2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Bambi wrote: »

I'm going to hazard a guess that smashing cars, assault and forming lynch mobs to chase people dont generally fall under constitutionally guaranteed rights.

None of the people the kid shot were protesting, one was chasing him down, one was smacking him in the head, and the last was pointing a gun at him.

But do continue about protest...

Its like you're determined to prove my point, and murder isn't constitutionally protected either - hence his arrest since.

Colin kaepernick was peacefully protesting - Trump supporters despised him for this and wanted him stopped (including the president illegally influencing private businesses). The clergy and others were peacefully protesting - Trump supporters refused go take any issue with them being gassed by Trumps goons and denied this right. Trump supporters typically just want any dissent silenced, and don't really do much to hide this.

Trump supporters don't think constitutional rights should be applied equally, but instead want then applied to those who share their ideologies, and prove it time and again.

I see you're still trying to ignore the Biden campaigns denunciation of Richard Spencer while Trump never did. It's ok, it's very obvious why.

By the logic of these trying to defend this shooter, isn't it perfectly reasonable for people to attack the police if they feel in danger?

Also, it always seems that when it is a Trump supporter or far right groups that they must be treated as individuals and not grouped, but it is perfectly reasonable to lump all protestors as rioters and far left loonies.

There's a video on YouTube of Kyle Rittenhouse beating the crap out of a teenage girl.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He was protecting a business.

Which would you rather happen A or B?

A: Your business burning to the ground.

OR

B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.

So they are the only two options available ever? Bollox.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There's a video on YouTube of Kyle Rittenhouse beating the crap out of a teenage girl.

She was going after someone’s business.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He was protecting a business not some crazed vigilante that went out with the intention to kill people even though that's what a lot of people on this thread believe.

We can argue that point all we want but it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if he is guilty of any crimes.

So, when Kyle was battering the lard out of a girl, it would be fine if her 17 year old brother got a semi automatic rifle and shot Kyle dead. Amirite?

Bambi wrote: »

Here we go, another classic chestnut:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/22/donald-trump-disavow-alt-right-groups/

Exactly as I said, Trump claims to be against white suoremacists... while praising attendees of a white supremacist organised rally as 'very fine people'.

Replace the KKK/Spencer with Al Qaeda/ISIS, and Trump with Obama, and there would rightfully have been absolute uproar. But because it's Trump, his supporters feel the dutiful need to defend him to the hilt no matter what.

If there is one thing that Trump has said that is completely true, it is that he could shoot a man in the street and not lose supporters.

This is why Trump never denounced white supremacist support from the likes of Charlottesville organiser Richard Spencer, because he knows well that his supporters who are not racists are more than happy to mingle with them, and defend them if it means defending Trump. Such is the nature of cultism.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He was protecting a business.

Which would you rather happen A or B?

A: Your business burning to the ground.

OR

B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.

what would you prefer?

A: Your business being burned (no evidence this was going to happen), getting the insurance, rebuilding?

B: Two people losing their lives?

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Plenty of evidence there but you're ignoring it, one of the businesses had already burned down so therefore, there was an obvious threat that his other business premises would be burned down.

Or do you believe that violent rioters stop their rioting and destruction after they've burned down one business like all the other times that there has been rioting :rolleyes: .

So show it please, show us there was an imminent threat to that business that it needed armed children to shoot dead two people.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Plenty of evidence there but you're ignoring it, one of the businesses had already burned down so therefore, there was an obvious threat that his other business premises would be burned down.

Or do you believe that violent rioters stop their rioting and destruction after they've burned down one business like all the other times that there has been rioting :rolleyes: .

Me and my friend, who owns business property in Chicago, have been having this same conversation. Your right to defend your property extends to your property. Were the people on the private property? Were they on a public street, or publicly accessible easement, driveway, lot, etc?

If I had as imminent a concern as I would if I owned property in Portland, Chicago, Kenosha, etc. my first choice would be surveillance, which is cheaper than ever. $300 for a Nest camera is cheaper than most firearms, of the escalation of legal fees associated with choosing armed confrontation as your first layer of protection. My parents in FL had their licence plate stolen on their driveway, they don't patrol the front yard with AR-15s they have a camera. In the case of Kenosha board up your windows and give your property a low profile, not a high profile. During the LA riots shopkeepers were on their rooftops like it was a battlements, it was as much a threat to stay away as an invitation to open warfare. If your shop is secured properly you can wait inside, monitor your surveillance and there is a far higher probability you will be left alone than if you go marching the streets with a rifle and getting into shouting matches with protesters.

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

"Upon arrival, Kyle and others stood guard at the mechanic's shop across from the auto dealership to prevent further damage or destruction"

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61686

He continued: "Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life's work, including two nearby mechanic's shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines."

This doesn't make it clear that the local business owner was the owner of the mechanic's shops, which if he isn't means Rittenhouse was trying to guard property he had no affiliation with.

extra gravy wrote: »

How do you know what his intentions were? That may or may not be established after a full investigation. Swallowing everything his legal team is saying is also fairly naive.

I could totally see why a Medic is clearly just like obviously out for a killing spree and a frappuchino.

Bambi wrote: »

You said he didnt condemn white supremacistswhen he very clearly and explicitly did.

Hang onto the narrative though, despite everything

Nowhere there did he name check Spencer nor the organisers (of which Spencer was one) because they were still trying to pretend this rally was not a neo nazi one - which is was. If Obama had done the exact same for a hypothetical ISIS rally in the US it would likely have been the end of his presidency (and rightly so).

What I also said that you're wriggling to get out of, is that Spencer endorsed Trump in 2016 and had his infamous "Heil Trump!" conference after he won, and Trump never once denounced said support (nor support from any of the neo nazis who endorsed him if I recall). Instead, he hired Spencer's colleague and white supremacist college buddy Steven Miller to a high ranking advisory role.

You were eager to bring up Spencer endorsing Biden, I can see now why you're eager to not discuss Trumps reaction to Spencer endorsing him previously.

Don't worry though, we can all see you're very loyal. So good job there.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again, so you agree that should a protestor think that another protestor is in harms way due to police action that they are reasonable to attack the police?

They would be protecting their friends after all?

Surely if the public are let make these decision then that is vigalantism? He was their judge, jury and executioner of the people he killed, they will never get their day in court.

So which is it? Is law and order important or do individuals get to decide when and where it applies?

By that poster's logic, when Kyle was beating up a girl, the girl's 17 year old brother could shoot him dead with a semi automatic rifle. Protecting an innocent citizen, supporting the police, keeping the peace and all that jazz.