President Trump

I know I sound like a broken record, but the people aren’t the problem. It’s unfortunate that most people find it easier to just go with what their favorite news outlet or their party politicians tell them instead of researching or trying to fact check their side to make sure everything is what it is. I truly believe if we had more of the latter, we would be in a much better place, even with the party divide.

I don’t hate people who vote for their party, it is what it is. They should be able to freely vote for their candidate without any ridicule or ostracism. Lol, I don’t believe the Democrats are any crazier than the Republicans. They both have agendas that aren’t good for the everyday citizen. But I do agree that the divide is part of the system, I just don’t agree that it’s on any one man or woman.

 

Agreed.

 

A report from 2006. Deja vu?

 

Okay, provide the evidence of how it was murder. The onus is on you to prove it was. Murder is to kill someone with intent. He was getting attacked. Again, go provide your evidence. The reason you think we're on 'different planets' is because you are ignorant on this subject.

 

he crossed state lines intending to commit a crime (which is illegal) with a weapon he had in his possession illegally. not to mention he was in violation of the city's curfew order

no lives would've been lost that night if rittenhouse had obeyed the law. aren't we supposed to respect law and order? that's what i always hear from the "blue lives matter" crowd. why wasn't rittenhouse practicing what he preached?

 

Wow, way to be a liar. Either that or apparently you have a horrible recollection of what actually occurred. I guess this is what Weezy meant when he said we are on different planets: The lies vs the truth.

Possessing a weapon illegally doesn't mean you have an intent to murder.
Crossing state lines intending to commit a crime? Do you have any evidence that he was intent on committing a crime? Crossing state lines is a crime now? LOL...
'Violation of the city's curfew order.' You mean, like the entire city was? Rittenhouse was there to help protect a car dealership that had suffered millions in losses due to arson. He was only there out of curfew because people were destroying and looting businesses.

You're supposed to practice and respect law and order. The problem is, the police officers were overburdened because the government refused to allow federal assistance to contain the rioting. People had to take it upon themselves to help defend their business. I'm sorry you can't understand the difference but let me break it down to you: When the police officers are no longer able to defend you, you have the legal right to defend yourself or others you feel are being harmed.

In this instance, Rittenhouse was contacted to be part of a group to help defend business-owners. Rittenhouse was out of curfew, like the rioters, simply because the police were not enforcing the curfew and since they could not contain the rioters/looters, Rittenhouse and his group took it upon himself. It's funny you claim that if Rittenhouse was there, no lives would've been lost. You know what precedes that? If the rioters/looters weren't burning down gas stations, restaurants, home appliances stores, and car dealerships, no lives would have been lost and Rittenhouse would have never made it to the news. It's funny you're not even trying to argue that the shooting wasn't to defend himself and resort to, 'he violated the curfew.' It just proves to me you're reaching because you have no valid argument other than you want to have the opposing view to me because you've been told by Democrats that you should side on Rittenhouse being a murder. You can't even think along the lines of what the truth is - only what supports your narrative.

 

from an interview he did earlier that day

"People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse says in the clip. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself obviously. But I also have my med kit."

yeah, sure sounds like he went there just to stand around

others being in violation of the city curfew doesn't make it an exception for rittenhouse. but no surprise you say that honestly, the "obey law and order" people only do so when it doesn't inconvenience them

where in the law does it say that if police officers are overburdened then people can take it upon themselves to do as they please? got a source for that? there were police officers all around the place watching him take a stroll around town with his gun. yeah, i'm sure they didn't do anything because they were "overburdened." such BS

so if i'm robbing a bank and someone throws something at me, i can shoot them and claim that i'm acting in self defense? he was already in violation of a number of laws even before he murdered those people

funny how you always have to resort to "you can't even form your own opinion because you've been brainwashed by democrats/media/etc" projection much?

 

Funny how you're so delusional. This is bout the last time I bother responding to you, ever. You're devoid of facts and logical reasoning.

1) Your second sentence proved that Rittenhouse was only there to help people. "I also have my med kit." He ran into harm's way when he heard the gunshot because he assumed that someone was hurt or could use his help. I can tell you don't have a proper recollection of what happened but Rosenbaum was the first individual he shot and it happened because Rosenbaum earlier tried to burn down a gas station but someone put the fire out. Rittenhouse was carrying a fire extinguisher because he was trying to put out the fires. Rosenbaum saw Rittenhouse and was enraged because he thoght Rittenhouse put out the fire of a garbage dumpster that was intended to be used to blow up a gas station. But Rittenhouse wasn't the one who put out that dumpster fire and Rosenbaum became aggressive and tried to take his gun away which is when Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum. Where in that sentence proves he was intent on committing a crime? It fully implies that he is there to defend himself and others.

2) City curfew wasn't being enforced. You're an absolute clown for even pushing this narrative. If you want to charge him for violating the city curfew, that's a misdemeanor that gets dropped as soon as it hits the courts.

3) People have the right to defend themselves, period. Regardless of whether there is police presence or not. Do you not know your rights as a citizen? Wisconsin allows you to defend yourself from bodily harm. I never said people should only defend themselves if the police aren't available. That's something you are misinterpreting because you apparently didn't know people are allowed to defend themselves and their property. My point with the police being overburdened is factual evidence recounted by the Kenosha's local government.



Police officers thanking Rittenhouse and his group for protecting their businesses. Why would police officers thank them? Hint: Because if they are defending their own businesses, that means police officers can tend elsewhere.

4) Wow, are you seriously comparing robbing a bank to someone violating a city issued curfew in which NO ONE is following because the police can't enforce it? How dense are you? I'll play your stupid little game. If the bank robber is robbing a bank with a weapon, he is NOT DEFENDING himself... He is looking to commit a felony and thus, is subjecting himself to the violence himself.

No, what's funny is how you're incapable of understand fact vs fiction. What's funny is you're seriously comparing a city-wide curfew that no one is following because police officers couldn't handle the amount of people on the streets. It's funny that you're blaming people for defending their businesses instead of the rioters/looters who are burning down MILLIONS of damages to the point where citizens can no longer rely on police officers to keep law-and-order and have to use their LEGAL RIGHT to defend themselves and their business. What's funny is you're probably an American but don't even realize that you have the legal right to defend yourself at all times. You know what's the funniest? That you actually think you're right. Sorry, but pick another subject to have a discussion. You have no clue what you are talking about and I'm not going to waste my time giving you facts while you're giving me a fictional story because you were told to by your Democrat friends. Your logic = people shouldn't break their curfew. They should just watch their businesses get looted and burned down. They should suffer millions of dollars in losses and just be okay with it because the curfew says so. Remember, according to you, your livelihood should be ruined because of a curfew. Nice idea, clown. I'm sure if you owned a business with millions in inventory, you'll let it burn down because you're the good little curfew-abiding citizen of America, LOL...

p.s., you're embarrassing yourself. If this were a court case and you're the prosecutor, the judge would have thrown you out for wasting their time with this weak argument you have. Also, go educate yourself on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your rights are all there. Maybe that will help you in the future since you probably think your rights are whatever CNN tells you.

 

"that's why i have my rifle, i gotta protect myself." yup....no intent at all. what does the first guy he shot trying to burn down a gas station have to do with this situation? that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation at all, nor does it warrant him getting murdered

doesn't matter if it wasn't being enforced, the curfew was in place and he was in violation of it.

nah, you said "when police are overburdened" people have a right to protect themselves. sure, people do have a right to protect themselves. but in this case, rittenhouse was already breaking the law by possessing a weapon illegally, you're the one ignoring facts here. he was already a criminal well before he murdered those people. how can someone who is already doing something illegal claim self defense? that's why i brought up the comparison to a bank robber, which you either hilariously failed to comprehend or twisted so it fit into your BS agenda (no surprise there)

the people who tried disarming him had every right to because they saw him as a threat. its like if someone walks into a store waving a gun in the air and then shoots anyone who tries to grab him. no, they didn't shoot anyone or point the weapon at anyone...but everyone in that store has a legitimate reason to view the person with a gun as a threat and has the right to protect themselves, like you keep bringing up.

so it's perfectly fine for rittenhouse to shoot unarmed people running up to him, but someone unarmed can't defend themselves or other people against someone they legitimately perceive as a threat and who may be an active shooter?

funny how you keep failing to acknowledge that rittenhouse was already a criminal before any of this transpired because he was in possession of a firearm illegally. but hey, i get it. you can't because then your little fantasyworld BS goes right out the window

 

Well, is this true?

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJQKJKyK/ (2 of 5)

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMJQwbaBf/. (3 of 5)

:Vogelshocked:
Shocking I say!

 

aaaand the pardons have begun. that's how you know he's fully embraced the fact that he lost

this one comes as no surprise

 

...or, you know, it’s just a pardon.

:Kuzmawhoknew:

 

The DOJ dropped the Flynn charges in May. Six months ago.

 

LMAO, good joke, what a burn! You sure owned us libs!

 

did you hear biden said that he plans to send anti-maskers to internment camps once he takes office?

saw it on FB, thought you'd be interested. i'd start deleting my posting history if i were you

 

Politics brings out everyone’s best