Did you just imply that Trump is a fiscal conservative? Since 2015 he made it clear he wanted to spend a lot of money. For a little while he pretended to side with Musk who was attempting to NOT spend so much money, but he eventually ditched DOGE and kept spending.
Cruel
joined 3 months ago
It's that way for a good 3 months. At least -10 anyways.
Finding a place to park a car is inconvenient, but locking up a bike somewhere isn't?
And you must live within walking distance of a train.
Seriously. Last winter here was -25 C. Miserable for bike rides.
Those same vehicles also have a 4-wheel model that's pretty nice.
Trains and bikes are much more inconvenient. Though bikes are good for close proximity.
Was the shooting politically motivated?
The Catholic shooting had the shooter writing tons of political messaging on weapons and such. That's why it was both "targeted violence" and "terrorism".
Seems the Mormon shooter just didn't like Mormons, in general or some specific ones.
The inverse is also true, but it’s still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.
Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.
You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop's actions caused his death. It's unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.
But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.
irrelevant , A peanut wouldn’t kill most people.
Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn't have a heart attack or something. You can't just assume the cop's actions caused it.
Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.
How is it not an assumption to say the cop's actions caused his death prior to autopsy?
I'm an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I'm not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.
Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.
I don't disagree with that. But you'd be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer's pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.
Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it's not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.
You're proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.
He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn't killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert's interpretation which called it a homicide.
Now that they brought him back, there's going to be another wave of revenue loss. A political pincer movement lol.
You must be 40+ years old then.