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

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:29PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Did you read the article?

1. It says: Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst. A YMCA spokeswoman told the Tribune that Rittenhouse was a part-time employee who has been furloughed since March because of the pandemic.

Uh oh. He hasn't worked there since March. Someone is telling lies.

2. Even better the YMCA is in Lindenhurst. Lindenhurst YMCA is in ILLINOIS. Not Wisconsin. https://g.page/HastingsLakeYMCA?share

Double uh-oh.

Ask his lawyer he was the one that released the statement saying he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day.

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 12:32PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Ask his lawyer he was the one that released the statement saying he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day.

But you ran with it as a valid excuse for his presence in Kenosha on that day. Thanks to the link you provided we now know that he hasn't even been working as a lifeguard since March and that his job was actually in Illinois. It blows away your argument that he had reason to be there and wasn't just looking for trouble. So any other excuses as to why he was in Kenosha?

Leroy42 · 02-09-2020 12:33PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It's the exact same as you and a bunch of other posters claiming he was a murderous vigilant that went out to murder some protesters.

You have no evidence or proof to back up those claims it's pure speculation just as I am speculating that he acted in self defense.

So for you to call me out on that is the pot calling the kettle black.

The key difference is we know that he went there armed.

We know he had no 'business' there. He wasn't law enforced or anything, it was his decision.

We know he shot and killed two people.

I have no idea what the legal outcome will be, that is for the courts to decide. But you want to, for some reason, side with him and look for reasons that he should be not treated as a person who killed others.

Again, as I have already stated, that is a perfectly fine position to take, if one takes that view across the board. But you don't. You do not take the same approach to protestors.

As with everything to do with Trump supporters, it is the hypocrisy that you are being called out on, not your position.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:41PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

But you ran with it as a valid excuse for his presence in Kenosha on that day. Thanks to the link you provided we now know that he hasn't even been working as a lifeguard since March and that his job was actually in Illinois. It blows away your argument that he had reason to be there and wasn't just looking for trouble. So any other excuses as to why he was in Kenosha?

"After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha"

He was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha, can people not have 2 jobs anymore is that now a crime too?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/

Quin_Dub · 02-09-2020 12:42PM

ANYWAY - Back to the Election.

Latest polls show Biden increasing his lead in Wisconsin

The 538 polling average nows sits at Biden 49.8% , Trump 43.5% - Giving a 6.3% lead.

On August 25th the lead was at 5.9%

The latest Morning Consult poll gives Biden a 9 point lead , up from a 6 point lead in their previous poll taken on August 16th.

He's also held on to his leads in the other states , including a fairly large increase in Arizona

This shows the comparisons to 2016 in terms of the state of play. Huge difference in the "undecided" category.

4X fewer undecided voters and the Biden lead is nearly 3X the Clinton one.

** Apologies for the size of the images , couldn't find smaller ones.

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 12:43PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

"After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha"

He was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha, can people not have 2 jobs anymore is that now a crime too?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/

Where was he working? "Community lifeguard" doesn't pass the sniff test but it should be easy to confirm right? Any links.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:45PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The key difference is we know that he went there armed.

We know he had no 'business' there. He wasn't law enforced or anything, it was his decision.

We know he shot and killed two people.

I have no idea what the legal outcome will be, that is for the courts to decide. But you want to, for some reason, side with him and look for reasons that he should be not treated as a person who killed others.

Again, as I have already stated, that is a perfectly fine position to take, if one takes that view across the board. But you don't. You do not take the same approach to protestors.

As with everything to do with Trump supporters, it is the hypocrisy that you are being called out on, not your position.

Show me I said that:

he should be not treated as a person who killed others

He acted in self defense so yeah he did kill two people in self defense.

He did have a legitimate and genuine reason to be there as he was defending a business owners property.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:47PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where was he working? "Community lifeguard" doesn't pass the sniff test but it should be easy to confirm right? Any links.

How would it be easy to confirm every single persons work history isn't going to be available online especially when his is a minor.

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 12:50PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Because he was in Kenosha to work not to cause trouble.

It really does show up the lie that is Trump supporters and right wing media claiming Trump is rallying back in the polls over the protests, and Biden is only denouncing the violence because of this (which itself ignores the fact that Biden has denounced the violence on multiple occasions over the last several months).

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 12:51PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

How would it be easy to confirm every single persons work history isn't going to be available online especially when his is a minor.

Typical strawman response. We're not talking about "every single persons work history" quite clearly. We're talking about the guy charged with first degree intentional homicide - the same guy that you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend. I understand you're link to prove he was working as a lifeguard on that day backfired spectacularly, but no need to get defensive. If you can't show that he actually was working on that day in Kenosha then don't use it as an excuse for his presence there.

Quin_Dub · 02-09-2020 12:52PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Show me I said that:

he should be not treated as a person who killed others

He acted in self defense so yeah he did kill two people in self defense.

He did have a legitimate and genuine reason to be there as he was defending a business owners property.

Was he in the employ of a specific "Business owner" or was he simply wandering the streets with a gun (which he may or may not have been legally allowed to do)?

I'm not sure that "I saw a lad on Facebook asking for help" would count in a court of law as a "legitimate and genuine reason" to be patrolling the street with a weapon.

hotmail.com · 02-09-2020 12:53PM

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It really does show up the lie that is Trump supporters and right wing media claiming Trump is rallying back in the polls over the protests, and Biden is only denouncing the violence because of this (which itself ignores the fact that Biden has denounced the violence on multiple occasions over the last several months).

Not one person will have their vote influenced by these protests.

These will be forgotten if Biden gets in, as those that identify as liberals, just want to blame everything on Republicans.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:04PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Typical strawman response. We're not talking about "every single persons work history" quite clearly. We're talking about the guy charged with first degree intentional homicide - the same guy that you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend. I understand you're link to prove he was working as a lifeguard on that day backfired spectacularly, but no need to get defensive. If you can't show that he actually was working on that day in Kenosha then don't use it as an excuse for his presence there.

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 01:14PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:18PM

duploelabs wrote: »

Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 01:20PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

So he wasn't legally able to carry a firearm and there's no laws in Wisconsin for someone to be able to 'defend their castle', he was acting illegally. Grand, good to clear that up

weisses · 02-09-2020 01:20PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

It requires the national guard ... Not a teenager who watched his first Rambo movie

Timberrrrrrrr · 02-09-2020 01:20PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Isn't that why you have .police force? In fact they were there at the time doing exactly that when Rittenhouse murdered two people.

weisses · 02-09-2020 01:21PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

I believe he shot people who carried out a citizens arrest

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 01:28PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Why are you calling them violent mobs? Have they been charged and found guilty? Just that you were very concerned earlier about Rittenhouse's innocence and that he isn't a vigilante etc. pointing out he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Quin_Dub · 02-09-2020 01:29PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Doing that would involve actually being at a business owners property - Standing at the door or what have you.

Once he was on a public street ANY claims of "defending property" goes out the window , both in principal and more importantly as a matter of law.

Roaming the streets with a weapon isn't "defending a business owners property" , it's being a vigilante.

If he had been standing in the doorway of a building or on the roof or whatever and a crowd were outside throwing rocks and maybe even a firebomb then firing his weapon in defence of said property might well have met the requirements for self-defence or indeed the Castle Doctrine. But he wasn't doing that.

Bottom line - Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely no different to any of the armed rioters out there that night.

He is neither entitled to nor deserving of any additional sympathy to anyone else out on the streets that night.

They were all there looking for trouble and ALL should be held fully accountable for their actions under the law.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:32PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't that why you have .police force? In fact they were there at the time doing exactly that when Rittenhouse murdered two people.

Clearly they weren't able to be in all places at all times to defend every business property.

If there was enough cops there that night, then the business owner wouldn't have needed to ask for peoples help but there clearly wasn't as 2 of his other business properties were burnt to the ground the previous night as were many other properties or have no not seen the images of the burnt down buildings?

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 01:32PM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not one person will have their vote influenced by these protests.

These will be forgotten if Biden gets in, as those that identify as liberals, just want to blame everything on Republicans.

They had riots when Biden was in as VP, nobody "forgot about them", competent leadership just got them under control rather than taking awful actions that have only seen them scale up to a level never seen before in American history in the way that Trump has. The same can be seen in Hong Kong and Belarus for other examples.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:37PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why are you calling them violent mobs? Have they been charged and found guilty? Just that you were very concerned earlier about Rittenhouse's innocence and that he isn't a vigilante etc. pointing out he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be called violent..... it's a subjective term not a legal definition.

Timberrrrrrrr · 02-09-2020 01:39PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be called violent..... it's a subjective term not a legal definition.

Ah right, so i can call you a violent protester even though I don't know you because you have (as far as I know) never been found guilty of a crime that involves violence?

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:39PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Doing that would involve actually being at a business owners property - Standing at the door or what have you.

Once he was on a public street ANY claims of "defending property" goes out the window , both in principal and more importantly as a matter of law.

Roaming the streets with a weapon isn't "defending a business owners property" , it's being a vigilante.

If he had been standing in the doorway of a building or on the roof or whatever and a crowd were outside throwing rocks and maybe even a firebomb then firing his weapon in defence of said property might well have met the requirements for self-defence or indeed the Castle Doctrine. But he wasn't doing that.

Bottom line - Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely no different to any of the armed rioters out there that night.

He is neither entitled to nor deserving of any additional sympathy to anyone else out on the streets that night.

They were all there looking for trouble and ALL should be held fully accountable for their actions under the law.

That's all based on your opinion of what happened that night.

Just as my opinion of what happened was that he acted in self defense.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 01:40PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah right, so i can call you a violent protester even though I don't know you because you have (as far as I know) never been found guilty of a crime that involves violence?

Do you consider the burning down of buildings and the destroying of businesses as non-violent?

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 01:42PM

Some very poor polling coming out overnight for Trump & the Republicans. Evidence of the usual incumbent bump following a convention hasn't materialised following the RNC. Even his favourite pollsters Rasmussen who always lean for Trump don't look great.

Race/Topic () Poll Results Spread
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Grinnell/Selzer Democrats 48, Republicans 41 Democrats +7
2020 Generic Congressional Vote USA Today/Suffolk Democrats 48, Republicans 42 Democrats +6
Direction of Country USA Today/Suffolk Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 62 Wrong Track +32
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 72 Wrong Track +44
General Election: Trump vs. Biden USA Today/Suffolk Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Grinnell/Selzer Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
President Trump Job Approval Grinnell/Selzer Approve 43, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +8
President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 45, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +7
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

joeguevara · 02-09-2020 01:51PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.

Now, the fact he is a juvenile and travelled to a riot and got a phone call from a business owner and was given a rifle, could mean that it wasn’t murder. Manipulation could be at play. It is no coincidence that previous principals are saying he was severely bullied for being dumb and stupid. Also, if it transpires that he was receiving paraphernalia from third parties fuelling his blue lives matter obsession and further instructions which led to the heinous crime, then all bets are off.

I can see a lack of duty of care defence being put forward. Honestly, I see this going to juvenile court. Media blackout. US equivalent of manslaughter bargained. If he is convicted of murder conservative gun activists will have their perfect gun control case. If he is found not guilty, it will be a Rodney king x10000000.

Sean.3516 · 02-09-2020 01:52PM

With regard to Kyle Rittenhouse, a number of things can be true at once.

Thing no. 1: He shouldn't have had the weapon. He was 17 and outside his home state.

Thing no. 2: It was irresponsible for him to be there.

Thing no. 3: Things 1 & 2 become completely irrelevant once his life was in danger from a lunatic with a shirt on his head chasing him down and trying to take the gun from him (for no discernible reason.) That combined with the other guy firing off his pistol, It was a chaotic situation, but that first shooting (by Rittenhouse) was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

As were the two shootings after that. No murder took place here.

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

Comments