US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[JoeKitchen]

So Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi needed a blow and dry.  She got videoed breaking the San Francisco rules against indoor salons plus she didn't wear a mask.  Hypocrisy again from the Democrats, pointing fingers at the president, shutting down the economy to make Trump look bad, etc. What phonies.   

Nancy Pelosi gets hair done at SF salon in spite of COVID-19 rules
https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/nancy-pelosi-gets-hair-done-at-sf-salon-in-spite-of-covid-19-rules/

Our liberal mayor in Philly shut indoor dining months ago, constantly pushed the date back, and was photographed going to Maryland to eat inside without a face mask. 

Hey, at least some of us are getting back to normal living.  Just think how great it will be when we can all partake in the pleasures of royalty.  That's what they call progress, right?

[jeremyrh]

Now there's an ideal; but if posting in this thread, or other threads on this site, were restricted to people who know what they're talking about, the forum would be awfully quiet.

Jeremy

Steady on - you may have to ban yourself for making unnecessary inflammatory remarks.

[jeremyrh]

Its not splitting hairs at all.  They went after him prior to any "trouble breaking out". He was not attacking any of them. 

I suggest you do a bit of research and find out for yourself.

The real world eh?  Where thugs rampage and destroy business and property at will?

We are not talking about "large numbers of law abiding people" now are we?

And yet, after all the mobs, the thugs, the loaded handguns and skateboards, only one person shot anyone, and he walked away unscathed.  Maybe things are not as you claim, eh?

[Craig Lamson]

And yet, after all the mobs, the thugs, the loaded handguns and skateboards, only one person shot anyone, and he walked away unscathed.  Maybe things are not as you claim, eh?

No. they are exactly as I claimed.  Learn to read.  They were the first to attack, Ritttenhouse was in full on retreat and he defended himself.  And thats why he is still alive.  Unscathed?  I think not.

[JoeKitchen]

And yet, after all the mobs, the thugs, the loaded handguns and skateboards, only one person shot anyone, and he walked away unscathed.  Maybe things are not as you claim, eh?

The NYTs, surprisingly, had a very accurate write up on this.  He did not shoot first.  One of the people he shot had a handgun and aimed it at Rittenhouse first and fired, although missed.  It is only after this that Rittenhouse returned fire.  There is video showing this. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Speaking as an outsider, it's very interesting observing all the spin here.

A 17 year old with a rifle is "protecting a business" (Who sends a 17 year old with a rifle to protect a business?) and that's presented as normal and ok because of, you know, the 2nd amendment and all, I guess. Some people bend over backward to find ways to proclaim his innocence, and that may very well turn out to be the case.

It will be interesting to find out what emerges about his background in the next while and the reactions to it. Because, in the past, when some unarmed black teenager has been shot, stories started to appear pretty quickly about the kid's troubled past, even though the relevance to the shooting in question was not often clear, to me anyway. Does it matter that he was in trouble with the cops 2 months before? But the media muddling was obvious enough, "the kid was trouble, he had it coming." Those words were never said explicitly, I don't believe, but that's what everyone understood it to mean.

Take the statement above about the video showing that the 17 year old had been shot at earlier. OK, but is THAT in context? Why did that other person shoot at the 17 year old? We don't really know that yet, do we, yet sides are being drawn based on obvious politics, as if what's important here is the political spin.

When people believe that they have a right to protect themselves by carrying weapons in an open society, stuff like this is going to happen. You can nit pick that the 17 year old had a right to carry a weapon but you may be missing the bigger problem.

[LesPalenik]

The NYTs, surprisingly, had a very accurate write up on this.  He did not shoot first.  One of the people he shot had a handgun and aimed it at Rittenhouse first and fired, although missed.  It is only after this that Rittenhouse returned fire.  There is video showing this.

I wonder how would the media react if the person with handgun were a better shooter and if he had hit Rittenhouse?

[Robert Roaldi]

I wonder how would the media react if the person with handgun were a better shooter and if he had hit the Rittenhouse?

Do we know if one of the people who was killed was the guy who shot at him earlier? I could see why he'd feel threatened by that person.

[jeremyrh]

The NYTs, surprisingly, had a very accurate write up on this.  He did not shoot first.  One of the people he shot had a handgun and aimed it at Rittenhouse first and fired, although missed.  It is only after this that Rittenhouse returned fire.  There is video showing this.

Well according to the NYT:


First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

and the eye witness testimony is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9sDjYr1Nj_fpFr9bTycWPG8tS2aPDeL/view

[Craig Lamson]

Well according to the NYT:


First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

and the eye witness testimony is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m9sDjYr1Nj_fpFr9bTycWPG8tS2aPDeL/view

So that’s the police report.  What did I have wrong? 

[Craig Lamson]

Speaking as an outsider, it's very interesting observing all the spin here.

A 17 year old with a rifle is "protecting a business" (Who sends a 17 year old with a rifle to protect a business?) and that's presented as normal and ok because of, you know, the 2nd amendment and all, I guess. Some people bend over backward to find ways to proclaim his innocence, and that may very well turn out to be the case.

It will be interesting to find out what emerges about his background in the next while and the reactions to it. Because, in the past, when some unarmed black teenager has been shot, stories started to appear pretty quickly about the kid's troubled past, even though the relevance to the shooting in question was not often clear, to me anyway. Does it matter that he was in trouble with the cops 2 months before? But the media muddling was obvious enough, "the kid was trouble, he had it coming." Those words were never said explicitly, I don't believe, but that's what everyone understood it to mean.

Take the statement above about the video showing that the 17 year old had been shot at earlier. OK, but is THAT in context? Why did that other person shoot at the 17 year old? We don't really know that yet, do we, yet sides are being drawn based on obvious politics, as if what's important here is the political spin.

When people believe that they have a right to protect themselves by carrying weapons in an open society, stuff like this is going to happen. You can nit pick that the 17 year old had a right to carry a weapon but you may be missing the bigger problem.

You can find out all you want about the shooter and  targets by simply doing a google.  One 17 year old kid who liked the police and three guys who have criminal pasts...one a registered sex offender for sex with a minor.

[Alan Klein]

He should have stayed home.

[Craig Lamson]

He should have stayed home.

On that I agree.

[JoeKitchen]

I wonder how would the media react if the person with handgun were a better shooter and if he had hit Rittenhouse?

It would have been buried, just like the conservative killed in cold blood over the weekend in Portland.  Have you read about that? 

A man that was a conservative in a counter protest (that did not bring any lethal weapons) was just hanging out, not being a threat to anyone, and, on the tape, you hear someone say to the effect, we have a Trump supporter here, and then shots ring out killing him. 

A BLM member did the shooting, and, thankfully, his estranged family turned him in.  It also should be mentioned that he was arrested a few weeks earlier on a weapons charge that was dropped without a clear reason given, even though we all know the reason is because liberal DAs are refusing to prosecute many crimes. 

Barely a peep about it. 

[Alan Klein]

What he did was stupid and immature.  You don't walk into a tinderbox with a lit flame whether legal or not. He knew what happens at these demonstrations.  They've been all over the TV.  They turn into riots with guns and Molotov cocktails.  He was looking for trouble.  A wise-ass kid of 17 trying to prove something.  Where were his parents? He's a minor?  So now he's killed two people injured a third and ruined his life, his family's lives as they use all their resources to defend him.   Long after the ego trip is gone, he has to live with his conscience.   

Legally, he's in serious trouble as well. It doesn;t matter what happened earlier how he might have been threatened.  The scene I saw was that he rolled over and pointed the rifle and the guy slightly backed off.  He fired anyway killing an unarmed man with an AR-15 at two feet.  It'll be hard to argue that that man threatened his life.  If someone punches you, I don't think you can shoot him.  The prosecutions going to argue he was a threat to the man who hit him as he was carrying a dangerous gun.

But all that is beside the point.  You have to know when to keep your fly zipped.

[Craig Lamson]

What he did was stupid and immature.  You don't walk into a tinderbox with a lit flame whether legal or not. He knew what happens at these demonstrations.  They've been all over the TV.  They turn into riots with guns and Molotov cocktails.  He was looking for trouble.  A wise-ass kid of 17 trying to prove something.  Where were his parents? He's a minor?  So now he's killed two people injured a third and ruined his life, his family's lives as they use all their resources to defend him.   Long after the ego trip is gone, he has to live with his conscience.   

Legally, he's in serious trouble as well. It doesn;t matter what happened earlier how he might have been threatened.  The scene I saw was that he rolled over and pointed the rifle and the guy slightly backed off.  He fired anyway killing an unarmed man with an AR-15 at two feet. It'll be hard to argue that that man threatened his life.  If someone punches you, I don't think you can shoot him.  The prosecutions going to argue he was a threat to the man who hit him as he was carrying a dangerous gun.

But all that is beside the point.  You have to know when to keep your fly zipped.

Could you show me that video?

[Alan Klein]

Could you show me that video?

Craig, I don't want to get into the legal argument.  I shouldn't have even brought it up.  Let the courts decide.  My point was he didn't belong there from a practical standpoint.  But he didn't have the maturity to know he didn't.  He legally had the right to own a gun.  But at 17 he hadn't the common sense to know that you don't walk around violent demonstrations challenging people with an open weapon. 

[Alan Klein]

The guys who got shot were pretty stupid too.  Who brings a skateboard to a gunfight? They were all violating curfew on both sides.  They all should have been home. It was trouble waiting to happen and it did. 

[Alan Klein]

The Dems must be worried.

Biden’s lead in Pennsylvania shrinks to 4 points in new poll
The previous version of the same survey showed him with majority support among the state’s registered voters.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/biden-lead-poll-pennsylvania-407682

[Robert Roaldi]

Cut funding to cities that behave badly, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/514903-trump-calls-for-review-to-cut-funding-to-cities-with-lawless-protests. I'm sure that will help.

This idea will likely die quickly, never to be mentioned again, like many many others, but you got to wonder, why say it at all.