America - The Official Thread

[Blitz24]

That depends on whether or not they are allowed to ask the jury to "Smash that like button" and subscribe.

Only if they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express while filming the videos and have the geotags to prove it.

 

[McLaren]

Rittenhouse case, how BLM and Antifa operates and why Blake was shot explained by lawyer who know Wisconsin laws

David Freiheit claims he's non-partisan, but judging by his Twitter: continuously only argues against left-wing statements, argues anti-Covid points, claims the media is fake news, & shares his podcasts with a lawyer who doubles down all these points, retweets right-wing propaganda, & supports Trump.

These men may be lawyers, but they're clearly biased which makes them using their professions to argue a topic as immediately questionable. Robert Barnes (the other lawyer) made a tweet arguing that the man who pulled a hand gun against Kyle Rittenhouse is free while Kyle is in jail. It's amazing that Kyle gets to claim self-defense but the man pulling a hand gun on Kyle after Kyle just killed someone in front of the man isn't allowed such an argument for his own life.

Edit*
Oh, it just gets so much better down this rabbit hole. David's friend here, Mr. Barnes, defended Alex Jone's comments on Sandy Hook & is Alex's lawyer.

Barnes has previously defended Jones on Twitter, saying, “What [Jones] actually said in full about Sandy Hook was he didn’t know what happened.” (That’s not true. Jones has repeatedly called the parents “crisis actors” and said that interviews with CNN were faked with green screens, among other falsities). In another tweet, he quoted a story suggesting a conspiracy in which Jones was being set up by people with dark money funding the Sandy Hook parents.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/asse...Otxlal9zv1T0qRhPnRx9XV5mN4LUVpQmzxBnHEC3Laffu

 

[VBR]

Here's the full memo on the CRT ban...

 

[Danoff]

Here's the full memo on the CRT ban...

I have some friends that are federal employees. None of them have seen this kind of training. I would like to imagine that there is a grain of truth to its existence, but I would suggest that perhaps it is not widespread within the federal workforce. The "millions" is somewhat nebulous as well, I would guess that if we really tried to pin that down, it would be difficult to find. I haven't seen any stories with specifics (though maybe those specifics exist). What this looks like to me is the Trump administration's version of virtue signaling. It looks like he created a boogeyman to punch, it's a way to rally the base around a non-problem. Kinda like the wall.

In the meantime, HR departments all over the federal government will actually waste countless man hours going through their training trying to see if they say anything that might remotely resemble what's covered by this memo. So it will have a real cost.

 

[novcze]

David Freiheit claims he's non-partisan, but judging by his Twitter: continuously only argues against left-wing statements, argues anti-Covid points, claims the media is fake news, & shares his podcasts with a lawyer who doubles down all these points, retweets right-wing propaganda, & supports Trump.

I don't know them, I posted it for their legal view.

It's amazing that Kyle gets to claim self-defense but the man pulling a hand gun on Kyle after Kyle just killed someone in front of the man isn't allowed such an argument for his own life.

He was approaching Kyle and according to his facebook, he wanted to murder Kyle, he was the attacker, he should be prosecuted. It was explained in one of these "lawyer" videos, that dynamics of these things can change quickly. Even if the first killing done by Kyle wasn't in self defence, the moment they started to chase Kyle and attacked him, they became attackers and he can claim self-defense.
Mob will never have all the information needed to justify killing of someone in this situation.

If Kyle was blindly shooting into rioters and someone shot him then it would have been completely different situation.

 

[Danoff]

He was approaching Kyle and according to his facebook, he wanted to murder Kyle, he was the attacker, he should be prosecuted. It was explained in one of these "lawyer" videos, that dynamics of these things can change quickly. Even if the first killing done by Kyle wasn't in self defence, the moment they started to chase Kyle and attacked him, they became attackers and he can claim self-defense.
Mob will never have all the information needed to justify killing of someone in this situation.

If Kyle was blindly shooting into rioters and someone shot him then it would have been completely different situation.

No I don't think that's actually how the law works in this case. Kyle may very well be unable to claim self-defense. He committed a fair number of crimes to put himself in the position to claim self-defense, and that's a no-no legally.

I don't know how they'll treat the case, but it's very much not established that Kyle will come out unscathed.

 

[UKMikey]

I have some friends that are federal employees. None of them have seen this kind of training. I would like to imagine that there is a grain of truth to its existence, but I would suggest that perhaps it is not widespread within the federal workforce. The "millions" is somewhat nebulous as well, I would guess that if we really tried to pin that down, it would be difficult to find. I haven't seen any stories with specifics (though maybe those specifics exist). What this looks like to me is the Trump administration's version of virtue signaling. It looks like he created a boogeyman to punch, it's a way to rally the base around a non-problem. Kinda like the wall.

In the meantime, HR departments all over the federal government will actually waste countless man hours going through their training trying to see if they say anything that might remotely resemble what's covered by this memo. So it will have a real cost.

B-but the memo says "press reports"...

I wonder which end of the political spectrum the "press reports" that support the memo veer towards as none of the articles commenting on this case seem to be prepared to mention them by name.

I think it's hilarious that @VBR thinks the fact that the President subscribes to the same brand of paranoia as he does is some kind of gleeful validation of his madcap conspiracy theories.

 

[Danoff]

B-but the memo says "press reports"...

I mean... maybe? there's someplace in the federal government that had this training? I've checked with people in two very distinct agencies and can account for at least a dozen employees, none have seen it.

 

[UKMikey]

I mean... maybe? there's someplace in the federal government that had this training? I've checked with people in two very distinct agencies and can account for at least a dozen employees, none have seen it.

Just show their homework, is all I ask.

 

[05XR8]

He's on a roll aright. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/07/politics/trump-attack-military-leadership/index.html

"I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy," Trump told reporters at a White House news conference.

One way ticket on his next golf trip.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Even if the first killing done by Kyle wasn't in self defence, the moment they started to chase Kyle and attacked him, they became attackers and he can claim self-defense.

Nope. Imagine that I murder somebody with me gun and then I see that you, a naturally horrified member of the public, are about to shoot me to protect yourself and others from my murderings. If I shoot you too then, while that might be a literal act of self-defence, it is not a legal defence for your shooting. The "lawyer" video gives a pretty fringe interpretation of self-defence, imo.

I don't know them, I posted it for their legal view.

Also a terrible defence. It agreed with your view so you didn't check the source?

 

[McLaren]

I don't know them, I posted it for their legal view.

Which is questionable b/c of their previously conceived bias towards the political party that supports Kyle's argument.

He was approaching Kyle and according to his facebook he wanted to murder Kyle, he was the attacker, he should be prosecuted.

That claim was made after the incident.

It was explained in one of these "lawyer" videos, that dynamics of these things can change quickly.

The same lawyer videos that have forementioned bias.

Even if the first killing done by Kyle wasn't in self defence, the moment they started to chase Kyle and attacked him, they became attackers and he can claim self-defense.
Mob will never have all the information needed to justify killing of someone in this situation.

This is a rough argument to make, esp. if you're acknowledging the possibility that the first death wasn't in self-defense.

If I get into an argument with someone around a crowd & kill them, I can't argue "self-defense" if said crowd retaliates and wants to stop me.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Why do you think it’s Marxism?

Are you trying to infer 'Cultural Marxism' here, the utter fantasy of the far-right loon?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

Yes, well that is what it is called. Though the article you linked to is bollocks. (did I use that word correctly?)

Please quote the extracts you disagree with a and provide us with some citations to illustrate its innacuracy.

How about the first one.
"Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true."
The ideals this country was founded on were not false.
Or the second, I couldn't cut and paste it and not gonna waste time writing it. But it called capitalism, brutality.
Capitalism, the greatest economic system ever devised by man, has help countless millions pull themselves out of poverty.

Exactly how much diversity training have you attended and exactly which part of it was incorrect and/or objectionable, and why?

Or is it simply the idea of being asked to consider the assumptions that are made about people because they may be different to us that offends?

Training that starts off with the premise, that if you are white, you are racist, is racist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Training that starts off with the premise, that if you are white, you are racist, is racist.

Yes, I definitely agree. I'm interested to see your response to @Scaff's question about the diversity training you attended.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Yes, I definitely agree. I'm interested to see your response to @Scaff's question about the diversity training you attended.

I sat through a four hour HR meeting of some such thing back in about '95 or '96.

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Joey D]

How about the first one.
"Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true."
The ideals this country was founded on were not false.
Or the second, I couldn't cut and paste it and not gonna waste time writing it. But it called capitalism, brutality.
Capitalism, the greatest economic system ever devised by man, has help countless millions pull themselves out of poverty.

Then why do you support Trump? This is an honest question because I don't think I've ever actually seen you give an answer to it. Trump does not, in any way, exemplify the founding principals of the country nor is he remotely supportive of a capitalistic society.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not sure how all men were supposed to have been created equal when some of them were slaves. Maybe created equal didn't mean treated equal but it doesn't sound right to me. No wonder black and white Americans fought to change this.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Then why do you support Trump? This is an honest question because I don't think I've ever actually seen you give an answer to it. Trump does not, in any way, exemplify the founding principals of the country nor is he remotely supportive of a capitalistic society.

The democrats have moved their party so far to the left, I have no choice but to support Trump.

 

[DesertPenguin]

The democrats have moved their party so far to the left, I have no choice but to support Trump.

You could choose to support neither.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You could choose to support neither.

I would hope nearly everyone here would take that stance.

 

[Joey D]

The democrats have moved their party so far to the left, I have no choice but to support Trump.

So you willingly ignore that Trump makes a mockery of the founding principals of the country (which you seem to support) and blatantly make anti-capitalistic policies (which according to you, capitalism is the greatest economic system, which I totally agree)? I legitimately can't understand this? You're supporting a person that goes against what you said you stand for.

You don't have to support the left either, I certainly don't. I wouldn't vote for Trump if you paid me to though, he's a massive threat to the Constitution.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So you willingly ignore that Trump makes a mockery of the founding principals of the country (which you seem to support) and blatantly make anti-capitalistic policies (which according to you, capitalism is the greatest economic system, which I totally agree)? I legitimately can't understand this? You're supporting a person that goes against what you said you stand for.

You don't have to support the left either, I certainly don't. I wouldn't vote for Trump if you paid me to though, he's a massive threat to the Constitution.

I don't know what you are paying attention to, but I certainly don't see it as you do.

Trump isn't perfect, but I don't see where he makes a mockery of our founding.

And the anti-capitalist thing, I got no clue what you are talking about. Is it the tariffs?

 

[UKMikey]

Not sure whether this is what @Joey D is talking about but Trump threatened to dissolve Congress back in April in order to push through his SCOTUS nominees without interference.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ourn-congress-to-push-through-nominees-189120

 

[Joey D]

I don't know what you are paying attention to, but I certainly don't see it as you do.

Trump isn't perfect, but I don't see where he makes a mockery of our founding.

And the anti-capitalist thing, I got no clue what you are talking about. Is it the tariffs?

I look at what Trump says and does. I don't rely on the media for very much outside of local stories and the weather, so I'm really only paying attention to Trump himself, not what some media outlet says I need to pay attention too.

@UKMikey hit the nail on the head with one of the biggest issues with Trump and the Constitution. Even threatening to disband Congress is incredibly worrisome. Even if he was just swinging his willy around, the very foundation of our country revolves around the three branches of government and checks-and-balances. In addition, he's made several remarks that make me believe he's adamantly against the First Amendment or at least doesn't understand it. The government has no power against the press to say and print what it wants too. Going after social media is a pretty big red flag here too.

Also, with his banning of bump stocks, he turned legal firearm owners into felons overnight. That goes against the Second Amendment and why the NRA still thinks it's OK to support Trump is beyond me. They shouldn't support Biden either.

There are other examples that have been discussed at length in various threads as well. I'm sure you're aware of what's been said before.

As for the anti-capitalist stuff, yes the tariffs are one of the biggest things here. If you support capitalism, especially free-market capitalism, you should always be against tariffs. The government should have no place in the economy and once it starts to stick its nose into the economy, we start seeing communism.

I don't understand why any reasonable Republican would support Trump. I can't think of any Republican ideal (well at least according to what their platform stands for) that Trump represents. He's not in favour of small government, he wants to have his hand in the economy, he wants to ignore the Constitution, and he's not even remotely religious. The Republican Party could and should've done so much better than Trump and if Republicans had an ounce of common sense they'd vote for someone else this November. I'm not saying vote for Biden, I certainly won't be, but there are some 300 people running for president. Surely one of them could do the job better than Trump (or Biden).

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@UKMikey hit the nail on the head with one of the biggest issues with Trump and the Constitution. Even threatening to disband Congress is incredibly worrisome.

Adjourning the congress is in the Constitution. @UKMikey even posted where.

In addition, he's made several remarks that make me believe he's adamantly against the First Amendment or at least doesn't understand it. The government has no power against the press to say and print what it wants too. Going after social media is a pretty big red flag here too.

He wouldn't pick on the press if they didn't lie so much about him.

Also, with his banning of bump stocks, he turned legal firearm owners into felons overnight. That goes against the Second Amendment and why the NRA still thinks it's OK to support Trump is beyond me.

Ok you got me there. But it's just bump stocks. I would hardly call that an attack on the second amendment.

As for the anti-capitalist stuff, yes the tariffs are one of the biggest things here. If you support capitalism, especially free-market capitalism, you should always be against tariffs. The government should have no place in the economy and once it starts to stick its nose into the economy, we start seeing communism.

We have been stuck in crappy trade deals for decades. I don't mind him twisting a few arms with tariffs to get us better deals.

 

[DesertPenguin]

He wouldn't pick on the press if they didn't lie so much about him.

This doesn't make it right, whether you believe the press lies or not.

Ok you got me there. But it's just bump stocks. I would hardly call that an attack on the second amendment.

Part of having the right to own firearms is the right to do what we want with said firearms.

 

[McLaren]

We must be missing the insinuation that he'd be adjourning Congress for his political gain (just so he can get his people approved) & the parties involve would have to purposefully incite a disagreement for him when there is no legitimate disagreement.

 

[eran0004]

Yes, well that is what it is called.

Well, you can call your car a giraffe, but that doesn’t mean that it’s actually a giraffe. Why do you think it’s justified to call the project Marxist?

 

[NotThePrez]

Adjourning the congress is in the Constitution. @UKMikey even posted where.

And Trumps reasons for using this power, as also mentioned per @UKMikey 's post, fall outside of normal operating procedure. He's using his power for his own political gain, not because the parties in question are purposely unable to come to terms on something.

He wouldn't pick on the press if they didn't lie so much about him.

I can deal with Trump (or any president) offering clarity for a story, but calling for a news pundit to be fired for reporting on his own comments, or trying to use his presidential power to get an entire media company shutdown because they decided to fact-check him (under a hilariously thin veil of "censorship") is not cool in any capacity.

If Trump can't deal with the media exercising their own 1st Amendment rights and scrutinizing him (which at this point I struggle to see how anybody can reasonably doubt that), then he's not fit to be president.

Ok you got me there. But it's just bump stocks. I would hardly call that an attack on the second amendment.

While I am (somewhat) in the camp of bump-stocks needing to not be a thing, it's still not cool if you like the 2nd Amendment. The bump-stock ban that went into effect last year meant that any weapon equipped with the devices is legally considered a machine gun. Since most gun owners more-than-likely don't have the credentials to legally own machine guns, and most guns equipped with bump-stocks are more-than-likely made after '86, the people who own bump-stocks now are in possession of an illegal firearm, and their options are to either hand over or destroy the stock and/or weapon, or to keep them and be felons.

Any government change that instantly turns law-abiding citizens into criminals is a big no-no in my book. Also, "just" banning bump-stocks opens doors for potential regulations on other mechanical aspects of a firearm, and potentially create a situation where legally owning and operating a weapon can become a significant hassle.

We have been stuck in crappy trade deals for decades. I don't mind him twisting a few arms with tariffs to get us better deals.

If you're cool with tariffs, then you're not a proponent of free-market capitalism.