Silent Hill

Anyone in California excited to spend their Thanksgiving this way? "All gatherings must include no more than three households, including hosts and guests, and must be held outdoors, lasting for two hours of less" The new rules state those at a gathering "may remove their face coverings briefly to eat or drink as long as they stay at least 6 feet away from everyone outside their own household, and put their face covering back on as soon as they are done with the activity."

You guys can interpret Trump's stupidity and racism any way you want. It's easy to show that you are wrong though. White Supremacists are interpretting Donald Trump's messages as support for them and that is the proof he is supporting racism. Trump denounces White Supremacists many, many times over the years, including stating that he doesn't want their votes and/or affiliation. Yet, White Supremacists somehow take that as Trump supporting them? And that's Trump's fault? If that's the case, there's literally nothing Trump could ever say that would separate him from White Supremacists in your mind (or theirs). Comical logic.

Yea I bet you would. Off the top of my head... Trump said there were fine people on both side in Charlottesville. Trump told Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. I'm sure there are more. Feel free to take a look. So why the mixed signals? Why can't he condemn them each and every time? Personally, I think the "stand back and stand by" has been taken too literally by most people. I sincerely doubt his intent was to have the Proud Boys waiting in the shadows until Trump gave the green light for them to go out and terrorize people. I honestly think he intended to say "stand down" but just misspoke. That aligns more with his history of publicly denouncing hate groups IMO. That said, he could have chose his words better but we all know how great he can be with words at times. For his Charlottesville quote, that USA Today piece supplied the full quote (below), in which Trump denounced the radicals on both sides of the protest. I know that it's been cherry picked and blasted throughout media because that's what some people want to hear. It's really easy to take that single line and boost your stance on Trump supporting White Supremacists, but in full context, and married with his previous condemnations, it's clear that he straight up excluded White Supremacists/Nationalists and Neo-Nazis from the "very fine people" he was describing. "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." "It is clear from the full statement that President Trump was not making a distinction between the right and left, but between radicals of all types versus those who protest peacefully."

@CodysGameRoom I'll gladly watch (or read) a similar montage of his statements supporting White Supremacists @Californication Which of those statements in the video/USA Today piece were taken out of context? Which of those statements were received/understood in an opposite fashion and by whom/what group? Or are you referring to actions he's taken that contradicts those statements?

@Californication - Found a good montage of Trump supporting White Supremacists. USA Today also has a piece on how much he supports White Supremacists and hate groups. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/02/trump-and-white-supremacy-he-did-condemn-and-has-repeatedly-column/5883336002/

I am responding to the situation as an either/or because of the paradigm that has been created by the federal government. I don't give a shit about Antifa. I don't know anyone who says they are Antifa and I don't have any ties to Antifa. My issue is that month after month when people go to the president and ask him about white supremacist violence the president changes the subject and scape-goats Antifa. My issue is that the DOJ is not trying to stop white supremacists but is instead going after the specter Antifa. The president and Bill Barr via the Department of Justice are making claims and expending resources after people who are not killing people as is being reported in conservative circles. And yet month after month, year after year, we have to read about more people from these conservative right wing circles are killing people. Trump and Barr's false claims about Antifa are repeated and exagerrated on Fox News, Breitbart, Reddit, Facebook, etc. and conservatives and Trump supporters repeat these false claims never getting near the real issue of why we are seeing an uptick in violence which is the presidents support of white supremacy. Then on the individual level, conservative voters hear the terms Antifa and White Supremacist synonymously and are less likely to feel ashamed for voting for people who promote white supremacy and violence. What percentage of violence, arson, destruction of property, etc. done over the last ~6 months has been done by white supremacist groups? And which of Trump's statements have encouraged these white supremacist groups to perpetuate the violence?

To be clear, the Proud Boys aren't a white supremacist group, even though they were framed as such to help "prove" that Trump supports white supremacists.

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.

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? 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.

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. 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.

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) I also stand corrected on this. His conviction of possessIon of a firearm while intoxicated is a misdemeanor. While I’ve been corrected on a few things as more evidence is presented, nothing I was incorrect about diminishes the overall stance of self-defense. Grosskreutz being a felon or not doesn’t impact it, Rittenhouse not attempting to apply aid doesn’t impact it, and Rittenhouse illegally carrying doesn’t impact it.

What recon are you looking at to determine if the warrant was valid? From what I’ve seen, Taylor’s name was on the warrant and she was still in contact with her ex, so she was most definitely associated. If the police had actually served the warrant as a no-knock, I’m confident nobody would have been shot. Knocking gave Walker time to arm himself and prepare to shoot whoever came through that door. That’s a main reason they execute no-knocks. This is just an unfortunate stalemate situation. They had enough evidence to secure warrants for multiple locations, including Taylor’s. If they truly didn’t announce themselves then I fully see why Walker armed himself (especially since he was aware of her ex and what they were involved in). The police didn’t shoot until Walker did, so their return fire was justified. Walker had his charges dropped because his shooting seems justified, and the police were justified in returning fire, so no manslaughter/murder charge there. But instead of people looking at it from both sides and from a legal standpoint, you have most people falling into an extreme stance either fully blaming the police and their “racism”, or people blaming Walker for defending themselves against police (even though there’s a strong chance they didn’t know who they were). Then you have some people still overlooking the evidence that’s come up, which to me are the worst of all, since it proves they can’t look at anything objectively/logically. (e.g. Taylor was asleep, police didn’t knock, police fired first, police had the wrong address, etc.)

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.

Wonder why there were no charges brought for incorrectly serving a warrant?

I can see why she is dismissing it since this was the approach for the report. It doesn't seem they actually contact traced someone who had/got COVID from Sturgis, but just looked at the trend of the state they went back to, seemingly basing all new cases on that person(s) who returned from Sturgis? I'm not sure how many cellphones they actually tracked either. Not saying the event was a smart move, but the "report" seems inaccurate as hell. The researchers arrived at the figures by analyzing anonymized cellphone data to track the smartphone pings from non-residents and movement of those before and after the event. The study then linked those who attended and traveled back to their home states, and compared changes in coronavirus trends after the rally's conclusion

Bingo. Members of the police commented on their Facebook event asking to create a line of communication, how many members they would have in attendance, etc. The kid was thanked by the police for "his efforts". Sickening. Not like they thanked him for shooting people. They thanked the group for helping deter criminal rioters and arsonists. If you're in that area, the right side of the law is defending property, not destroying it. For the Facebook event/thread of "police asking to create a line of communication", who is Paul Swick and what is the "TTPO"? Doesn't seem like an actual Police department/division.

It was grainy cell phone video on facebook footage I was watching, where you see someone lobbing a flaming something (at a building and chaos ensues from there. Everything else is hearsay. Im just speculating, really. It's the only conclusion that makes sense to me at this time. Why else would 3 people be attempting to disarm Rittenhouse unless he was showing some kind of aggression/defense? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html And then here you have nice crystal clear footage of Rittenhouse murdering someone/defending himself depending on your viewpoint with no context added. The answer is definitely somewhere in the middle. I posted that article earlier which gives a pretty detailed review of all video evidence. Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse to start because Rosenbaum was already aggressive and yelling "shoot me n****" to the group Kyle was around at the gas station in an earlier video. So in short, Rosenbaum was the aggressor, and chased Rittenhouse to the point that he was forced to defend himself. The rest of the group that chased after Rittenhouse after the first shooting were under the mob mentality of "stop the guy who just shot someone", not understanding that chasing someone who is armed and running towards police, isn't the logical thing to do. And that's why those who attacked Rittenhouse once they caught up to him, were shot. According to the "reporter" (McGinnis) who was filming and had been following Rittenhouse around prior: "As they continued to walk, Rosenbaum tried to get closer to Rittenhouse, McGinnis told police. When Rosenbaum grew near, Rittenhouse did a "juke" move and started running, seemingly trying to evade a group of people who were moving toward him, McNeill wrote" "According to the reporter, Rosenbaum was reaching for the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun, when the teenager pulled it away and raised the weapon."

Rosenbaum threw something, but I haven't heard concrete evidence on what exactly it was. There's no evidence of Rittenhouse trying to place anyone (especially Rosenbaum) under citizen's arrest. The first video starts with Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through that parking lot. Unless you're watching some footage that I'm not aware of?

Who's on the other side of the "aisle"? The NRA? They don't want to stop this. The GOP/RNC? They want poor people dead so they can't vote and the GOP can stay in power. I get your point but it's just not going to happen. You have to look at things more realistically. It's nice to think about how things should be but America should be focused on how things are and how to solve them. Ah the RNC, pushing for riots just so poor people kill themselves, diminishing the Democratic voter pool. Thankfully the Democratic leaders of the cities most affected are accepting assistance to help mitigate the violence/crime, and prosecuting associated criminals to the full extent of the law or else the RNC's grand scheme would come to fruition.

Just want to clarify, are you implying that Rittenhouse was pursing people, or that he was an aggressor? Also, I assume the "bomb thrower" you're referencing is the first guy who was shot (Rosenbaum)?

You guys get along because you are almost always on the same side of every issue. @SilentHill said that, " Which I think is laughable. I thinks it's a lot easier to see what side of issues your on. All we have to do is see what side of an issue blacks and minorities are on and almost every time you two will be on the other side. And where within these topics did I not acknowledge evidence objectively? Where did my political bias affect my reasoning? Did I inject any unrelated comments about how much of a piece of shit Trump is to reinforce my political bias? Let's take a look at the last 40 pages Pg. 163 Rhino explains why it's discrimination not to eat at Chiq Fil A if you don't like their political or religous stances. Pg 165 - Rhino explains why brand like Aunt Jemima are not racist. pg - 171 SH People are promoting racial divide by talking abouy systemic racism. I still feel this way. Pushing that systemic racism is the cause for all unequal outcomes is not helping close any racial divide. It's setting an unrealistic expectation that the only cause for unequal outcomes, is your skin color. You're looking at a disparity and assuming it's solely due to racism, when there are many other factors that contribute to outcomes. Pg 175 - SH doesn't believe systemic racism existed except prior to the civil war. I assume you meant Civil Rights? Because that's when there were actual laws/policies that affected equal rights based on skin color. None of that exists today, everyone has equal rights under the law. pg 175 affirmative action has uintended negative results "this is a privelige that white people don't have." Assuming this was a statement I made, I believe I explained how those results come to be, and it's obvious that Affirmative Action isn't a privilege for white people. Pg 1 - Rhino explains why it was Michael Browns fault he was killed by police. Pg. 9 - SH explains how link's data on racial profiling is probably because of other reasons then racial profiling. Other reasons in addition to racial profiling. Thin, blurred line between criminal profiling and racial profiling. Doesn't mean every cop is racially profiling, or that every cop isn't racially profiling. Pg 9 SH explains how the cop that killed George Floyd tried to de-escalate the system (despite greeting Floyd with a knock on the window with a gun). He didn't knock on the window with a gun, only pulled the gun when George ignored commands to show both of his hands. Once he did, the officer holstered the gun. They actively tried to de-escalate the situation, and gave George countless opportunities to comply. (George asked to be placed on the ground after resisting many times, and refusing to get in the car) Doesn't mean the end result is right, but the evidence doesn't point to racism, or intent to kill. Pg 4 - SH explains why stop and frisk is not racist. Another example of unequal outcomes must solely be racist. An additional factor couldn't be that stop and frisk was applied heavier in crime areas which have their own demographics? Pg 7 - Rhino explains why disproportionate arrest of minorities isn't racist. (The old thread is on pg 4 of everything else)

He was already charged. With intentional murder. Twice. Among other charges. Probably meant "convicted".

Even ol' Chris Cuomo admitted "The media is not your friend"