American Politics / Current Events Thread

[Silent Hill | 276]

20 hours ago, Californication said:

22 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

I stand corrected on this. He did circle back and stop after the first shooting, but made a phone call instead of attempting aid (others already were

You are stilly trying to spin this by saying "but made a phone call instead of attempting aid(others were already doing this)." He did nothing to help. And your statement makes it sound like he thought about it. He made a phone call to a friend. If he was trying to help he could have 1. Physically helped, 2. Called an ambulance 3. Called the police. He did nothing to help the person he shot and to say anything otherwise is plain wrong. 

Why do you think he circled back? I admitted he didn't actually apply aid, and mentioned that others were already trying to do so. He very well may have thought about applying aid, and may have even done so if others weren't already. Hard to say what he would  have done if others weren't around. We can speculate all day long. 
Instead of calling 911, he apparently called a friend, then started running towards the police when others began to give chase. 

The bottom line is whatever he actually did after shooting Rosenbaum doesn't impact his self-defense claim. 

22 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

I also stand corrected on this. His conviction of possessIon of a firearm while intoxicated is a misdemeanor. 
 

2. You said Gaige Grosskrautz was, 'illegally armed as a felon."

Gage Grosskreutz was/is a licensed gun holder

IIRC, I only mentioned this as a counterpoint to anyone stating that Rittenhouse was illegally carrying, and that it impacted his self-defense claim, which the legality of his weapon doesn't preclude his right to self-defense. Grosskreutz was originally reported to be a felon, but once his actual record was uncovered, his charge was  a misdemeanor. I admitted I was wrong by echoing the reports of him being a felon at that time. 
Whether Grosskreutz was legally carrying or not, he was still the aggressor in that situation and was shot by Rittenhouse in self-defense. 

Then you completly dismiss your incorrect statement that Rittenhouse was putting out a fire. 

That's what I've heard/seen, I asked if you had any resource describing what caused the group to initially give chase. 

This is relevant because again you are again inferring positive attributes to Rittenhouse that are completely false.

I'll admit this was false if you show me the above.

Now you're saying that these points don't matter so your original opinion is the same? 

Correct, any of the points you mentioned don't impact the self-defense claim. Rittenhouse was not the aggressor, and only shot those that were a threat. That was my overall stance from the start, and still is. 

So why did you say these things in the first place if they don't matter?

Like I mentioned above, I stated those as counterpoints, and as information that was being reported at that time. If they're incorrect in hindsight, that's fine, it's still a case of self-defense. 

Do you understand why when people read your opinions it doesn't make sense when you say you are just telling both sides?

Even with all of your points above, I don't think I excluded any facts from the "other side"  that would impact his self-defense claim. 

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

On 9/25/2020 at 11:15 PM, Rhino said:

How is what happened in this tragedy racism? Not every white cop on black victim shooting is racism. 

I never said they are. 

On 9/27/2020 at 9:42 AM, Silent Hill said:

Somehow it’s ALWAYS racism with “you guys”, even when there’s zero evidence of racism, just like in this case. You have no evidence other than the skin color of those involved. 

You are both missing the point. I'm just saying, for literally everything that's ever brought up in these politics threads, there is always someone who tries to explain it away without any racism involved. Like apparently it's just not even possible that there was any racism involved, like it just doesn't exist. It's short sighted. Racism exists and it happens every day.

And yes, when the system is in itself racist, then there is a high possibility of some level of racism involved. But we all know you (Silent Hill) don't believe that so why am I even responding?

On the flip side, everything that's brought up in these politics thread, there's always people who point to racism as a driving factor, even when there is no evidence to support it. That's why I normally dispute it. 

I've never said racism doesn't exist in individuals, but I don't agree that racism is a factor when the only related evidence is skin color, and I don't think that because the entire US Police force is "systemically racist", every negative outcome between white police and black victims is automatically driven by racism. 

I've seen no evidence brought forth that the Taylor case was linked to racism, whether individual or systemic. 

[Californication | 1,490]

48 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

 

You are completly dismissing facts from the other side because you keep saying people were chasing him trying to kill him.  You do not know what those people's state of mind was. The video looks like people trying to stop someone not kill someone. Gaige didn't stop and shoot the Rittenhouse as he was running away as he could have.

And ontop of that you are exaggerating the shooter being hit with a skateboard. He was clearly pushed with a skateboard. When you look at the video the people trying to stop him are going for his gun because they don't want him to kill other people.

You clearly can't see both sides of the equation because you are so easily fooled by misinformation propogated by conservative groups from the very beginning. 

On top of that there is video showing Rittenhouse being an agitator where people call him out for pointing his gun at them and giving them orders earlier in the night. 

[Californication | 1,490]

45 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

On the flip side, everything that's brought up in these politics thread, there's always people who point to racism as a driving factor, even when there is no evidence to support it. That's why I normally dispute it. 

I've never said racism doesn't exist in individuals, but I don't agree that racism is a factor when the only related evidence is skin color, and I don't think that because the entire US Police force is "systemically racist", every negative outcome between white police and black victims is automatically driven by racism. 

I've seen no evidence brought forth that the Taylor case was linked to racism, whether individual or systemic. 

Maybe you should read my prior posts because I am not yelling about racism in the Taylor shooting. I said it's a possibility. My point is that the police killed someone, they are at fault, and this is more than a tragedy this was preventable.

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

2 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

On the flip side, everything that's brought up in these politics thread, there's always people who point to racism as a driving factor, even when there is no evidence to support it. That's why I normally dispute it. 

I've never said racism doesn't exist in individuals, but I don't agree that racism is a factor when the only related evidence is skin color, and I don't think that because the entire US Police force is "systemically racist", every negative outcome between white police and black victims is automatically driven by racism. 

I've seen no evidence brought forth that the Taylor case was linked to racism, whether individual or systemic. 

Expand  Expand  

Maybe you should read my prior posts because I am not yelling about racism in the Taylor shooting. I said it's a possibility. My point is that the police killed someone, they are at fault, and this is more than a tragedy this was preventable.

This was a reply to Cody. 

[Silent Hill | 276]

2 hours ago, Californication said:

You are completly dismissing facts from the other side because you keep saying people were chasing him trying to kill him.  You do not know what those people's state of mind was. The video looks like people trying to stop someone not kill someone. Gaige didn't stop and shoot the Rittenhouse as he was running away as he could have.

If I don't know what their state of mind was, then neither do you. So that's not me "dismissing a fact". They could have easily disarmed Rittenhouse and injured/killed him, or disarmed him and let him walk away unscathed. Personally, I don't think the latter would have been the result, but we'll never know how that hypothetical would have played out. Rittenhouse being aggressively chased (especially by someone who was armed) gave him enough reason to feel the need to defend himself. Just because the ones chasing him after he shot Rosenbaum may have thought they were preventing an "active shooter" from harming others, doesn't mean they can aggressively chase Rittenhouse (as he's running towards police) and disarm him without opening themselves up for being shot in self-defense. No court is going to rule "well, Rittenhouse should have known that the ones chasing him were just simply trying to disarm him so he wouldn't shoot anyone else, so he's guilty of murder".

And ontop of that you are exaggerating the shooter being hit with a skateboard. He was clearly pushed with a skateboard. When you look at the video the people trying to stop him are going for his gun because they don't want him to kill other people.

You're right, with the video running at full speed, the skateboard "swing" looks more like a push/pin move vs. a strike, but like I said above, it doesn't mean trying to disarm someone prevents that person from firing in self-defense. If Rittenhouse legitimately murdered Rosenbaum to start, then you'd have a point that Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self-defense in the subsequent shooting, but that doesn't seem to be the case. All they had to do was let Rittenhouse keep running towards police and nobody else would have been shot. But they decided to take on the current group mentality that Rittenhouse was an active shooter that just murdered someone, so they gave chase and unfortunately paid for that choice. 

You clearly can't see both sides of the equation because you are so easily fooled by misinformation propogated by conservative groups from the very beginning.

It wasn't just "conservative groups" reporting this information. I looked at everything from the live videos, YT/Twitter/FB  breakdowns of the live videos, local Kenosha/WI news reports, and Richie McGinnis' account at that time. 

On top of that there is video showing Rittenhouse being an agitator where people call him out for pointing his gun at them and giving them orders earlier in the night. 

There may be a video of people claiming Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people and giving them orders, but I haven't seen video evidence of him actually doing that. Even if he were, it doesn't give them the right to chase and disarm him without being subject to be shot in self-defense.

The videos of him being chased and firing only on those who were actively attempting to disarm him holds much more weight than a video of people saying he was pointing a gun at people earlier that night. Plus, Rosenbaum himself is on video being aggressive before the shooting, so that doesn't help the claim that he was chasing Rittenhouse to simply disarm him because Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor by pointing his gun at people. Rosenbaum was the aggressor that escalated the situation by chasing Rittenhouse and "lunging for his weapon" (according to Richie McGinnis, who was closest to the action) before being shot. 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Silent Hill

[Californication | 1,490]

19 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

 

I do not have to guess at what the peoples motives were whi were chasing Rittenhouse. He did not kill all three people. Gaige survived. And Gaige said that they were trying to disarm him.

The skateboard looks like a swing at full speed, you can tell its a push when it's slowed down. The same way it works in the movies.

Rittenhouse being an agitator is important because it shows his state of mind. And it is one more insicator that him and the other militia escalated the situation.

We don't know why Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse. We do know that Rosenbaum was pissed because the group of people that Rittenhouse was with kept pointing their guns at him and other protestors. In the beginning of the video where Rosenbaun is saying "shoot me nigga" he is with two or three other people and they are arguing with the militia people for pointing their weapons at them.

 

[Rhino | 105]

On 9/28/2020 at 10:06 AM, CodysGameRoom said:

I never said they are. 

You are both missing the point. I'm just saying, for literally everything that's ever brought up in these politics threads, there is always someone who tries to explain it away without any racism involved. Like apparently it's just not even possible that there was any racism involved, like it just doesn't exist. It's short sighted. Racism exists and it happens every day.

And yes, when the system is in itself racist, then there is a high possibility of some level of racism involved. But we all know you (Silent Hill) don't believe that so why am I even responding?

There could be racism or agism or sexism or lots of things for any scenario. Without some evidence however, it's only speculation as to why an event occurred. Parts of a police system could be racist, while also still having good non-racist cops. Is there any evidence at all that the cops involved with the Breonna Taylor tragedy are racist? Is this another example of white cop kills black victim, therefore it's automatically racism? It's odd to me that it's only ever racism when a white cops kills a black victim. Just think about that for a minute. Why does the media focus solely on that narrative? Why is there only outrage for black victims? Surely there are incidents where cops of all races kill victims of all races.

[Kguillemette | 1,547]

I'm ready to move to Canada after that hot garbage of a debate.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Donald Trump told "Proud Boys" to stand by and later asked them to patrol the polls; essentially, voter intimidation, which is illegal.

If there's anyone here who still denies that Trump is a fascist racist and a supporter of white supremacists, I'd love to hear your argument. 

[Doctornick | 419]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Donald Trump told "Proud Boys" to stand by and later asked them to patrol the polls; essentially, voter intimidation, which is illegal.

If there's anyone here who still denies that Trump is a fascist racist and a supporter of white supremacists, I'd love to hear your argument. 

I didn't watch it until this morning.  I swear we have to be getting trolled at this point.  There is no way the moderates still vote for him now right?

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

So who in this discussion that supports Trump wants to clarify or defend your take on "Stand back and stand by"...?

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,018]

2 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

So who in this discussion that supports Trump wants to clarify or defend your take on "Stand back and stand by"...?

He trailed off on stand by. I thought it was going to be stand back and stand DOWN. Either way, the guy should just walk around w a shoe in his mouth.

Biden saying the economy will boom but will also shut down the economy is a theme he protrayed all night. It's the nature of politics. Also lost a lot of respect for him refusing to admit to pack the courts.

Also saying Brazil needs to be sanctioned to save the rain forrest while china and india continue to pollute at record pace is ignorant. 

Both of them genuinely suck at verbalizing their positions. Biden is bc hes a skill politican and wants to appeal to as many ppl as possible. Trump bc he's a comedian and literally does not care about the words that come out of his mouth. 

The only thing we were missing was Kanye up there. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Just now, RegularGuyGamer said:

He trailed off on stand by. I thought it was going to be stand back and stand DOWN. Either way, the guy should just walk around w a shoe in his mouth.

Biden saying the economy will boom but will also shut down the economy is a theme he protrayed all night. It's the nature of politics. Also lost a lot of respect for him refusing to admit to pack the courts.

Also saying Brazil needs to be sanctioned to save the rain forrest while china and india continue to pollute at record pace is ignorant. 

Both of them genuinely suck at verbalizing their positions. Biden is bc hes a skill politican and wants to appeal to as many ppl as possible. Trump bc he's a comedian and literally does not care about the words that come out of his mouth. 

The only thing we were missing was Kanye up there. 

I really hope you're not suggesting that any of Biden's shortfalls last night are remotely on par with the president of the united states telling his white-nationalist supporters to patrol polling places on election day...

 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,018]

Just now, arch_8ngel said:

I really hope you're not suggesting that any of Biden's shortfalls last night are remotely on par with the president of the united states telling his white-nationalist supporters to patrol polling places on election day...

 

White nationalist =/= White supremacists. Which is the group I think you are meaning to refer. 

They both are set in their shit ways. They both don't know or care what they say, so long as their message doesn't divate from the expectations of their base. Trump's comments were more offensive.

But you mean to tell me Brazil needs SANCTIONS unless persevere their biggest national resource? That's bonkers. You can't even compare the air pollutants produced from the US to the rest of the world, it's so low. And these geezers keep going on how we need to do more and save the rain forrest. What fuckin decade is it?

US consistently rates below 15% of the worlds carbon emissions and we want to do more instead of shift blame and focus to the East. It really goes to show either how little they care about global pollution or how little they know. Both is concerning. And honestly worries me as much as old racist grand dad Trump saying ignorant shit. 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

https://waqi.info/#/c/0.146/2.803/0.8z

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

37 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

White nationalist =/= White supremacists. Which is the group I think you are meaning to refer. 

They both are set in their shit ways. They both don't know or care what they say, so long as their message doesn't divate from the expectations of their base. Trump's comments were more offensive.

But you mean to tell me Brazil needs SANCTIONS unless persevere their biggest national resource? That's bonkers. You can't even compare the air pollutants produced from the US to the rest of the world, it's so low. And these geezers keep going on how we need to do more and save the rain forrest. What fuckin decade is it?

US consistently rates below 15% of the worlds carbon emissions and we want to do more instead of shift blame and focus to the East. It really goes to show either how little they care about global pollution or how little they know. Both is concerning. And honestly worries me as much as old racist grand dad Trump saying ignorant shit. 

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

https://waqi.info/#/c/0.146/2.803/0.8z

 

I had the impression that the "Proud Boys" are "white "nationalists", and were kind of dumped on by harder core white supremacists. (they describe themselves as "western chauvinists" -- though whether that is completely accurate or not, I haven't read enough about them to say)

But the President completely failed to distance himself from any of it, and it was a national embarrassment.

 

 

No, I don't think Brazil needs sanctions.  And personally I think it's a relatively unlikely thing to happen.  But either way, it certainly wouldn't be a key issue that would somehow push my support to Trump.

Though I find it both surprising and fascinating that you think some discussion about sanctions against Brazil in the middle of that dumpster fire last night ranks as a major issue in making an election decision.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

https://news.yahoo.com/proud-boys-standing-down-standing-031200491.html

And evidently the Proud Boys took it as clear marching orders are "standing by" to fight Antifa.

I'm sure this will all turn out well.

 

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,018]

26 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Though I find it both surprising and fascinating that you think some discussion about sanctions against Brazil in the middle of that dumpster fire last night ranks as a major issue in making an election decision.

Just an example bc trump gets heat for deregulation and not caring about the environment. Biden and the left pose to care about the environment and tied, I think he said 7 million jobs to his version of the green deal, as a means to promote economic growth.

Edit: I counted. Wallace asked Trump 6 questions on climate change. It was clearly a point of interest of the moderator. 

And personally, as a member of historically disenfranchised minority, growing up in a mixed house hold, living in a city that is only 20% white, etc. I don't think the things trump says are that offensive. They're ignorant but they don't offend me. 

I find it that interesting that that is what people hold on to, most of which are white.  

Wallace: Are you willing to condem white supremacists and militia groups?

Trump: Sure

Wallace: Will you say ... They need to stand down and not add to the violence ..

Trump: Say a name, I'll tell them to stand down.

Biden: Proud boys

Trump: Proud boys? Stand back. And stand by.

Trump goes on to claim out that ANTIFA is causing most of the violence. Biden defends ANTIFA.

Nothing a out that exchange bothered me aside from Biden refusing to recognize ANTIFA as an organization. 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by RegularGuyGamer

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

19 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

Nothing a out that exchange bothered me aside from Biden refusing to recognize ANTIFA as an organization. 

So Trump emboldening his racist supporters with a call to arms... doesn't bother you?

I just can't wrap my head around that.

By the way, Antifa is an ideology, not an organization. It literally stands for Anti Fascist. 

FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

27 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

 

And personally, as a member of historically disenfranchised minority, growing up in a mixed house hold, living in a city that is only 20% white, etc. I don't think the things trump says are that offensive. They're ignorant but they don't offend me. 

I find it that interesting that that is what people hold on to, most of which are white.  

Wallace: Are you willing to condem white supremacists and militia groups?

Trump: Sure

Wallace: Will you say ... They need to stand down and not add to the violence ..

Trump: Say a name, I'll tell them to stand down.

Biden: Proud boys

Trump: Proud boys? Stand back. And stand by.

Trump goes on to claim out that ANTIFA is causing most of the violence. Biden defends ANTIFA.

Nothing a out that exchange bothered me aside from Biden refusing to recognize ANTIFA as an organization. 

 

It is an interesting spin on the facts to say that Biden's words were a defense of ANTIFA.

And "Stand bank and stand by" is the most pathetic excuse for a condemnation I have heard in my life, that the Proud Boys very clearly are taking as marching orders.

It isn't about being "offended".  It is about recognizing the threat of the situation where Trump is enabling and encouraging white supremacist groups. There is real danger here.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,018]

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

So Trump emboldening his racist supporters with a call to arms... doesn't bother you?

It just wasn't what I took away from it. People take away different messages. 

 

1 hour ago, CodysGameRoom said:

By the way, Antifa is an ideology, not an organization. It literally stands for Anti Fascist. 

Seems like the FBI and NYT are at odds then https://www.wsj.com/articles/q-a-what-is-antifa-11598985917 

There is a group of people who identify with facism as an ideology. We call them fascist. To say there isn't a group of people who identify and act under the ideology is ANTIFA is a silly notion. They do. Whether they call themselves sandra bullock or ANTIFA they exist. Pretending they don't is not being part of reality. 

 

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

And "Stand bank and stand by" is the most pathetic excuse for a condemnation I have heard in my life,

It was what was requested of him. Wallace said will you tell them to stand down. Literally a quote.

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

It is about recognizing the threat of the situation where Trump is enabling and encouraging white supremacist groups.

Again, not what I gathered from that statement. Others wait with baited breath to use his words as an excuse for violence on both sides. I would not have said anything group by name as it further legitimatized them.

Overall, I'm not any closer to voting for either of them. And living IN PA, that's not good news for either of their campaigns considering my county was the last reported and put trump over the edge to clinch the state. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

10 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

 

It was what was requested of him. Wallace said will you tell them to stand down. Literally a quote.

Again, not what I gathered from that statement. Others wait with baited breath to use his words as an excuse for violence on both sides. I would not have said anything group by name as it further legitimatized them.

Overall, I'm not any closer to voting for either of them. And living IN PA, that's not good news for either of their campaigns considering my county was the last reported and put trump over the edge to clinch the state. 

Do you really think it should be so hard for Trump to clearly and unequivocally denounce the white supremacist and white nationalist groups that support him?

And if he had just said "stand down", while that is still a pathetically weak excuse for denouncement... it would have been worlds better than tacking on "and stand by".

There is real danger in his careless phrasing, and for all of his claims of "law and order", he has done absolutely fuck-all to address what the FBI sees as the greatest domestic threat of violence and terrorism.  

 

 

Just to add another thought/question here... you're OK enough with Trump having had the feds throwing protestors into unmarked vans, earlier in the summer, that it doesn't put you off of potentially voting for him?  

Do you think he has handled the pandemic WELL? or even "adequately"?

Do you take issue, at all, with him owing unknown foreign lenders hundreds of millions of dollars that come due during his potential second term?

Do you have any problem with the amount of money he has funneled into his properties by how he has structured lodging for his entourage at both Mar a Lago and Trump Tower? And to go along with that, do you take any issue at all, with not just the absurd amount of golf he has managed to play... but that he has done so at courses he owns, lining his coffers in the process?

Just a sampling without even getting into a whole range of policy issues.

 

 

Or maybe, phrasing the question differently, what is your breaking point for deciding that Donald Trump should not be the president?

Edited September 30, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,018]

27 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Do you really think it should be so hard for Trump to clearly and unequivocally denounce the white supremacist and white nationalist groups that support him?

I don't think expect him to be able to say anything clearly and unequivocally honestly. After 4 years in the lime light, do you expect him to be able to? After everything he's said since, what, 2010 idk who expects to him say anything meaningful or heartfelt. 

I literally think he's a comedian. Not only does he not have a filter but he doesn't have boundaries or even observe them. I expect him to do as any other comedian. He doesn't take what he says seriously and doesn't consider the consequences. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 minute ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

I don't think expect him to be able to say anything clearly and unequivocally honestly. After 4 years in the lime light, do you expect him to be able to? After everything he's said since, what, 2010 idk who expects to him say anything meaningful or heartfelt. 

I literally think he's a comedian. Not only does he not have a filter but he doesn't have boundaries or even observe them. I expect him to do as any other comedian. He doesn't take what he says seriously and doesn't consider the consequences. 

I think your appraisal of his character and motives is extremely generous, to say the least...

[ZeldaFreak | 3,619]

I dunno about you guys, but by this point I think I've come to a similar conclusion to the title of this video.