The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Danoff]

You seem to be a big fan of extrajudicial execution & vigilantism.

I think it's fair to say it's jumping the shark to meme in support of killing "looters" while someone like Rittenhouse is indiscriminately shooting protesters and is actually being defended. Is this what the Trump clan has come to? Championing the cause of nutjobs that open fire on crowds?

 

[GranTurNismo]

You seem to be a big fan of extrajudicial execution & vigilantism.

And of course, this is an inherently anti-Constitutionalist stance. Whether Groundfish realizes this, or even cares, I have no clue.

 

[UKMikey]

I think it's fair to say it's jumping the shark to meme in support of killing "looters" while someone like Rittenhouse is indiscriminately shooting protesters and is actually being defended. Is this what the Trump clan has come to? Championing the cause of nutjobs that open fire on crowds?

"Sense of humor defense" incoming in 3... 2...

 

[Groundfish]

Rittenhouse was not on some rooftop, he was attacked by a violent mob that included convicted felons released from jail by leftists.
Open and shut self defense, we went over it already. Minor in possession charge will stick.

 

[DesertPenguin]

convicted felons

Irrelevant. We went over it already.

 

[Groundfish]

Irrelevant. We went over it already.

Yes, self defense you are correct

 

[UKMikey]

Crossing state lines to gun down protesters versus getting a hairdo. This has got to be the shakiest false equivalence I've ever seen pulled on this forum.

 

[Danoff]

Rittenhouse was not on some rooftop, he was attacked by a violent mob that included convicted felons released from jail by leftists.
Open and shut self defense, we went over it already. Minor in possession charge will stick.

That's not clear at all. Not even a little. What we do know, is that he's a nutjob that went to great lengths to put himself into a situation where he could do exactly what he did. That much we know.

What we also know, is that you're defending someone accused of murdering protesters and also posting memes about how it's ok to murder "looters". Not in self defense, but just murder them. That's your meme. The fact that you're also trying to excuse someone who is accused of doing exactly what you were joking about is only making your own post look far worse.

Edit:

I will say, I hadn't read much about his defense until you brought this up, and I probably wouldn't have said "open fire on crowds" if I were to make that post now.

 

[novcze]

Reinoehl was basically a devout anti-facist, which he openly admitted?

guy was clearly nuts, being anti-fascist is one of his delusions

I think it's fair to say it's jumping the shark to meme in support of killing "looters" while someone like Rittenhouse is indiscriminately shooting protesters and is actually being defended.

Did he have the gun legally or not, I read conflicting stories. I mean 17 year old with a gun doesn't look right, but it is in the US, so who knows.

It would be interesting trial.

 

[Groundfish]

Shoot Rittenhouse is on video running for his life. He falls and the mob screams GET HIM!
He tries to get up and is met with a violent anarchist attacking him with a skateboard in hand trying to smash Kyles skull.
He had every right to shoot.
He didn’t kill the guy that pulled the gun, (who also said on social media he wishes he would have killed Kyle by shooting sooner..)the first guy also chased Kyle and tried to steal Kyles gun and beat him up. Kyle ran but got cornered...No choice but to go center mass.
The rioters specifically picked out Kyle, separated him from his friends then viciously attacked.
Idiots got what they deserved.

 

[DesertPenguin]

No, he doesn't. He was brandishing his firearm the entire night which is in itself illegal but the point is that he was instigating something therefore it cannot be considered self-defense. Also, defending businesses that are not your own is called vigilantism which is illegal.

 

[Danoff]

Did he have the gun legally or not, I read conflicting stories. I mean 17 year old with a gun doesn't look right, but it is in the US, so who knows.

It would be interesting trial.

The speaker in that video says he's not aware of unlawful conduct. I'm pretty sure that being out past curfew (an argument used to justify the killing of protesters) is unlawful. Also him being in possession of a gun. So basically, he shouldn't have had a gun, and shouldn't have been on the street (according the law). That should play into the hands of prosecutors for establishing provocation to invalidate self-defense. He also went to great lengths to put himself into the position to do exactly what he did. Seems like exactly the intent of "provocation".

Shoot Rittenhouse is on video running for his life.

"for his life" is not established.

He falls and the mob screams GET HIM!

Did you say "kill him"? No?

He tries to get up and is met with a violent anarchist attacking him with a skateboard in hand trying to smash Kyles skull.

Skateboard can't be assumed to be a deadly weapon. Also did you ask that guy if he was an anarchist?

He had every right to shoot.

Not even remotely established.

He didn’t kill the guy that pulled the gun, (who also said on social media he wishes he would have killed Kyle by shooting sooner..)

Kyle does stand accused of murdering multiple people. So it is consistent with that story to say that you'd wish you had stopped it by shooting him.

the first guy also chased Kyle and tried to steal Kyles gun.

He is accused of murdering multiple people. Taking his gun seems... prudent.

The rioters specifically picked out Kyle, separated him from his friends then viciously attacked.

...why? And also, explain what "viciously attacked" means in this case. Was Kyle injured?

Idiots got what they deserved.

Not remotely established. But since you posted a "joke" that they deserved to be murdered, not in self-defense, just murdered, this doesn't come off well.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Shoot Rittenhouse is on video running for his life. He falls and the mob screams GET HIM!
He tries to get up and is met with a violent anarchist attacking him with a skateboard in hand trying to smash Kyles skull.
He had every right to shoot.
He didn’t kill the guy that pulled the gun, (who also said on social media he wishes he would have killed Kyle by shooting sooner..)the first guy also chased Kyle and tried to steal Kyles gun and beat him up. Kyle ran but got cornered...No choice but to go center mass.
The rioters specifically picked out Kyle, separated him from his friends then viciously attacked.
Idiots got what they deserved.

Can you think about this for a moment: If you're on the ground and see a young solo guy with an AR15, how sure can you be that the next El Paso/Christchurch/Las Vegas/Columbine/Sandy Hook isn't about to play out? I'm not even saying he didn't act in self defense, but what if he had just started open firing on the crowd? I think in all of those cases, you would have been quite OK if the shooter had been jumped with skateboard-wielding punks. In that context "GET HIM!" seems appropriate. I don't know exactly what happened, but I'd give the fallible humans on the ground there some latitude. I also happen to think the night went exactly according to plan for Rittenhouse. His reasons for being there strain credulity.

 

[Danoff]

Can you think about this for a moment: If you're on the ground and see a young solo guy with an AR15, how sure can you be that the next El Paso/Christchurch/Las Vegas/Columbine/Sandy Hook isn't about to play out? I'm not even saying he didn't act in self defense, but what if he had just started open firing on the crowd? I think in all of those cases, you would have been quite OK if the shooter had been jumped with skateboard-wielding punks. In that context "GET HIM!" seems appropriate. I don't know exactly what happened, but I'd give the infallible humans on the ground there some latitude. I also happen to think the night went exactly according to plan for Rittenhouse. His reasons for being there strain credulity.

This is part of the problem with showing up with an AR-15. You've already pulled your gun. When others pull guns, it's now in their self defense. It's as though he's being given police status because supposedly he's just trying to enforce the law (in violation of the law). But he's not a police officer. Pulling a gun in response to seeing someone with an AR-15 is not assault.

 

[novcze]

This is part of the problem with showing up with an AR-15. Pulling a gun in response to seeing someone with an AR-15 is not assault.

Can one open carry AR-15? (regardless of Rittenhouse case) because I don't think that shooting people who open carry is justified response.

 

[Danoff]

Can one open carry AR-15? (regardless of Rittenhouse case) because I don't think that shooting people who open carry is justified response.

Sure. But...

Open carry? I like @Joey D's use of the word "brandishing".

Here's a discussion of the difference.

That's what appears to be an illegal carry... right behind a cop.

 

[VBR]

guy was clearly nuts, being anti-fascist is one of his delusions

Sure was: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-antifascism/

Regarding Rittenhouse: an actual lawyer giving his take on the matter. I think I'll go with that for now.

 

[UKMikey]

Hmmm, an actual lawyer giving his take on the matter. I think I'll go with that for now.

Hmmm... here are a bunch of other lawyers saying Rittenhouse is on shaky ground legally.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...eported-well-regulated-militia-legal-defense/

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Did you say "kill him"? No?

I think it only got up to "beat him up" or similar. I don't didn't hear a "kill him".

Open carry? I like @Joey D's use of the word "brandishing".

Here's a discussion of the difference.

That's what appears to be an illegal carry... right behind a cop.

Which he didn't get charged for.

There are five felony charges:

• first-degree reckless homicide
• first-degree intentional homicide
• attempted first-degree intentional homicide
  
• two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety

And there's a misdemeanor for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 955223

Car drives through protesters in NY today. Not the first time that's happened either.

It seems like this was a reference to support Rittenhouse in his accused crimes. Not to defend him as innocent, but rather to claim that murder was a good idea. But keep in mind that the post is also apparently in support of these other violent crimes.

Non-violent illegal activity is not OK for the Trump clan. But violent illegal activity is?

 

[VolkswagenX]

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 955248

If you're resisting the media, sure.

 

[McLaren]

guy was clearly nuts, being anti-fascist is one of his delusions.

That doesn't change the WaPo headline still being correct. And I'd have to hear from more than Tim Pool, another right-wing biased YouTuber.

Did he have the gun legally or not, I read conflicting stories. I mean 17 year old with a gun doesn't look right, but it is in the US, so who knows.

No, he wasn't. Wisconsin laws also state brandishing a weapon in self-defense of property isn't legal, either.

Rittenhouse was not on some rooftop, he was attacked by a violent mob that included convicted felons released from jail by leftists.
Open and shut self defense, we went over it already. Minor in possession charge will stick.

Shoot Rittenhouse is on video running for his life. He falls and the mob screams GET HIM!
He tries to get up and is met with a violent anarchist attacking him with a skateboard in hand trying to smash Kyles skull.
He had every right to shoot.
He didn’t kill the guy that pulled the gun, (who also said on social media he wishes he would have killed Kyle by shooting sooner..)the first guy also chased Kyle and tried to steal Kyles gun and beat him up. Kyle ran but got cornered...No choice but to go center mass.
The rioters specifically picked out Kyle, separated him from his friends then viciously attacked.
Idiots got what they deserved.

What delusional & over-emotional beliefs.

This is part of the problem with showing up with an AR-15. You've already pulled your gun. When others pull guns, it's now in their self defense. It's as though he's being given police status because supposedly he's just trying to enforce the law (in violation of the law). But he's not a police officer. Pulling a gun in response to seeing someone with an AR-15 is not assault.

Should be worth noting guns were not pulled on Kyle until after he shot someone. Maybe 2; I can't remember if the third guy who pulled a handgun before being shot in the arm did so before or after the skateboard kid tried to grab the AR.

It will be interesting to see if an argument is presented in court that the "violent mob" began acting in self-defense themselves by wanting to take Kyle's gun away (as evident by the 2nd victim who actually leaned towards the barrel and then tried to pull it away).

 

[DesertPenguin]

@Groundfish Your "meme" got deleted for being offensive. Are you sure this is the path you wish to continue walking down?

 

[Sander 001]

The draft dodging paedophile

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump lies so much that his adamant denial of this particular story just doesn't mean anything. The only thing to really consider with regards to hearsay about the Don is: "Is it on brand?"

Labeling people that are not Donald Trump "losers?" Definitely on brand.

 

[Dennisch]

Charlie Hebdo republishes the Mohammed cartoons, as the trial against a bunch of triggered morons start.

"All of this, for that"

 

[McLaren]

The draft dodging paedophile

Trump supporters in this thread who applaud killing pedophiles.

 

[TexRex]

You've been liking some of their posts, so if you find this sort of barbaric view agreeable, you can chalk your name up there as well.

People like posts for myriad reasons (I liked yours based on the first half despite not agreeing with the latter, for example), so I don't think it's appropriate to take this line. Mind you that's my own opinion and I'm not telling you not to take it as I'm in no position to do so.

I think it's much more appropriate--and meaningful--to address that which an individual has actually said and done.

This particular individual has deliberately misrepresented the remarks of others as a means to attack those remarks. They misrepresented the remarks of another to call them racist when they could not reasonably have been considered so as they were originally offered (mind you the misrepresented remarks were actually directed at me; what's more, I usually have the individual who directed those remarks at me on ignore because of their propensity for ****-posting, and had only seen their comments at the time because others were engaging them and I wanted to see the subject of that engagement), and when I called out this particular tactic, it was then used against me to misrepresent my remarks regarding irrational behavior by those rioting, who were, presumably, largely black, as an implication that I think black people are irrational. The individual then indirectly suggested I'm racist by positing that Trump would be called racist for making the remarks as they were misrepresented, when they could not have reasonably been considered so as they were originally offered. Of course he--indeed I--probably would be called racist, because the remarks as they were misrepresented actually were racist in nature. That isn't to say that one should be subject to criminal prosecution for such remarks, though, because that goes against the First Amendment, of which I am a fervent supporter.

This particular individual also isn't above using the right's preferred pejorative for those critical of Trump--"TDS."

There may or may not have been an erosion of civil discourse on this platform. I'm inclined to agree there has been. In the event that there has been, I readily acknowledge that I have contributed to it; I apologize for this, and it's behavior that I've attempted to manage for a very long time as it's in my nature.

But to bemoan said erosion when one has contributed to it is suggestive of a reality disconnect, and I wonder if this may be a lasting effect of Trumpism. He's not going to be around forever, but it seems his apologists' constant contortion to counter criticism directed at him has compromised their cognitive capacities. I suspect Republicans on the hill are going to drop him like a hot casserole once he's either replaced or runs his full course, but I'm not so sure his deluded base will be that reasonable.

The whole issue of police accountability has been particularly enlightening, as these people so afflicted seem to be rejecting the idea that the criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform based solely on those they see calling for said reform. The irony is they clutch their Second Amendment rights as they tremble in fear of the actions of tyrannical government, but they refuse to acknowledge tyranny when they're not the victim of it.

Or perhaps there's a presumption that one can't agree with the notion that the criminal justice system needs to be reformed without condoning violence, theft and property destruction that one purports to be done in support of that notion. Even if you take the implication that protesters and rioters are the same people, which you absolutely should not, this isn't an all or none sort of issue. As it happens, the aforementioned remarks that were directed at me by the individual I usually ignore--the remarks that were deliberately twisted--were in response to my criticism of violence, theft and property destruction.

And because these people are so desperate to conflate protesting with rioting, I am absolutely certain--even if I can't pinpoint it or quantify how widespread it is--that some of them are actually perpetrating acts of violence, theft and property destruction themselves so that they can criticize the acts later. This is the sort of deceit that the right trades in. Of course this isn't directed at anyone on GTPlanet, rather I'm casting a far larger net.

The defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, who violated laws in putting himself in the position necessary to have done what he did, is yet another angle.

If we continue allowing police to abuse their powers when dealing with African-Americans, how long do you think it will be before they just do it towards everyone?

...justice is delivered through judicial system...

Except for when it isn't. Robert DuBoise was released from a Florida prison just days ago, after serving nearly 37 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit. DuBoise was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for raping and murdering a 19-year-old woman in 1983.

During the investigation, DuBoise, believing doing so would prove his innocence, willingly gave a dental impression that could be compared to marks on the victim's body. An expert testified that the accused's teeth matched the marks on the woman's body. This sort of testimony has been widely criticized, and many other innocent people have been convicted in part or in whole because of it, but prosecutors still defend it.

Also contributing to his conviction was testimony from a jailhouse informant, which is exactly as unreliable as it sounds, and investigators and prosecutors still rely on it to secure convictions.

DuBoise was delivered justice, not by the criminal justice system, but by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that works in conjunction with the criminal justice system by virtue of the work that they do, which remains separate from the criminal justice system.

DuBoise was demonstrated to be innocent based on DNA testing after his own DNA was compared with that which was collected from the victim, as part of a rape kit, in 1983, and which was discovered in storage at the medical examiner's this year, despite the alleged destruction of said rape kit in 1990.

...now quoting from the Constitution is a hip thing to do now...

What even is this?

Not really a pass, just an observation.

Except you opted to pass on everything other than the single thing on which you commented, at least until I remarked on it.

Is there evidence of this (concealment over use of force)?

Following the death of Tony Timpa in Dallas in 2016:

The newly obtained video and records, part of a lawsuit filed by Timpa’s family in federal court alleging excessive force, contradict key claims Dallas police have made in defending the officers’ actions.

Police incident reports recounting the officers’ version of events claim Timpa’s behavior that night was aggressive and combative. The video shows Timpa writhing at times and clearly struggling to breathe, asking the officers to stop pinning him down.

On a custodial death report submitted to the state in 2016, the department answered "no" to questions about whether Timpa resisted arrest, threatened or fought officers.

Police had previously claimed to use only enough force necessary to block Timpa from rolling into a busy section of Mockingbird Lane. In the first minute, Timpa rolls around near the curb. But the video shows a police car clearly blocks traffic about a minute later near the bus bench where the officers had pinned him. Several officers continue pressing his restrained body into the ground.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/inv...veals-the-final-minutes-of-tony-timpa-s-life/

Mind you the details and police body cam footage from the night Timpa was killed have only just recently come to light, largely about a year ago, three years after his death.

It's pointing to the hypocrisy, something that was shown to greater effect with the NBA's stance

This isn't what I asked for.

Citing your source directly, what specifically is "boohoo" supposed to have done and what evidence is provided to substantiate the apparent allegation that people protesting and signing petitions against those who have profited from slavery are party to these supposed misdeeds by "placing an order"?

But in my case it was confronting the accusations levelled by BLM.

Providing statistics on officer involved shootings, which are largely (if not exclusively) offered as examples of justified use of force, doesn't actually confront allegations of disproportionate excessive force against a particular demographic. It can't possibly. It's deflection.

In others it was showing up hypocrisy.

Criticizing people for protesting against police brutality while purportedly not protesting against atrocities on the other side of the globe is irrational. It's deflection.

Moreover, as I previously indicated, I don't believe that you give to all charities equally. You may give equally to those to whom you do give, but you've surely opted to not give to others, in which case you've addressed some causes but not others, and you claim to not be a hypocrite like those addressing some causes and purportedly not others. The only way I can imagine you give to all charities equally is if you actually give to none, in which case claiming to give equally is deliberately misleading.

Amazing.

I don't know all the details of it, just the basic concept, & the fact that it exists.

I get the impression that the same can be said of the subject of nearly every video you post.

From what I gather, her appointments run 5 figures without breaking a sweat.

What?!

Steven Crowder apparently isn't very bright. Change my mind.

Sure. But...

Open carry? I like @Joey D's use of the word "brandishing".

Here's a discussion of the difference.

That's what appears to be an illegal carry... right behind a cop.

How certain are we that's a cop? Attire appears to be tactical casual.

Non-violent illegal activity is not OK for the Trump clan. But violent illegal activity is?

Only certain non-violent illegal activity is okay, such as that of Kyle Rittenhouse leading up to his violent illegal activity, which is okay.

I think it's to be determined on an individual basis. Not individual case, but individual...specifically factoring in whether they're normal or a leftist.

 

[Dennisch]