Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Actually ballot harvesting is illegal in many areas.
I doubt that Jill was embarrassed by Joe's response so much as she was by the guy saying the dumb phrase to begin with, but there's really no way to say for sure. In related news, Jared Schmeck is now making his tentative first steps towards a right-wing media/MAGA career:
https://www.rawstory.com/jared-schmeck-stolen-election/
Depending on how he plays this, we may see him at CPAC in the coming months and years, or maybe even in Congress. Because these are the kind of people that the GOP promotes nowadays.
Conservatives are unusually triggered over this. Even the guy who made this dumb remark to Biden is trying to pull it back. I think Biden made the best possible response to make them look like asses.Maybe you should call Joe, tell him to divorce his dumb ass wife, marry him, and when he pulls another response like this from his ass (you know, perhaps when he is participating in another press conference he isn't supposed to be having), you will be sitting right beside him, smiling gleefully at his impromptu response, instead of hanging your head in shame and embarrassment like that idiot Jill.
And before the conservatard snowflakes start whining about the 2nd Amendment, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about individual gun rights. The citizens have a right to bear arms in the form of a well regulated militia as a balance of power against the Feds. It doesn't mean some punk gets to wander the streets at night with a rifle.I'm not sure that quite aligns with the actual state of the law. Perhaps you could point towards some precedent of the 2nd Amendment being interpreted this way by US courts?
On the crafting of the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention
It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.
Unless the 2024 democratic ticket is devoid of both Biden and Harris it's likely we're in for another 4 years of the Donald.
There is a virtually 0% chance that Trump wins ever again.
Exactly. It unfairly prejudices the jury. His history in this case, has nothing to do with the events under investigation.
But his history does have everything to do with this case. Are you even reading my posts? The point of the case is to show that he was a violent aggressor and Rittenhouse had to defend himself. That the man has a history of violence is obviously relevant. His violent personality got him killed (deservedly).And here we see the exact reason why a prior conviction would not be allowed to be introduced in a trial.
It's not a good reason.
I’m not 100% sure, but I thought I read that the dead guy’s prior convictions could not be introduced in the trial. There was a motion from the defense to do so but I think it was denied.
Precisely because they knew it'd affect the jury's opinion of him. If I were on the jury and I knew he'd killed a child rapist, I'd vote not guilty, whether it were self-defense or not.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383
I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?
I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580967-judge-admonishes-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-trial
It’s like they sought out the most incompetent prosecutor possible lol