They don’t need to refile anything; the state charges are still filed.

I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?

That is incorrect. The state and the federal government can both decide they want to prosecute. Luigi Mangione, for example, faces charges in both New York and Federal courts.

No, I don’t think we are agreeing at all. I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of dual sovereignty.

The assumption you seem to be making is that there is only one court with the jurisdiction to try him. You seem to be arguing that if this was a federal crime, he will be tried only in federal court, and not in state court.

This is not accurate.

Dual sovereignty is the idea that the same act constitutes a crime against the state, and a completely separate crime against the federal government. He can be tried in both courts, not just one. The outcome of either court is irrelevant to the other. He can be acquitted in one or both; he can be convicted in one or both. The charges being dropped in one have no bearing on the other case.

He can, indeed, be tried and convicted twice for the exact same act, once in state court and once in federal.