nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Beasty

No spitting, biting, gouging or uncivility allowed

First thread here

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Wrong he was there to provide medical assistance to people that needed it since he is a trained medic as can be seen from this video in which helped a wounded protester.

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1300970053307740160?s=09

He was there to help people and the reason he had his rifle was because he would be running into harms way in doing so.

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1298776265197985799?s=09

He himself says he was "there to defend property" which under the law he was not doing.

Like I have said - He can put his "self defence" argument to the jury and see how he gets on , but so can the others.

It's your refusal to see the other sides potential legal defence/arguments as valid is what is frustrating here.

I don't think ANY of them should have been on the street that night.

Quin_Dub

clubberlang12 wrote: »

None of your post can determine his intentions?

Who was the agitator in this sequence of events? Rittenhouse? The persons chasing him in both instances of shooting? And don't say he was because he carried a fire-arm? Did every person carrying a fire-arm shoot someone that night, or any other night? If not, then what was their intentions for carrying a fire-arm with them?

Do you consider the people carrying fire-arms who conversed with rioters saying they were only there to protect private property and owners but agreed with them about some of the civil rights issue, to be just as incendiary as the rioters who damaged and looted?

Who was the agitator? I don't know , none of them should have been there in the 1st place. I would contend that both sides were there "looking for trouble" and as such both sides should be held accountable for their actions.

Not everyone that was out that night used their weapon thankfully, whether that was purely luck or down to better control on the part of possibly more mature and/or experienced gun owners we'll never know. Or indeed down to the better behaviour/judgement of the Protestors/Rioters.

Again , none of them should have been out there and anyone that was anywhere other than standing on private property was not "protecting private property".

1800_Ladladlad

So he was a US Senator for 35 years and Vice President for 8, that's 40 years in politics and he has done sweet f*ck all about these issues. These problems are because of his own parties' monumental and deliberate destroying of black communities.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1300939997059493888

Sean.3516

randd1 wrote: »

Conjecture or not, guns are designed for the purpose of killing.

But not necessarily murdering.

randd1 wrote: »

Having a gun on your person for use therefore denotes the very possibility of using it to kill. Knowing you have an instrument designed to kill on you person would denote the willingness to use it.

Intending to kill from the outset (ie. murder) and being willing to kill in order to protect the life or property of himself or others are two different things.

One is a crime and the other isn't.

randd1 wrote: »

As for conjecture, unless you've spoken directly to the chap himself, you have no clue as to his motive for being there either.

We have footage of him explaining why he was there and offering first aid to injured protesters.

randd1 wrote: »

As for not anticipating someone chasing him, why did he bring the gun then? If he was there to "protect property", then he would have anticipated confrontation, meaning he went there with the intent to shoot.

I said he may not have anticipated it but I don't think it matters.

"he anticipated confrontation..." Again, you're begging the question. By "confrontation" do you mean a confrontation in which he is an aggressor or a defender? That distinction is what this entire case hinges on.

If we can assume he anticipated he may have to use his weapon while defending either someone else's property or his own life, that's not the same as premeditating murder

randd1 wrote: »

And as much as "there's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people", equally there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't intending on killing people either, American youngsters of course being in no way infamous for random, deadly shootings.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the presumption of innocence?

randd1 wrote: »

And as you're going down the "there's no evidence route", there's no evidence the person attempting to take his gun may have being someone genuinely attempting to prevent the murder of an innocent person. It wouldn't be the first time someone wielding a gun in public was tackled by a fellow citizen to prevent them killing someone.

That paragraph is just hilarious.
If that's your standard then, that there's no evidence that anything we don't know happened didn't happen, therefore we're obligated to consider the possibility....

Look, we can only make conclusions from the evidence that's available. Trying to make conclusions based on the absence of evidence is logically absurd. Logic 101, it's impossible to prove a negative.

joeguevara

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He himself says he was "there to defend property" which under the law he was not doing.

Like I have said - He can put his "self defence" argument to the jury and see how he gets on , but so can the others.

It's your refusal to see the other sides potential legal defence/arguments as invalid is what is frustrating here.

I don't think ANY of them should have been on the street that night.

This defend property/assist business owner could be a red herring or could be used as part of a three pronged defence. The prosecution would start with the question why did he travel to the area. First prong is the defend property. Without it, he has no reason. Now the fact it didn’t come to fruition isn’t paramount. Got lost, ran into a riot etc could be raised which leads to second prong. Here is a juvenile whose reason for being there is lost but needs a reason to possess rifle. Raise 2nd amendment. This is not simply possession but a literal reading is right to bare arms for a well regulated milita for security of free state. The fact this persons obsession with police and law and order in general is arguable that he felt he was part of a well regulated militia whether right or not. As I have posted earlier, as a juvenile if he was manipulated into believing he was part of a militia, could satisfy this. Then comes third prong. Self defence. He was in imminent fear of his life and acted out.

Now, that’s the way I would try and create a defence and all this BS about hunting etc is a no go. I would then hope it was enough to begin a plea.

Disregarding everything we have read, this is a case of a juvenile who left school because he was bullied for his intellectual capability. He became obsessed with law enforcement and his social media showed videos of this obsession. He then crossed state lines, apparently received a phone call from a business owner in a city that he has no connection two, was given a rifle that wasn’t his and ended up killing people. There are a lot of steps there which means opportunities to raise doubt.

joeguevara

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

So he was a US Senator for 35 years and Vice President for 8, that's 40 years in politics and he has done sweet f*ck all about these issues. These problems are because of his own parties' monumental and deliberate destroying of black communities.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1300939997059493888

Notwithstanding the fact that he is one man, and the issues in minority communities have existed a lot longer than 1980 (40 years in politics), exacerbated by both republican and Democrat parties, but are a result of 100s of years of treating blacks as animals, I don’t understand the point that you are making.

The crime being discussed was allegedly perpetrated by a white male. Who literally has nothing to do with the destruction of black communities. Are you giving a pass to a white person murdering people because of ghettoisation?

randd1

Sean.3516 wrote: »

But not necessarily murdering.

True. But willingly turning up in public with a loaded firearm with an intent to use the gun would suggest premeditation. Which if it ends up in a death, is murder.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Intending to kill from the outset (ie. murder) and being willing to kill in order to protect the life or property of himself or others are two different things.

One is a crime and the other isn't.

True. But was he on the property when he fired the gun? Or protecting someone else in imminent danger?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We have footage of him explaining why he was there and offering first aid to injured protesters.

Was he using his gun to provide first aid? And I thought the reason he was there was to defend property? And of course, it's impossible he may have been untruthful in his explanation.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I said he may not have anticipated it but I don't think it matters.

"he anticipated confrontation..." Again, you're begging the question. By "confrontation" do you mean a confrontation in which he is an aggressor or a defender? That distinction is what this entire case hinges on.

If we can assume he anticipated he may have to use his weapon while defending either someone else's property or his own life, that's not the same as premeditating murder

When you bring a gun into an area where there's a protest/riot, you are anticipating using the gun. Which shows intent. If there's intent to kill before an occurrence, it's murder.

As regard self defence. The people he shot may have been genuinely trying to tackle what they saw as an armed threat to themselves or other, which is self defence. What's good for the goose....

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I'm guessing you've never heard of the presumption of innocence?

Was that afforded to the people he shot? Is it not the role of the police and the justice system to determine innocence, and not an armed vigilante?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

That paragraph is just hilarious.
If that's your standard then, that there's no evidence that anything we don't know happened didn't happen, therefore we're obligated to consider the possibility....

I was just using your own logic in reverse.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Look, we can only make conclusions from the evidence that's available. Trying to make conclusions based on the absence of evidence is logically absurd. Logic 101, it's impossible to prove a negative.

And the only cold hard evidence available is that an armed 17 year old shot dead two unarmed people in public, and injured another in armed confrontation.

Neither you nor I know the full story at the moment, apart from that verifiable fact. And logic 101 would suggest gunning people down in public is murder.

Igotadose

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum (the first guy to get shot). There's footage of Rosenbaum earlier being confrontational with the guys who were part of Kyle's group. He was saying "shoot me nigga!"

He then killed Rosenbaum, ran off was chased down by the group that included Anthony Huber, who tried to disarm him, and Rittenhouse murdered him as well.

BTW, what's your opinion of Huber's actions regarding Rittenhouse? I don't recall if KidC ever answered my direct question, but here it is to you: Is Anthony Huber a hero? He probably saved lives that otherwise would have been taken by Rittenhouse

The main argument against Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be he was "looking for trouble". We have no proof of that. We do have proof that the first guy he shot was behaving confrontationally with the people defending private property and later chased on of them and tried to take his gun.

After he murdered someone. The 'main argument' against Kyle Rittenhouse is, he is accused of shooting 2 people to death. We have no EVIDENCE of anything, there's yet to be a trial

In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.

Farcical. He shot the gun. And, no trial, no evidence. This comes up all the time in these discussions. We all have opinions on the information we've each gathered.

Let me dumb this down for you. I walk up next to you and murder someone with a handgun. For whatever reason. You then, trying to be a good sport, don't turn tail and run, but take a run at me to get me to drop my weapon. I kill you - can I plead self-defense? How different is that than the old joke of the fellow that murdered his parents pleading for mercy now that he was an orphan?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Ignoring and shouting lefty is part of the playbook ... It doesn't require critical thinking

“Change the record” right

LessOutragePlz

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/02/electoral-college-explained-biden-uphill-battle-us-election

Good article in the guardian on how Biden faces an uphill battle in the election due to the electoral college system.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/02/electoral-college-explained-biden-uphill-battle-us-election

Good article in the guardian on how Biden faces an uphill battle in the election due to the electoral college system.

Everyone knows this - That's why the Swing States matter.

And he's leading in more than enough of them today. and has increased his lead in multiple states over the last few weeks , includes places like Wisconsin , Michigan and Arizona.

Still time for things to change , but so far it's going well for Biden and not so well for Trump.

A survey yesterday asked about who people trusted more across the major issues that are of concern in the US today..

It does not make pretty reading for Trump.

Biden has a significant lead in a lot of areas , including "Public Safety" so his current Law and Order angle doesn't seem to be resonating with the electorate.

https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1301119298837110786

Sean.3516

randd1 wrote: »

True. But willingly turning up in public with a loaded firearm with an intent to use the gun would suggest premeditation. Which if it ends up in a death, is murder.

Again, you're begging the question...

Use the gun for what? Using a gun to intentionally kill someone is murder. If his intent is simply to defend himself, that's not murder.

You keep missing the point. Being willing to use a gun is essential but not sufficient to sustain a murder charge. You need to prove it was his intention from the outset to kill someone.

randd1 wrote: »

True. But was he on the property when he fired the gun? Or protecting someone else in imminent danger?

Re-read my post. "in order to protect the life or property of himself or others.."

Ergo, if he's defending his own life, no matter where he is, the same principle applies.

randd1 wrote: »

Was he using his gun to provide first aid? And I thought the reason he was there was to defend property? And of course, it's impossible he may have been untruthful in his explanation.

While he was standing guard, an injured protester walks by and he can be seen going towards them saying "I'm an EMT" (Emergency Medical Technician).

randd1 wrote: »

When you bring a gun into an area where there's a protest/riot, you are anticipating using the gun. Which shows intent. If there's intent to kill before an occurrence, it's murder.

You just love begging the question.

Intent to what? Intending to use a gun to defend life or property is not the same as intending to use it specifically to kill people. The intent is what distinguishes murder from self defence or forms of negligent homicide.

randd1 wrote: »

As regard self defence. The people he shot may have been genuinely trying to tackle what they saw as an armed threat to themselves or other, which is self defence. What's good for the goose....

And do you have any evidence of that?

Just asking because we have evidence that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. We have no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything threatening to Rosenbaum leading up to this.

randd1 wrote: »

Was that afforded to the people he shot? Is it not the role of the police and the justice system to determine innocence, and not an armed vigilante?

If you're gonna try and grab someone's AR-15, you better not fail or you could die.

You're right to life is contingent on you not unlawfully threatening someone else's life.

randd1 wrote: »

I was just using your own logic in reverse.

Really? How?

randd1 wrote: »

And the only cold hard evidence available is that an armed 17 year old shot dead two unarmed people in public, and injured another in armed confrontation.

Correction:
One was armed with a gun,
another was armed with a potentially lethal blunt instrument.
The other was trying to grab a weapon from someone.

These people weren't innocent bystanders.

They were playing a stupid game and they won a stupid prize.

randd1 wrote: »

Neither you nor I know the full story at the moment, apart from that verifiable fact. And logic 101 would suggest gunning people down in public is murder.

**Intentionally killing someone with a gun is murder.

joeguevara

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again, you're begging the question...

Use the gun for what? Using a gun to intentionally kill someone is murder. If his intent is simply to defend himself, that's not murder.

You keep missing the point. Being willing to use a gun is essential but not sufficient to sustain a murder charge. You need to prove it was his intention from the outset to kill someone.

Re-read my post. "in order to protect the life or property of himself or others.."

Ergo, if he's defending his own life, no matter where he is, the same principle applies.

While he was standing guard, an injured protester walks by and he can be seen going towards them saying "I'm an EMT" (Emergency Medical Technician).

You just love begging the question.

Intent to what? Intending to use a gun to defend life or property is not the same as intending to use it specifically to kill people. The intent is what distinguishes murder from self defence or forms of negligent homicide.

And do you have any evidence of that?

Just asking because we have evidence that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. We have no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything threatening to Rosenbaum leading up to this.

If you're gonna try and grab someone's AR-15, you better not fail or you could die.

You're right to life is contingent on you not unlawfully threatening someone else's life.

Really? How?

Correction:
One was armed with a gun,
another was armed with a potentially lethal blunt instrument.
The other was trying to grab a weapon from someone.

These people weren't innocent bystanders.

They were playing a stupid game and they won a stupid prize.

**Intentionally killing someone with a gun is murder.

Sean, self defence can only be used when you feel that you are in imminent threat of danger. It’s a full defence to murder or manslaughter but without an imminent threat, it cannot be argued. The fact that he wasn’t in imminent threat is key. His lawyer has made public that the reason he brought the gun because if he didn’t he would die, is trying to construct a self defence argument, but if he stayed where he was he would be fine. Preemptive self defence is not justifiable in the US.

Sean.3516

Igotadose wrote: »

He then killed Rosenbaum, ran off was chased down by the group that included Anthony Huber, who tried to disarm him, and Rittenhouse murdered him as well.

Well first of all, I don't believe the Rosenbaum killing was a murder to begin with.

Igotadose wrote: »

BTW, what's your opinion of Huber's actions regarding Rittenhouse? I don't recall if KidC ever answered my direct question, but here it is to you: Is Anthony Huber a hero? He probably saved lives that otherwise would have been taken by Rittenhouse

Huber tried to club Rittenhouse with a potentially lethal blunt object and got shot for his trouble.

I don't think he achieved anything other than getting himself killed.

As regards him saving lives, neither he nor the other guy who had the gun, "mangled arm guy" would have been shot had they not been trying to rush Rittenhouse with their weapons.

So no. Not a hero.

Igotadose wrote: »

After he murdered someone. The 'main argument' against Kyle Rittenhouse is, he is accused of shooting 2 people to death. We have no EVIDENCE of anything, there's yet to be a trial

If we have no evidence and you'd rather wait for the trial, then why are you calling Rittenhouse a murderer.

Igotadose wrote: »

Farcical. He shot the gun. And, no trial, no evidence. This comes up all the time in these discussions. We all have opinions on the information we've each gathered.

Yes, and the reason he shot the gun is because a lunatic chasing him with a shirt on his head throwing things around tried to grab the gun from him.

I think this is kind of obvious from the video.

Igotadose wrote: »

Let me dumb this down for you. I walk up next to you and murder someone with a handgun. For whatever reason. You then, trying to be a good sport, don't turn tail and run, but take a run at me to get me to drop my weapon. I kill you - can I plead self-defense? How different is that than the old joke of the fellow that murdered his parents pleading for mercy now that he was an orphan?

That's not what happened here at all. Have you seen the video?

Rittenhouse didn't just shoot Rosenbaum for no reason. He was being chased by him and he tried to take his gun. That's not a trivial detail! That's what makes it self defence!

[Deleted User]

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again, you're begging the question...

Use the gun for what? Using a gun to intentionally kill someone is murder. If his intent is simply to defend himself, that's not murder.

There's a video of him boasting that he'd use lethal force, that's not open for interpretation..

Kidchameleon

froog wrote: »

the issue is that trump is like a WWE wrestler to a lot of his fanbase

No, he is literally a WWE wrestler

Leroy42

The key question is how Trump allowed the 'left wing terrorism' to grow into such a state that it has over the last four years.

Where has the intelligence services been? What has he done to limit their growth?

What policies has he inacted to stop the spread? Surely his first job is to keep the citizens safe, and according to him, left wing terrorists are rampant in the country?

PS - All of the above is of course based on Trumps labelling of the problem, rather than the actual reality that right wing terrorism is by far the greater problem for the US.

But if those that are seeking to side with Trump on this issue, why are you not asking why the POTUS has failed to be on top of this. I assume you will of course simply blame the local governors, but whatever about brining in the national guard etc, this clearly is a massive failure in intelligence.

Tell me how

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No, he is literally a WWE wrestler

That in a microcosm is why America is in such a bad position.

Enough people wanted this circus act to become President for it to actually happen.

Sean.3516

joeguevara wrote: »

Sean, self defence can only be used when you feel that you are in imminent threat of danger.

You have it almost right. It has to be reasonable for you to believe you are under threat.

And "threat" doesn't have to mean "threat of dying". If someone tried to hit me with a baseball bat and I shoot them. That's a legitimate self defence.

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s a full defence to murder or manslaughter but without an imminent threat, it cannot be argued. The fact that he wasn’t in imminent threat is key.

You had it almost right above when you said "feel that you are in imminent threat" above. Now you have it completely wrong.

Whether or not the threat is real is immaterial. It has to be reasonable for you to believe that the threat is real at the time. Because people can only act given the information available to them in the moment.

If Kyle Rittenhouse had allowed Rosenbaum to take his weapon, it stands to reason that he could have been in imminent danger from him. That's why that shooting was self defence.

joeguevara wrote: »

His lawyer has made public that the reason he brought the gun because if he didn’t he would die, is trying to construct a self defence argument, but if he stayed where he was he would be fine.

"If he stayed where he was he'd been fine" is not an argument against him having the right to defend himself. You're conflating causality with responsibility.

Whether or not he had stayed home it wouldn't absolve the responsibility of others not to attack him.

joeguevara wrote: »

Preemptive self defence is not justifiable in the US.

Whether or not it's preemptive depends on that standard of reasonableness I've just laid out.

Sean.3516

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a video of him boasting that he'd use lethal force, that's not open for interpretation..

Someone asks him if they have "non-lethals" and Kyle says "no we don't have non-lethals".

He wasn't boasting, he was simply making clear that if anyone attacks them or the property they're protecting, they're using lethal force.

It was more of a warning than a threat and it certainly isn't evidence of premeditated murder.

joeguevara

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You have it almost right. It has to be reasonable for you to believe you are under threat.

And "threat" doesn't have to mean "threat of dying". If someone tried to hit me with a baseball bat and I shoot them. That's a legitimate self defence.

You had it almost right above when you said "feel that you are in imminent threat" above. Now you have it completely wrong.

Whether or not the threat is real is immaterial. It has to be reasonable for you to believe that the threat is real at the time. Because people can only act given the information available to them in the moment.

If Kyle Rittenhouse had allowed Rosenbaum to take his weapon, it stands to reason that he could have been in imminent danger from him. That's why that shooting was self defence.

"If he stayed where he was he'd been fine" is not an argument against him having the right to defend himself. You're conflating causality with responsibility.

Whether or not he had stayed home it wouldn't absolve the responsibility of others not to attack him.

Whether or not it's preemptive depends on that standard of reasonableness I've just laid out.

See, it’s you who are nearly right.

All of your arguments are prefaced on without warning finding yourself in a situation that your life is in danger. If you put yourself in that situation with a lethal weapon, you must accept the reasonable outcome of your actions. The fact that it is alleged that ritterhouse (as espoused by his attorney) only brought his loaded rifle into the situation because if he didn’t he knew he would die, is prima facie mens rea for murder. It was loaded and he is arguing that he was going to use it is enough for the prosecutions face.

If I am 100s of yards from a riot in no danger and run in with a knife, if that stabs someone even without me meaning it, then that’s murder (U.K. case law on that).

I have been reading us articles today on depraved mind murder, and it’s quite similar. Very interesting and I’d recommend you read them. It is clear that it’s a grey area. And none of us know what will transpire.

Very interesting reading everyone’s opinion on this. One thing I have said earlier is, there is more at play when a 17 year old who has been bullied, becomes obsessed with police, takes it upon themselves to travel across state lines into a city that they appear to have no connection with, be given a gun from as yet unknown and do what allegedly happened.

Cody montana

Chris Wallace, Steve Scully And Kristen Welker will moderate the 3 Presidential Debate between Trump and Biden.

Overheal

Cody montana wrote: »

Chris Wallace, Steve Scully And Kristen Welker will moderate the 3 Presidential Debate between Trump and Biden.

Steve "Patience" Scully!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrji0XLoFU

Igotadose

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well first of all, I don't believe the Rosenbaum killing was a murder to begin with.

Huber tried to club Rittenhouse with a potentially lethal blunt object and got shot for his trouble.

He clearly was trying to disable Rittenhouse's ability to kill other people. Remember, Huber didn't attack Rittenhouse (nor the other people who joined in, including mangled-arm guy), because Rittenhouse was standing around and whistling. Rittenhouse had shot and killed Rosenbaum.

I don't think he achieved anything other than getting himself killed.

He probably saved other lives.

As regards him saving lives, neither he nor the other guy who had the gun, "mangled arm guy" would have been shot had they not been trying to rush Rittenhouse with their weapons.

Rittenhouse had killed Rosenbaum. SHould they have stood and applauded him? No, they did the job that the police weren't, that is, prevent Rittenhouse's further attempts to kill people

So no. Not a hero.

Absolutely one. You really don't get it - preventing people from shooting other people at risk to your own life, is heroic.

duploelabs

Overheal wrote: »

Steve "Patience" Scully!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrji0XLoFU

weisses

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/02/electoral-college-explained-biden-uphill-battle-us-election

Good article in the guardian on how Biden faces an uphill battle in the election due to the electoral college system.

What rock where you hiding under the last 6 months ?

Tell me how

weisses wrote: »

What rock where you hiding under the last 6 months ?

6 Months?

More like 4 years.

extra gravy

Certain posters referring to Rittenhouse as "Kyle" is rather tasteless imo. He's a murderer, not your buddy.

Mr E

Mod: Back to talking about Trump vs. Biden please. Rittenhouse/violence can be discussed in their own threads.

ohnonotgmail

So Trump says he didnt have a mini-stroke. That seems a very specific denial. Pence was asked if he was put on standby and he said he didn't remember. how could you not remember something like that. all very odd

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1300983667561562118