Is it? Since the task passing of the death sentence is in the exact same process, it doesn’t change the odds of an incorrect conviction at all. All it does is add uncertainty as to whether that sentence will be carried out, which is a big problem if you get family members like Mollie Tibbetts’ dad. Or in the case of any criminal capable of hiding from or protecting himself from the family members.

But that doesn’t solve the real thing you said you distrust, does it? The government is presumably still determining guilt through trial, it’s just that they’ve outsourced carrying out the sentence.

Why wouldn’t he set shutter speed that high if he could get away with it? The reasons to have a lower shutter speed are as follows:

1. To allow motion to be blurred—not something you usually want for news photos of a speech, so that’s out

2. To let more light in in order to increase the exposure. Obviously, the photos don’t look underexposed, so he’s fine there

3. In order to allow for a sharper depth of field. Again, not a huge concern for news photos, but the focus in the photos seems fine, so as with exposure, no problem there.

The simplest explanation seems likely to be that he sets his shutter speed as he can and likely takes hundreds or even thousands of photos of every event he covers, then uses the most visually striking.

I’m sure there are, but they’re the exception, not the general rule. And they’re certainly not the mold for “Indian tech CEO” in particular.

But is that feasible right now? With Soros DAs, activists on the bench, and BLM-kneeling law enforcement agencies? It’s all well and good to saw we need to lock criminals up—and it’s true—but we also need to use the weapons that are available to reach the point where locking the criminals up is easier. “The mob,” as you put it, is clearly one of those weapons.

Oh yeah, I think I do remember that now.

Did Zendaya perpetrate a hoax I forgot about/missed, or do you just mean low quality in general?

Comments like "it was to many" […] is such an ignorant comment it shows you have no knowledge on the subject

I’m not exactly sure how else one would read this, lol. I know your opinions, so I know that what you mean is “even though you said it happened and it was bad, you didn’t self-flagellate enough and treat it with the reverence it deserves, so I hate you,” (which is kind of obnoxious, really). But what you actually wrote was “it’s extremely ignorant to say too many people died.”

Well now it kind of sounds like your complaint is that it wasn’t enough….

I don't think anyone was insane enough to suggest the random OF girl was involved.

Wait, isn’t this thread about researching her? Why do that if she’s not involved? Did you forget your own topic? Have you been having memory issues? Is this the first sign of early-onset Impzheimer’s?

Wow, she’s extremely unappealing. Who is paying money to see THAT naked? I’d understand more if someone paid money not to.

Okay, but what are you going to do with that? Are you agreeing with Imp, women need to be collectively put through a Nuremberg trial? Are you going MGTOW? Or is it just an observation that gee, a lot of people hold feminist beliefs? Because again, if we’re being honest, the majority of western men are probably also feminists under this definition.

You’re not wrong in saying that those are ultimately feminist ideas, but you’ve actually only expanded on the issue that u/Adamrises was pointing out: your classification is so broad as to be useless (or perhaps even worse, demoralizing). There’s a big difference between “yeah, sure, I assume this is normal and right because that’s what I’ve always been taught and everyone says that means I’m a feminist so I guess I am” and “I am a feminist; I go protest against male domestic violence shelters because they already have enough privilege.”

Yeah, it’s weird. Trump is irrelevant to the outcome. The lever he’s holding doesn’t do anything.

The counterargument would be: who the hell can he pick? It kind of seems like everyone is a compromised backstabbing liar.

Literally on the roof or figuratively on the roof, it's the same deal: maybe that was the PD's responsibility and maybe it wasn't, but either way the Secret Service presumably has responsibility somewhere up the chain to make sure it's being done.

Yeah, but I don’t think anyone here really believes that that’s the case. All of the rest of the federal government is supposed to be neutral too, and it isn’t.

The idea that the director is a DEI hire, and the idea that he Secret Service dropped the ball letting the shooter get his shot off have both been the topic of several threads. Whether that ball dropping was malice or incompetence is still a little debatable, but aside from a couple people sperging that it was actually a pro-Trump false flag, essentially everyone on here is in agreement that the Secret Service is definitely some flavor of messed up.

That leaves just Michelle Khare, and yeah, there’s plenty of reasons you can say she shouldn’t have been allowed to train with them. But going above and beyond “yeah, the Secret Service is some kind of F’d, which we knew from about 15 minutes after this shooting (and probably suspected before)”… there just isn’t enough substance to it for that to support the direction you’re taking it in. It’s just not the bombshell you’re acting like it is.

I know that the Secret Service doesn’t have infinite manpower and that they often fill this gap by coordinating with local agencies to cover things. That said, when such coordination happens, they should be the management and people in charge. I’m willing to believe that it was local PD’s responsibility to have a person on the roof, but I imagine it was also the Secret Service’s responsibility to double check that that was happening.

What, this post? Maybe because there’s nothing at all that’s new and meaningful in it. The part about 30% women being a goal is, of course, absurd, but it was already known. As for Michelle Khare, she’s a fitness youtuber. She has a series where she does intense special training regimens. You can argue that maybe secret service training should be more secret, and you can say that this is another example of leftists being celebrity obsessed—WOWZERS, MUH FAMOUS HECKIN YOUTUBER TRAINED WITH US—but the paranoid “WHO IS MICHELLE KHARE, I’M NOT SUICIDAL!” line is a paranoid overreaction that reaches far into the realm of the comical.

We seem to be missing the "falls into a coma and dies" part, though. As well as the "universally beloved" part.

Yeah, but the scam is usually to be pretty vague. 'There will be a failed assassination on Trump, he will be hit in the ear by a bullet, he will fall down' is a pretty risky bet, if you're just bullshitting.

Putting aside the options where he's a true prophet OR he's a true believer but he's wrong, scamming something like this is not as risky as it seems, because if it doesn't happen, who would have heard of him? Who would go back and say "Look at this guy, he was bullshitting!" And, even if someone did, who would care? The guy would say "Yeah, I had a dream, I thought it was prophetic, turns out it wasn't, oh well, no one bats a thousand." Then he'd point at some of his other predictions that look good and emphasize those. The other big thing is that in this case it turns out he was really on the money, but that doesn't mean he had to be for it to work. With any assassination attempt that got anywhere near, he could say "look, he nearly got killed just like in my dream," and of course "someone is going to try to kill Trump and make a decent attempt of it" is a much safer bet.

This has destroyed ALL Democrat election strategy as they no longer can demonise Trump since he almost got assasinated.

Why should that stop them? They didn't have any human empathy or sympathy before this.

I predict articles talking about how "it totally is good that Trump wasn't assassinated and that sure would be a terrible shame and we're very glad it didn't happen, but it would make the country a lot better off it it had wouldn't it?"

Their entire existence is because of Civilization

Sid Meier has a lot to answer for.

It might not be a typical leftist, there’s still a slim chance he pivots into being yet another pedo pajeet alt.

If I had to guess, it’s because leftists have been substituting “stakeholder” instead of “shareholder” for at least the past decade as part of their corporate subversion.

e.g. instead of having a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to produce good movies that people like and that make money, leftist theory—embraced, it would seem, by the company itself—holds that Disney has a much more nebulous social duty to “stakeholders,” which could be anyone who might be perceived as being affected by their media in any way, to effect social change. Which leads to the kind of stuff Disney is making instead of good movies.