Oni_eyes

Yeah but you could say the same about a lot of people. Doesn't mean it's a "good movie" so much as a lot of people want to see that person in a thing and would pay regardless of what the thing is.

That's the attitude that gives us the race to the bottom in creative work

Well, yeah. But that's an exception to the rule not the rule itself.

I mean, it probably will be cheaper while also being a logical move for what could be a dope passion project.

Good movies don't need big name actors to be good, they need a good story, good world, and a cast that can pull off the immersion with a director that knows how to harness it all together. Big name actors are just a draw and I would argue a lot of the time they don't help so much as ruin immersion a bit.

Like in nineteen ninety-eight when the undertaker threw mankind off the top of hell in a cell.

I thought that was the way for them to say it was more of a passion project than a full AAA film. Like, when directors know the material and do a trial run of what their view is to test the waters for a massive sequel.

Also probably cheaper.

Oh shit, didn't know it was on switch. Is there a digital only copy or do you need the game cart?

Did you read that article? It states that her opponents said she was at fault, however neither the police who ran the lab nor the levels of associates in between her and the police lab informed her of the problem. When she did get the news, she took time to figure out if it was true and then dismissed 1000 cases that could have been tainted by that action, and took responsibility for not putting a written document in place about how to do something that was legally required and which the crime lab or the associates in between could also be legally required to do.

It doesn't point to being a corrupt attorney, it points to a failure in several rungs of responsibility below her which it made clear she wasn't informed of (she wasn't cc'd on any email discussing the unreliability of the crime lab worker). She dealt with the problem when it was clear it was the crime lab/prosecution at fault and took overall responsibility for not having a specific memo saying how they prosecutors we're supposed to uphold their legally binding duty to inform.

That's the system fucking up and the person at the top doing damage control and their job. Again, not evidence of corruption unless you only read the title and first paragraph where surprisingly the prosecutors in charge of those cases didn't get named or shamed, because it was politically expedient to hit the person at the top.

Jumping to insults because you find it annoying to have to source your claims isn't a good way to discuss anything with anyone.

It's not "immigrants should stay out because they bring disease", it's "we have a pandemic and our immigration centers are packed which makes it more likely that people immigrating catch something that's already here or that someone brings with them, causing a further strain on already strained medical staff and resources that would lead to further deaths"

It's not pretty but it had nothing to do with "immigrants are bringing disease" unless you were watching exclusively conservative media.

In light of the first one, where is evidence that the people she kept in prison were innocent of all charges and that they were being kept due to her wishes as prosecutor and not the slow nature of our judicial system considering judge appointments were being choked until conservatives held positions to ensure a massive wave of conservative judges filled those roles?
Where is the evidence that those jailed were exclusively black to support your claim that she hates all black people?

And where is the evidence that you need a full year and a half of campaigning for someone who has current governing experience as part of the current party and is literally the second in line for president should anything bad happen to the current president? Why is four months too short when it has deprived the main opposition with a ton of financial resources in now-ineffective campaigning against someone no longer running and a short time to pivot to something about the new candidate?

Any evidence at all or still just your beliefs leading to your assumptions?

Most of the container potato setups I see use a lot of sand and straw which I thought would help with the fungal growth, though they're usually set up in something like a large trash can with an air layer of insulation around since it hold heat less than rocks but the white block idea with sunken drip line sounds intriguing. We get a lot of clay in my area, but it's also pretty rainy most of summer so I would probably need some sort of sensor in the soil to figure out when it's dried enough for more watering. Thanks for the response!

You had many takes in there, ones that I disagreed with were mostly due to lack of supporting evidence such as:

She hates black people (I mean I guess you could say the blm protest jailings could be that, but I don't see a narrow window of action as being definitive evidence of a belief)

She is as crazy as Trump (even if all your takes were true, that's still a molehill being compared to a mountain)

Trump is being handed the election (again no supporting evidence considering that in polling she held within the error margin of Biden pre debate)

And lastly, that she has been less visible than Biden or Pence (though mostly due to how much we were laughing at Biden for ice cream gaffs, or how much we were being appalled by Pence's history that was coming to light)

I also don't agree with the take that she hates immigrants considering it was one action that she was lambasted for despite being asked to do so by the current president, and being less offensive in action than the former president. I will admit that I didn't like that particular action but same with the "she hates all black people" I don't see evidence of a history of actions to support that claim.

There's probably more but I'll stop there for now.

Now if you wanted to support any of those takes with actual evidence such as a history of actions that lead to that belief, we could have a discussion about it. However you seem intent on jumping to assumptions so I don't expect that to happen.

Where did I say that? Please, enlighten me on what I think.

Gonna have to disagree with that take.