|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler +blob:https://imgur.com/73156ae6-992c-45e2-be87-f5fd480f4897 ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5NPVcvb.jpg)
I can't help but laugh every time I read the term "radical left." I would be like the alt right being called "far out right."
|
On September 01 2020 11:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 11:03 iamthedave wrote:
I've looked up a couple of articles... honestly it does sound like self-defense in this instance. Even CNN reports that the people who got shot were trying to grab his gun. Pretty sure most juries would side with the defendant on his one unless some more details come out that indicate something else.
Optics are horrible of course but it's not like the Trump side cares. I'm sure the lad will be a new hero for them in good time. Wave a gun around in someone's face then shoot them when they grab it, and that still fits that description, and is clearly not self-defense. I'm pretty sure we'll never know the truth of the first killing, as it was off camera and eye witness testimony only. The other one was more in line with what you're saying. Not sure I'd say "in good time" either. If he weren't in jail I'm sure they would've granted him a speaking slot at the RNC. also: Trump claims he spoke to Jacob Blake's family to arrange a meeting and backed out when they insisted on lawyers. Strange story.
Just in the interest of clarity: the first killing was indeed on camera, from a couple of angles.
|
On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler +
I'm glad he mentioned it was still under investigation, but he should've kept to it. This needs a full investigation and Trump should limit himself like he did in the Jacob Blake case. But holy cow the amount of misinformation from a pretty clear videotaped series of events. I must say I'm impressed by the response, y'all have outdone yourselves. I'm at a loss for words.
Speaking of misinformation, trillions in next taxes, path to citizenship, redistribution of part of current police funding. All totally defensible. You can wail about how he fails to mention other good things Biden wants, and all the Democratic spin on why these are actually good things, but they are a typical attack line on several things that Biden is vulnerable on. I see a totally different standard applied to what Trump says and supports and what Biden says and supports, so look in the mirror. Don't lie for Biden and say you're unbiased just looking at Biden--it's bad for the discourse.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 01 2020 12:24 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 11:10 Nevuk wrote:On September 01 2020 11:03 iamthedave wrote:
I've looked up a couple of articles... honestly it does sound like self-defense in this instance. Even CNN reports that the people who got shot were trying to grab his gun. Pretty sure most juries would side with the defendant on his one unless some more details come out that indicate something else.
Optics are horrible of course but it's not like the Trump side cares. I'm sure the lad will be a new hero for them in good time. Wave a gun around in someone's face then shoot them when they grab it, and that still fits that description, and is clearly not self-defense. I'm pretty sure we'll never know the truth of the first killing, as it was off camera and eye witness testimony only. The other one was more in line with what you're saying. Not sure I'd say "in good time" either. If he weren't in jail I'm sure they would've granted him a speaking slot at the RNC. also: Trump claims he spoke to Jacob Blake's family to arrange a meeting and backed out when they insisted on lawyers. Strange story. Just in the interest of clarity: the first killing was indeed on camera, from a couple of angles.
Thanks, I didn't even realize.
WaPo has a nice stitched together compilation of his movements for the night if anyone is looking.
Just watched them, and I can understand why I got the impression there was no video The angles are awful. All I can see is someone tried to throw an empty plastic bag at him (clearly empty as it doesn't even make it halfway to him) and hear a gunshot fired at something offscreen. Wapo notes they aren't sure who fired the first shot. So yes, filmed, but very poorly - it's far away, angle is bad, and you can't see any of the actual shooting clearly (reading the charges also makes clear that there is less certainty about the first shooting).
He got charged with several things and the only stretch is first degree intentional homicide (the first shooting). The other charges are a lot more open and shut because they don't have intent clauses, and short of jury nullification I don't see how he doesn't get hit with most of those crimes (this trial won't be for a year and it'll be under cooler circumstances, without an election in the background so I expect the jury to be not exactly be calm, but calmer).
On September 01 2020 13:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler + I'm glad he mentioned it was still under investigation, but he should've kept to it. This needs a full investigation and Trump should limit himself like he did in the Jacob Blake case. But holy cow the amount of misinformation from a pretty clear videotaped series of events. I must say I'm impressed by the response, y'all have outdone yourselves. I'm at a loss for words. Speaking of misinformation, trillions in next taxes, path to citizenship, redistribution of part of current police funding. All totally defensible. You can wail about how he fails to mention other good things Biden wants, and all the Democratic spin on why these are actually good things, but they are a typical attack line on several things that Biden is vulnerable on. I see a totally different standard applied to what Trump says and supports and what Biden says and supports, so look in the mirror. Don't lie for Biden and say you're unbiased just looking at Biden--it's bad for the discourse.
If Biden was actually for the things on that mailer then GH (and me) wouldn't have nearly as many issues with him.
Saying he wants to raise taxes on the middle class is a lie (he's pledged to not raise taxes on those making <300K. Unless you want to really quibble and say that 300k is middle class in 2 counties in the US).
Saying he is going to redirect funds to the police is also a lie (he said it "should" happen, not that it will or that he will be the one doing it - splitting hairs, but that's what politics is. The way he talks about it is also why the left is irritated on the topic, as he hasn't taken a real stance).
Basically, several of the things it claims are flat out lies (the citizenship one is more complicated, as it is a path rather than a full amnesty, iirc), while the quotes are real, albeit taken extremely out of context. Do I deny it's good politics? Not entirely. (Other than the one going to me being a waste of money).
It will help turn their people out but it will not motivate apathetic voters (who are the real prize here) and WILL motivate the democrats whose mailboxes they stuffed it in instead. It's a lot less sophisticated than their operation in 2016, which would've dropped me a mailer about how Hillary was too far right instead. They dropped me a mailer that made me more likely to vote against them.
It's also not nearly as misinformative as the pamphlets I saw from local R's in 2004 in KY - but it's not nearly as effective, perhaps because they actually listed sources.
I've also seen the other ads they run here and they're comedy gold to me, but utter nonsense. The most memorable one was an elderly white lady peeking through blinds terrified of the black people who will come and and get her once the police are fully defunded and destroyed while she drinks her tea from a shaking teacup. I thought it was a parody ad at first, tbh.
|
On September 01 2020 11:12 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler +blob:https://imgur.com/73156ae6-992c-45e2-be87-f5fd480f4897 I can't help but laugh every time I read the term "radical left." I would be like the alt right being called "far out right."
That term is definitely overused. People like Kshama Sawant is radically left (and batshit insane). Biden is his own form of terribleness, but not someone I'd associate with radical leftism although he's definitely being pushed by the Sanders crowd economically.
The problem with BLM is that the message alienates potential allies - they've made police issues exclusively a racial one. If more white people knew how common the Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc. stuff is, how out of control asset forfeiture is, the proliferation of criminal codes leading to increasing plea deals and huge decrease in jury trials, etc. they'd have more supporters. I am sure GH will come and say something about this, but he's wrong. (Same with the only oppression ceased with violent insurrection (See: Rosa Parks)).
As time as went on I've moved further in the direction that non-violent methods are both more effective and preferable (re: protesting, not protecting self and property from mob violence). Yeah, it probably means you're going to get beat, maybe even killed, but it is quite the effective method for changing minds.
PS: The "left" needs to stop being disingenuous with their tax and program policies. Ya'll like to point to Scandinavia, but Scandinavian countries have far less progressive taxation, far higher broad tax base taxes (effective rates on "middle class" +42-45% and more in some cases whereas in the states it's more like <20%), lower corporate tax rates, and generally less business regulations. VAT's at 25% are hugely regressive, but it's the only way to pay for those social-Government schemes. It's so dumb to say Bezos and rich folks are going to pay for everything. It's why "so and so program polls so well" is lunacy because people falsely believe the free lie stuff. I digress.
|
I can see the argument for Rittenhouse being 'self defense', the part I struggle with is if you go looking for trouble and armed for trouble, then find trouble... is it still 'self defense'?
My opinion is that Rittenhouse made mistakes based on a faulty mindset and tried to 'solve a problem' in a way that would only end in violence. In this way, I find the argument that he was justified in murdering people to be unacceptable, even if, legally, his murders were justified.
It is also fair to say that the protesters themselves made mistakes, but I am far more empathetic to BLM as a cause than I am "I'm here to defend this storefront and I brought my gun just in case". In both cases, the parties in question are acting in this way because more diplomatic channels have failed or are failing. In the case of BLM, there's historic evidence of that being the case. In the case of Rittenhouse, if the goal was to protect property from rioters there were more diplomatic channels to pursue that goal.
|
On September 01 2020 15:05 Fleetfeet wrote:
I can see the argument for Rittenhouse being 'self defense', the part I struggle with is if you go looking for trouble and armed for trouble, then find trouble... is it still 'self defense'?
My opinion is that Rittenhouse made mistakes based on a faulty mindset and tried to 'solve a problem' in a way that would only end in violence. In this way, I find the argument that he was justified in murdering people to be unacceptable, even if, legally, his murders were justified.
It is also fair to say that the protesters themselves made mistakes, but I am far more empathetic to BLM as a cause than I am "I'm here to defend this storefront and I brought my gun just in case". In both cases, the parties in question are acting in this way because more diplomatic channels have failed or are failing. In the case of BLM, there's historic evidence of that being the case. In the case of Rittenhouse, if the goal was to protect property from rioters there were more diplomatic channels to pursue that goal.
Wouldn't shields do a better job of protecting places without the risk of murder?
Bringing a tool designed to kill to "protect" something seems idiotic compared to bringing like, a piece of metal to stand behind
|
How do you imagine using a shield to protect something during a riot? Unlike a shield, a gun can work as a detterence, though I'm not sure why the guy thought it's a good idea to go there to protect something in the first place.
|
On September 01 2020 14:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 11:12 Gahlo wrote:On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler +blob:https://imgur.com/73156ae6-992c-45e2-be87-f5fd480f4897 I can't help but laugh every time I read the term "radical left." I would be like the alt right being called "far out right." That term is definitely overused. People like Kshama Sawant is radically left (and batshit insane). Biden is his own form of terribleness, but not someone I'd associate with radical leftism although he's definitely being pushed by the Sanders crowd economically. The problem with BLM is that the message alienates potential allies - they've made police issues exclusively a racial one. If more white people knew how common the Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc. stuff is, how out of control asset forfeiture is, the proliferation of criminal codes leading to increasing plea deals and huge decrease in jury trials, etc. they'd have more supporters. I am sure GH will come and say something about this, but he's wrong. (Same with the only oppression ceased with violent insurrection (See: Rosa Parks)).
Biden isn't shifted at all by Sanders and his supporters. Maybe very slightly rhetorically, if that.
The problem with BLM is that the message alienates potential allies
They said the same about King. Wrong then, wrong now.
I doubt you're wrong so much as totally oblivious to why "Rosa Parks" is a terrible example. I've lost track of what they teach white club about this stuff, but it was most definitely not an example of ending oppression without violence.
EDIT: Short version is that days after the law was changed white terrorists attacked King's home, bombed several Black churches, snipers shot at passengers (taking out a pregnant woman's legs), and so on until bus service was suspended and for all practical purposes the buses were segregated (like everything else) again. Rosa Parks left the city anyway due to death threats and no one wanting to risk the Klan blowing them up for hiring her.
Which is just a tiny snippet of the violence Black people have been demanded by white moderates to endure while white America struggles to remove their head from their own asses.
|
On September 01 2020 15:14 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 15:05 Fleetfeet wrote:
I can see the argument for Rittenhouse being 'self defense', the part I struggle with is if you go looking for trouble and armed for trouble, then find trouble... is it still 'self defense'?
My opinion is that Rittenhouse made mistakes based on a faulty mindset and tried to 'solve a problem' in a way that would only end in violence. In this way, I find the argument that he was justified in murdering people to be unacceptable, even if, legally, his murders were justified.
It is also fair to say that the protesters themselves made mistakes, but I am far more empathetic to BLM as a cause than I am "I'm here to defend this storefront and I brought my gun just in case". In both cases, the parties in question are acting in this way because more diplomatic channels have failed or are failing. In the case of BLM, there's historic evidence of that being the case. In the case of Rittenhouse, if the goal was to protect property from rioters there were more diplomatic channels to pursue that goal. Wouldn't shields do a better job of protecting places without the risk of murder? Bringing a tool designed to kill to "protect" something seems idiotic compared to bringing like, a piece of metal to stand behind
US gun culture is a whole 'nother thing and I'd rather not touch on it. Yeah, if there were no guns then you don't have to worry about a kid shooting someone because a garbage bag was thrown at said kid, but guns are part of "american" identity in some fashion, and while I don't agree with or understand it, I kinda just chalk it up to cultural difference.
|
I hope the new violent death during a BLM protest is being treated fairly and brought justice and i am sure that those people talking about hoy Rittenberg acted in self defense will look at this case and see the self defense angle here as well.
|
On September 01 2020 15:05 Fleetfeet wrote:
I can see the argument for Rittenhouse being 'self defense', the part I struggle with is if you go looking for trouble and armed for trouble, then find trouble... is it still 'self defense'?
My opinion is that Rittenhouse made mistakes based on a faulty mindset and tried to 'solve a problem' in a way that would only end in violence. In this way, I find the argument that he was justified in murdering people to be unacceptable, even if, legally, his murders were justified.
It is also fair to say that the protesters themselves made mistakes, but I am far more empathetic to BLM as a cause than I am "I'm here to defend this storefront and I brought my gun just in case". In both cases, the parties in question are acting in this way because more diplomatic channels have failed or are failing. In the case of BLM, there's historic evidence of that being the case. In the case of Rittenhouse, if the goal was to protect property from rioters there were more diplomatic channels to pursue that goal. pretty much this. I haven't looked into it much but sounds like there is a good chance he gets away with self defence.
But considering the entire situation where he crosses state lines with an illegal gun as a minor to put himself in a position where he is attacked and 'has to defend himself' makes me have absolutely no sympathy for him.
This isn't someone being assault in their home and having to defend themselves and their family. He came looking for trouble. You don't travel from out of town with an illegal gun if your not looking for it.
Additionally this, to me, looks a lot like a great example of the dangers of propaganda and indoctrination. What posses a 17y old kid to do this? I suspect he was head deep in a far right story of good white guys with guns protecting America from the evil black communists bend on destroying the country.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On September 01 2020 16:19 Sent. wrote:
How do you imagine using a shield to protect something during a riot? Unlike a shield, a gun can work as a detterence, though I'm not sure why the guy thought it's a good idea to go there to protect something in the first place.
Watch Northern Irish riot police in action and its basically all they do. I have mentioned this previously in the thread, they sort of function like tanks in a WoW raid. As to whether civilians could emulate that, not so sure. Our riot squads along with golfers are one of the few areas we punch above our weight.
Riots are a little like a wildfire, if you can’t snuff it out completely early on with action, it becomes a matter of containment. Hell even bar fights teeter frequently from breaking out and usually don’t and calm down. When they do start guy from group A throws a punch at guy from group B and the proverbial shit hits the fan.
From the early days of these protests the response has ticked many a checkbox for how to make these riots worse. From escalation of force by the police on the ground, to escalation of rhetoric from political and cultural leaders and commentators.
How do you de-escalate in this political climate though? Even in my mind’s eye I can’t imagine some joint presser between Biden and Trump in a ‘America is hurting and we hear you, we’re recalling Congress and we’re looking at x y and z, the rioting must end’.
I mean specifics aside but you get what I mean.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On September 01 2020 14:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 11:12 Gahlo wrote:On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler +blob:https://imgur.com/73156ae6-992c-45e2-be87-f5fd480f4897 I can't help but laugh every time I read the term "radical left." I would be like the alt right being called "far out right." That term is definitely overused. People like Kshama Sawant is radically left (and batshit insane). Biden is his own form of terribleness, but not someone I'd associate with radical leftism although he's definitely being pushed by the Sanders crowd economically. The problem with BLM is that the message alienates potential allies - they've made police issues exclusively a racial one. If more white people knew how common the Daniel Shaver, Kelly Thomas, James Boyd, etc. stuff is, how out of control asset forfeiture is, the proliferation of criminal codes leading to increasing plea deals and huge decrease in jury trials, etc. they'd have more supporters. I am sure GH will come and say something about this, but he's wrong. (Same with the only oppression ceased with violent insurrection (See: Rosa Parks)). As time as went on I've moved further in the direction that non-violent methods are both more effective and preferable (re: protesting, not protecting self and property from mob violence). Yeah, it probably means you're going to get beat, maybe even killed, but it is quite the effective method for changing minds. PS: The "left" needs to stop being disingenuous with their tax and program policies. Ya'll like to point to Scandinavia, but Scandinavian countries have far less progressive taxation, far higher broad tax base taxes (effective rates on "middle class" +42-45% and more in some cases whereas in the states it's more like <20%), lower corporate tax rates, and generally less business regulations. VAT's at 25% are hugely regressive, but it's the only way to pay for those social-Government schemes. It's so dumb to say Bezos and rich folks are going to pay for everything. It's why "so and so program polls so well" is lunacy because people falsely believe the free lie stuff. I digress.
I’m aware of most of that either through BLM or adjacent kind of folks.
The Daniel Shaver vid was the last one I watched, too disturbing really and I’m done watching that kind of thing. And yes BLM did comment on that incident.
While I agree it’s a universal problem that disproportionately affects minorities, rather than the seeming perception it’s a unique problem to minorities, hey it’s gained traction that way. Probably because minorities have themselves experienced a lot of that low-level discrimination in their own lives in a way perhaps white folks haven’t (especially the middle class).
I’m not sure if it’s disingenuous, to be fair a lot of people aren’t particularly bright. I think most folks in here know the vagaries of the Scandinavian model and its pros and cons.
There’s plenty that could be done that doesn’t necessarily mean emulating that particular model. Taxing certain forms of financial transaction for example (that should have come in post 2008). The corporate tax rate, or indeed personal tax rates don’t particularly matter if folks are able to avoid them through various means. Or wealth taxes. Or even the humble guillotine.
I mean Jeff B-Sauce and Amazon pay no tax through their Irish operation in Europe and he’s increased his net worth to the estimated 200 billion partly due to a pandemic and government shutting down his competition.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
What? Although I am absolutely unclear on whether Trump believes this kind of bollocks or is merely stoking the flames for his own benefit. Both are pretty bad to say it lightly.
It’s laughable and doesn’t stand up to even the most minute level of scrutiny.
Antifa bloody wish they even had 1% of the influence some people are convinced that they have. Baffling. How the fuck can anarchists and Marxists have the ear of various corridors of power in a country that doesn’t even have public healthcare?
I mean I can get disliking Antifa for ideological reasons or whatever, these conspiracies are utter, utter bollocks and one has to lack brain power to believe some of them.
|
|
|
On September 01 2020 14:23 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 12:24 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On September 01 2020 11:10 Nevuk wrote:On September 01 2020 11:03 iamthedave wrote:
I've looked up a couple of articles... honestly it does sound like self-defense in this instance. Even CNN reports that the people who got shot were trying to grab his gun. Pretty sure most juries would side with the defendant on his one unless some more details come out that indicate something else.
Optics are horrible of course but it's not like the Trump side cares. I'm sure the lad will be a new hero for them in good time. Wave a gun around in someone's face then shoot them when they grab it, and that still fits that description, and is clearly not self-defense. I'm pretty sure we'll never know the truth of the first killing, as it was off camera and eye witness testimony only. The other one was more in line with what you're saying. Not sure I'd say "in good time" either. If he weren't in jail I'm sure they would've granted him a speaking slot at the RNC. also: Trump claims he spoke to Jacob Blake's family to arrange a meeting and backed out when they insisted on lawyers. Strange story. Just in the interest of clarity: the first killing was indeed on camera, from a couple of angles. Thanks, I didn't even realize. WaPo has a nice stitched together compilation of his movements for the night if anyone is looking. Just watched them, and I can understand why I got the impression there was no video The angles are awful. All I can see is someone tried to throw an empty plastic bag at him (clearly empty as it doesn't even make it halfway to him) and hear a gunshot fired at something offscreen. Wapo notes they aren't sure who fired the first shot. So yes, filmed, but very poorly - it's far away, angle is bad, and you can't see any of the actual shooting clearly (reading the charges also makes clear that there is less certainty about the first shooting). He got charged with several things and the only stretch is first degree intentional homicide (the first shooting). The other charges are a lot more open and shut because they don't have intent clauses, and short of jury nullification I don't see how he doesn't get hit with most of those crimes (this trial won't be for a year and it'll be under cooler circumstances, without an election in the background so I expect the jury to be not exactly be calm, but calmer). Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 13:46 Danglars wrote:On September 01 2020 10:44 Nevuk wrote:Trump is refusing to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, saying that he was justified in his actions and probably would have been killed otherwise. This comes only days after him refusing to comment on Jacob Blake's shooting by cop due to the "ongoing investigation". (Take your pick of sources - Fox News, Yahoo, Daily Mail, Mediaite, PSA - they have a tweet so I'm just embedding it) https://twitter.com/PodSaveAmerica/status/1300557665806868480If you were wondering how the Trump campaign was going to spin everything : just lie. Here's the mailer I got today (I live in OH, so a swing state before 2016). It's not even cherry picked statements : almost all of these are flat out lies, misquotes, or mis-attributions rather than mere cherry picking. Attaching sources that are almost what they say on it is a nice touch. + Show Spoiler + I'm glad he mentioned it was still under investigation, but he should've kept to it. This needs a full investigation and Trump should limit himself like he did in the Jacob Blake case. But holy cow the amount of misinformation from a pretty clear videotaped series of events. I must say I'm impressed by the response, y'all have outdone yourselves. I'm at a loss for words. Speaking of misinformation, trillions in next taxes, path to citizenship, redistribution of part of current police funding. All totally defensible. You can wail about how he fails to mention other good things Biden wants, and all the Democratic spin on why these are actually good things, but they are a typical attack line on several things that Biden is vulnerable on. I see a totally different standard applied to what Trump says and supports and what Biden says and supports, so look in the mirror. Don't lie for Biden and say you're unbiased just looking at Biden--it's bad for the discourse. If Biden was actually for the things on that mailer then GH (and me) wouldn't have nearly as many issues with him. Saying he wants to raise taxes on the middle class is a lie (he's pledged to not raise taxes on those making <300K. Unless you want to really quibble and say that 300k is middle class in 2 counties in the US). Saying he is going to redirect funds to the police is also a lie (he said it "should" happen, not that it will or that he will be the one doing it - splitting hairs, but that's what politics is. The way he talks about it is also why the left is irritated on the topic, as he hasn't taken a real stance). Basically, several of the things it claims are flat out lies (the citizenship one is more complicated, as it is a path rather than a full amnesty, iirc), while the quotes are real, albeit taken extremely out of context. Do I deny it's good politics? Not entirely. (Other than the one going to me being a waste of money). It will help turn their people out but it will not motivate apathetic voters (who are the real prize here) and WILL motivate the democrats whose mailboxes they stuffed it in instead. It's a lot less sophisticated than their operation in 2016, which would've dropped me a mailer about how Hillary was too far right instead. They dropped me a mailer that made me more likely to vote against them. It's also not nearly as misinformative as the pamphlets I saw from local R's in 2004 in KY - but it's not nearly as effective, perhaps because they actually listed sources. I've also seen the other ads they run here and they're comedy gold to me, but utter nonsense. The most memorable one was an elderly white lady peeking through blinds terrified of the black people who will come and and get her once the police are fully defunded and destroyed while she drinks her tea from a shaking teacup. I thought it was a parody ad at first, tbh.
He's raising taxes on corporations, which are not born by non-human buildings, but passed down on consumers and employees. That's your target group: middle class individuals. Just like the theoretical payroll tax split is actually paid by the employee, and the "no new taxes" GHWB tax on yachts failed to raise the money promised and was born in pay cuts and layoffs. That's why places like the Tax Foundation rate it to reduce after-tax income for all quintiles. It's all old hat for Republicans and a very usual charge. Democrats do this for "tax cuts for the rich" and all kinds of things Republicans would count as smears, since we're Republicans. I don't want to see any privileging for how the left twists things, that they claim under different standards is not a twist.
Biden is on the record that he supports redirecting funds that go to the police, and yet you can still call lies the "reducing police funding" and "yes ... when asked if he would be redirecting police funding to other causes. I call that dishonesty, not splitting hairs. This is something a candidate supports. Deal with it, don't lie about it. Not even Democrats that you're keen on should enjoy such pure positives from making the statement, and no negatives for supporting the statement.
Paths to citizenship are always a kind of amnesty for entering the country illegally. You basically have a mostly truth, based on who really bears tax increases, and two absolute falsehoods here.
I'm also sure you can find actual distortion of facts in other ads. These kind of things are rife.
|
On September 01 2020 15:05 Fleetfeet wrote:
I can see the argument for Rittenhouse being 'self defense', the part I struggle with is if you go looking for trouble and armed for trouble, then find trouble... is it still 'self defense'?
My opinion is that Rittenhouse made mistakes based on a faulty mindset and tried to 'solve a problem' in a way that would only end in violence. In this way, I find the argument that he was justified in murdering people to be unacceptable, even if, legally, his murders were justified.
It is also fair to say that the protesters themselves made mistakes, but I am far more empathetic to BLM as a cause than I am "I'm here to defend this storefront and I brought my gun just in case". In both cases, the parties in question are acting in this way because more diplomatic channels have failed or are failing. In the case of BLM, there's historic evidence of that being the case. In the case of Rittenhouse, if the goal was to protect property from rioters there were more diplomatic channels to pursue that goal.
His major mistake, and perhaps a criminal one depending on whether what his lawyer says is even close to true, is that this wasn't his community, his family, his friends. He had to actually drive there from another state. The second mistake is to separate from some business-centered or home-centered defense, and to risk getting caught in the moving police skirmish lines and directed retreats.
The proper response when the police cannot prevent the destruction of businesses (the small businesses representing the livelihoods of the owners) is to arm yourself with others using weapons that are effective at discouraging more victims of wanton violence. BLM has made claims that this is only because the system is failing. Store owners and groups of locals arming themselves have equal right to make the same claim. The police system is failing to protect their life's work. The diplomatic channels have failed, in this case, no emergency meeting to request the National Guard after the first night of troubles. I think this is cause-independent, and would work if it was a right-wing protest that started looting and burning, and left wing business owners forming armed groups to defend themselves and their property.
Shout out to the Roof Koreans that made heroic efforts in the LA Riots to preserve their small businesses. It was anti-Korean and anti-Koreatown riot energy that time (though the main ones were elsewhere, but the worst damages were in Korea town), and the stories of LAPD retreating and Korean-Americans saving many businesses are great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/v4pFxwN.jpg)
