Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is that you are zooming out way too hard. Generally "then killing two of them" is inexcusable except for a few very extraordinary circumstances. Like for example idk maybe if those two were attempting to murder somebody.
No, I am not. He should not have been at that protest at all. You are defending his actions. That is why people are commenting that it provides a window into how you think.
 
No, I am not. He should not have been at that protest at all. You are defending his actions. That is why people are commenting that it provides a window into how you think.
Even if that were to be the case, he still has the right to defend himself using it. Let's say that you bring a gun into a bar where you are not allowed to bring guns. If you then get somebody that tries to violently rob you or force himself on you in a sexual way, you can still use said gun to defend yourself appropriately. Later on you might face charges for bringing the gun but not for using the gun to defend yourself if appropriate.

Crime not making anything that is possible because of said crime another crime is simply how we do things, and only a madman would support the opposite.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eu
Even if that were to be the case, he still has the right to defend himself using it. Let's say that you bring a gun into a bar where you are not allowed to bring guns. If you then get somebody that tries to violently rob you or force himself on you in a sexual way, you can still use said gun to defend yourself appropriately. Later on you might face charges for bringing the gun but not for using the gun to defend yourself if appropriate.
That’s the point. That is a textbook example of guns creating the very situation where it is required to use them. The fact that defenders of this behavior can’t identify a problem is telling. I encourage you to stop caping so hard for the legality of these situations because this discussion warrants a broader look at why we have so many senseless gun deaths in the USA.
 
That’s the point. That is a textbook example of guns creating the very situation where it is required to use them. The fact that defenders of this behavior can’t identify a problem is telling. I encourage you to stop caping so hard for the legality of these situations because this discussion warrants a broader look at why we have so many senseless gun deaths in the USA.
I wasnt strictly talking about legality, I believe that you must morally be allowed to prevent your would-be rapist through any measure available to you at the time in case it is your only measure. This could be a gun, a knife or a bottle of wine you brought to a place that you werent allowed to bring alcohol to.
 
I wasnt strictly talking about legality, I believe that you must morally be allowed to prevent your would-be rapist through any measure available to you at the time in case it is your only measure. This could be a gun, a knife or a bottle of wine you brought to a place that you werent allowed to bring alcohol to.
Morally- the case for open carry AR-15s is dubious at best. To suggest otherwise really looks deranged.
 
Morally- the case for open carry AR-15s is dubious at best. To suggest otherwise really looks deranged.
This is a massive pivot picking out a word in my sentence and attacking something completely different. I was trying to first establish a common basis of agreement that you doing something wrong doesnt prevent you from doing something right because u got there through doing something wrong, which really shouldnt be hard to agree to.

people start beating him up because they dont like that
 
This is a massive pivot picking out a word in my sentence and attacking something completely different. I was trying to first establish a common basis of agreement that you doing something wrong doesnt prevent you from doing something right because u got there through doing something wrong, which really shouldnt be hard to agree to.
It appears you are still trying to find justification for what was addressed already:
That’s the point. That is a textbook example of guns creating the very situation where it is required to use them. The fact that defenders of this behavior can’t identify a problem is telling. I encourage you to stop caping so hard for the legality of these situations because this discussion warrants a broader look at why we have so many senseless gun deaths in the USA.
 
It appears you are still trying to find justification for what was addressed already:
I mean in my hypothetical the brought gun wasn't creating the situation, the situation was created by the anonymous aggressor trying to get bags of money / sexual relief through any means necessary thus forfeiting his right to not be defended against, and the gun/knife/bottle/your girlfriend's lipstick which was illegally and immorally at the same time (through for this hypothetical to work irrelevant reasons) brought to anonymous place can and should still be used for self defense if necessary, both legally and morally.

Im pretty sure you understand my point without me spelling out every possible semantic but are just bad faith which is to be expected I guess.
 
Last edited:
I mean in my hypothetical the brought gun wasn't creating the situation, the situation was created by the anonymous aggressor trying to get bags of money / sexual relief through any means necessary thus forfeiting his right to not be defended against, and the gun/knife/bottle/your girlfriend's lipstick which was illegally and immorally at the same time (through for this hypothetical to work irrelevant reasons) brought to anonymous place can and should still be used for self defense if necessary, both legally and morally.

Im pretty sure you understand my point without me spelling out every possible semantic but are just bad faith which is to be expected I guess.
The scenario proposed here is fanatical. Gun rights advocates use these “bad faith” hypothetical situations to justify a pro-gun society. The primary reason one needs a gun in public (not related to ones occupation) is to “protect” themselves from other people who may have guns. Thus, the gun creates the very situation with which it is needed.

Kyle Rittenhouse is an example of this pro-gun mindset going completely off the rails. It is not a coincidence that gun fanatics are likely to end up in situations where they have to shoot someone. If I’m an unarmed witness to wrongdoings in public, I’m more inclined to either alert the proper authorities or just mind my own fucking business than taking matters into my own hands. The overwhelming majority of people don’t find themselves in situations to get robbed, raped, or severely injured to where deadly force would be warranted. So again- it begs the question what is a 17-year old, right-wing gun fanatic doing bringing an AR-15 to a left-wing protest?
 
Last edited:
The scenario proposed here is fanatical. The overwhelming majority of people don’t find themselves in situations to get robbed, raped, or severely injured to where deadly force would be warranted.
Sorry in advance for cropping two statements together but I think they do make sense next to each other in the way you meant to say them. Feel free to clarify if it is not so.

"The overwhelming majority" doesnt mean fuck all, it doesnt make the situation any less relevant. Conservatives use figures like only 3% of people actually die from Covid and im sure we agree that you cannot deem Covid irrelevant because of that, 3% deaths is fucking insanity thats so many people. Im sure u see where we are going with this. Fact is that people do find themselves in situations where they need to defend themselves, and you should absolutely be allowed to use any measure available to you. If u cannot agree to that then you just dont believe in self-defense as a concept let alone self-defense in this case.
 
Fact is that people do find themselves in situations where they need to defend themselves, and you should absolutely be allowed to use any measure available to you. If u cannot agree to that then you just dont believe in self-defense as a concept let alone self-defense in this case.
You did not answer the question - what was Rittenhouse- a right-wing gun fanatic doing bringing a gun to a left-wing protest?
 
You did not answer the question - what was Rittenhouse- a right-wing gun fanatic doing bringing a gun to a left-wing protest?
I promise that we can go there but I just wanted to reach a resolution on whether you agree/do not agree with the point ive been trying to illustrate over my last few messages in order to prevent gish-galloping over talking points.
 
I promise that we can go there but I just wanted to reach a resolution on whether you agree/do not agree with the point ive been trying to illustrate over my last few messages in order to prevent gish-galloping over talking points.
My question is relevant. I think you’re dodging it because you know where I’m getting at.

I disagree with how self-defense law is applied to vigilante scenarios. If gun owner seeks out conflict, I don’t find it to be justifiable self-defense just because gun owner starts getting their ass beat. It is cowardly.
 
That’s the point. That is a textbook example of guns creating the very situation where it is required to use them. The fact that defenders of this behavior can’t identify a problem is telling. I encourage you to stop caping so hard for the legality of these situations because this discussion warrants a broader look at why we have so many senseless gun deaths in the USA.

IMO the gun control debate is distracting from the actual issue at play here, which is the fact that American right-wingers believe they can avoid facing accountability for breaking important rules and social norms (you know, like not murdering people). The easiest example for most here to understand would probably be that Capitol rioter who literally thought that being white would save her from prosecution. Or joking about Hatch Act violations in the White House as a running gag. The Rittenhouse outcome was a result of a judge that carved out exceptions for Rittenhouse specifically to avoid charges, a jurist who repeatedly fucked up his own cases, frequently resulting in them being overturned.

It's also absolutely fucking psychotic of Charmflash to frame people trying to stop an active shooter as attempted murderers. I legit didn't know that American education is so bad that defending yourself and others from an active shooter is "attempted murder." Rittenhouse had multiple chances to surrender, instead he chose to remain an active shooter that then went on to murder more people. It's even more absurd when you're claiming that getting the minutae of his gun charges wrong invalidates any point made about the actual circumstances of the shootings. It's also incrediblyconvenient that you keep ignoring the facts that 1) Rittenhouse refused to surrender multiple times, and 2) repeatedly talked about his fantasies of explictly murdering people with the same gun he used in his spree killing.


No opinion on the trial itself btw just thought this was funny.
It's funny because the judge lied about why he barred critical coverage of his actions and blamed it on a traffic violation
 
... "It's funny because the judge lied about why he barred critical coverage of his actions and blamed it on a traffic violation"
Question: What do you mean, and what is the basis for your accusation? You've suggested this multiple times at this point, so I would really hope that you would have something to base this idea on. Here is the part of the trial where the judge bars MSNBC from the courthouse. I couldn't find any lie, though you are welcome to point out where you think the lie is. He doesn't claim to know exactly what happened, he just says what he was told happened by Kenosha police and how that brought him to his decision. Also, if this "critical coverage" of his actions is merely MSNBC having their own reporters in the room among the many others from different news sources, it isn't critical -- all of the other sources are doing their very best to get all the details, and it hasn't prevented MSNBC from covering the trial with second-hand sources. Do you need the chance to elaborate, or are you just wrong?
"... [he] banned coverage of proceedings by MSNBC in blatant retaliation for critical coverage of his actions (curious that there's no pictures of the jury busses, despite photographs being the basis of the ban). None of that behaviour is either normal nor appropriate in a court of law, ..."
All of the reporting that I could find indicates that none of this is true. The basis of the ban, as you can see that the judge stated in the video, was the reporter being accused of following the jury bus, not taking photos of it. That would threaten the perceived integrity of the trial, so it was necessary and appropriate for the judge to take action. Given that it is the judge's job to help protect jury integrity, the 'blatant' motivation of the judge was to do so -- the motivation that you've accused him of is merely your personal suspicion that you haven't supported with evidence. Please do so, or reconsider your opinion.

Here are some articles about the subject. They all agree that a person apprehended by police for multiple traffic violations was suspected of following the jury bus, and that the man said that he was told to do so by an employer from MSNBC. NBC News issued a statement that acknowledged the incident and recognized him as a freelancer who was not intended to photograph the jury.
 
Question: What do you mean, and what is the basis for your accusation? You've suggested this multiple times at this point, so I would really hope that you would have something to base this idea on. Here is the part of the trial where the judge bars MSNBC from the courthouse. I couldn't find any lie, though you are welcome to point out where you think the lie is. He doesn't claim to know exactly what happened, he just says what he was told happened by Kenosha police and how that brought him to his decision. Also, if this "critical coverage" of his actions is merely MSNBC having their own reporters in the room among the many others from different news sources, it isn't critical -- all of the other sources are doing their very best to get all the details, and it hasn't prevented MSNBC from covering the trial with second-hand sources. Do you need the chance to elaborate, or are you just wrong?

All of the reporting that I could find indicates that none of this is true. The basis of the ban, as you can see that the judge stated in the video, was the reporter being accused of following the jury bus, not taking photos of it. That would threaten the perceived integrity of the trial, so it was necessary and appropriate for the judge to take action. Given that it is the judge's job to help protect jury integrity, the 'blatant' motivation of the judge was to do so -- the motivation that you've accused him of is merely your personal suspicion that you haven't supported with evidence. Please do so, or reconsider your opinion.

Here are some articles about the subject. They all agree that a person apprehended by police for multiple traffic violations was suspected of following the jury bus, and that the man said that he was told to do so by an employer from MSNBC. NBC News issued a statement that acknowledged the incident and recognized him as a freelancer who was not intended to photograph the jury.
This is a judge that has (very unusually and improperly) complained about coverage of his court throughout the trial. This is a judge with a long history of making wildly illegal rulings based on his personal biases, many of which have been overturned. It's difficult for any observer that doesn't think American Psycho is a self-help book to come to the conclusion that the judge made his decision to bar MSNBC on anything but spite over his challenged authorit-ah.

But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the same shitty excuse for a judge played the campaign song of a President who repeatedly tried to censor and incite violence against critical journalists. You can't speak to the motivations of a jurist who tells the jury to applaud defence witnesses. It's impossible to tell what's going through the head of someone who prejudges shooting victims to be "rioters, anarchists, and looters," right? Definitely nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever about the court, which is why human rights organisations around the world have condemned it. That's why living 60s Civil Rights marchers and associates of MLK Jr. have condemned it. That's why even many lawyers who disagree with me on the interpretation of Wisconsin's Dangerous Weapons regulations have still pointed out that the jury instructions and conduct of the jurist were wildly inappropriate.

There are plenty of examples to draw from, ranging from the career of disgraced jurist Julius Hoffman to the legal theories of Weimar jurist and legal theorist Ernst Fraenkel, who literally wrote the book (pps. 95-96) on how the dual nature of the authoritarian state entails the application of different legal and carceral standards for out-groups, creating a privileged legal class made up of Party members or the so-called "racially pure." The evidence lies in Schroeder's actions, which follow patterns of maladministration common to corrupt judges. Going back to Hoffman, I encourage others to read on the trial of the Chicago Seven (the movie's ok but movies take liberties with fact, for example whitewashing Ramsey Clark) to understand this type of judge.
 
boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
 
boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
 
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
DTC's point is exactly what you are enforcing right now: if boo is going to accuse the judge of banning MSNBC under false pretenses, boo should provide evidence of that. I told boo that he (I assume) should share counter-evidence if he was going to accuse the judge of falsehood -- boo responded by not doing that, making more unsubstantiated claims, and giving links to a few sources that agree with his narrative but don't provide much relevant evidence themselves. I think that what DTC had to say to boo is actually pretty constructive; at this point boo has spread falsehoods that have cost him credibility, so that even the better points that he makes are obfuscated by the rest of his poor rhetoric. For example:
"You can't speak to the motivations of a jurist who tells the jury to applaud defence witnesses. ..."
This is a reference to the judge asking everyone in the courtroom to applaud for the present veterans in the court, since the occasion was veterans' day. It turned out that the only veteran in the room was a defense witness, and that witness was called immediately afterwards for expert testimony about some documents. Here is a link where you can watch it. I was only able to find it on Facebook. It's definitely a notable blunder, and leaves room for both sides to argue whether or not it underlies bias.
The purpose in bringing this up -- and what DTC was saying -- is that there are some credible points that boo could be making, but his rhetorical zealousness or disregard for supporting his claims undercuts that. Here, for instance, he doesn't say "there is good reason to suspect that the judge was implicitly trying to bolster the defense" and then build upon that argument; instead, he lumps together the evidence with his conclusion, which is both less-than-honest and might lead to people who disagree with his conclusion throwing the evidence out along with it. Boo's other tendency is to simply deliver his narrative without substantiating it, which causes us to dismiss points like these that actually have a lot of potential for him, weakens his case, and leads to him getting a lot of stuff wrong. Here are some of the many examples where boo has made heavy claims without showing us the evidence, which leaves readers not knowing whether or not we can believe him:
"... This is a judge with a long history of making wildly illegal rulings based on his personal biases, many of which have been overturned. ..."
"... -He was not legally allowed to have his weapon there, he transported an illegally obtained weapon over state lines with the intent of using it. The judge based his decision to drop the charges based on a bad-faith reading of the law formulated solely to exempt Rittenhouse. ..."
"It's funny because the judge lied about why he barred critical coverage of his actions and blamed it on a traffic violation"
"There are plenty of examples to draw from, ranging from the career of disgraced jurist Julius Hoffman to the legal theories of Weimar jurist and legal theorist Ernst Fraenkel, who literally wrote the book (pps. 95-96) on how the dual nature of the authoritarian state entails the application of different legal and carceral standards for out-groups, creating a privileged legal class made up of Party members or the so-called "racially pure." The evidence lies in Schroeder's actions, which follow patterns of maladministration common to corrupt judges. ... " (emphasis added)
Even when boo does provide citations, it is insufficient to substantiate his claims. He brings up Julius Hoffman and two pages in particular from Ernst Fraenkel, which describe how Nazi Germany's authoritarian legal system had to set unequal standards for Aryans and Jews -- but he doesn't substantiate his basis for claiming that Schroeder's actions create something related to that. "What did the judge do to bolster an authoritarian state?", we wonder, and he simply asserts that 'the evidence is there' without showing us what it is or demonstrating how that supports his point -- the most important evidence is missing. The evidence can't be debated because there is nothing to debate with, but it has no credibility because it doesn't present itself.

Regardless of whether or not any of these statements in any of these quotes are true, if he showed his sources or at least gave in-detail examples so that we would know specifically what to look for to fact-check his claims, he would be on much stronger footing and people would be able to directly judge his level of credibility.

Even after I put pressure on him to substantiate himself, he didn't take it any farther than empty citations. He'll say things like
"... the court [was out of the ordinary], which is why human rights organisations around the world have condemned it. That's why living 60s Civil Rights marchers and associates of MLK Jr. have condemned it."
but if you visit those sources, they don't condemn the trial itself as uniquely unordinary -- only that 'our country's criminal justice system [generally] ... is predicated on white supremacy and anti-Black racism' instead of what boo is saying, which is that the judge caused this courtroom to be biased. Sources aren't worth anything unless you support what you are saying and demonstrate how that substantiates your argument clearly. Having read and reread his post and his citations, boo delivers on neither.

The final thing that I'll say about the matter is that boo's response to being called out for making unsubstantiated claims isn't acknowledgement, but obfuscation and more poor rhetoric -- which only compounds his loss of credibility. In my post, I asked him to either show that he could back up the claim that the judge lied about MSNBC or to walk it back. That was the only topic of my post, but he didn't respond by addressing any of it; instead, he moved on to a bunch of other talking points about why he doesn't like the judge. If he was interested in maintaining credibility or having a productive discussion, he could have at least said "yeah, I guess I was wrong", "oh, I was misinformed", or linked some surprise supporting sources -- but instead he has ignored it, and tried to usher us on into new topics. So to bring this back to what you and DTC said:

boo at a certain point, after saying so many falsehoods, people won’t trust what you have to say anymore. You just keep grasping for straws. Have to say you aren’t making a great case for your argument here.
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?
Much counter-evidence has been leveled, even though boo brings weak or no evidence to begin with. Boo has made no effort to maintain his credibility, and I agree with DTC that that comes with a cost -- if you don't bring the substance, people are going to stop paying you their attention.
 
Last edited:
Accusation of falsehood means you will share counter-evidence?

Evidentiary standards don't matter to people arguing in bad faith. The only "falsehood" I've made was a mistake on a minor detail of the weapons charges. It's a detail that doesn't change the material fact that Rittenhouse illegally purchased a firearm, or his stated fantasies of murdering people, or that he had a choice to surrender and maintained an active shooter situation that he started.


DTC's point is exactly what you are enforcing right now: if boo is going to accuse the judge of banning MSNBC under false pretenses, boo should provide evidence of that. I told boo that he (I assume) should share counter-evidence if he was going to accuse the judge of falsehood -- boo responded by not doing that, making more unsubstantiated claims, and giving links to a few sources that agree with his narrative but don't provide much relevant evidence themselves. I think that what DTC had to say to boo is actually pretty constructive; at this point boo has spread falsehoods that have cost him credibility, so that even the better points that he makes are obfuscated by the rest of his poor rhetoric. For example:


This is a reference to the judge asking everyone in the courtroom to applaud for the present veterans in the court, since the occasion was veterans' day. It turned out that the only veteran in the room was a defense witness, and that witness was called immediately afterwards for expert testimony about some documents. Here is a link where you can watch it. I was only able to find it on Facebook. It's definitely a notable blunder, and leaves room for both sides to argue whether or not it underlies bias.
The purpose in bringing this up -- and what DTC was saying -- is that there are some credible points that boo could be making, but his rhetorical zealousness or disregard for supporting his claims undercuts that. Here, for instance, he doesn't say "there is good reason to suspect that the judge was implicitly trying to bolster the defense" and then build upon that argument; instead, he lumps together the evidence with his conclusion, which is both less-than-honest and might lead to people who disagree with his conclusion throwing the evidence out along with it. Boo's other tendency is to simply deliver his narrative without substantiating it, which causes us to dismiss points like these that actually have a lot of potential for him, weakens his case, and leads to him getting a lot of stuff wrong. Here are some of the many examples where boo has made heavy claims without showing us the evidence, which leaves readers not knowing whether or not we can believe him:
Even when boo does provide citations, it is insufficient to substantiate his claims. He brings up Julius Hoffman and two pages in particular from Ernst Fraenkel, which describe how Nazi Germany's authoritarian legal system had to set unequal standards for Aryans and Jews -- but he doesn't substantiate his basis for claiming that Schroeder's actions create something related to that. "What did the judge do to bolster an authoritarian state?", we wonder, and he simply asserts that 'the evidence is there' without showing us what it is or demonstrating how that supports his point -- the most important evidence is missing. The evidence can't be debated because there is nothing to debate with, but it has no credibility because it doesn't present itself.

Regardless of whether or not any of these statements in any of these quotes are true, if he showed his sources or at least gave in-detail examples so that we would know specifically what to look for to fact-check his claims, he would be on much stronger footing and people would be able to directly judge his level of credibility.

Even after I put pressure on him to substantiate himself, he didn't take it any farther than empty citations. He'll say things like

but if you visit those sources, they don't condemn the trial itself as uniquely unordinary -- only that 'our country's criminal justice system [generally] ... is predicated on white supremacy and anti-Black racism' instead of what boo is saying, which is that the judge caused this courtroom to be biased. Sources aren't worth anything unless you support what you are saying and demonstrate how that substantiates your argument clearly. Having read and reread his post and his citations, boo delivers on neither.

The final thing that I'll say about the matter is that boo's response to being called out for making unsubstantiated claims isn't acknowledgement, but obfuscation and more poor rhetoric -- which only compounds his loss of credibility. In my post, I asked him to either show that he could back up the claim that the judge lied about MSNBC or to walk it back. That was the only topic of my post, but he didn't respond by addressing any of it; instead, he moved on to a bunch of other talking points about why he doesn't like the judge. If he was interested in maintaining credibility or having a productive discussion, he could have at least said "yeah, I guess I was wrong", "oh, I was misinformed", or linked some surprise supporting sources -- but instead he has ignored it, and tried to usher us on into new topics. So to bring this back to what you and DTC said:



Much counter-evidence has been leveled, even though boo brings weak or no evidence to begin with. Boo has made no effort to maintain his credibility, and I agree with DTC that that comes with a cost -- if you don't bring the substance, people are going to stop paying you their attention.
This insistence that I lack credibility because I made a mistake on a specific weapons charge is laughably absurd and demonstrative of the agenda you seek to advance. It takes an extremely dishonest person to suggest that I've misrepresented sources such as Amnesty when they are clearly condemning the court for the verdict. These are not actual refutations of the points that I've made, they are just repeated assertions that I lack credibility and/or honesty, and utilise "poor rhetoric." It's the sort of grandstanding that gets laughed out of debate halls. The closest thing you've actually made to a refutation is trying to split hairs over the judge's decision to "applaud veterans," a matter you acknowledge as still wrong for a jurist to do. =/

There's also the fascinating position that I am expected to provide mountains of evidence of the judge's intent despite having already pointed out his history of making wildly illegal judgments that are more rooted in his beliefs than any semblance of law. Especially fascinating considering that no one else in this discussion seems to have the same expectation made of them. There's also the obvious irony that a substantial amount of evidence was barred or actively sought to be discredited by Schroeder on an illegitimate basis. Although it's blatantly obvious you don't actually care about evidence, for the sake of posterity: Here he is mandating sex workers be tested for HIV. You know what words should never come from the bench? “I would like to see the issue resolved, and I hope they lose.” Here is a newspaper article detailing how Schroeder's reputation as an irrational jurist caused hundreds of defendants to file for a change in judge. Clearly Schroeder had a reputation prior to the case that was already comparable to Julius Hoffman's reputation. Here he is doling out public shaming as punishment, something which by itself should have been grounds to see him removed from the bench. Schroeder has made inappropriate complaints about coverage of the trial, and it is extremely unusual to bar an entire network over a traffic violation by a freelancer. It is obvious that Schroeder is a vindictive, incompetent jurist who demonstrated bias throughout the trial, going so far as to not only permit prejudicial language against the victims (none of the victims were on trial for rioting, nor looting, nor is there credible evidence suggesting that they were involved in either), but actively encourage a prejudicial framing of the case for the jury.

My position on Schroeder before the trial was that regardless of the verdict, he has severely impugned the reputation of the judiciary and should not be serving as a judge. Since the trial ended, I believe that position has a stronger case than ever. True to Republican fashion, what happened wasn't a miscarriage of justice, but an alleyway coat-hanger abortion. If expecting judges to be impartial and act within the law constitutes "zealotry," then call me the Grand fucking Inquisitor.
 
this kyle rittenhouse shit got boring the only useful discussions about the case are those which involve the surrounding politics not the trial itself
They are so very intertwined. I don't know how you intend to fully (or even partially) separate the two. In fact, understanding the happenings in detail is what would show you why this isn't giving you a pass to go on the street and shoot protesters / why you shouldn't get physically violent with anybody let alone somebody visibly carrying a firearm. But yeah, a full blown trial and it's specifics can be a drag for anyone, let alone people used to twitter style bite-sized politics.
 
why this isn't giving you a pass to go on the street and shoot protesters / why you shouldn't get physically violent with anybody let alone somebody visibly carrying a firearm.
Bringing an AR-15 to a protest filled with people you don’t like is violent. Claiming self-defense when they try to disarm said person bringing an AR-15 to a fistfight is 100% bitch made. Rittenhouse is pure trash.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
this kyle rittenhouse shit got boring the only useful discussions about the case are those which involve the surrounding politics not the trial itself
K if people are bored with Rittenhouse let's move onto the most important questions--

1) Is there any possible way, any possible thing the Dems could do to NOT massively lose both House and Senate next year?

2) Is Trump the 2024 Presidential favorite? (Opinion: Yes) What needs to happen to make a Dem 2024 win possible, and what concoction of drugs does it involve pumping into Joe Biden to make it happen b/c lets face it the other options are total trash?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top