Jump to content

US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands


Larry of the Lake
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I haven’t shifted my positions throughout this exchange. I’d been rather explicit in why I don’t condemn Rittenhouse as the bloodthirsty murder many have.

You don’t have to say bad thing bad. Just don’t imply it’s good.

That’s all.

I have never stated that I believe such. 

Well it's a good thing that no one in any of these threads has implied that riot damage was good. 

 

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think it’s more about lessening the damage to the city as whole. 

It’s part of the city ergo something he could(should in his eyes) try to protect.

He’s not George RR Martin, he’s not magical and able to immediately be everywhere at once. 

As Ty pointed out, using lethal force to defend property is illegal in WI.

No one is scoffing at the idea of protecting property, they're scoffing at the idea that running around with a gun in the name of protecting property is some kind of normal behavior that should just be uncritically accepted.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Hey look that jackass finally shut up so they could pass it.  Only one Dem holdout, as usual it's Jared Golden.  As @Tywin et al. taught us with the infrastructure bill and the squad, the important thing we need to do right now is condemn Golden for grandstanding and failing to serve his constituents.

Yep. It was a pointless vote that won’t help him electorally at all and now Republicans will claim there was bipartisan opposition to the bill. Like before, there was no reason to do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Well it's a good thing that no one in any of these threads has implied that riot damage was good. 

Hmm I should have insignificant or trivial.

5 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

As Ty pointed out, using lethal force to defend property is illegal in WI.

If so—gonna need a source on that—luckily Rittenhouse ultimately didn’t do that.

He tried running away when confronted

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

won’t help him electorally at all

Golden obviously disagrees with this assessment. 

As for Republicans now being able to say there was bipartisan opposition, you're the only one who cares.  In both cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It was a pointless vote that won’t help him electorally at all and now Republicans will claim there was bipartisan opposition to the bill. Like before, there was no reason to do it.  

The extremely parochial way he opposed the bill (not enough heating assistance was one of his top 3 issues) I think could help in Maine. Maybe not enough, who knows? But if it saves his seat, it's worth it. Republicans won't push the "bipartisan opposition" card, that narrative doesn't matter to their voters. It'll just be socialism, communism, anti-freedom, etc. If they try going big brain, they'll claim it's a giveaway to billionaires due to the SALT changes.

I've got no problem with voting against the party (assuming the outcome doesn't change) if it can help retain a seat. My problem is with message voting from people in safe seats, like the squad with the first bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sologdin said:

Prosecutors say this is a “blatant falsehood,” and that Jones’ trial attorney never called the family to the witness stand because Jones repeatedly told his attorneys that he was not at home on the night of the murder.

who gives a flying fuck what the prosecutors say?

I guess you missed the parts where Jones own former defense attorney said he TOLD HIM he wasn't at home and therefore the 'alibi' is false or that DNA points directly to Jones as the guilty party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fez said:

I've got no problem with voting against the party (assuming the outcome doesn't change) if it can help retain a seat. My problem is with message voting from people in safe seats, like the squad with the first bill.

As long as the vote doesn't affect the outcome, each example is equally "message voting."  Golden voted against the bill because he thought it'd serve his interests and so did the squad.  The fact that the squad's seats are much more blue than Golden's is only relevant in providing insight into which bill each voted against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hmm I should have insignificant or trivial.

If so—gonna need a source on that—luckily Rittenhouse ultimately didn’t do that.

He tried running away when confronted

Not going to try to find all the statutes that don't have "property damage" as a exemption for killing someone.  

Re: running away.  You're under the misapprehension that I'm arguing about Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence here.  The only reason we've been talking is that I find the idea of "stop minimizing riot damage" to be concern trolling.   Sorry that no one has expressed the proper level of deference to this sensitive and very important topic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I guess you missed the parts where Jones own former defense attorney said he TOLD HIM he wasn't at home and therefore the 'alibi' is false or that DNA points directly to Jones as the guilty party.

Is you're bone to pick here that he should've been murdered by the State yesterday? Or are we just debating the details of all sorts of random legal cases here in US Politics? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

The witness statements aren't just inherently unreliable, the information in them actually pointed to someone that isn't Jones.  They mention seeing hair, he had a shaved head at the time.  Yeah, crazy that there could be two red bandanas out there.

I don't understand how asking for a DNA test that could possibly link Jordan to the murder instead of Jones would somehow implicate Jones when the contention the entire time was that Jordan could have frames him.  

I'm not really interested in continuing this.  Your constant goal post relocation is getting frustrating.  I'm sorry you haven't heard enough denouncements of property damage from riots to convince you that the rest of the people in this thread aren't a bunch of callous assholes.   

That isn't what the witness statement said about the hair.  Also, there were other witnesses who saw two black males driving a car and said the driver had corn rows...which is Jordan....which support that he was the driver not the shooter and that there were two men involved in the crime and not that Jones was at home.  And other witnesses who saw Jones driving the stolen car.

The point about DNA is that Jones claimed it would exonerate him, but it instead it was more evidence of his guilt.  To me, it is evidence that he's a liar, which is why I brought up the Roger Keith Coleman case because he behaved in exactly the same way.  Oh, DNA will exonerate me!!  If only they would do the DNA test!!!  Ooops, my DNA is there after all.  

There is a huge amount of evidence of his guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Is you're bone to pick here that he should've been murdered by the State yesterday? Or are we just debating the details of all sorts of random legal cases here in US Politics? 

My issue is that it is very strange that someone who looks obviously guilty of the crime he is in prison for has so much support from celebrities and various experts.  I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the person in prison may actually be innocent and could use some of Kim Kardashian's star power, which she has wasted on a sociopathic killer.  IMO.  I don't care that he didn't get the DP, but he certainly belongs in prison.

But, far be it for me to derail the threat, you can all get back to arguing about Rittenhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But, far be it for me to derail the threat, you can all get back to arguing about Rittenhouse.

Ok then, yes, it has as little relevance to US Politics as the Rittenhouse discourse. More shade thrown at people trying to reduce the bias and violence* in our system because *they* haven't run it passed you for approval. Cool, cool.

*I'm not sure if you were aware but he was scheduled to be murdered by the State. A lot of people have a pretty serious problem with such inhumane violence conducted by the State.

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Meanwhile Wisconsin is likely going to pass laws that allow the legislature to take entire control over the election process and results for pretty much whatever reason they choose. 

Not sure how they're going to become law with Tony Evers as governor.  Although he does have to beat Rebecca Kleefisch next November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m going to ask you this one last time; where are you getting this motivation for any of them? 
If you can’t substantiate it then it’s no more a plausible explanation than they were angry at his shoes.

Because the one survivor specifically said he wanted to disarm and subdue him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not sure how they're going to become law with Tony Evers as governor.  Although he does have to beat Rebecca Kleefisch next November.

Thats fair, though for some of those things- like the criminal prosecutions of the bipartisan board - it doesn't require any action from the governor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

As long as the vote doesn't affect the outcome, each example is equally "message voting."  Golden voted against the bill because he thought it'd serve his interests and so did the squad.  The fact that the squad's seats are much more blue than Golden's is only relevant in providing insight into which bill each voted against.

I think message voting from the left has the potential to do actual damage though. It can divide the party by convincing some of the base that the bill was bad, Democrats are sucking again, and so why bother voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 missed the parts where Jones own former defense attorney said he TOLD HIM

this interpretation is erroneous. the line you quoted concerns what the prosecutors argued, not what the defense attorneys admitted.  

 

Wisconsin is likely going to pass laws that allow the legislature to take entire control over the election

that article's a bit breathless: what is the actual statute that they have put forth? but the wisconsin rightwing is obviously out of its mind, that sheriff is an obvious tool, and their senator should be stripped of office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...