APassenger @ APassenger @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

898

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Good ol boy network in action...

Absent diminished capacity in some important way... This shows reckless disregard for life, liberty, livelihoods, and homes.

Entire families will now be uprooted and people are likely to die when a fire becomes a conflagration. If a single person dies, firefighter or person who could have evacuated... It goes back to this guy.

He is fucked. And he should be.

People seem to confuse his politics. He's seems to be pro equal rights, but otherwise centrist(-ish?).

Whether those are his genuinely felt thoughts or a cynical play for a national run, I have no idea.

But he's been trying to get them off the streets since he was a mayor. This isn't new.

That's a persuasive list and I like it. I like it more than Biden's history at least where Israel & Palestine are concerned.

Dunno what issue you have with it, but if you're going to reply directly TWICE to the main thread... Then it clearly bothers you.

He will if he has Covid and thinks he can try to get her sick too.

Like that other time...

The temerity to believe?

Biden. Kamala. Or open revolt.

And it sure as hell isn't Clinton. She's still giving sound bites that hurt Dems. She's smart, wonky and a good Cabinet pick. She's not what will win the Presidency.

And she wasn't on the ticket.

I'd be interested, but am (and will remain) out of town.

Hope there's a good turnout, I know I enjoyed when I was able to make it!

The PG&E dealings don't look great. And even if he's clean, he's apt to look goofy.

French Laundry during COVID has mostly played out, but I still think it plays to character.

I'd enjoy Katie Porter. Not sur how the rest of America feels about that, but if I don't get her as senator, I'd be tickled to have her as Prez.

I'm in California and like Newsom as a governor overall.

Ask me about how he's handled a few things and I'll tell you he's likely not fit for a post-primary introduction to the national stage. He needs vetted.

An organic cause would play out different than an assassin's bullet. Both candidates have the best Healthcare available, so I dunno that organic is likely tho.

See... Now you're making more sense but you're wavering between points about when he got gun and the on set practices generally.

No, they aren't required to see the armorer load it, although that sounds like a best practice. Sounds like standard is the AD gets it from the armorer and keeps direct control until handing it to the actor is also accepted practice and allegedly used as process on set.

A expired contract isn't ideal and, again, I agree it's not a good look. Did she lose her skill when the contract elapsed? Is this pedantey or how does this matter? After much searching I keep seeing that she was the head armorer. None of the articles I've reviewed bring that up, so it reads as a possibly interesting fact that all researched people decided wasn't germane.

I agree that a person fully trained in gun handling would go beyond the film industry's general practices. I'd be exceptionally cautious and I've only fired guns a handful of times in my life. No sweeps, no bullets and act as if it's always loaded. Never point at something you aren't willing to obliterate.

I hope you're checking your brake lines. Cars kill people. They see daily use and people have assimilated that risk and tend to think so little of it we see brake checkers and other offensive acts. We'd do well to always check our brake lines. The consequences of brake failures are very often severe, if not death.

I am NOT saying he's blameless. I'm not saying HGR is. I'm saying there's a standard to when a responsible person says that someone did x. It's typically criminal conviction. You have no such concerns. As such, it is opinion by accepted convention.

Separately, what you described is not supported by my various searches where I attempt to find the very thing you assert. In that light, I'd say I'm softening my original SOP assertion. They have practices, but it sounds like the practices vary by armorer, state or set. They've been effective for quite a while, but very obviously multiple mistakes were made on the set of Rust.

To continue my analogy: We should all check our brake lines. The consequences of failed brake lines is death (I know this isn't true, but same applies to guns - it depends on situation) . And this is why if you turn someone into pink mist, it's your fault. You need to double check your mechanic's actions after every service.

Or do you just kinda trust them with your life, the lives of loved ones and the lives of others in/near the roads you drive? I do.

Cars kill people. Remember, that's where you planted a flag. They are nothing alike. Right?

And now you want to litigate, with non-lawyer me, a trial that will never happen and would need a new round of investigation in light of the new revelation. That investigation , possibly moot, so where are two nerds on the internet going to find the resources for that?

Again, have your moral certainty. I just wouldn't act like it's proven. It sounds like a dick move on a good day.

My sister, who lives with my mom is avidly pro-Trump. Anti-socialist, you know the drill.

Every dollar entering that address is government. Sister teaches, moms on Social Security. But abortion. And gender.

Things that will never directly impact my sister.

The movie industry has a Standard of Operations where an expert ensures safety and provides better protection than individual actors can. We cannot expect them to police the props and I sure as hell don't want them deciding if it's a blank or not.

He followed that process.

Now the legal system has spoken and the prosecution made such a mess of it a proper trial cannot happen.

You can state your convictions all you want. Good faith would include "allegedly." You're full of certanties and cast judgement like it's your job. At him. At me. At others.

Have your certainty. Maybe that will keep you warm at night.

My link was posted on this thread and speaks directly to the events of that day. It's easier to find than your implication that if I want a citation I need to read all the next under the OP.

I'm on vacation with family. I'm not spending hours on you. You're just not worth it. You can feel free to read that last sentence a couple times, but I want to tell you the tone: these are events in New Mexico. We weren't on set. There are far more important things than if some person on the internet thinks I should spend time finding out what I already know. People on the internet aren't worth the judgement and vitriol you spew.

When you've re-proceszed my link, because it addresses your post (I'd think) and shows they my original metaphor works... Then we can consider contuing.

Or you can consider me not worth your time. And I'd support that. I'm just some dude on the internet. And it's just some actor who will never get a real trial. And it's not worth all the feels you're putting out there...

You'd have gotten further with me by talking about how poorly he handled the situation that lead to this. Instead you're back to checking the brakeline every time you drive.

I think this matters, but also doesn't. We gotta vote and rally people against this or it stands a chance of happening.

People have been deceived into voting against their best interests for decades and that effort has been helped by the rise of controlled cable news.

A history of fighting this and mostly winning gives us poor assurance it won't happen in our life time - or largely by this time next year.

Too many people assumed Clinton would win.

Ergo, she didn't. Even so, never should have been close in the states that carried it over the line.

Naw.

I'm here for discussion, not argument. But you can post your first citation in this thread. I've already done one.

You've used a lot of words, made a lot of assertions but followed few of the standards of civil debate.

And you can have those moral convictions.

I'm not sure that's how it would be viewed in the eyes of the law, which has been the basis of my replies.

He, also, can direct people to kill US citizens without concern to the Bill of Rights. Now it may be that it's illegal for the person to carry out the order, but:

• It would be a "Constitutional" order (see SCOTUS decision).
• Presidents can issue pardons for federal offenses.

His right to do as he pleases is absolute and the intentions cannot be considered.