bigbottom

Understood, but that seems like an unusually puritanical view. I mean Snow White and Cinderella had love interests after all.

Are you saying that it was wrong to have Lois Lane as a love interest in Superman comics?

Can you flesh this out a bit? Superman had a love interest. Are you thinking it will be better that there is no love interest aspect to junior’s story? Or it’s fine if he has a love interest and it turns out to be a dude, there’s just no need to talk about it before it happens?

Yeah, I know. And if I’m placing a bet, I’d put my money on an acquittal (either at trial or on appeal). Thankfully, I don’t bet on that kind of stuff.

If I’m being honest, I sorta miss Trump on Twitter. He was very entertaining.

A voice to all? I look forward to the Taliban’s huge presence on Truth Social.

We had this discussion months ago. As I said back then, the prosecution may argue that when Rittenhouse turned and aimed his weapon he did so unlawfully and that was the act of provocation. And I don’t think the second bolded part is a slam dunk for the defense. In any event, whether or not they are ultimately successful, I think this is the section (2(a)) that the prosecution will pursue. You suggested earlier that they had to prove the elements of 2(c) and I was merely disagreeing with you as they could choose to proceed under 2(a) as I expect them to. Regarding 2(c), you said “That is the only route available to defeat self-defense given Wisconsin law.” That is an incorrect statement.

That’s 939.48(2)(c). I think the prosecution will make its argument under 939.48(2)(a). I know you think that the video forecloses such an argument, but I’m not certain it is as clear as you assert and think that is how they will proceed.

No it isn’t. He doesn’t have to have concocted a plan to goad them into chasing him so that he could then shoot them.

I don’t think that’s plausible and would be surprised if that is the narrative the prosecution advances.

I think it’s presumptuous of you to assume that fish’s disdain for Rittenhouse is a result of Rittenhouse’s political affiliation.

Understood. When you do have time, I’d like to hear your thoughts. As I said previously, I think it’s odd that corporations and media outlets can endorse candidates but churches and charitable organizations cannot.

Was it Mr. Cohen? He’s always there. Seinfeld 4!

I don’t think allowing black churches to endorse a candidate remedies the problem you are talking about. Churches can support voter registration, voter education, voter access. Aren’t those more closely tied to your concerns than endorsing a particular candidate?

Okay, we’ve already discussed that rule in this thread. I have challenged that rule philosophically. Is your position based only on the fact that the IRS says so? Do you think that rule is good policy? If so, why?