US Politics: Turkeys Available Here

[DMC]

Forgot to mention this earlier, but Sean Parnell has suspended his campaign:

Quote

Sean Parnell, the Republican endorsed by former President Donald Trump for Pennsylvania's open US Senate seat, announced on Monday he is suspending his campaign.

The decision comes after a judge awarded Laurie Snell, Parnell's estranged wife, primary physical custody and sole legal custody of the couple's three children, according to an order that was made public Monday. The judge also determined that Parnell committed some abusive acts toward his wife in the past.

It's looking more and more like Trumpism will significantly hamper the GOP's ability to pickup Senate seats just as the Tea Party did in 2010 and 2012.

Anyway, carry on...

[Varysblackfyre321]

For those continually saying Rittenhouse is toxic right now; 

https://morningconsult.com/2021/11/22/rittenhouse-verdict-poll/

Only 39% of the public disapproves of the verdict. 43 percent approve the rest Don't know what to think or are apathetic. 

@Rippounet so I read the case your citing. It seems as though the woman the prosecution had an opportunity to retreat and leave, but chose to get a gun and return. 

Rotten House tried to get away from the man who said he'd kill him and tried to grab onto his firearm.

Also; I don't think you answered how far can his attackers go before he's allowed to use a degree of force to people who for all he knows are trying to kill or seriously injure him?

If Rosenbaum in a tug of war with the gun, managed to Rittenhouse in the leg, does writtenhouse have to crawl away? 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

For those continually saying Rittenhouse is toxic right now; 

https://morningconsult.com/2021/11/22/rittenhouse-verdict-poll/

Only 39% of the public disapproves of the verdict. 43 percent approve the rest Don't know what to think or are apathetic. 

That poll demonstrates exactly why anyone saying race didn't play a major role in the case is out of their mind.  37% of whites said the Rittenhouse verdict gave them more confidence in the justice system while 35% of whites said it made them less confident.  Meanwhile, only 14% of blacks are more confident due to the verdict compared to 52% that are less confident.  Clearly, there is a significant and even fundamental difference in tendencies based on race.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

That poll demonstrates exactly why anyone saying race didn't play a major role in the case is out of their mind. 

In terms of the justifiableness of his actions? No.

Honestly divorced from the political context I imagine most people right and left wouldn’t cry the first shooting of the guy screaming about wanting to murder someone armed and who grabbed armed person’s gun is murder.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Honestly divorced from the political context I imagine most people right and left wouldn’t cry the first shooting of the guy screaming about wanting to murder someone armed and who grabbed armed person’s gun is murder.

Except you can't divorce the case from the political context, and the poll you cited clearly indicates you're wrong when 58% of liberals think the verdict was unfair.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Except you can't divorce the case from the political context

Sure you can. As the jury had to instead of just giving some lefties and libs a “win” in their ideological war with cons.
 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

and the poll you cited clearly indicates you're wrong when 58% of liberals think the verdict was unfair.

Not really, it just shows people having a bias towards something.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Except you can't divorce the case from the political context, and the poll you cited clearly indicates you're wrong when 58% of liberals think the verdict was unfair.

Wait to be clear do you think Rittenhouse didn’t have a reasonable fear for his life from the guy screaming about wanting to murder and attempting to take Rittenhouse’s firearm?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not really, it just shows people having a bias towards something.

What it shows is your statement was demonstrably wrong, at least based on the poll you cited.

[Ran]

I would have liked to see a poll checking how informed respondents were about basic and uncontestable facts about the case (e.g. did Rittenhouse cross state lines with a weapon.) As I've remarked earlier, there's a tremendous lack of knowledge even among people one would consider better equipped than most to parse facts and weed out misinformation (I.e Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, politicians.)

Would be interesting to have seen if greater knowledge of the facts of the case changed responses.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

I would have liked to see a poll checking how informed respondents were about basic and uncontestable facts about the case (e.g. did Rittenhouse cross state lines with a weapon.) As I've remarked earlier, there's a tremendous lack of knowledge even among people would consider better equipped than most to parse facts and weed out misinformation (I.e Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, politicians.)

Would be interesting to have seen if greater knowledge of the facts of the case changed responses.

Possibly. Imagine a lot of respondents are going off the “white conservative boy shot people at protest” and decide guilt or innocence based around that.

Whether or not Rittenhouse had shot someone over spray painting a wall or stop himself getting killed by a crazy person.

Interesting to note though most respondents take the view Rittenhouse wasn’t there to cause violence.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

I would have liked to see a poll checking how informed respondents were about basic and uncontestable facts about the case (e.g. did Rittenhouse cross state lines with a weapon.)

Well, looking at the crosstabs, the poll did include two items on how much attention the respondent paid to the case (Table MCWA3, page 19; MCWA7, page 36), but unfortunately they did not cross-reference either with the "verdict is fair/unfair" item (MCWA 10, page 96).  The attention items aren't the same as specific knowledge questions, but it's probably as close as you're going to get.

[litechick]

I can't get away from the basic notion that if you were in the wrong, you lose.  Like in car accidents, you can look at who made the driving mistake but if one person is--intoxicated, invalid license, no insurance, etc. the law looks at it as 'you had no right to be there in that car.  Even if the other person was at fault, if you weren't breaking the law, it wouldn't have happened, you lose.'

He carried an illegal firearm and he killed people with it.

Doesn't seem that mysterious to me.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, litechick said:

He carried an illegal firearm and he killed people with it.

If he didn't he may be dead.

6 minutes ago, litechick said:

Like in car accidents, you can look at who made the driving mistake but if one person is--intoxicated, invalid license, no insurance, etc. the law looks at it as 'you had no right to be there in that car.

So a person can dragged from a car they're driving by a guy saying they'll kill them because they don't have a license? They're not allowed to try drive away even if at that point it may save their life?

[litechick]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If he didn't he may be dead.

Really?  I mean, really?  Do you live in a world where it's better to kill people than get an ass-whooping?

I don't believe he would have been killed.  I believe that he was a pubescent male using a weapon as a penis extension.  I believe he was a coward who would rather end a human life than be punched.

So now we have gone through the looking glass into a world where you can kill anybody you want as long as you say the magic words, "I was scared."

[BigFatCoward]

38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If he didn't he may be dead.

 

Surely you can do the basic maths here. 'If he didn't he may be dead' is surely better than 'because he did 2 people are dead'. 

[john]

He definitely wouldn’t have been dead but I can see how he could genuinely believe he might die because he was a 17 year old on ‘patrol’ with an assault rifle to protect property and offer medical assistance to the wounded. He thought he was in a simulation.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, looking at the crosstabs, the poll did include two items on how much attention the respondent paid to the case (Table MCWA3, page 19; MCWA7, page 36), but unfortunately they did not cross-reference either with the "verdict is fair/unfair" item (MCWA 10, page 96).  The attention items aren't the same as specific knowledge questions, but it's probably as close as you're going to get.

Also did not ask about what the sources people used were. Someone may have followed it a lot via social media and gotten wildly incorrect impressions. Still, yeah, that's something.

1 hour ago, litechick said:

 

He carried an illegal firearm

It was not an illegal firearm according to the laws of Wisconsin.

Now, Andrew Coffee did use a firearm he was forbidden from possessing by law in defending himself from what he believed were robbers, and was found not guilty of the homicide and attempted homicide charges that ensued. Your position appears to be that Coffee should in fact have been found guilty instead, is that correct?

The police officer on the scene said that all week, he felt that there seemed to be more people at the protests who were armed than not. Wisconsin allowed people to open carry weapons in public. This includes at protests, and many made use of the opportunity.

1 hour ago, litechick said:

and he killed people with it.

He did, but the law allows you to be exonerated for murder if you do so in self-defense. That is what the jury found. Similar to the Andrew Coffee case.

56 minutes ago, litechick said:

So now we have gone through the looking glass into a world where you can kill anybody you want as long as you say the magic words, "I was scared."

That's probably not going to work for the people in the Arbrey case, and that's a state where you can stand your ground rather than have a duty to retreat, as in Wisconsin. The fact that Rittenhouse was being pursued by Rosenbaum, who knew he was armed but seemed to invite him to shoot him (as he had earlier that evening to others) before charging at him and grabbing at his gun, is part of why the jury found him not guilty. 

Rosenbaum was a very troubled person, it must be said, as the Washington Post reported. He had attempted to commit suicide a little over a week earlier (after a previous attempt a month before that), and was found convulsing from an overdose. That's why he had been in a mental health facility. When he was put on the streets, he was homeless, there was a no-contact order regarding his fiancée that he immediately violated on his return to the streets, and most of the protestors ended up disassociating with him because of how aggressive he was, shouting racial profanities, urging those with guns to shoot him, and otherwise antagonizing the open carry guys.

[Week]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Rotten House tried to get away from the man who said he'd kill him and tried to grab onto his firearm.

...

If Rosenbaum in a tug of war with the gun, managed to Rittenhouse in the leg, does writtenhouse have to crawl away? 

Definitely more of a Rotten House than a writtenhouse, for sure.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Forgot to mention this earlier, but Sean Parnell has suspended his campaign:

It's looking more and more like Trumpism will significantly hamper the GOP's ability to pickup Senate seats just as the Tea Party did in 2010 and 2012.

Anyway, carry on...

We can hope. And the more Trumpanistas damage the Republican Electoral chances… hopefully… the weaker Trumpanistas will become.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

Also did not ask about what the sources people used were. Someone may have followed it a lot via social media and gotten wildly incorrect impressions. Still, yeah, that's something.

I mean, yeah, the questions you're looking for aren't going to be standard, I was just trying to find something in there that could be somewhat of a proxy.  I'm not gonna argue it obviously isn't a perfect proxy, but looking at the crosstabs on those two attention items, the demos suggest they have a null impact on attitudes regarding whether the verdict was unfair. 

Dems and GOP respondents - as well as Conservative and Liberal respondents - have nearly identical breakdowns on how much attention they paid to the case, while Independents and Moderates paid significantly less attention.  That's conforms to standard patterns of political awareness, and subsequently political knowledge. 

Based on the intuitive standards of multicollinearity - i.e. the clear partisan divide of Dems thinking the verdict is unfair and the GOP thinking it was fair - it's very unlikely respondents' attitudes on the case were significantly affected by how much attention they paid to the case.  Again, whether that's a valid proxy for knowledge of the case is certainly up for debate, but I'm very skeptical that's going to push against the ocean of ideological leanings on any meaningful aggregate level.