(I may mis-recall all the details because this was some years back.) There was girl who took a Danny Devito cutout as her "date" to highschool prom and posted the professional prom photo online, and the story got big enough that he heard about it. He was so amused by it that he brought a custom made cardboard cutout of her from the prom picture to the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia set to take a photo with.

A plausible guess, but the article says he's on the website's board of directors.

Their statement on being a press conference venue for the Trump administration was that their business was not supporting anyone in particular, but was thrilled to be part of the democratic process. The tone this statement was said in led me to believe that they were also thrilled to facilitate Trump's goons making a hilarious fuck-up.

The allegations were determined to be true.

No, they weren't! Quote me the legal text were the judge says that. You can't, it's not in there. I guess you still didn't read what the judges wrote because you just keep quoting that incorrect article. The judges found the allegations plausible enough to deny bond. That's it! There was no further legal finding. You keep saying over and over that it was "found" by the court but that's simply a lie. I don't know if you're being obtuse on purpose or not. Also, that's not how allegations work. Once it's been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a court, it is no longer alleged. Judges only say alleged when they mean that something is unproven. It's pretty simple, I don't how this is confusing to you. So, there is no legal finding of gang membership, and any argument made on this fictitious "finding" is meaningless.

fear that MS-13s rival gang would persecute him upon his return, which basically confirms that he is an MS-13 member

Lots of reasons a gang would want someone dead besides being in a rival gang. This argument is also meaningless. Taking out the remaining nonsense, there's not much else to respond to.

What do YOU think should be done with him? He would NOT win any court case fighting against his illegal alien status because he is an illegal alien, self admittedly.

Same as anybody. He should be given his court case. What the judge says goes, subject to appeal. If the judge says deport him, then yeah, deport him, I wouldn't care then. What I care about is that the Fifth amendment says everyone gets due process. It doesn't say "unless they're sure to lose" or "unless you're convinced they're a gang member" or "unless they're an illegal immigrant." It does say, "No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," which, unless you don't consider him a person, is pretty fucking clear.

Yeah, I saw. To be fair to them, I did respond after your last response, so perhaps that's why they jumped to responding to me instead. Who knows? And yeah, I was planning to give up on them if they did anything other than make a coherent response actually addressing my argument with something from the court docs, which I think is highly unlikely.

Seriously, read the actual fucking legal documents linked in that biased-ass article. They denied him bond while waiting for the real hearing due to the gang allegations. Nothing more, nothing less. The judges themselves refer to them as allegations in their findings. The traffic court thing is unrelated to him being a gang member, it is relevant to if he should be released while waiting, which is the only thing they were finding on. I read the orders myself, they clearly make no finding on if he's in a gang and no findings on deportation.

Ok, that's something. Let's see, the article headline still says "DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties." Emphasis added by me. Now why would they say "alleged" if the court already found him guilty? Ah, right, because those were bond hearings. Yes, I actually read the legal documents linked by that article and both court findings were that the unproven claims of gang affiliation, combined with the fact that he had missed traffic court in the past, were sufficient to deny release on bond until his status hearing could be held. No further hearing was ever held. At no point did the legal system establish guilt, make a definitive finding of fact, or make a judicial decision on his deportation.

So, unless you have other court records to link me to that show otherwise, then you are wrong: no such thing has been legally proven.

Edit: Even the appeals Judge refers to it as "allegations of gang affiliation" in their order affirming the lower court decision that you are calling proof.

Sure it has. Go on, do tell. Which court? What case? Who was the Judge?

I assume the term is referring to the person knowing only the vibes of the program they want to code rather than comprehending the details of what it needs to do.

We changed the recipe since then, adding sugar and spices to make them actually taste good, so we can't expect it to still work. Not that it ever worked in the first place.

Oh, these sort of things are never required. It's just, if you don't wear one they'll know you're not on their team. If you're truly loyal, you don't need to be told to wear one, you voluntarily choose to wear it. Any prefential treatment to those wearing it is completely coincidental, of course, wink wink.

Just guessing here but I imagine the ink doesn't contain any water, so an otherwise absorbent material that is treated with a hydrophobic coating would probably work for that.

I agree, it's insane that customs ever accepted a fictional port on uninhabited islands as a point of origin in the first place. That's the loophole they should close. It does appear that that's a thing that did actually happen though, so it's not a complete fabrication. I'd say customs should have been authorized to confiscate any such good until a non-fictional provinence was proven.

If the government can disappear one person without due process, then they can disappear any person without due process.

Yeah, I assume the now-former employee acted with full expectation of losing her job over this. She succeeded at bringing attention to something many people (myself included) hadn't heard about before, so she at least accomplished that much.

You're right, that does sound particularly like something an autistic person would say. It's also something I'd be perfectly happy to hear and engage with.

"New toilet paper, same shit" is how an old boss of mine used to say it. Good for if you want to go clever yet crude.

Well, I'm doing my part against them by refusing to click on any bait headlines, but I fear it's a lost cause anyway.

I went to the one in my small city in SC. Had a few hundred people along a decently busy road. I was pleasantly surprised as hundreds of passing cars showed support over the 2 hours we were there, and only a dozen or so expressed opposition. I was not surprised that a majority of passers-by didn't engage at all though. The real majority in this country is not left or right, it's apathy.

Found Lemmy during the API protest and ditched reddit. I've been meaning to go back to reddit and get banned over the whole crazy censorship thing, but haven't gotten around to it yet.