Kyle may have gotten off because of legal technicalities and he was a panzy who was scared of some people chasing him. However I certainly think him and his friend (Dominick Black) should be sharing a cell for a good long time.
Thankfully in this case the civil court will have a chance to punish him, his idiot friend and likely his parents.
I mean how does a stupid pumped up chicken shit bully end up at a protest with AR15? And then he kills 2 people and injures a third innocent person because he is scared? At least 2 of those guys were heroes who tried to stop what they thought to be an active shooter.
Now I can understand killing to protect your home, your livelihood, your family or to get vengeance against an evil person who did you or your family severe harm. But if a would be vigilantly who has watched too many Punisher movies starts killing citizens... Everyone should be enraged and seeking to send him to jail.
96 comments:
We make semi automatic weapons available to teenagers. One of the things that we have to accept with that is that a higher level of violence will now be legally acceptable in our society.
--Hiram
To a really significant extent, the legitimacy of our system has been undermined. Republicans are convinced that our elections are rigged. Democrats believe that Republicans tried to rig the last election, and is trying to rig the next elections. If everyone believes that, our elections won't be legitimate.
What then? Without elections that are recognized, how will we govern ourselves? If elections aren't a source of political legitimacy, from where will legitimacy come? Can 17 year olds walking down streets with semi automatic weapons provide it? Is that what the verdict in Kenosha stands for?
--Hiram
Apparently the gun was bought by his 20 year old friend with Kyle's money.
One would think that at he would go to jail.
We have been playing with the ideas surrounding the Rittenhouse verdict for a good long while now. Apparently we are bored with just playing with fire. We have argued ourselves and convinced ourselves to believe what Mao believed, that political power is derived from a barrel of a gun. We see this belief manifested in a lot of ways. Most visibly, we see this in the gang looting that is taking in upscale San Francisco stores. But we also see it in letters to the editor from people who are no longer willing to go to the theater at night in our cities. We see it in cops who are afraid of enforcing the law, and citizens who are afraid of the cops who enforce the law. We see it in people who refuse to take life saving drugs because politicians for their own have applied the word "mandate" to the process.
We aren't sliding down a slippery slope, we are standing at the edge of a precipice and we are looking down. It's not 1933 in America but it might well be 1932. Are we going to pull back from the edge? Or are we going to take the leap?
--Hiram
What we're seeing here is the logical end of "stand your ground" nonsense. This was evident years ago, when the Treyvon Martin case happened, but now with Rittenhouse and the Arbery case, we're seeing it again. Martin stood his ground, and because he did, it was "legitimate" for George Zimmerman to shoot him. The guys following Rittenhouse were scared of him and confronted him, making it "legitimate" for Rittenhouse to shoot them. The guys who chased Arbery around in a pickup and then jumped him with a gun are now claiming that because Arbery tried to protect himself that it was "legitimate" for them to shoot him.
I would argue Hiram's wrong -- we've already gone over the precipice. Too many folks now accept and now embrace this vigilante violence.
Jury verdicts are not legal precedents. The doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to them. They can't be cited as authority in legal briefs. They are findings of fact, not of law, and in every case, the facts are always different. Nevertheless. What a jury does tells the rest of us what is acceptable in our community.
I think we are seeing a decline of authority in our country. Our institutions are no longer seen as legitimate by a wide and growing segment of our population. One of the things that means is that the level of violence that will be seen as legitimate, or at least not illegitimate, is increasing.
--Hiram
What the heck trial did you guys watch??? Exactly NONE of what you have said is true, but does mimic the lies pushed by the agenda media.
I saw riots in the street. I saw a rise in political violence. And those things are natural consequences of a rejection of political legitimacy. What other alternatives to elections are there?.
--Hiram
Jerry,
A youth holding a straw purchased gun away from his home and shooting a men with no weapon.
Only the delusional think this is a good thing.
Jerry,
A youth holding a straw purchased gun away from his home and shooting men with no weapon because he is scared.
Only the delusional think this is a good thing.
Hopefully the civil suit succeeds where the criminal system failed.
I wonder what Jerry would say if a 17 year old BLM supporter shot 3 unarmed white guys. :-O
I would say that was murder most foul, probably racially motivated. But if a white guy in legitimate fear for his life, shot 3 /armed/ =white= guys, that's simple self-defense.
Well Kyle shot 3 unarmed white men.
Two who were trying to stop a "gun boy" who had shot someone.
I love how the "good guy with a gun (or skateboard, as it were)" trope suddenly disappears as an argument when a new poster boy for racist white snowflakes arrives on the scene.
Or is someone being a perceived threat only a good defense for racist white cops and other white snowflakes?
Moose
I am interested to see what the Arbery Jury decides.
It is hard to believe 2 armed men were scared for their lives.
However we have to remember that folks on the Right live in fear. :-O
Maybe Rosenblum was still looking to die? :-(
"Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old residing in Kenosha, was the first man who Rittenhouse fatally shot on the evening of Aug. 25, 2020.
Drone footage of the encounter appears to show Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse before the teenager turned around and fired four shots at close range, fatally striking Rosenbaum.
Rittenhouse testified that he acted in self-defense after Rosenbaum threatened to kill him and tried to grab his gun, but prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum earlier in the evening.
Hours before the fatal encounter, Rosenbaum had been released from a local hospital in the wake of a suicide attempt, the Washington Post reported last fall.
He had pending charges in Wisconsin for alleged domestic abuse and jumping bail at the time of his death.
In December 2002, a court in Pima County, Arizona, sentenced him to a decade in prison on child molestation charges. He spent just over 14 years in prison and committed dozens of disciplinary infractions, state records show."
For myself, I don't question jury verdicts, at least not much. It's a temptation I work hard at resisting. I have no opinion at all as to whether the Rittenhouse verdict was right or wrong. What I am more concerned about is it's implications going forward.
--Hiram
If our government is no longer considered legitimate, what is the next step? Another government? Anarchy? We choose to believe legitimacy because we never want to get to the question of what the alternative to it might be. Do we want to explore those alternatives now?
--Hiram
Change the subject, I see. Since there is clear photographic evidence of one of the "unarmed men" (white, with a felony conviction and prohibited from having a gun) POINTING a gun directly at the "white supremacist." Surely there are enough cases of REAL white-on-unarmed-black cases to raise legitimate concerns, instead of doing back flips to twist the Kenosha case into a completely erroneous and imaginary version of what it actually was?
Jerry,
I do stand corrected.
The last man who tried to stop the "active shooter" was armed.
He was a paramedic volunteering at the time.
Jerry,
After reading your comment again. Where do you get your information?
It does appear that the paramedic's conceal and carry permit was lapsed.
Of course, Kyle should not have had the AR15 either...
Gaige Grosskreutz Criminal Record
Gaige Grosskreutz was labeled as the “lone survivor” by multiple media outlets and while that is pretty disgusting, he actually looks like a saint compared to Huber and Rosenbaum. Unfortunately, he admitted in court that he pointed a handgun at Kyle Rittenhouse right before Rittenhouse shot him.
Grosskreutz was convicted of a felony but it was later expunged. He also had a misdemeanor conviction for intoxicated use of a firearm and he received probation in 2015 for that case. Heavy reported that his arrest and case history from the state Department of Justice is much longer than what you can currently find through online court records. It shows a string of dismissed cases and an expunged felony conviction from Waukesha County, Wisconsin. In January 2021, he was accused of second-offense drunk driving, but the case was dismissed on a prosecutor’s motion.
A police report in West Allis, Wisconsin, accused him of “lurking” in an area where police in that suburban Milwaukee community keep their private vehicles, videotaping them. Heavy contacted West Allis municipal court to get the disposition of that ticket. He was found guilty of loitering after pleading no contest on Nov. 3, 2021, they said. Here is the court record.
Here’s part of the police report:
“Gaige had no reasons to be there and had no vehicle in the lot. He was previously detained for prowling in the same area and released,” the report says in the prowling case. “Gaige appeared to be video taping personal vehicles in the rear police parking lot. Gaige made clear his anti law enforcement views. Gaige was arrested for prowling, booked, cited and released.”
Grosskreutz admitted during testimony that his concealed carry permit was expired, making it unlawful for him to carry concealed, but he had his gun stuck in the back waistband of his pants much of the night.
What matters is what the defendant knew or possibly should have known at the time. People with criminal records have the same right not to be shot as everyone else.
--Hiram
I am pretty certain he did not know their criminal record at the time. He just knew some disturbed person was chasing him, and possibly trying to take his gun.
Rosenblum seemingly contributed to own death after all. Unfortunately he triggered a chain of events that led to another death and gun shot wound.
"Hours before the fatal encounter, Rosenbaum had been released from a local hospital in the wake of a suicide attempt, the Washington Post reported last fall.
He had pending charges in Wisconsin for alleged domestic abuse and jumping bail at the time of his death.
In December 2002, a court in Pima County, Arizona, sentenced him to a decade in prison on child molestation charges. He spent just over 14 years in prison and committed dozens of disciplinary infractions, state records show."
This in no way make Rittenhouse innocent in this terrible chain of events.
at the very least Rittenhouse should have been found guilty of a weapons charge, as he was only 17 at the time. Actually, I am surprised that you support finding him guilty on some of the other charges. I really don't like how some on the right are treating him like a hero.
After a decade plus of me espousing moderate pragmatic informed opinions...
I am surprised that you are surprised :-O :-)
A law and order guy like me has little desire to have armed gun fighters wandering the streets. Especially not snot nosed kids who spook at their own shadows.
There is a reason that police officers and soldiers go through tons of training before we give them guns.
A. Not a hero, but somebody very badly mistreated by "the system." Those "victims" had "no business" rioting in the streets that night, or attacking a young man.
B. Under Wisconsin law, Kyle was permitted to carry that rifle.
C. If police are prevented from "wandering the streets armed" what do you expect sensible citizens to do?
People have a second amendment right to be heavily armed. Nobody questions the right of rioters to carry a gun. But what does that mean for the rest of us? If I encounter a guy with with a semi automatic weapon at Hy Vee, does he have the right to gun me down, if he in any way perceives me as threatening? When around such people do I have to be careful about making any sudden moves for my cell phone?
--Hiram
As I said, the first "victim" brought his consequence upon himself.
The other 2 were the good guys trying to stop a scared kid with a gun who had just opened fire at a protest.
There were plenty of armed police there, no need for armed children to cross state lines to play "Punisher".
Minors, Guns, Wisc
Hiram,
Not sure about MN, but don't scare an armed person in Wisc.
Apparently their opinion matters a lot. :-O
D. Rittenhouse did NOT "cross state lines with a gun."
"trying to stop a scared kid with a gun" Yep. That's the media's story and they're sticking to it, by gum. I don't suppose yelling at him would have been enough? Next you'll be telling me that guy who drove over a parade was being chased by police.
No he picked up his gun from an adult who did a straw man purchase for him from what I understand.
What would you do if a kid shot someone and started running away?
Maybe you would have just yelled... "Stop shooting people, that is not nice" !!!
2 concerned citizens took action as you often say they should when facing an active shooter.
And one died and the other was severely injured.
All because some stupid immature kid thought he was Rambo.
A lot of people think the use of deadly force is permissible to defend property. It isn't and that's a dangerous thing to believe, especially with an increasingly armed population.
--Hiram
"2 [violent rioters] took [violent] actions." Fixed it for ya, and what "I often say" has nothing to do with it. You can argue he should not have been there, or with a gun. I argue his attackers should not have been there, with a gun. Who were the aggressors? That determines self defense and all the rest is just cancel culture claptrap.
Jerry,
I think you should study Wisc law...
"Prosecutors said that Rittenhouse had put himself in danger through a series of reckless choices: He came to Kenosha during a period of violent and destructive riots; he armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle; he stayed there past curfew and after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only person there to shoot someone.
But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim."
The aggressors were Rittenhouse and Rosenbloom.
And only Rosembloom lived in that community.
What the other 2 experienced was just the tragic consequence of an immature untrained boy with a gun.
What the other two experienced was just the natural consequence of their unwise actions and violent dispositions. You are arguing that Rittenhouse had no right to be there, that his mere presence was an "aggression," and therefore he deserved to be murdered. I have not studied WI law, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong on that.
Yes, you seem to support going back to the wild west days where citizens take the law into their own hands.
Now if the 3rd man had killed Rittenhouse and claimed self defense.
Would you be fine with him getting off with no punishment?
Would you be cheering him on for having killed an active shooter?
From your view, that was probably the 3rd man's biggest mistake. He hesitated instead of shooting and killing Rittenhouse.
What the heck do you call the rampant lawlessness of these riots!?? When police are prevented from enforcing the law, to whom does the safety of life and property fall?
Had the third man, illegally in possession of a firearm, chased him down and shot him in cold blood, I don't think self-defense would have been a legal defense. Of course, you can posit any hypothetical you want, but it has nothing to do with the case at hand.
When we take away the legitimacy of our institutions, rampant lawlessness is one of the alternatives. The fact is we don't have enough police to deal with rampant lawlessness, especially when police have lost the confidence of the community.
In active terms, nobody is preventing the police from enforcing the law, rather the police just don't want to do it anymore, at least not aggressively. They see what happened to Derek Chauvin and every single cop out there is thinking it could have happened to them.
This is a question I have asked a lot of people, and I haven't gotten a lot of satisfactory. If we don't believe in our elections anymore, and in this context, if we don't believe in our cops anymore, what's next? Heavily armed teenagers who think they are medics using deadly force to guard used car lots? Is that part of the future we want for America?
--Hiram
Seems like a dystopian future that Jerry can get behind... :-(
I have been watching a TV series on dystopias. One of the episodes was on "A Clockwork Orange" both the book and the movie. Both are about the tradeoff between freedom and security, possibly a more central issue today, than when the book was written or the movie produced. When people tell that that when legitimacy is about force, the image of Alex, strapped to a chair, forced to watch hideous scenes while listening to Beethoven is what comes to my mind. That's a near future we haven't quite reached next, but I do suspect that if we get to that point, the hideous scenes we will be forced to watch will be from Fox News.
--Hiram
I am curious. Are arson, looting, vandalism, assault, and general mayhem legitimate forms of political dissent, or the marks of anarchy? Isn't "law and order" the first duty of government? Are not those who deny it the problem, rather than those that support it?
That is the job of government, police, courts, etc.
Not 17 year old boys.
Are arson, looting, vandalism, assault, and general mayhem legitimate forms of political dissent, or the marks of anarchy?
No, but they can be political actions, when the concept of legitimacy is rejected. In war time, where there is an absence of legitimacy, all those things occur routinely.
" Isn't "law and order" the first duty of government?"
Arguably, yes, but what happens when we make the choice to reject both law and order. When a former president of the United States gives his blessing to vigilante justice? When many of our elected officials implicitly and even explicitly accept that a 17 year old kid with delusions of grandeur and possessed of a deadly weapon has a role enforcing the law on our streets.
If we reject the results of our elections and the legitimacy they provide, on what basis can we reject the role of force in imposing order?
--Hiram
Somebody please address the question: "Are arson, looting, vandalism, assault, and general mayhem legitimate [and acceptable] forms of political dissent?" If so, everybody charged for Jan. 6 should go free, with reparations.
If it is the job of government, police and courts, then where were they? A COURT cleared the lad of the heinous charges against him, something your whole topic has rushed to judgment about. Do you reject the legitimacy of the court in THIS matter? Was anybody prosecuted for the multitudinous other crimes that night?
Not sure what what general mayhem is, but I disagree with Hiram.
"arson, looting, vandalism, assault" are illegal and should be prosecuted.
I am fine with the jury verdict, I disagree with the laws that made it okay for an untrained minor to carry a semi-automatic rifle into town without a legal punishment. That made it okay for him to kill 2 people and injure a third because he was a coward.
And I am thankful that the folks who illegal breached the capitol and killed / injured police officers are going to jail by the hundreds. Thank heavens for law and order.
Update on charges
55 people 'identified and facing charges' related to violent Kenosha protests
Hmmmm. Not a single Jan. 6 person charged with "insurrection" yet that's the meme. Many still awaiting trial in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of a speedy trial. FBI hiding exculpatory video evidence. Sorry, guess I'm a conspiracy theorist. BTW, only one person killed, a "protester" doing nothing except standing there, and only one police officer died, who suffered a fatal stroke. 4 other medical emergencies-- stroke or heart attack, too much excitement. Only one KILLED, none of them police, contrary to the hoopla.
My opinion Jan. 6 is an overreaction to a mob situation. Kenosha good but not enough, and these latest "smash and grab" plus the huge increase in carjackings in MPLS are the result of the latter, not the former. I don't think it's Trump supporters smashing into the Louis Vuitton store.
Mayhem, according to Wiki; "Mayhem in the U.S. is a felony in all states and jurisdictions, including federal."
Police injured, died, committed suicide.
Yeah. I am guessing it is not used much...
"Mayhem A felony at common law. Required an intent to maim or do bodily harm accompanied by an act that either dismembered the victim or disabled her or her use of some part of the body that is useful for fighting. Abolished in some states. In some states, extended to include permanent disfigurement."
I will never understand Liberals and Conservatives defending their own law breakers while vilifying the others?
Perhaps both sides see a different interpretation and biased application of black-letter (no racism involved) law. When some jurisdictions claim massive theft is OK, those of us who think "law and order" the first function of government get upset. And we don't riot in the streets about it. You do not WANT to understand the fundamental difference, and are defending lawbreakers just like the major media does. Have you noticed that the /race/ of the SUV that killed 6 people in Kenosha is never mentioned?
Do you think his actions were racially motivated?
And I think the picture is pretty self explanatory regarding his race.
Please remember that the Capitol breach was a riot where 100+ officers were injured.
And for some reason you seem to think it was okay?
Both sides are hypocrites... :-O
Maybe you think this guy should get off because he was scared of the dancing Grannies. :-O
Are arson, looting, vandalism, assault, and general mayhem legitimate [and acceptable] forms of political dissent?
No. But what happens when we have declared our political institutions illegitimate? The institutions that passed laws that made those things crimes?
Do both sides do it? Do both sides question the legitimacy of our process? If they do, does that make it okay?
Our system has a flaw. It allows candidates who lose the popular vote to somehow "win" the election. One problem with that is that presidents who enter the office without popular support will always have legitimacy issues. This will happen no matter which candidate of which president "wins" the presidency in this manner. But the fact is, most of us deal with the flaw by simply ignoring it. In 2016, the day after the election, the candidate who won the popular vote brushed aside the legitimacy issue and acknowledged the victory of the man who lost the popular vote. Within days, the president of the party that won the popular vote but lost the office welcomed the loser of the popular vote to the White House as the next president. The incumbent president actually attended the inauguration of this successor. how do adherents of "both sides do it" theories explain away these facts and their arguments concerning political legitimacy?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I know the electoral college is a really concern for you, however that is part of our government.
Therefore every time you question it you are one of those rebels...
People like Jerry who question the vote tallies, do not trust local elected officials, refuse to accept that the new President won and try to stop people from voting worry me much more.
They definitely are working to undermine our democracy.
People like Jerry actually witnessed the vote being stolen, and have evidence, while Democrats play hide the salami with the evidence that might prove it was all on the up-and-up. We've talked with, or attempted, to talk with these "local election officials" and some of them (most) are fine folks. But it only takes a few and we know who they are. They are the ones denying access to Republicans to witness the counting. If there is any "undermining the democracy" going on, it's not Republicans, but it is definitely Democrats who are undermining faith in our elections.
And none of that excuses violation of black-letter law. Those who break the law--including "local election officials" are criminals, not conscientious objectors.
I know the electoral college is a really concern for you, however that is part of our government.
Of course it is. That's why I accepted Donald Trump as president. It's why I thought it wasn't inappropriate for President Obama to greet him at the White House or attend his inauguration.
But the constitution doesn't require me to agree with the results of it's processes. And surely the framers understood that by creating the electoral college, they risked undermining the legitimacy of presidents who were elected by it.
I respect the Constitution. But let's not forget, it is a document of it's time, one that that acknowledges and legitimizes slavery. On that basis alone it is not to be revered.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Apparently like many of your opinions, they can not be proven.
Or someone would be in jail for whatever you believe you saw.
As long as you deny that Biden legally won the election by 4 states and 7.5 million votes. You are the one undermining our country.
Hiram,
I agree that it is your right to lobby to get the rules changed.
"Or someone would be in jail for whatever you believe you saw." Really? You believe Democrats are going to prosecute Democrats for rigging an election in their favor? How naive can you be? Many election law violation cases were dismissed, BTW, first for "lack of standing" since the vote had not yet been certified, and afterwords because of "laches," a case brought too late. Democrats manipulating the law.
So in your conspiracies laden mind... Not only is one local election official or local citizen in on it.
The Elections boards, the Judges, the Legislators, etc are complicit in this felony?
And wonder why I think you are out to undermine our country and the rule of law?
You are as bad as the BLMers who say the justice system is biased / corrupt.
Why must a large number be "complicit" in stealing an election? First of all, it takes only a tiny few, in a few critical places. Second, much of what is done is actually legal, at least in MN, and at least arguably so. Our election laws are the worst in the nation. And finally, there is no way that these thieves can be caught, when the foxes are in charge of the hen-house, and no watchdogs are permitted.
Undermine the rule of law? Heck, I would be happy, for starters, if the existing laws were actually followed reliably. Then I would like it improved to eliminate the many huge loopholes, at least in MN, that create a vast distrust in our elections, where over half of us think the 2020 election was somehow "improper."
So worried about windows...
And making it harder for legal voters to vote... :-(
Lies. What makes it harder for legal voters to vote is having /illegal/ voters dilute/override their vote. You vote legally for candidate A, Donald Duck votes for candidate B, and your vote effectively does not count. Go ahead, PROVE to me that only legal voters are allowed to vote under the current law and procedures.
I agree that it is your right to lobby to get the rules changed.
The problem here is that our inability to change the rules means that we are rejecting them altogether. The constitution imposes rules, but there is no rule that we have to have this constitution.
--Hiram
in 1787, we wrote a constitution that tolerated the institution of slavery. It became a rule. Furthermore, the constitution had all sorts of rules in it, the unstated but intended effect of which was to prevent the abolition of slavery. In the next 80 years, more rules were created expressed and implied in our Congress to prevent it from dealing with slavery. Abolitions lobbied a lot, but nothing changed. The rules simply could not be overcome. The result was the Civil War perhaps the worst and most serious violation of rules in American history.
Rules are rules, but never in history has there been a rule that says the rules can't be swept away.
--Hiram
Jerry,
I am pretty sure this makes no sense...
"What makes it harder for legal voters to vote is having /illegal/ voters dilute/override their vote.?"
Unless of course the lines get too long.
Hiram,
Now the is the anarchy spirit...
John, sorry but the math is undeniable. If a person votes for A, and two people who should not be allowed to vote at all pick B, B wins. If those two illegal voters are prevented from voting for B, the fair and honest election gives A the win. How is preventing ILLEGAL voters from voting preventing LEGAL voters from voting? It is definitionally incorrect, the product of Democrat propaganda.
Same question I asked you...
How is preventing ILLEGAL voters from voting preventing LEGAL voters from voting?
I do not think I have gotten an answer...
If anything, it should encourage legal voters to ensure their voices are heard.
And again, there is no proof of any significant number "illegal voters" occurring.
2020 Fact Check
"I do not think I have gotten an answer..." You have an answer, you simply refuse to accept the simple truth. If ten illegal voters vote for B, and two legal voters vote for A, who wins? How do legal voters "make their voices heard" under those circumstances? Granted, you haven't stopped legal voters from voting, but you have deprived them of the right to have their votes counted fairly, and their "voices heard" at the ballot box. On the other hand, if you deny illegal voters the chance to cast a ballot, you have denied them nothing they should have had in the first place. Why do we not do that?
So we are in agreement that illegal votes does not make it harder for legal voters to vote.
Now, let's say there are 200,000,000 legal voters. And 20,000,000 people who can not vote legally.
The simplest way for legal voters to get their voices heard is for 200,000,000 of them to vote. And to get that to happen we need to make it safe, convenient, simple, inexpensive, etc.
The problem with the GOP and Jerry's closing all the windows plan is that it makes it harder for many of those 200,000,000 to vote. People who are poor, move often, students, snow birds, etc have to do a lot of work to vote.
So the GOP and Jerry are okay disenfranchising 40,000,000 legal voters in order to stop some very small portion of 20,000,000. I mean what felon, illegal resident, minor, etc is going to risk jail time to go vote? Few to none as the data consistently shows.
So yes Jerry, the efforts you support are anti-American and anti-democratic. :-(
" it makes it harder for many of those 200,000,000 to vote." That is a lie, or misinformation at best. Courts have consistently ruled such. And by the way, a switch of 20,000 votes in key states would have elected Trump in 2020. You keep thinking in terms of voter FRAUD, which is hard to find (especially if you don't look) and harder to prosecute. You need to start thinking about IMPROPER voting. For example, ruling that absentee ballot signatures do not have to match (MN) or that one person can deliver as many ballots as they want to an unmonitored drop box (MN) or that certain people are allowed to vote twice (MN), or that opposing parties are not needed to watch the counting (MN).
A lot of Republicans are saying the counting machines were tampered with. It's possible, but I think it far more likely that they correctly counted the garbage that was fed into them.
Jerry,
Tell me how you support making it easier for legal voters to vote?
I support making it easier for legal voters to have their vote /fairly counted/, by making it harder for illegal voters to override their choices. Are you actually buying the lie from people like our Secretary of State that "we have no voter fraud in Minnesota"?
The problem is that when you make it easier to vote for legal voters, you make it easier to vote illegally. There simply is no way around this conundrum.
--Hiram
Hiram, I disagree.
Jerry,
That was not an answer to the question.
Tell me how you support making it easier for legal voters to vote?
We have 10's of millions of citizens who move regularly and/or just struggle to survive day after. And you want to keep them from voting. It is sad.
In our modern world, we should be able to make it easy to vote and eliminate fraud.
That is if we really want to.
"And you want to keep them from voting. It is sad."
In our modern world, we should be able to make it easy to vote and eliminate fraud."
You want it both ways now? I answered your question, and Hiram explained it. I think it is now /unnecessarily/ easy for legal voters to vote, and that sets up conditions which allow election tampering. You lie about me, saying I don't want people to vote. What I want is to stop dead people, fictional people, non-existent people, and illegal voters from voting, by reducing THEIR "easy voting" ability. You are correct, we SHOULD be able to "make it easy to vote and eliminate fraud." We can, you just do not want fraud or improper voting curtailed.
And yet you have no proof of any significant number of "dead people, fictional people, non-existent people, and illegal voters from voting"...
So you want to make it harder for citizens to vote to fix an imagined problem.
Sometimes I think Hiram even confuses himself...
There you go again, simply denying what I have seen with my own eyes-- my own experience. The shoe is on the other foot. PROVE that illegal/improper voting is NOT POSSIBLE under the election laws and practices here in MN. Or start by proving it did NOT happen, legally or illegally.
"PROVE that illegal/improper voting is NOT POSSIBLE under the election laws and practices here in MN."
Can you provide me with the name of a jurisdiction where this standard is met?
I'll simply ask you to provide me a jurisdiction that is closer to meeting it. And that would be almost anywhere except MN. "Impossible" is of course not possible. No law can be written to fully constrain human behavior. BUT, when it is /legal/ for an illegal voter to vote (and have that vote count), like in MN, it shouldn't be too hard to find some place with a higher standard.
Jerry,
You are so silly.
You want an example? I personally witnessed the required post-election audit. In a heavily Democrat precinct, the official count was 900 ballots, and that was certified. There were 300 paper ballots cast and retrieved from that precinct. That might be amusing to you, but then you don't give a d**n about election integrity.
Prove it...
Proof? I personally attest that I witnessed the above. Go ahead, call me a liar one more time.
I think people see what they want to see.
Remember: Confirmation Bias.
I am mean was Trump lying that he had the biggest crowd(s)?
Or did he just want to believe so bad?
Oh, yes, I simply imagined the printed documentation, of which I have a copy. You tried to avoid calling me a liar, but you did. It is one thing to ignore your own confirmation bias, but to simple ignore or dismiss clear-cut evidence to the contrary, that is real dedication to the lies you tell yourself.
If you have evidence, why have I not heard about this egregious crime on the news?
Is it possible that the news media suppresses information that favours news that disagrees with your viewpoint?
Then what court reviewed it?
Court case number?
Post a Comment