American Politics / Current Events Thread

[avatar! | 1,812]

In Infrastructure Votes, 19 Members Broke With Their Party

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/defectors-infrastructure-bill-squad.html

Six Democrats who are part of the progressive group known as “The Squad” — Jamaal Bowman of New York, Cori Bush of Missouri, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — voted against Biden’s plan to spend $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid.

"The Squard" is garbage. They're not progressive, they're out to get attention, become famous, and then run for other positions -AOC 100% can't wait to run for POTUS

That position infuriated some moderate Democrats. One of them, Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York, equated the opposition of left-leaning fellow New Yorkers like Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman with far-right Republicans like Lee Zeldin of New York for voting against a bill that would funnel billions of dollars into the state for subways, sewers and broadband.

[FireHazard51 | 2,043]

On 11/5/2021 at 8:59 AM, Tulpa said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jenna-ryan-rioter-who-boasted-she-wouldnt-go-to-jail-because-shes-white-is-going-to-prison

A Texas real estate agent who swore she wouldn’t be jailed over her role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot has been sentenced to 60 days in prison.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper on Thursday also slapped convicted rioter Jenna Ryan with $500 in restitution after she was charged with a single count of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

At the hearing, Cooper told Ryan that he believed her punishment would tell Americans “something about the courts and about how our country responded to what happened, and I think the sentence should tell them that we take it seriously.”

 

 

I think the courts are looking to throw the book at the big ring leaders of the whole insurrection.  If there is any video of the women assaulting a cop to get into the Capital then that sentence is fucked.  I suspect that those who "just" entered the capital and maybe done minor vandalism with NO evidence of violence are being given their sentences now.  So basically those with the least amount of "harm" are being sentenced right now.  Let's wait and see how the courts handle those with video evidence of assaulting cops or having planned to stormed the capital.

I don't deny that some people got caught up in the crowd.  Not that this means they get a free pass.  But the courts are going to be more favorable to them.  This same thing happens all the time in the past with other mass arrest of people in a mob that is breaking a law.  I have no doubt there will be SERIOUS time given some insurrections.  Sadly I think there will be many who never get caught as with any mob attacks.  Usually those things happen at night with little video evidence.  This on the other hand a RIDICULOUS amount of video evidence.  It seemed like 1 in 10 people had a phone recording the damn event in broad daylight.  

What's going to be really upsetting is the day that they stop looking for those who've done serious crimes but it will be politically bad to keep "targeting" Republicans.  Because violent BML protesters are no longer actively being sought so therefore it will be construed as a political issue.  I know that argument will come up.  Hell they've already complained about it as soon as they started to arrest insurrectionist.   

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hampshire-gov-chris-sununu-says-144500679.html

Yeah buddy! My boy Sununu works for NH, not Washington. 

[avatar! | 1,812]

Insane: Thieves smash diamond case with hammers, stealing nearly everything

https://news.yahoo.com/insane-thieves-smash-diamond-case-200200377.html

Damn! So, I'm guessing in Cali if you pull out a gun to try and protect yourself or personal possessions you're likely to be arrested...

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

1 hour ago, avatar! said:

Insane: Thieves smash diamond case with hammers, stealing nearly everything

https://news.yahoo.com/insane-thieves-smash-diamond-case-200200377.html

Damn! So, I'm guessing in Cali if you pull out a gun to try and protect yourself or personal possessions you're likely to be arrested...

Nope. 

[avatar! | 1,812]

'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley sentenced to more than 3 years in prison for 'horrific' role in Capitol riot

https://theweek.com/news/1007231/qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-sentenced-to-more-than-3-years-in-prison-for-horrific-role

Good.

[avatar! | 1,812]

He might be found not-guilty, but I'm convinced that Rittenhouse is a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill - go on, convince me otherwise

And apparently the apple does not fall far from the rotten tree...

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, avatar! said:

He might be found not-guilty, but I'm convinced that Rittenhouse is a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill - go on, convince me otherwise

And apparently the apple does not fall far from the rotten tree...

Edit: I started off thinking he would get an easy not guilty, but am not sure anymore.

His lawyers look a little nervous imo. He may need money for an appeal and will definitely need money  for civil cases against him.

Defense started strong, prosecution a little slow, and judge gave him some more than fair rullings.

But that prosecution lite him up.

And the defenses closing was softer than Rittenhouse without a gun.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Californication

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

55 minutes ago, avatar! said:

He might be found not-guilty, but I'm convinced that Rittenhouse is a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill - go on, convince me otherwise

And apparently the apple does not fall far from the rotten tree...

POS that was out looking for trouble I'll agree with. Guilty of charges brought against him? Not entirely convinced. Deserving of being anyone's political darling? Fuck no. Makes me sick the pedestal he's been put on by the disturbing far right. Complete mockery of gun rights.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

I'm more focused on the trial of the Arbery shooting in GA. That one looks a lot more like racists shooting down a black man because he was in the wrong neighborhood. The fact that they weren't arrested for months until the video leaked is truly disturbing. This feels like something that could have happened in 1958 where nobody bats an eye and it's swept under the rug.

The way the Rittenhouse trial was covered, you'd think it was him who shot Jacob Blake. But the cop wasn't charged (at the same time, my understanding is that Blake Incident was closer to the Michael Brown incident than Trayvon Martin, kinda hard to press charges in that case). People wanted to see someone get convicted of something. We completely lost focus of what this trial was all for in the first place. This was never a white supremacist gunning down a black man. This was whether or not an out of state militia member acted appropriately when he took three lives. And criminally he apparently did. Civilly we shall see. The young man stands to make a small fortune from his fame in the coming weeks. We shall find out if the families of those who lost their lives will have a claim to that fortune.

[Silent Hill | 276]

On 11/18/2021 at 8:52 PM, Kguillemette said:

On 11/18/2021 at 7:52 PM, avatar! said:

He might be found not-guilty, but I'm convinced that Rittenhouse is a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill - go on, convince me otherwise

And apparently the apple does not fall far from the rotten tree...

Expand  

POS that was out looking for trouble I'll agree with. Guilty of charges brought against him? Not entirely convinced. Deserving of being anyone's political darling? Fuck no. Makes me sick the pedestal he's been put on by the disturbing far right. Complete mockery of gun rights.

Not guilty, fellas. 

Zero evidence or testimony that Rittenhouse was a "a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill" @avatar! - though clearly nothing would convince you otherwise at this point. 

What is more disturbing than the "far right" promoting self-defense/hailing Rittenhouse as a hero, is the vast amount of "left-wing" "voices" and MSM outlets are still spreading false information and stirring up shit by openly slamming the verdict/undermining the legal process.
Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. 

(For the record, I don't think Rittenhouse is a "hero" by any stretch but continuing to label him a murderer, white supremacist, etc. is far more deplorable, objectively)

[Silent Hill | 276]

21 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

This was whether or not an out of state militia member acted appropriately when he took three lives. And criminally he apparently did. Civilly we shall see. The young man stands to make a small fortune from his fame in the coming weeks. We shall find out if the families of those who lost their lives will have a claim to that fortune.

Not sure if the families can even sue in civil court since its been determined he acted in self-defense. 

It'll be interesting to see if Rittenhouse goes the Sandmann route and sues for defamation, libel, slander, etc.

[avatar! | 1,812]

3 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

Not guilty, fellas. 

Zero evidence or testimony that Rittenhouse was a "a POS that went out looking for trouble and was happy to kill" @avatar! - though clearly nothing would convince you otherwise at this point. 

What is more disturbing than the "far right" promoting self-defense/hailing Rittenhouse as a hero, is the vast amount of "left-wing" "voices" and MSM outlets are still spreading false information and stirring up shit by openly slamming the verdict/undermining the legal process.
Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. 

(For the record, I don't think Rittenhouse is a "hero" by any stretch but continuing to label him a murderer, white supremacist, etc. is far more deplorable, objectively)

What a joke. Although he was not found guilty, things are far from over, and everyone knows he was absolutely looking for trouble! Or, are you trying to tell me that someone who goes heavily armed into a peaceful protest is doing so because they're friendly and helpful? It's funny you say Why everyone couldn't look at the evidence/testimony objectively is beyond me at this point. First off, let's be real. If you've ever served on a jury or been to a trail you know there is absolutely no such thing as being entirely objective. Secondly, the judge was also a POS who was clearly biased towards his fellow right-winger and I feel will likely have his career cut short, or so I hope.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-has-been-found-not-guilty-whats-next-bail-money-civil-cases/8653018002/

Congressman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, called for a federal review of the case Friday. He serves as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ," he tweeted. "Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/20/could-kyle-rittenhouse-be-sued-for-negligence/

A criminal acquittal doesn't preclude a civil lawsuit out of the same claims. First, the acquittal resolves only that guilt couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (requiring, say, a >90% confidence level); the standard for civil liability is preponderance of the evidence (which requires just >50%, or perhaps ≥50%, if the injury is easily proved and the burden is then shifted to the defendant to prove self-defense). Second, liability could be based on a negligence theory

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

@avatar! The reported actions of Rosenbaum that night lead me to believe that this wasn't entirely a peaceful protest. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr Grossgrutz(sp) did indeed brandish a pistol, if only for a moment, towards Rittenhouse before he was shot. 

On a side note, one thing that I definitely approve of was the immediate disavowing of the the far right political icons that were jockeying to hire him as an intern in addition to the disavowing of Trump Jr by Rittenhouse's lawyer. I can't find the link right now, but it put my mind partially at ease reading that statement. That being said, I'm not going to be attending any of his birthday parties anytime soon. His conduct prior to his trial taking pictures with Proud Boys and his social media actives prior to the Kenosha incident lead me to believe that this is not a good human being. 

 

I still stand by that we have completely lost focus as a society of what the Rittenhouse trial was about in the first place.

Out of curiosity, if you were on that jury, what would your verdict have been?

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

4 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

Not sure if the families can even sue in civil court since its been determined he acted in self-defense. 

It'll be interesting to see if Rittenhouse goes the Sandmann route and sues for defamation, libel, slander, etc.

Different standard in civil court. Remember what happened with OJ?

[avatar! | 1,812]

3 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Out of curiosity, if you were on that jury, what would your verdict have been?

I was not there nor did I watch the trial so I don't know. Still does not change the fact that he was a POS right-winger looking for trouble.

[Californication | 1,477]

4 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

@avatar! The reported actions of Rosenbaum that night lead me to believe that this wasn't entirely a peaceful protest. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr Grossgrutz(sp) did indeed brandish a pistol, if only for a moment, towards Rittenhouse before he was shot. 

On a side note, one thing that I definitely approve of was the immediate disavowing of the the far right political icons that were jockeying to hire him as an intern in addition to the disavowing of Trump Jr by Rittenhouse's lawyer. I can't find the link right now, but it put my mind partially at ease reading that statement. That being said, I'm not going to be attending any of his birthday parties anytime soon. His conduct prior to his trial taking pictures with Proud Boys and his social media actives prior to the Kenosha incident lead me to believe that this is not a good human being. 

 

I still stand by that we have completely lost focus as a society of what the Rittenhouse trial was about in the first place.

Out of curiosity, if you were on that jury, what would your verdict have been?

The Kenosha riots were not about one black guy being crippled by the police, they were about the structural racism regularly create these situations.

This trial was a perfect example of that structural racism.

[Tulpa | 3,506]

10 hours ago, Silent Hill said:

Not sure if the families can even sue in civil court since its been determined he acted in self-defense. 
 

Sure they can. The outcome of the criminal trial has no bearing on any subsequent civil trial. They'll be tried separately on their own merits. Not to mention the burden of proof is less in a civil trial.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

6 hours ago, Californication said:

The Kenosha riots were not about one black guy being crippled by the police, they were about the structural racism regularly create these situations.

This trial was a perfect example of that structural racism.

Im glad you acknowledge there were riots over being peaceful protests. 

I disagree that this trial was a perfect example of structural racism. At it's core, I think it was an attempt to make Rittenhouse into a scapegoat. The way this was covered, you would think this was a modern day Rodney King incident where anything less than a guilty verdict is a travesty. 

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

4 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Im glad you acknowledge there were riots over being peaceful protests. 

I disagree that this trial was a perfect example of structural racism. At it's core, I think it was an attempt to make Rittenhouse into a scapegoat. The way this was covered, you would think this was a modern day Rodney King incident where anything less than a guilty verdict is a travesty. 

 

 

It was a reverse Rodney King. 

Did you watch the trial? It doesn't sound like you did.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Californication

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

1 minute ago, Californication said:

It was a reverse Rodney King. 

Not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborated?

[Californication | 1,477]

1 minute ago, Kguillemette said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborated?

Sry I edited my last message. Did you watch the trial?

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

9 minutes ago, Californication said:

Sry I edited my last message. Did you watch the trial?

I never did watch it, I followed it right along though. I certainly wasn't a fan of the judge asking for a veterans day ovation for the defense witness, that seemed a bit disturbing and pandering to the camera like a judge Ito. Most of the other incidents seemed blown out of proportion. Were there others I missed?

[Californication | 1,477]

9 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

I never did watch it, I followed it right along though. I certainly wasn't a fan of the judge asking for a veterans day ovation for the defense witness, that seemed a bit disturbing and pandering to the camera like a judge Ito. Most of the other incidents seemed blown out of proportion. Were there others I missed?

I would suggest atleast watching the prosecutions case since you think he is not guilty based on news blurbs.

I'll paraphrase things I take issue with, but I am going to miss stuff and it isn't the same as watching.

So firstly, the judge gave Rittenhouse breaks multiple times:

- judge didn't allow the prosecution to speak about multiple things that could have helped the jury understand Rittenhouse's character and state of mind like:  a. Rittenhosuse pointed his gun at people earlier in the night, b. Rittenhouse threatened to kill somebody at one point. The jury never heard those things.

-The judge did not allow the people murdered to be called victims

-The judge dismissed gun charges charges.

-When they set up the rules for how things could be explained to the jury, the judge was favorable to the defense including the way the gun was to be discussed

Getting into the court arguments.

-Rittenhouse should not qualify for self defense based on the laws requirements. 

- Rittenhouse should not have been able to use deadly force because he did not exhaust all options. 

If the medic Gorsskruntz, wanted to kill Rittenhouse he could have stopped and shot him at any point. 

The frame by frame clearly shows that Grosskruntz, who was trying to stop an active shooter, stopped and started backing away from Rittenhouse when he was on the ground. He tried to jump on Rittenhouse after pausing when he thought Rittenhouse was getting ready to shoot him. 

Now less clear to me, but the argument presented was that Grosskruntz never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse, the photo spread on social media was after Grosskruntz bicep was shot off and his arm fell holding his gun in the direction of Rittenhouse, but he could not use his gun.

I really don't understand how a reasonable person (not the jury) could think this kid should not be in jail. I have heard zero arguments against these points. The defense did not have arguments against any of these points, they literally just said key words and talked in circles completly avoiding any of the points the prosecution made and demonized every person shot.

Just to show even further what a joke this trial is, Rittenhouse didn't even get charged for endangering the camera man that was behind Rosenbaum. The defense did the same thing they did with the other victims, they talked shit about the camera man.

 

[Silent Hill | 276]

11 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Sure they can. The outcome of the criminal trial has no bearing on any subsequent civil trial. They'll be tried separately on their own merits. Not to mention the burden of proof is less in a civil trial.

Fair enough - wasn't exactly sure. Based on everything I saw during the trial I think it may be tough to prove that Rittenhouse didn't act "reasonably". I guess we'll see what happens.