politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The Rittenhouse case was a litmus test of sorts. It was justified self-defense both objectively and litigiously and you leftists still harp on this subject like the facts and statements weren't publicly available 🤣
It's when I realized most of the liberals were just fake and didn't really read anything other than Twitter, tik tok, or Instagram. I'm still a die hard Democrat with a heavy emphasis on social programs but y'all really need to get your head out your asses - before we start losing more people due to your virtue signaling bull crap 😂
It's almost like the law didn't consider the idea that a bunch of angry and awful people would show up to one place intent on hurting each other. It's almost like this is the opposite of civil order and he just showed up knowingly with a weapon.
I don't really fault the jury for their conclusion, but gun owners just keep getting to show up with guns proving their own case that you need a gun everywhere to be safe.
This isn't some silly partisan squabble. An echo chamber convinced a very very young man to show up and kill. And now he gets paid to speak? And you laugh at the people who rightfully hate him? Loool
I'm a supporter of the BLM movement but even I can say some of those protests were more than peaceful. Staying past curfew and destroying property is by definition a riot. I'm not necessarily opposed to their rationale for causing mayhem - but you can't say only one side showed up with "intent on hurting each other".
This is a genuine question: how many of the BLM protesters were involved in retaliatory gunfire from the other side (not including the police obviously)? I'm pretty sure it's near zero which makes Rittenhouse's case unique as it is rare. I wouldn't call this a reoccurring issue and gun carry laws vary from state to state. That's a more complicated issue than this case.
There may be something to this but in Rittenhouse's case, he was there defending his friends of the family's store. He wasn't just there to "show up and kill". In fact, if you watch the same videos the jury and the literal rest of the world watched; it's obviously, demonstrably, undeniably justified self defense.
You didn't really read my post, did you
Problem is I read it thoroughly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quick question: why is Rittenhouse being invited to speak at places? What is his area of "expertise"?
You have to be an expert to be invited to speak at places? Someone should tell the flat earthers.
A more serious answer is that Rittenhouse faced a trial that gained notoriety around the world. An incident that occurred at a protest/riot at the height of the BLM movement. It was seen by many as blatant murder and to others it was self-defense, making the outcome of the case very personal to millions of people. So why would you invite someone like Rittenhouse, the defendant in a historic trial, to speak at an event? Hmmm 🤔
So makes as much sense as inviting the killer of George Floyd to speak. Or OJ Simpson.
Whatever the topic of conversation, surely they can find someone with some actual expertise on the topic instead of just someone whose claim to fame is being charged with a crime?
Getting charged for robbing a convenience store and avoiding punishment doesn't make me a good choice to give a speech to people, unless that speech is "how to get away with robbing a convenience store."
Derek Chauvin was charged and convicted, had he been acquitted of any charges, you bet your ass he would've been doing speeches for the alt right group. OJ has literally done speeches (not pertaining to acting or football) after his trial and gained a huge amount of notoriety for that questionable ruling. Why would you prove my point like this? 🤣 Being a person of interest doesn't just mean you're an expert an a given topic, it could just be that you have something interesting to say and have a story people want to hear. And Rittenhouse's story is pretty interesting, wouldn't you say so?
Do you even know the subject of these speeches? Why would you assume Rittenhouse doesn't have the experience to talk about said topic? What if it was about being in one of the most famous cases of all time? 🤔
Please don't tell me this is supposed to be a real question. You understand the difference between a typical felony charge and the killing of two individuals and wounding another during a civil right protest, right? Not to mention the precedent it will set in future self-defense cases. This comment is absurd.
You're making my point for me. When these people get booked to speak it speaks volumes about the people booking them and the people going to listen to them.
Then a lawyer, a legal expert of some kind, would be a better choice than the guy sobbing on the stand that apparently didn't understand "if I go to this place and bring a gun I might end up shooting somebody."
Yup, that's why if it would be absurd to invite someone to speak for being charged with robbing a store, then it is insane to invite someone to speak for being charged with the killing of two individuals and wounding another.
I can't say that some individuals aren't praising Rittenhouse for what he did, which is odd behavior, but what he did wasn't illegal and was justified in the eyes of the law. I haven't defended those entities, such as Turning Point or Daily Wire, whatsoever - just merely challenging your feigned incredulity about why someone would want to have him speak or appear as a guest in their show. And like you said "it speaks volumes about them" which I agree with. Doesn't necessarily mean anything about the individual they book.
Again, I don't know what you're arguing here. You don't like Rittenhouse, some people do and they want to listen to him talk. I know you understand why someone would like to hear this kid speak - you and I don't like it or really get it but I don't give a shit. Why do you care so much?
This is so sad, dude. Do I really have to restate the importance of this case? We can have a good conversation but you're just trying to win a dumb internet debate - and failing.
Let me simplify it lil bro:
Back to your original comment
And I made the simple point that having Rittenhouse as a speaker is far louder "virtue signaling bull crap" than anyone calling him a murderer.
Says the guy responding with multiple paragraphs.
No, I'm just making a straight forward point. The fact that you think this is something to "win" really explains a lot.
Ya, I'm not going to bother trying to parse any of that.
Lol are you down voting my comments? 🤣😂
Get out of here with your level headed logic, we want to hate people and pretend it's because we are loving, sane people!
Holy based