-50
Trump Haters Immediately Flood Twitter With Sick New Hashtag - Pure Evil
(www.westernjournal.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
-50 points (15.3% liked)
Conservative
342 readers
52 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, I remember all the republicans decrying the attackers
The silence from the right in condemning anything relating to these right wing terror attacks is deafening.
Kyle rittenhouse was attacked by violent, fascist lefties while doing a legal activity . Why would republicans decry self defense?
Absolute LOL. Are they “antifa” (anti fascist) or are they “fascist”. Or is it just whatever label you wanna throw out?
The right really hasnt got a clue
I would suggest that you read more about the actual event. Go look on any left-of-center site if you want, as long as it's covering factual information, rather than offering commentary.
There is no information that, prior to the shooting, Rittenhouse had directly or indirectly threatened anyone.
Rittenhouse was on his way out when he was accosted by Rosenbaum; Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothing at Rittenhouse, and tried to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse shot him four times at close range, killing him.
Rittenhouse tried to run away; he was pursued by a crowd. Huber struck him with a skateboard and attempted to grab his rifle; Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Rittenhouse, who shot him once in the arm; Grosskreutz survived, although he's lost much of the function in his arm.
Rittenhouse did not instigate the violence; he was leaving the protest when he was accosted and attacked.
Should he have been there in the first place? No. Should he have brought a rifle? Also no. (And, in point of fact, his mom didn't know that he had the rifle, because it had been bought for him by a friend--not his mom as was reported. But, all that said, he was never the aggressor in any legal sense; simply being armed is, by itself, not an immediate threat to do harm, and he was not acting in a threatening manner. Provocative, yes, but threatening, no.
Is Rittenhouse, personally, still a shitty person? Oh yeah. But whether or not he's a shitbag, he still has a right to defend his own life. Which is what he did, once you actually look at testimony in court.
“Someone threw clothes at me and I felt he wanted to take my gun so I killed him”
You almost made it to the end of sentence, you missed the grabbed his rifle part.
Are you talking about yourself?
I posted one sentence. Of which you missed half.
Original quote
Your editorialized summary.
Can you spot the difference.
Here is what Rosenbaum said to Kyle earlier that evening.
Another witness described how, accompanied by Rittenhouse, he tried to calm a disagreement between Rosenbaum and another man when Rosenbaum made threats to kill both of them, saying "if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you!"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-for-kenosha-shooting-continues-day-3
When he found Kyle, he then tried to kill him. That’s why Kyle shot him in self defense.
Something often forgotten is that Kyle was a supporter of lefty politics before this event.
Eh. He says that he was. But given how sharp his turn was to Proud Man-Children, et al. as soon as he was in legal trouble, I have a hard time believing it. I've def. seen a number of people that say that they support "progressive" politics, but they only support them as long as it doesn't affect them in any way; as soon as it e.g. hurts their property values, they suddenly go full-conservative. I've got a buddy that supports criminal justice reform, but balks at college education for convicts because college cost him money, and why should they get it free? (Hint: because it sharply reduces recidivism.)
I also have a hard time believing that someone that claimed to be in support of leftist politics would be at the protests supporting businesses, of all things. Why not go and help people that were protesting peacefully by providing support? And if he was really just there to provide medical help--as if he was a corpsman, which he ain't--and help with clean up, why would he need a rifle at all? It's just so goddamn stupid.
I honestly think that, had he not been armed, he would have been fine; I think the rifle made people think he was a threat, when he wasn't.
By protecting the property, you are providing support to those peacefully protesting.
I started my career as a combat medic in the Army. We carried rifles. We need a rifle to stop those trying to harm us or the people we are helping. Everyone does not follow the rules of warfare.
I will say the ironic part is only at a Democrat riot can you shoot three people and hit two child molesters and three felons.
Why? To put it in concrete terms, the person that tried to assassinate Trump was, by all accounts, a hard-right conservative. Would it be reasonable to expect Trump to make a hard left turn? I've been sexually assaulted by a gay man; would I be reasonable in taking that experience, and extrapolating that to mean that all gay men were just lying in wait to sexually assault straight men?
The truth is that people that truly believe in their core values don't tend to change those values overnight. It's almost always a long, drawn-out process, regardless of how deeply traumatic an event might be. The speed at which Rittenhouse changed course leads me to believe that he was either never left of center in the first place, or doesn't hold any moral/ethical beliefs very deeply. Given that he is, by all accounts, quite dumb, it could readily be the latter.
Sure. And I agree. We need significant criminal justice reform, even for people that we've decided are too dangerous to ever get out. But most people will get out, eventually, and they need some kind of opportunities if they aren't going to end up getting recycled right back into the system. I've found that approaching prison reform from a utilitarian perspective appeals more to people that trend conservative than moral appeals about education being good for it's own sake, and therefore something that we should be making available to prisoners. Esp. since there are a lot of people--mostly conservatives--that will say, 'well, I had to pay for it, so why should someone else get it for free?'
...That's not a very leftist view, TBH. Valuing property over the people themselves is more of a typical capitalist view. To quote MLK Jr., "But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."
Not my point. My point was that he had very, very limited training in dealing with medical emergencies. In a real medical emergency, he would have been absolutely useless. AFAIK, he hasn't taken a basic 'stop the bleed' class, much less a combat lifesaver course. (And, TBH, I haven't been able to find the latter anywhere in my area, which makes it prohibitively expensive, but I'm at least up for stopping most bleeds and have a solid IFAK that I keep on my gun belt.)
And yet, here we are, talking about a Republican presser where the target was both a felon and a rapist, and has been found to be such in court. So ima say no, Dems don't have the lock on felonies or sex crimes.
We have no idea what that guy's politics were. Everyone is speculating but we really don't know.
Prisoners are unique. It keeps them occupied instead of getting themselves in further trouble.
Here is some irony for you. My girlfriend worked in a state prison for awhile. When it was a private prison, the education options and the food quality were expanded. They did a cost analysis and said that if we treat them like people, we need fewer guards and have fewer infractions of the policies. When they state took it back over, they removed most of the education options and went back to the shit food.
I am not advocating for private prisons but I did find it interesting they expanded the quality of prison life because it saved money. Maybe the state should think about that.
You don't know but you assume he would have been useless? In all fairness, Kyle showed extreme self-control and discipline that day. He only engaged targets that were a threat, only hit the targets he was aiming at and was not distracted when they were screaming after being shot. I suspect he would do fine in a medical emergency.
The felony charges will be overturned, and Trump was never convicted of rape. He was found liable for rape but not guilty of rape. They know that they couldn't have gotten a criminal conviction outside of the Mickey Mouse court. The standards of evidence would have never worked in a criminal court. Surprised it worked in a civil court. I suspect that will be overturned in appeals as well.
Reports I've seen indicate that people that knew him in high school said that he self-identified as conservative. His father is a registered Libertarian, his mom is a registered Democrat, but there were Trump signs in their yard up until a few weeks ago. He was registered as a member of the Republican party, despite having donated $15 to a progressive voter turnout organization in 2021. Given what we do know, right now, it's reasonable to infer that he was right of center.
Ideally, yes.
Privatizing prisons nearly always ends up costing more than doing exactly the same thing in a state-run prison would though. Privatization brings in a profit motive, and the desire to make profits means you need to cut something.
There's no indication that he has, or had, any significant medical training, so his claims about going to offer medical assistance specifically seems hollow.
He's lost all of the appeals on the defamation case that he's tried so far, and he keeps digging that pit deeper instead of just shutting his mouth. While it's true that it's not a criminal conviction, it is a finding of fact, and he had the opportunity to fight it.
The conviction in New York state is unlikely to be reversed, given that he would need to argue that paying off Ms. Daniels was an official act as a president, and given that most of the underlying actions preceded his election. The payments themselves can't possibly be an official act, since they were made prior to the election, so he'd have to argue that falsifying business records to cover up his actions as a candidate was somehow an official act after he was elected, which is clearly absolute nonsense. As far as all the other felony trials go, well, why do you think he's desperate to get re-elected? The mishandling of classified documents was a clear-cut egregious legal violation, and Judge Cannon's dismissal of the case on very dubious legal grounds is almost certainly going to be reversed. (TBH, given that she's been reversed so, so many times, I'm surprised Smith hasn't filed to have a new judge assigned to the case.) Since that all occurred after he was no longer president, the only way that he gets out from under that is by getting elected and either pardoning himself, or having Smith removed from the DoJ. In Georgia, the state legislature has attempted to pass laws allowing them to remove a prosecutor rather than allowing the case to go to trial; I find it quite telling that Trump and his legal team would rather not even allow all the evidence to be made public in a trial.
With literally any other person having this many criminal cases going against them at the same time, in different courts in different jurisdictions, with different prosecutors, 9,999 our of 10,000 people would admit that there was likely criminal activity happening on the part of the defendant. (In point of fact, prior convictions and arrests are not generally admissible in court because they would be prejudicial. So potential jurors would not be able to be told about the multiple criminal cases.) And yet, for Trump, I so often hear special pleading, that in this case it's just different, somehow.
It is not reasonable to speculate anything at this time. I doubt he put the sign up in the yard. Registration for a party does not mean affiliation to the party. I know many demcorats registered as Republicans to vote in the primary.
That isn't always true. They ran prisons at about 30% cheaper than the government-run prisons while increasing benefits to the inmates. The government is highly inefficient in everything they do.
That is false. It has not gone to SCOTUS.
Citation needed