Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Options
1…159160162164165…331

Comments

  • Options
    #4832
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    But weren't the protesters also his fellow citizens executing their constitutional right to protest?

    Not the ones that were burning down businesses, rioting and looting.

    Can you point me to the part of the constitution that gives citizens the right to burn down businesses and engage in looting and rioting?


  • Options
    #4833
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,603 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Not the ones that were burning down businesses, rioting and looting.

    Can you point me to the part of the constitution that gives citizens the right to burn down businesses and engage in looting and rioting?

    I cant

    Can you show me the part that says it's OK to shoot unarmed people dead in cold blood?


  • Options
    #4834
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    But weren't the protesters also his fellow citizens executing their constitutional right to protest?
    One of the surest facts about Trump and his supporters is that they believe constitutional rights do not apply to those with opposing political opinions to theirs.

    If I don't add the words Colin Kaepernick (along with the countless protests that have gone on peacefully this summer) and their opposition to these also, one of them will also predictably try to hide behind 'peaceful' part of the first amendment. Edit - I see this point has been proven just two posts up.


  • Options
    #4835
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    He was 17 with a semi automatic rifle. You're talking rubbish.

    He was 17 year old with a gun protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down.

    Context is everything and you seem keen to not give the events proper context.

    Why is that?


  • Options
    #4836
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,603 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was 17 year old with a gun protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down.

    Context is everything and you seem keen to not give the events proper context.

    Why is that?

    Can you provide evidence for this claim please?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4837
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,223 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was 17 year old with a gun protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down.

    Context is everything and you seem keen to not give the events proper context.

    Why is that?

    Its hilarious to watch people just toe the line endlessly


  • Options
    #4838
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    One of the surest facts about Trump and his supporters is that they believe constitutional rights do not apply to those with opposing political opinions to theirs.

    If I don't add the words Colin Kaepernick (along with the countless protests that have gone on peacefully this summer) and their opposition to these also, one of them will also predictably try to hide behind 'peaceful' part of the first amendment.

    I'm going to hazard a guess that smashing cars, assault and forming lynch mobs to chase people dont generally fall under constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    None of the people the kid shot were protesting, one was chasing him down, one was smacking him in the head, and the last was pointing a gun at him.

    But do continue about protest...


  • Options
    #4839
    relax carry on
    Registered Users Posts: 4,082 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    Danzy wrote: »
    Whatever about the right or wrong of Kyle's shooting or his character.

    We can all surely agree that the world is a nicer and safer place for kids and women now that those 2 pricks are dead.

    What the hell is wrong with you. Do you have any respect for the legal protections afforded all citizens of functional first world democratic societies? The child decided to be judge, jury and executioner of strangers. He did not afford his fellow citizens any rights. It was not his job, his role, his function in society to do what he did. This is not normal and if you find yourself applauding the outcome, you really need to ask yourself, what happened in your life to get you to this point. This is not a game. This is real life. There is no coming back from this. The child ended the lives of two human beings, injured another and has destroyed his own life.


  • Options
    #4840
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Bambi wrote: »
    I'm going to hazard a guess that smashing cars, assault and forming lynch mobs to chase people dont generally fall under constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    None of the people the kid shot were protesting, one was chasing him down, one was smacking him in the head, and the last was pointing a gun at him.

    But do continue about protest...

    He's a murderer.


  • Options
    #4841
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Can you provide evidence for this claim please?

    Great idea, throw some evidence up that the two dead felons were protesting when the kid offed them. Same with guy who had his arm shot off while pointing a gun at the kid


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4842
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was 17 year old with a gun protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down.

    Context is everything and you seem keen to not give the events proper context.

    Why is that?
    The context of this situation is that an underage child was given an extremely dangerous weapon that he had no legal right to be open carrying, yet police had no issue with him doing so as they had chosen sides and deemed him to be on theirs, which enabled him to murder people on the streets and just walk by riot squads to go home right after doing so.

    The context of this situation shows not only all the laws that were broken and were openly allowed to be broken by police, but also (yet again) shows the need for stricter gun controls in the United States, and the need for whomever supplied the weapon to Rittenhouse to also be charged an an accessory, or similar.


  • Options
    #4843
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was 17 year old with a gun protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down.

    Context is everything and you seem keen to not give the events proper context.

    Why is that?

    It's because he's 17 with a semi automatic rifle. But if you think it's okay for a 17 year old to roam the streets with a semi automatic rifle then I might as well be talking to the wall.


  • Options
    #4844
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Bambi wrote: »
    I'm going to hazard a guess that smashing cars, assault and forming lynch mobs to chase people dont generally fall under constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    None of the people the kid shot were protesting, one was chasing him down, one was smacking him in the head, and the last was pointing a gun at him.

    But do continue about protest...
    Its like you're determined to prove my point, and murder isn't constitutionally protected either - hence his arrest since.

    Colin kaepernick was peacefully protesting - Trump supporters despised him for this and wanted him stopped (including the president illegally influencing private businesses). The clergy and others were peacefully protesting - Trump supporters refused go take any issue with them being gassed by Trumps goons and denied this right. Trump supporters typically just want any dissent silenced, and don't really do much to hide this.

    Trump supporters don't think constitutional rights should be applied equally, but instead want then applied to those who share their ideologies, and prove it time and again.

    I see you're still trying to ignore the Biden campaigns denunciation of Richard Spencer while Trump never did. It's ok, it's very obvious why.


  • Options
    #4845
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Can you provide evidence for this claim please?

    "A local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life's work, including two nearby mechanic's shops"

    That is part of a statement released by his legal team.

    One of his business had already been destroyed so logic would dictate that his other businesses were under imminent threat. So Kyle and his friend were defending his other businesses.

    Or are we not following logic anymore?


  • Options
    #4846
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,671 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    By the logic of these trying to defend this shooter, isn't it perfectly reasonable for people to attack the police if they feel in danger?

    Also, it always seems that when it is a Trump supporter or far right groups that they must be treated as individuals and not grouped, but it is perfectly reasonable to lump all protestors as rioters and far left loonies.


  • Options
    #4847
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's because he's 17 with a semi automatic rifle. But if you think it's okay for a 17 year old to roam the streets with a semi automatic rifle then I might as well be talking to the wall.

    He was protecting a business.

    Which would you rather happen A or B?

    A: Your business burning to the ground.

    OR

    B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.


  • Options
    #4848
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    There's a video on YouTube of Kyle Rittenhouse beating the crap out of a teenage girl.


  • Options
    #4849
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,671 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was protecting a business.

    Which would you rather happen A or B?

    A: Your business burning to the ground.

    OR

    B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.

    a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.


  • Options
    #4850
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was protecting a business.

    Which would you rather happen A or B?

    A: Your business burning to the ground.

    OR

    B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.

    So they are the only two options available ever? Bollox.


  • Options
    #4851
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.

    He was protecting a business not some crazed vigilante that went out with the intention to kill people even though that's what a lot of people on this thread believe.

    We can argue that point all we want but it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if he is guilty of any crimes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4852
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,366 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    There's a video on YouTube of Kyle Rittenhouse beating the crap out of a teenage girl.

    She was going after someone’s business.


  • Options
    #4853
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    So they are the only two options available ever? Bollox.

    I see you haven't answered the question?

    They were the only 2 options available to the business owner on the night.


  • Options
    #4854
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was protecting a business not some crazed vigilante that went out with the intention to kill people even though that's what a lot of people on this thread believe.

    We can argue that point all we want but it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if he is guilty of any crimes.

    So, when Kyle was battering the lard out of a girl, it would be fine if her 17 year old brother got a semi automatic rifle and shot Kyle dead. Amirite?


  • Options
    #4855
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    I see you haven't answered the question?

    They were the only 2 options available to the business owner on the night.

    Rubbish.


  • Options
    #4856
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    Its like you're determined to prove my point, and murder isn't constitutionally protected either - hence his arrest since.

    Colin kaepernick was peacefully protesting - Trump supporters despised him for this and wanted him stopped (including the president illegally influencing private businesses). The clergy and others were peacefully protesting - Trump supporters refused go take any issue with them being gassed by Trumps goons and denied this right. Trump supporters typically just want any dissent silenced, and don't really do much to hide this.

    Trump supporters don't think constitutional rights should be applied equally, but instead want then applied to those who share their ideologies, and prove it time and again.

    I see you're still trying to ignore the Biden campaigns denunciation of Richard Spencer while Trump never did. It's ok, it's very obvious why.


    Here we go, another classic chestnut:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/22/donald-trump-disavow-alt-right-groups/





  • Options
    #4857
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    a vigilante? So law and order is uo to the public and he decreed himself to be judge, jury and executioner.

    Only if you are on their side politically.

    Otherwise, even basic constitutional rights do not apply to you, including the right to peaceful protest like seen by Colin kaepernick and the clergy.


  • Options
    #4858
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Bambi wrote: »
    Here we go, another classic chestnut:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/22/donald-trump-disavow-alt-right-groups/



    Exactly as I said, Trump claims to be against white suoremacists... while praising attendees of a white supremacist organised rally as 'very fine people'.

    Replace the KKK/Spencer with Al Qaeda/ISIS, and Trump with Obama, and there would rightfully have been absolute uproar. But because it's Trump, his supporters feel the dutiful need to defend him to the hilt no matter what.

    If there is one thing that Trump has said that is completely true, it is that he could shoot a man in the street and not lose supporters.

    This is why Trump never denounced white supremacist support from the likes of Charlottesville organiser Richard Spencer, because he knows well that his supporters who are not racists are more than happy to mingle with them, and defend them if it means defending Trump. Such is the nature of cultism.


  • Options
    #4859
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,603 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    "A local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life's work, including two nearby mechanic's shops"

    That is part of a statement released by his legal team.

    One of his business had already been destroyed so logic would dictate that his other businesses were under imminent threat. So Kyle and his friend were defending his other businesses.

    Or are we not following logic anymore?

    So no evidence for your claim
    protecting a business that was under threat of being burned down


  • Options
    #4860
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,603 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    He was protecting a business.

    Which would you rather happen A or B?

    A: Your business burning to the ground.

    OR

    B: Your business being saved because it was protected by a 17 year old with a gun.

    what would you prefer?

    A: Your business being burned (no evidence this was going to happen), getting the insurance, rebuilding?

    B: Two people losing their lives?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4861
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So no evidence for your claim

    Plenty of evidence there but you're ignoring it, one of the businesses had already burned down so therefore, there was an obvious threat that his other business premises would be burned down.

    Or do you believe that violent rioters stop their rioting and destruction after they've burned down one business like all the other times that there has been rioting :rolleyes: .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement