U.S. Politics / bounced checks and negative balances

[Wilbur]

32 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Also, Gore and Bush both ran to the center to such an extent that it was hard to distinguish their political positions, and an argument could be made that Gore's running mate, Lieberman, was actually to the right of Bush.

The Bush 2000 platform looks straight-up liberal from today's viewpoint, especially compared with present-day GOP.

Trump ran without any political platform at all.

No policy, just think of that for a moment.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Also, Gore and Bush both ran to the center to such an extent that it was hard to distinguish their political positions, and an argument could be made that Gore's running mate, Lieberman, was actually to the right of Bush.

The Bush 2000 platform looks straight-up liberal from today's viewpoint, especially compared with present-day GOP.

“Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

Huh.

[sologdin]

trump certainly made campaign promises. and he wanted to confect a contract, recall. say what you want about the tenants of lumpenized antisocial rightwing populist bullshit, at least it's an ethos?

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, sologdin said:

trump certainly made campaign promises. and he wanted to confect a contract, recall. say what you want about the tenants of lumpenized antisocial rightwing populist bullshit, at least it's an ethos?

That was 2016. In 2020, the literal platform for Republicans was 'whatever Trump says'. 

[sologdin]

 was 'whatever Trump says'. 

18th century absolutism sounds like an uncomplicated platform.

[SpaceChampion]

 

[sologdin]

FFS.  swearing off voting is a nuclear option but where you nuke yourself.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Robert Reich has a short and interesting article about Manchin and Sinema's hand wringing over the debt. He seems fine with the compromise--which, at this point, I don't intend to argue, but I think these points he makes should be front and center in Dem messaging. 

Is Biden’s entire agenda about to shrink into nothingness? | Robert Reich | The Guardian

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Murika judicial system:

 

[Zorral]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/politics/secretaries-of-state-personal-threats-trump-election-lies/index.html

'It's absolutely getting worse': Secretaries of state targeted by Trump election lies live in fear for their safety and are desperate for protection"

It's a chilling read / watch / listen.  Don't ever think the war hasn't started.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Murika judicial system:

 

 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Murika judicial system:

 

It’ll be unsurprising for the murder charges not to stick. As they probably shouldn’t given the context of Rittenhouse’s actions.

Illegally wielding a weapon and crossing state lines? He’s guilty of that. But the people who attacked him and tried to disarm had no way of knowing that and wasn’t a motivation for any of their actions.

Oh and to the idea he wasn’t supposed to be in Kenosha’s streets that night; none of the protesters were supposed to be there either.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

It’ll be unsurprising for the murder charges not to stick. As they probably shouldn’t given the context of Rittenhouse’s actions.

Illegally wielding a weapon and crossing state lines? He’s guilty of that. But the people who attacked him and tried to disarm had no way of knowing that and wasn’t a motivation for any of their actions.

Oh and to the idea he wasn’t supposed to be in Kenosha’s streets that night; none of the protesters were supposed to be there either.

First, bringing a gun to a protest and openly displaying it at the protestors is an act of aggression. Second, it's totally reasonable for people to want to disarm a person doing just that, so saying they attacked him inaccurately frames the events of that evening. He broke multiple laws to go there to play fascist soldier boy, got scared and murdered two people. Any reasonable person can see that. This should be cut and dried, but at multiple stages a conservative judicial system has given him the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone think that would happen if he was black and did the same thing at a stop the steal rally?

[TrueMetis]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, bringing a gun to a protest and openly displaying it at the protestors is an act of aggression. Second, it's totally reasonable for people to want to disarm a person doing just that, so saying they attacked him inaccurately frames the events of that evening. He broke multiple laws to go there to play fascist soldier boy, got scared and murdered two people. Any reasonable person can see that. This should be cut and dried, but at multiple stages a conservative judicial system has given him the benefit of the doubt. Does anyone think that would happen if he was black and did the same thing at a stop the steal rally?

As far as "they didn't know he was doing something illegal" afaict the law doesn't give a shit about that. You don't have the right to self defence when you're doing something illegal. But more importantly what these people did know was he had already shot someone, this is why the idea of "self defence" with a gun is so stupid, even in the most absolute no brainer cut and dry case of a self defence with a gun (which this was not) there is no way to tell a "good guy with a gun" from a bad guy. And this wasn't a "good guy with a gun."

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, bringing a gun to a protest

Not illegal to bring a gun to a protest.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

and openly displaying it at the protestors is an act of aggression.

Wisconsin is an open carry state. Simply having one strapped openly isn’t illegal nor something to which gives license to protesters to attack the gun-holder.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He broke multiple laws

Which none of the people who decided to chase him knew about. At all.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

play fascist soldier boy, got scared and murdered two people.

The 17 year old boy did get scared when grown men tried to attack him sure.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Does anyone think that would happen if he was black and did the same thing at a stop the steal rally?

I think many more leftists would be confidently declaring he acted in self-defense.

And say references to his personal history and the crimes his assailants couldn’t have known about as just victim-blaming since again they’d have no idea about any of that.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I was under the impression that Rittenhouse had already murdered his first victim before the citizens chased him down and detained his sorry ass.

[Varysblackfyre321]

35 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I was under the impression that Rittenhouse had already murdered his first victim before the citizens chased him down and detained his sorry ass.

You were under the wrong impression.

[Liffguard]

I don't know what the specific laws in question say. But from an ethical standpoint, even giving Rittenhouse the (unearned) benefit of the doubt that he wasn't there with the express intent to murder someone, you still can't go looking for trouble and then claim self-defence by shooting your way out of it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I don't know what the specific laws in question say. But from an ethical standpoint, even giving Rittenhouse the (unearned) benefit of the doubt that he wasn't there with the express intent to murder someone, you still can't go looking for trouble and then claim self-defence by shooting your way out of it.

Hey if a group of proud boys chased down a leftist during curfew, hit them hard enough to fall to the ground,  and then in response the leftist used a weapon would you be going “well that protester shouldn’t have violated curfew.” as reason why the leftist couldn’t defend themselves?

I would wager no.

Whether or not someone was “looking for trouble” doesn’t automatically mean others get to do what they want at any sense of provocation.

Your Reminds me of the cons who’d blather that a protestor mowed down in the street shouldn’t have been on the road. Obviously they were looking for trouble, with violating the law so they can’t complain about getting deliberately hit with cars.

 

[Ran]

@Liffguard

As to the law and whether you can call for self-defense when you are doing something unlawful to begin with, I recall I looked into it once. Here's how it runs:

Quote

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The 17 year old boy did get scared when grown men tried to attack him sure.

Why the attempt to invoke a sense of Rittenhouse as a vulnerable naif?