🇳🇱
All the idiots from Twitter University are coming out of the woodwork ont he #KyleRittennhouse case. My feed is filled with morons talking about "mistrial with prejudice" who have clearly no clue what that means or when it is applied. I really need to stay the fuck away from Twitter.
@freemo I cant believe some people think he is a hero and on the other side to think that when getting drop kicked and have a gun pointed at him wouldnt provoke him to shoot. I feel sad for him cause he probably did go out with vigilante justice in his mind but is just a child in this crazy world and so are all the other nut cases.
@twotwenty I mean, he objectively is a hero considering who he shot. And in self-defense at that.
binger has basically failed to provide any evidence for this though. their closing rebuttal amounts to corncob literally saying "people take a beating sometimes."
@twotwenty @freemo
@icedquinn This case will not be decided on the facts but on the politics of the jurors.
@icedquinn How are they threatening the jurors?
@NEETzsche @twotwenty
It’s super plausible though, leftist stormtroopers have been doing that for years now, and all eyes are on this trial. It’s almost impossible that somebody somewhere isn’t threatening to do this, the real question is whether they have genuine intent and capability.
Its plausible even though Jack was very clearly lying based on what he said.
@NEETzsche @twotwenty
Yea honestly the prosecution seemed to be acting kinda emotional and unhinged. At least, while trying to hide it under a thin veil of professionalism
@freemo The prosecution’s melting down was hilarious. That doesn’t entail a not guilty verdict in a highly politicized nation, though. It means basically nothing, honestly.
All I know is if the jury was comprised of 12 truly objective people we would have had a verdict back after 15 minutes of not-guilty.
@freemo Which means the fact that they took the whole day is evidence that they have a MUH STATE LINES Karen on the jury.
@icscarythings If they fail to acquit, this is the Last Straw for the legitimacy of the system. As though the rigged election weren’t enough, The System on a national level has decided that defending yourself against child rapists is murder.
Anything short of a full acquittal on all charges justifies direct violent action against the State and its agents, like cops and judges. It’s just cause for regime change, and everybody knows it. Anything short of a not guilty verdict is an expression of intent by The System to murder-rape you.
This is why Schroeder should’ve just mistrialed it with prejudice when the prosecution tried to throw it. He’s playing with the stature of the nation by trying to play it straight.
Not that we need to go down this rabbit hole. But I do want to make it clear, I think the idea that the election was "rigged", at least with any evidence to support that, is complete nonsense.
The idea that any election *wasn't* rigged is complete nonsense.
@Eris Thanks for posting some of the evidence again. I’m just sick of rehashing these topics over and over again. It reminds me of the Binger prosecution engaging in the most vile Talmudry to pretend that the video evidence shows something other than what it does.
>I’m just sick of rehashing these topics over and over again.
You're not "rehashing" them. He is refusing to let you hash them. That's why the same conflict comes up again and again: Those in the wrong refuse to have their minds changed.
i would have liked to see some of those lawsuits tried on the merits and SCOTUS saying states have no standing is just retarded.
On this I agree. Which is why I didnt claim it wasnt rigged and simply said there is no evidence showing it was. I am perfectly ok with the idea that the government has done little to secure our trust in general and as such nothing can really be trusted.
@Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
I think his answer was a logical I don't know.
your reasoning would suggest all elections have been rigged.
>your reasoning would suggest all elections have been rigged.
How is that not obvious? Why would they ever not rig it?
@Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
I actually agree and think trump bush clinton etc are all guilty of rigging elections by many means.
so.. its also not proof the orange man won either. since he probably was rigging other counties.
Trump was non-system-compliant which is why the system rigged it against him.
@Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
My opinion is its all rigged.. trump is part of the system and was a theatre to convince a group of people to become obnoxious and another group of people that censorship and loss of freedom for safty is ok.. but he was just a good actor ..
thats my opinion.
Trump was setup in 2015 as a debate foil and a paper tiger for Hillary to lose to. In a moment of inspiration he decided to actually try to win, and because nobody expected it from him, it worked.
It wasn't an elaborate plot, it was an oversight which they corrected by the next election cycle.
@twotwenty @NEETzsche @ademan @freemo @icscarythings
Build a wall and hang em all.
#trump2024
One must always remember that just because people conspire for power does not mean they aren't complete morons. In fact, quite the opposite: Those who conspire tend to be quite dumb.
Just because something is either true or false doesnt mean your going to be respected for deciding which happens to be the case when you lack any evidence to make a conclusion. Wisdom is knowing when to say "I dont have the evidence to draw a conclusion"
>Wisdom is knowing when to say "I dont have the evidence to draw a conclusion"
That's not wisdom that's being a pussy.
There is WAY MORE evidence than any reasonable person needs to draw a conclusion.
This image alone is sufficient evidence to anyone with a brain.
All I know is this
1) every shred of claimed evidence the election was rigged turned out to be utterly false
2) Trumps phone conversations made it clear he was asking people to lie and make up numbers to show a rigged election, discrediting his case
3) showing the election is not rigged is an attempt to prove a negative, which is often extremely difficult or impossible to do no matter how much evidence you hope to accumulate
As such no reasonable person would claim with certainty the election is rigged. The best anyone can do, and I would agree with this, is say the government is a shady bastard and I wouldnt put it or anything else past them.
>every shred of claimed evidence the election was rigged turned out to be utterly false
That's just a lie though.
>Trumps phone conversations made it clear he was asking people to lie and make up numbers to show a rigged election, discrediting his case
That's also just a lie though. He was doing the exact opposite of that: Asking them to show the real numbers.
>showing the election is not rigged is an attempt to prove a negative, which is often extremely difficult or impossible to do no matter how much evidence you hope to accumulate
It's still the standard we should hold them to.
>As such no reasonable person would claim with certainty the election is rigged.
Any reasonable person would reconize the obvious fact that the election was rigged. You have to lie to make it even seem reasonable to doubt it.
Your argument is literally "I have debunked all of your claims before you made them. No I will not show any of this debunking. I don't want to rehash things. Obviously I am perfectly reasonable here and you are insane."
Stop doing this lol.
No thats fair. Obviously the fact that I have debunked it int he past and not willing to rehash it for the 1000th time is not a good argument, and by itself is not going to convince you nor should it.
I am ok with that. I've had the argument so many times and so often proved every point in detail that for me personally it has been settled and there is nothing to be gained to do it again. So im happy to just end the conversation and let you be wrong.
>I've had the argument so many times
I sincerely doubt you've had it even once.
I know you well enough and had to block you enough times to know that your opinion of me has 0 value. So feel free to think that.
See? Anyone who contradicts you just gets "I'm not having that argument!" and a block.
Have you ever actually had an argument?
Nope, I didnt threaten to block you, nor did I block you now. In fact up until about 5 minutes you were blocked and I **unblocked** you specifically so you had a chance to voice yourself. Kinda the opposite of what you just claimed I do.
What's the point of a "chance to voice myself" that just gets ignored lmao why even unblock in the first place? For all intents and purposes I'm still blocked: I get no coherent replies to what I argue.
I am under no obligation to debate you and the 1000 other people who I think are wrong just because you demand it.. I have finite amount of time in the day and I will prioritize my time as I see fit. You simply do not make a high enough priority to make it to my agenda. Period.
>I am under no obligation to debate you and the 1000 other people who I think are wrong just because you demand it.
Yes you are. It's called intellectual integrity.
If you aren't willing to rise to that standard, stop speaking.
Weird how you only get this "MY TIME HAS VALUE" bullshit when you contradict someone. If you agree with them they have all the time in the world.
Almost like it's a lie to avoid ever admitting you are wrong or something.
@Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
I have a meme that explains all of this ok !!
Ok buddy... sure.. when i say I think something is true I am obligated to argue with people ad infinitum until every last person int he world who disagrees with me is satisfied. I need to quit my job cancel my hobbies and devote the rest of my life appeasing every person who wants a piece of my time to debate me. sounds fair.
With 20,000 some followers I barely have time to talk with and keep in touch with the people I actually enjoy talking to, let alone everyone else.
You have enough time to type these replies. Instead of typing excuses not to argue you could spend the exact same time and effort typing an argument.
You reveal your dishonest motivations.
It's not that you have limited time and attention. It's that you see genuine risk to your ego in engaging. Being wrong is a risk you refuse to take.
I am typing these replies because
1) they take much much less time then me digging up thruough and formal research on the subject like I did before (which was several hours of invested time at the time).. beleive it or not but unlike your responses where you just pull the first nonsense quote off the internet you can find to agree with you (if you even do that much) when I debate something I try to actually do real research. So yes these replies are virtually effortless compared to the time I'd invest in debating this topic in earnest.
2) I actually want to show you some small degree of respect by letting you know why i am engaging you at all. I could have just kept you blocked, and yes you are convincing me slowly I should have done just that. But I felt taking the time to explain to you why I do not wish to engage might be more thoughtful. I guess I was wrong.
I will not comment on this further, as you said it is a time sink and there is no more value in me in explaining this to you in any more detail than I already have.
You don't need to invest several hours research into a simple argumentative reply. It should not be that difficult to just look at what I've posted and interpret it yourself.
This is just an elaborate excuse to avoid conflict.
I do not accept excuses, stop offering them and either shut your mouth or argue.
Luckily for me I dont have to engage with you whether you accept my reasoning or not. We are done here.
@twotwenty @Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan Oh it's a Covid-19 joke.
>I actually want to show you some small degree of respect by letting you know why i am engaging you at all.
You are not showing me even the smallest degree of respect. Respect starts at arguing. Anything short of that is disrespect.
@NEETzsche @Eris @twotwenty @icscarythings @ademan
"@Eris @NEETzsche @ademan @icscarythings @twotwenty
Yea you made these claims when it was fresh and I debunked them with some pretty extensive analysis of the judges actions at the time. I considered your claim and invested quite a bit of research into it and it turned out to be false. I dont think we have to repeat that process.
@icedquinn @NEETzsche @Eris @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
I remember all the fraud that happened inside the DNC regarding bernie sanders. They changed the rules part in when he was coming out in the lead.. then the standard frauds started happening like big line ups and few polling booths in the places they knew he had highest support etc.
@NEETzsche @Eris @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
@icedquinn @NEETzsche @Eris @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
Im not really to concerned about the semantics... legal shenanigans should not be accepted.
They can make it as obvious as literal video evidence of them stuffing ballot boxes and retards like OP will still go "Oh I just don't know, there's just not enough evidence for this extraordinary claim!"
There is literally 0 risk, and infinite reward, so they do it. It's that simple.
it's just that corpos exist to decide who they're going to have sign the papers. anybody can if you have the signatures, it's just that uh.
the federalists learned early on that having a unified front was more efficient use of marketing money.
@NEETzsche @Eris @freemo @icscarythings @ademan
Which rule did they change exactly? As I recall bernie lost due to use of superdelegates which was nothing new.
@freemo @icedquinn @NEETzsche @Eris @icscarythings @ademan
there was many disingenious moments in that inner DNC nomination proccesss.
The rules of the nomination process were changed mid way. Originally there was a selected amount of nominees that had already done 10 debates I believe and had been widdled down. mid way they changed the funding rule of how large any single donation could be and opened the floor up for a new entrant even after many had been removed.
at that point Bernie Sanders campaign and PR funding was dwarfing everyone. Bloomberg came in funded himself some redicules amount put on a huge ad campaign then exited after one debate and vote and gave his money the the joe's campaign.. at that point there was a massive concert of dropping out supporting Joe to which paints a pretty bad picture when watching it real time.
I am certain that bribery or other types of coercion was occurring to have all the others drop out and throw their weight behind joe.
That could be, I really went into way less detail on the hillary vs bernie thing than i did the whole trump fiasco. So I do not recall so much the details there.
You shouldn't start arguments you're not willing to finish.
I will start, and finish, whatever I damn well please.
And I will judge you for your deplorable and unconscionable behavior, you lying sack of shit.
Feel free... see my comment about your opinion having 0 value to me
People's opinions should have value to you.
> Which is why I didnt claim it wasnt rigged and simply said there is no evidence showing it was.
Either it was or it wasn't. You don't get bonus points for sitting on the fence. Being wrong would be preferable, at least then you'd have some balls.