Which Party is Most Responsible for the Violent Protests? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

"Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness. Plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted."

Biden, today.

*********

May 31: Biden says: “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary; it’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

June 2: Biden says that “there is no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.”

July 28: Biden says: “I’ve said from the outset of the recent protests that there is no place for violence or the destruction of property. Peaceful protesters should be protected — but arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted — and local law enforcement can do that.”

Aug. 26 at 3:04 p.m.: Biden says in a video and tweet, “Burning down communities is not protest, it’s needless violence — violence that endangers lives, violence that guts businesses, and shutters businesses that serve the community. That’s wrong.” He adds: “We need to end the violence — and peacefully come together to demand justice.”

Wapo

 

[Stoneworker]

There are not two dead people?  I thought we established two dead people - who were killed by the suspect. 
Was there a different shooter? Or are they not dead?

This is the problem with contemporary cancel culture and trial in the court of public opinion...complete erosion of due process and the presumption of innocence. 

 

[jon_mx]

There are not two dead people?  I thought we established two dead people - who were killed by the suspect. 
 

Was there a different shooter? Or are they not dead?

A homocide is murder which is different than self-defense.  

 

[Juxtatarot]

A homocide is murder which is different than self-defense.  

I just meant the term in its non-legal definition: wikipedia, dictionary.com

 

[moleculo]

A homocide is murder which is different than self-defense.  

all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

 

[The Gator]

This is the problem with contemporary cancel culture and trial in the court of public opinion...complete erosion of due process and the presumption of innocence. 

I don’t suppose it’s worth pointing out that there has never been a due process or presumption of innocence requirement in the court of public opinion. 
 

But, there seem to be some indisputable facts here. First, two people have been killed. Second, Kyle Rittenhouse killed both people.  Those are beyond mere allegations at this point. Third, Mr. Rittenhouse was illegally one possession of a weapon. 
 

Now you can quibble about his legal culpability with respect to the homicides. It’s a very difficult case to make, but there are arguments to be made. 
 

But there is no quibble over whether there were two homicides, nor whether Mr. Rittenhouse caused those homicides. 

 

[KChusker]

This is plainly and obviously Democrat (still not voting Trump)

 

[Shutout]

Weren’t Kamala’s people bailing rioters out of jail earlier this summer?

Yes.  On June 1, 2020, she actually tweeted a tweet that said "if you can, please donate to the Minneapolis fund that was bailing people out once arrested.  It was reported that the average "turnaround" time from arrest to release was about 2 hours. There were staffers of Biden's as well as several Democratic political figures that were also donating as well as some who were outright encouraging more of the same. 

When K. Harris was onThe Colbert Reports she said something to the effect of "this won't stop. It won't stop before the election or after. It needs not to stop until 'justice' is achieved." Pretty hard to say a few days ago that you condemn this activity when you fueled it for months. 

Very telling that there was ZERO mention of this during the 4-day Democratic National Convention but once Don Lemon says the polls are suffering for Biden and he needs to speak out...next day he does.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

Why does Anifta and the left always counter protest any type of right marches or protests?  Then there is always trouble.

We should let everyone have their own protests.

 

[Shutout]

I'll confess - I don't know the answer here - but are police unions generally Democrats?

I know unions in general lean democrat - but police unions seem like a different animal altogether.  I suppose in some places, where a Dem machine is in place, the union leadership would be pro-Dem.  But, didn't we just see a NY police union endorse Trump?

To look at this another way (And thinking of your follow up where you noted Police authority groups are generally not endorsing Biden), it might be best to not think of it as "are police unions democrats" because the police still answer to an authority, regardless of their personal take.  

For example, in Seattle, the Chief of Police resigned because the city council banned the use of tear gas, effectively removing the only non-lethal reaction police could do to protect themselves and try to instill order. 

In Portland, because of the laws there, the Mayor literally IS the Chief of police.  so, you have a democratic mayor that is not allowing the police force to do some things.  If the mayor was an independent or Republican, they may react differently.  So, its one of those questions to look at how all the gears work together. 

 

[Shutout]

Has Donald Trump condemned the violence on both sides and called for it to end yet?

No, because Donald Trump wants this violence. It's disgusting and it needs to end.

The Trump administration has, from the beginning, had been calling for this to stop.  Due to how the constitution of the United States is set up, he cannot unilaterally act on what he has asked for without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 which is set aside for the most dire imminent threats to the country which would have severe ramifications if used. 

The president has repeatedly tried to leverage help, repeatedly asking mayors and governors to request help. they have not. 

The president has repeatedly threatened to withhold federal funding to states if they will not act and they still have said no because, in all honesty, they know that if they do not and Joe Biden is elected, the democrats have said they will send bailout money to rebuild. 

Be logical for a moment-it is of NO interest for anyone to want this but especially not the sitting administration because it can do nothing but harm the economy which happens to be the strongest running platform in any non-wartime election year and is the very thing the president is known for..its what he hangs his hat on and this runs exactly counter to it. 

The reality is the Democrats NEED the chaos and unrest because it gives them a platform to run in.  If they can't blame the sitting administration for a worldwide pandemic that all are experiencing or an economy that is now down (as opposed to the all-time record high it was before the pandemic in multiple measurements across ALL citizen races and classes), they have very little to run on (or, to this point have mentioned). 

 

[Nugget]

Are there protests in non Democratic run cities?  If so, similar scale?  Without protests, it seems hard for them to turn violent.  

 

[Juxtatarot]

Why does Anifta and the left always counter protest any type of right marches or protests?  Then there is always trouble.

We should let everyone have their own protests.

Agreed.

 

[Stoneworker]

But, there seem to be some indisputable facts here. First, two people have been killed. Second, Kyle Rittenhouse killed both people.  Those are beyond mere allegations at this point. Third, Mr. Rittenhouse was illegally one possession of a weapon. 

Now you can quibble about his legal culpability with respect to the homicides. It’s a very difficult case to make, but there are arguments to be made. 

But there is no quibble over whether there were two homicides, nor whether Mr. Rittenhouse caused those homicides. 

Completely agree with the first paragraph. Refraining from going beyond that is not quibbling. It's part of why we have a Constitution.

 

[Widbil83]

Biden, today.

Wapo

Of course nothing during this timeline for August 17-20 during the Democrat convention. The Democrats held a 4-day convention and nobody bothered to mention the violent protests around the country. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why does Anifta and the left always counter protest any type of right marches or protests?  Then there is always trouble.

We should let everyone have their own protests.

There is trouble because counterprotesters are generally just people that like to cause trouble and this gives them a good excuse to do so and pretend they are good people. 

 

[Shutout]

Trump is in charge of the country right now.  Some of this obviously falls on him.  Don't discount the number of "actors" that support Trump that are out there creating havock.

Democrat polticians could do a better job condemning the looting and rioting; although by and large....they are doing so.

As far as general members of society go:

If you are an American and you are upset with the state of society under Trump....vote him out.  Don't just riot and loot....vote.

If you are a Trump supporter who think everything under the Trump regime is great except for the rioting/looting .....take a moment to put yourself in others shoes and ask yourself why is this going on  If you are intellectually honest in this exercise....you'll come to a reason that will probably make you uncomfortable.  

When you say Trump is in charge, are you also accounting for the facts of how the laws of our country's republic is set up, that it is directly outlined, that the federal military is not allowed to be involved in the domestic states, outside of the Insurrection Act of 1807?  Specifically, the president does not have the authority to "be in charge" in this instance unless the local governments requests help. That is why he asks almost EVERY single day at his press conference for the local states to please ask. They won't. He repeatedly says "all you have to do is call. We are ready immediately."

The reality is, if you are upset with the state of society, it's not "under Trump", it's "here in America" and you must look at who is pushing it and who is attempting to stop it.

The president has withheld funding to those states not willing to get help, he's asked almost every day. He's passed legislation that heavily penalizes people who tear down statues or commit violent crime. He has put task force after task force into place to crack down on these people, etc. In Chicago, when the mayor finally let him in, his agents weren't out there busting people on the streets.  They were out there executing warrants to remove and process people who were being turned loose or not served.  They served over 200 warrants in a couple days. 

The Democrats on the other hand only began criticizing or calling for the violence to end once Don Lemon went on CNN and said "Joe Biden needs to speak out on this because the polls are tightening up". Before that, his staffers were asking for donations to help free "peaceful protesters" who were being arrested.  Kamala Harris. on June 1, tweeted and asked for donations to help free those arrested in Minneapolis.  She went on The Colbert Report and said the violence would not stop before the election, after the election, and shouldn't until they get their "justice".  

Several key democratic politicians have outright called for people to keep protesting and none of these politicains have been disavowed, let alone, corrected by their party. 

 Two weeks ago, there was a 4-day nationally televised Democratic National Convention. The platform was there for the Democrats to spread any message they wanted and not ONE person said ONE word about stopping the violence.  There was absolutely nothing said until Lemon mentioned the polls slipping. 

It's clear.The democratic party is using chaos and divisiveness to fuel their campaign and it is horribly wrong. We should all be together, yet every day there is something encouraging unrest and protest to wedge things apart further. Look at how Kenosha picked up the phone and asked for help and how quickly it has become a true peaceful protest. Compare that to Portland where we are now on day 97 or so of protest, riot, looting, arson, and now a few murders as the Portland mayor (who is also, by their law, the Chief Of Police), continues to try to say this somehow someones' fault other than the man who is charge o the city.  

 

[Shutout]

But there is no quibble over whether there were two homicides, nor whether Mr. Rittenhouse caused those homicides. 

We could walk this back several steps and have very contrasting and shifting perspectives.

We could say Mr. Rittenhouse fired upon them because, he himself, was attacked and that his actions were reactionary. 

We could then say he should not have been out there in the first place.

We could then say he was out there because support wasn't allowed in and that's why he gave an interview before it occurred where he stated he felt compelled to help keep the peace.

We could then say he shouldn't take that upon himself. 

We could then say none of it would have occurred if not for the incident. 

We could then say the incident would not have occurred had Mr. Jacobs obeyed the law requests which were there to intervene because he was reported to the police for his actions. 

We all do things we shouldn't.  Maybe he couldn't NOT do what caused the police to be called.  But we ALL can choose to discuss with the police and do what needs to be done under the LAW. Doing so means you don't get confrontational, don't get tased, and SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the chance that the police draw a weapon on you. 

 

[sho nuff]

Agreed.

And the same for alt right counter protesting and sending militia.

 

[The Gator]

We could walk this back several steps and have very contrasting and shifting perspectives.

We could say Mr. Rittenhouse fired upon them because, he himself, was attacked and that his actions were reactionary. 

We could then say he should not have been out there in the first place.

We could then say he was out there because support wasn't allowed in and that's why he gave an interview before it occurred where he stated he felt compelled to help keep the peace.

We could then say he shouldn't take that upon himself. 

We could then say none of it would have occurred if not for the incident. 

We could then say the incident would not have occurred had Mr. Jacobs obeyed the law requests which were there to intervene because he was reported to the police for his actions. 

We all do things we shouldn't.  Maybe he couldn't NOT do what caused the police to be called.  But we ALL can choose to discuss with the police and do what needs to be done under the LAW. Doing so means you don't get confrontational, don't get tased, and SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the chance that the police draw a weapon on you. 

"we" could

But, I have not ascribed any motive, or reasoning for Mr. Rittenhouse's actions.  Those are arguments for his lawyer to make.

I am sticking with absolute facts.

1.  Two people are dead.  Fact.

2.  Mr. Rittenhouse killed those two people.  Fact.

3.  Mr. Rittenhouse, at the time he killed those two people, was in possession of a loaded gun, and was 17 years old.  Fact.

There is a Class A misdemeanor case with no valid defense, just in those facts alone.

All the arguing you seem to want to do goes simply to the degree of culpability, if any, that Mr. Rittenhouse faces with respect to killing two people.   I have acknowledged many times that those are reasonable arguments to make.  I don't think they will be persuasive arguments, but I don't think they are unreasonable.  My opinion is that this will end up being a plea bargain.  I think Mr. Rittenhouse will serve time in prison.  He will not be convicted by a jury, but there is enough risk for both the prosecutor and Mr. Rittenhouse that they would both be wise to avoid a trial here.

 

[Juxtatarot]

And the same for alt right counter protesting and sending militia.

Agreed.

 

[shadrap]

When you say Trump is in charge, are you also accounting for the facts of how the laws of our country's republic is set up, that it is directly outlined, that the federal military is not allowed to be involved in the domestic states, outside of the Insurrection Act of 1807?  Specifically, the president does not have the authority to "be in charge" in this instance unless the local governments requests help. That is why he asks almost EVERY single day at his press conference for the local states to please ask. They won't. He repeatedly says "all you have to do is call. We are ready immediately."

The reality is, if you are upset with the state of society, it's not "under Trump", it's "here in America" and you must look at who is pushing it and who is attempting to stop it.

The president has withheld funding to those states not willing to get help, he's asked almost every day. He's passed legislation that heavily penalizes people who tear down statues or commit violent crime. He has put task force after task force into place to crack down on these people, etc. In Chicago, when the mayor finally let him in, his agents weren't out there busting people on the streets.  They were out there executing warrants to remove and process people who were being turned loose or not served.  They served over 200 warrants in a couple days. 

The Democrats on the other hand only began criticizing or calling for the violence to end once Don Lemon went on CNN and said "Joe Biden needs to speak out on this because the polls are tightening up". Before that, his staffers were asking for donations to help free "peaceful protesters" who were being arrested.  Kamala Harris. on June 1, tweeted and asked for donations to help free those arrested in Minneapolis.  She went on The Colbert Report and said the violence would not stop before the election, after the election, and shouldn't until they get their "justice".  

Several key democratic politicians have outright called for people to keep protesting and none of these politicains have been disavowed, let alone, corrected by their party. 

 Two weeks ago, there was a 4-day nationally televised Democratic National Convention. The platform was there for the Democrats to spread any message they wanted and not ONE person said ONE word about stopping the violence.  There was absolutely nothing said until Lemon mentioned the polls slipping. 

It's clear.The democratic party is using chaos and divisiveness to fuel their campaign and it is horribly wrong. We should all be together, yet every day there is something encouraging unrest and protest to wedge things apart further. Look at how Kenosha picked up the phone and asked for help and how quickly it has become a true peaceful protest. Compare that to Portland where we are now on day 97 or so of protest, riot, looting, arson, and now a few murders as the Portland mayor (who is also, by their law, the Chief Of Police), continues to try to say this somehow someones' fault other than the man who is charge o the city.  

I see nothing here that isn't a fact.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

And the same for alt right counter protesting and sending militia.

I agree with the first part, but for militia I would like to know the context and I guess the definition of militia. If they are there to cause trouble with legit protesters, major problem with that for me. 

If they are there because of looting, burning, etc, well I dont really care much then. 

 

[dkp993]

Aaron Rupar@atrupar · 18m

REPORTER: Does the president condemn the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of shooting protesters?

McENANY: The president is not going to weigh in on that

Politically, this is probably the right move for the President.  Unfortunately, this does not help ease tensions.

What a coward.  Such chicken ####.  

 

[Thunderlips]

When you say Trump is in charge, are you also accounting for the facts of how the laws of our country's republic is set up, that it is directly outlined, that the federal military is not allowed to be involved in the domestic states, outside of the Insurrection Act of 1807?  Specifically, the president does not have the authority to "be in charge" in this instance unless the local governments requests help. That is why he asks almost EVERY single day at his press conference for the local states to please ask. They won't. He repeatedly says "all you have to do is call. We are ready immediately."

The reality is, if you are upset with the state of society, it's not "under Trump", it's "here in America" and you must look at who is pushing it and who is attempting to stop it.

The president has withheld funding to those states not willing to get help, he's asked almost every day. He's passed legislation that heavily penalizes people who tear down statues or commit violent crime. He has put task force after task force into place to crack down on these people, etc. In Chicago, when the mayor finally let him in, his agents weren't out there busting people on the streets.  They were out there executing warrants to remove and process people who were being turned loose or not served.  They served over 200 warrants in a couple days. 

The Democrats on the other hand only began criticizing or calling for the violence to end once Don Lemon went on CNN and said "Joe Biden needs to speak out on this because the polls are tightening up". Before that, his staffers were asking for donations to help free "peaceful protesters" who were being arrested.  Kamala Harris. on June 1, tweeted and asked for donations to help free those arrested in Minneapolis.  She went on The Colbert Report and said the violence would not stop before the election, after the election, and shouldn't until they get their "justice".  

Several key democratic politicians have outright called for people to keep protesting and none of these politicains have been disavowed, let alone, corrected by their party. 

 Two weeks ago, there was a 4-day nationally televised Democratic National Convention. The platform was there for the Democrats to spread any message they wanted and not ONE person said ONE word about stopping the violence.  There was absolutely nothing said until Lemon mentioned the polls slipping. 

It's clear.The democratic party is using chaos and divisiveness to fuel their campaign and it is horribly wrong. We should all be together, yet every day there is something encouraging unrest and protest to wedge things apart further. Look at how Kenosha picked up the phone and asked for help and how quickly it has become a true peaceful protest. Compare that to Portland where we are now on day 97 or so of protest, riot, looting, arson, and now a few murders as the Portland mayor (who is also, by their law, the Chief Of Police), continues to try to say this somehow someones' fault other than the man who is charge o the city.  

Nah.

Trumps in charge.  It falls on his head as much as anyone.  I thought this guy was  "Dealmaker"?  The guy should be getting it done.  He's failed. 

 

[dkp993]

The correct answer will not help ease tensions.  Condemning the actions of a kid who by all video evidence was defending himself is ridiculous.  Of course saying that will only make the angry mob more angry.

Only in a ####ed up world like this are there people who try to defend a 17(!) year old KID walking down the middle of the street with a weapon of war, somehow making him the victim.  Unreal man, what has this world come too.  

 

[matuski]

This is plainly and obviously Democrat (still not voting Trump)

Undeniable.. when you get these pole results on THIS board?

Oof.

 

[dkp993]

you can make the argument a dude tried to shoot him before he ever fired a shot. There is video showing the muzzle flashes. 

OK. I don't think I saw that.  I just saw one video of the second shootings.  I know people in the crowd knew he had just shot someone and were yelling that.  In general, if someone shoots someone, flees, and then people try to stop him, does the original shooter get to claim self-defense when shooting additional people?  

NONE of that matter. A 17 year old kid has NO business interjecting him self into that scene with a ####### gun. Full stop. It’s no ok.

Parsing out the details here loses sight of the real problem, we get lost in the details of the actions when it’s the action itself that’s not OK.  

How can we possibly defend having our children walking into Volatile situations with weapons designed for war.  The levels of wrong here I can’t even begin to comprehend.

 

[matuski]

Only in a ####ed up world like this are there people who try to defend a 17(!) year old KID walking down the middle of the street with a weapon of war, somehow making him the victim.  Unreal man, what has this world come too.  

Are you consistent with your argument that breaking the law has consequences? 

 

[matuski]

NONE of that matter. A 17 year old kid has NO business interjecting him self into that scene with a ####### gun. Full stop. It’s no ok.

Parsing out the details here loses sight of the real problem, we get lost in the details of the actions when it’s the action itself that’s not OK.  

How can we possibly defend having our children walking into Volatile situations with weapons designed for war.  The levels of wrong here I can’t even begin to comprehend.

Sounds eerily like the argument against people resisting arrest.

 

[dkp993]

Are you consistent with your argument that breaking the law has consequences? 

Not sure where you’re trying to lead this but if you’re in anyway trying to shape it as if I’m supporting rioting and looting you’re barking up the wrong tree.  

 

[matuski]

Not sure where you’re trying to lead this but if you’re in anyway trying to shape it as if I’m supporting rioting and looting you’re barking up the wrong tree.  

No, like I said above.

Your argument against making that kid the victim sounds amazingly similar to the argument against making these people resisting arrest the victim.

 

[dkp993]

Sounds eerily like the argument against people resisting arrest.

No. I’m talking about a 17-year-old walking down the street with an assault rifle. 

 

[matuski]

No. I’m talking about a 17-year-old walking down the street with an assault rifle. 

Right... Almost like people's choices lead down a path to consequences.  Crazy right?

Like you might even be able to predict certain choices are going to end badly?

 

[dkp993]

No, like I said above.

Your argument against making that kid the victim sounds amazingly similar to the argument against making these people resisting arrest the victim.

How so?

 

[dkp993]

Right... Almost like people's choices lead down a path to consequences.

Agree. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

NONE of that matter. A 17 year old kid has NO business interjecting him self into that scene with a ####### gun. Full stop. It’s no ok.

Parsing out the details here loses sight of the real problem, we get lost in the details of the actions when it’s the action itself that’s not OK.  

How can we possibly defend having our children walking into Volatile situations with weapons designed for war.  The levels of wrong here I can’t even begin to comprehend.

Yeah but if it comes down to charges and possibly a jury, it will matter.

 

[dkp993]

Right... Almost like people's choices lead down a path to consequences.  Crazy right?

Like you might even be able to predict certain choices are going to end badly?

No doubt, and said choices should not be defended or parsed out in arguments to made to seem justified.  

 

[dkp993]

Yeah but if it comes down to charges and possibly a jury, it will matter.

Sure. And we as a society set those terms.  The issues this case brings up run deep and wide. They must be addressed

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Has Donald Trump condemned the violence on both sides and called for it to end yet?

No, because Donald Trump wants this violence. It's disgusting and it needs to end.

Rationalizing the shootings? Done with that. Not going to try to “understand” the nuances of a 17 year old kid running around WI with an AR-15 when he’s from IL. Doesn’t even matter where he’s from. Enough is enough.

"Crossing state lines" was about 20 minutes, so basically for me in Phoenix a drive to Tempe where my office is.  Kenosha was where he worked.  And he didn't bring a gun when he left home.  And he was both cleaning up the mess left by and providing medical assistance to the rioters.  So you'll excuse me if I point out that "crossed state lines to murder people" shows a slightly biased yet well-thought-out analysis of the situation.

It appears Donald Trump agrees, he is taking the side of the white supremacist kid running around with an AR-15 murdering people, the day after he directed his Proud Boogaloo Boys to drive into Portland to incite violence. Keep spinning how innocent the kid is though and how this guy is for Law and Order. He’s for getting himself re-elected, and this is how he thinks he’s going to do it. Done with this topic. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

NONE of that matter. A 17 year old kid has NO business interjecting him self into that scene with a ####### gun. Full stop. It’s no ok.

Parsing out the details here loses sight of the real problem, we get lost in the details of the actions when it’s the action itself that’s not OK.  

How can we possibly defend having our children walking into Volatile situations with weapons designed for war.  The levels of wrong here I can’t even begin to comprehend.

Of course it matters. 

I dont really disagree with what you said otherwise. The level of parental fail. The mindset of other people that had to have known he was just a kid. Its all incredibly problematic. Criminal on several levels. 

But it isnt murder. At least not in my opinion. 

 

[dkp993]

Of course it matters. 

I dont really disagree with what you said otherwise. The level of parental fail. The mindset of other people that had to have known he was just a kid. Its all incredibly problematic. Criminal on several levels. 

But it isnt murder. At least not in my opinion. 

Whether it’s a murder under the law or not matters little honestly.  He killed two people because he interjected himself into a situation where he shouldn’t of been, carrying a weapon he shouldn’t have had, trying to deal with something he had no business dealing with.  He is in no way a victim nor should his actions be being defended.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

And the same for alt right counter protesting and sending militia.

What does this deflection have to do with ANTIFA and their violence?

 

[Shutout]

"we" could

But, I have not ascribed any motive, or reasoning for Mr. Rittenhouse's actions.  Those are arguments for his lawyer to make.

I am sticking with absolute facts.

1.  Two people are dead.  Fact.

2.  Mr. Rittenhouse killed those two people.  Fact.

3.  Mr. Rittenhouse, at the time he killed those two people, was in possession of a loaded gun, and was 17 years old.  Fact.

There is a Class A misdemeanor case with no valid defense, just in those facts alone.

All the arguing you seem to want to do goes simply to the degree of culpability, if any, that Mr. Rittenhouse faces with respect to killing two people.   I have acknowledged many times that those are reasonable arguments to make.  I don't think they will be persuasive arguments, but I don't think they are unreasonable.  My opinion is that this will end up being a plea bargain.  I think Mr. Rittenhouse will serve time in prison.  He will not be convicted by a jury, but there is enough risk for both the prosecutor and Mr. Rittenhouse that they would both be wise to avoid a trial here.

And the only reason he was there was because a multiple time sex offender resisted arrest and didn't listen to police.  Fact.  We could do this all day but we won't.  This isn't a discussion.  This is yet another, tired emotional appeal to defend the indefensible.  The USA would have never went to war against Germany had Japan not slaughtered us at Pearl Harbor but in your world, that's our problem because Japanese people died in the nuclear bombing.  Fact, right?

 

[moleculo]

Why does Anifta and the left always counter protest any type of right marches or protests?  Then there is always trouble.

We should let everyone have their own protests.

Do you remember back in the day, all of the Obama flags being flown by cars driving by the Tea Party rallies?  All of the violence and hateful rhetoric from people wearing "Hope and Change" hats?

 

[Shutout]

Nah.

Trumps in charge.  It falls on his head as much as anyone.  I thought this guy was  "Dealmaker"?  The guy should be getting it done.  He's failed. 

A "deal" is a business transaction.  This is governmental politics based on the constitutional law of the United States. 

My point was to point out out that it's not as simple as all the people who falsely assume president Trump has unilateral authority, which is kind of ironic because Trump opposers are always so quick to say that he wants to act like a dictator but you can bet your bottom dollar that if he HAD acted on this right away and used his (legally right) authority of invoking the Insurection Act of 1807, the media and the Democratic party would have frothed at the mouth and broken their fingers typing so hard as they couldn't have tweeted fast enough as to how the president's order was "Trump acting like a dictator".  

In all honesty, the relentless attacks and opposition against Trump by the Democrats and a lot of media have likely hindered The presidents ability to act as would normally occur.  Let's be honest-. Obama, Reagan, Carter, Clinton.   Any president you can think of in our time could easily have seen this play out in our country and could have easily went on TV and said "this stops now. I am invoking the Insurection Act to step in, much like was done in the civil awareness protests in the 60's" and nobody would have batted an eye.  They would have lauded a strong president.  But because it's Trump....it's different. 

 

[The Gator]

And the only reason he was there was because a multiple time sex offender resisted arrest and didn't listen to police.  Fact.  

Blatantly not true.

Stick to facts, and leave conjecture to the lawyers.

 

[The Gator]

And the only reason he was there was because a multiple time sex offender resisted arrest and didn't listen to police.  Fact.  We could do this all day but we won't.  This isn't a discussion.  This is yet another, tired emotional appeal to defend the indefensible.  The USA would have never went to war against Germany had Japan not slaughtered us at Pearl Harbor but in your world, that's our problem because Japanese people died in the nuclear bombing.  Fact, right?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

 

[Shutout]

Blatantly not true.

Stick to facts, and leave conjecture to the lawyers.

Those are the facts.  Look it up.  

The new york post has published that the police responded to a call and we're attempting tomarrest Blake because he had an open felony warrant for sexual assault.  He also had offenses of disorderly conduct and domestic abuse. 

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/

 

[Shutout]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

This is apparent.