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

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1300154855546392577?s=20

Rep. Steve Scalise faked content in a Biden attack ad. He inserted the words "for police" into a question a disabled reporter asks, who speaks with an assistance device.

Taking advantage of someone's disability to produce libelous content. Scalise is in hot water.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1300075359929544705?s=20

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.

Leroy42

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.

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?

Carfacemandog

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.

Igotadose

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

"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"

That is part of a statement released by his legal team

So what? Jeffrey Dahmer had legal teams too.

Lets dumb this down.

Murderer kills someone. Is chased by a group who bravely attempt to disarm him. He murders another. Others finally tackle him, his weapon goes off and someone else is wounded.

Two murders, one attempted. Simples. He has no right to commit murder and it was premeditated.

One of his business had already been destroyed so logic would dictate that his other businesses were under imminent threat. So Kyle and his friend were defending his other businesses.

Or are we not following logic anymore?

No legal right to defend, requested or not.. He's not a cop.

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.

extra gravy

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.

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.

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.

Dyr

Carfacemandog wrote: »

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

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

Hang onto the narrative though, despite everything

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.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

"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

"The witness told The Vicki McKenna Show during an interview on 1310 WIBA on Friday that Rittenhouse and others, including military veterans, responded to a call on social media from a business owner to help protect his business which had already been partially destroyed during the prior nights of rioting."

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61687

His business had already been partially destroyed, so his other businesses needed to be protected due to the threat of them also being destroyed.

How is that logic difficult to follow, one business being burned down presents a threat to his other businesses when the rioters were once again out in force intent on causing further damage and destruction.

He's not some evil murder that was waiting for an opportunity to kill people. He was helping injured people on the night.

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1299250471069085696?s=20

He also helped to extinguish a dumpster fire on the night by providing a fire extinguisher.

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1299804984926564352?s=20

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So no evidence for your claim

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: .

Timberrrrrrrr

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?

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

"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"

That is part of a statement released by his legal team.

One of his business had already been destroyed so logic would dictate that his other businesses were under imminent threat. So Kyle and his friend were defending his other businesses.

Or are we not following logic anymore?

So no evidence for your claim

protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down

Carfacemandog

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.

Carfacemandog

Leroy42 wrote: »

a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.

Only if you are on their side politically.

Otherwise, even basic constitutional rights do not apply to you, including the right to peaceful protest like seen by Colin kaepernick and the clergy.

Dyr

Carfacemandog wrote: »

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.

Here we go, another classic chestnut:

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

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I see you haven't answered the question?

They were the only 2 options available to the business owner on the night.

Rubbish.

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?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

I see you haven't answered the question?

They were the only 2 options available to the business owner on the night.

salmocab

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.

Leroy42 wrote: »

a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.

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.

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.

Leroy42

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.

a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.

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

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's because he's 17 with a semi automatic rifle. But if you think it's okay for a 17 year old to roam the streets with a semi automatic rifle then I might as well be talking to the wall.

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.

Leroy42

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.