Kansas Crimson

psych, just for a moment, try your hardest at some devil’s advocate downer pity and just brainstorm all the ways that race maybe was a factor.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:53 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:11 am

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:53 am

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

Again, you think you’re being so clever by picking and choosing the narrowest aspects of this and pretending there isn’t anything else going on.

Where do you think the defense got all the money for jury consultants, mock trials etc.? I believe the lead defense lawyer when he says he’s not a cause lawyer. But, the culture war-stoking right is what funded the defense. And that was very very VERY much about race.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:49 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

Again, you think you’re being so clever by picking and choosing the narrowest aspects of this and pretending there isn’t anything else going on.

Where do you think the defense got all the money for jury consultants, mock trials etc.? I believe the lead defense lawyer when he says he’s not a cause lawyer. But, the culture war-stoking right is what funded the defense. And that was very very VERY much about race.

So, you know this to be fact, or you just want it to be so? If it is the former, I’d love to see some evidence.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:53 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:49 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

Again, you think you’re being so clever by picking and choosing the narrowest aspects of this and pretending there isn’t anything else going on.

Where do you think the defense got all the money for jury consultants, mock trials etc.? I believe the lead defense lawyer when he says he’s not a cause lawyer. But, the culture war-stoking right is what funded the defense. And that was very very VERY much about race.

So, you know this to be fact, or you just want it to be so? If it is the former, I’d love to see some evidence.

On what exactly? Who funded the defense? Go find the lead lawyer’s interview with Chris Cuomo from last night. He’s quite transparent about all of this.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:53 am

It always has to go back to race, even when it was a White man shooting at other White men, with no association to White supremacy whatsoever. It’s almost like people want a crisis, and when one doesn’t exist, they try to manufacture one. SMH.

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

The notion that this had anything to do with defending private property is absurd. Give it a break.

5 questions of the day for psych!

1.
a. Do you think anyone would have been out there protesting if a cop didn’t shoot a black dude 7 times in the back in front of his kids?
b. Do you think the Kenosha protests would have been as likely or as escalated if the nation wasn’t already in the wake of the protests over a cop kneeling on a handcuffed black guy’s neck for 9 minutes as he cried for his mommy?

2. Was Kyle out protesting in favor of BLM, or did he go out instead as some rogue force against it?

3. Even if the OK hand sign was just an innocent coincidence, then why was Kyle posing for photo ops with the Proud Boys either way?

4. If all the paramilitary cops just casually drove right past a kid fleeing with an assault rifle, who or what exactly were they looking for, then?

5. When an oppressed demographic says “race is totally a factor” and when the oppressor demographic says “this has nothing to do with race,” which view is more appropriate to hold as the more objective valid truth?

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:09 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

The notion that this had anything to do with defending private property is absurd. Give it a break.

The notion that private property is more important than human lives, and is worthy of defending with violent destructive force, especially by some self-appointed rogue with no connection to the property otherwise, is absurd.

Oh shoot, I meant to add this as a bonus question for psych:

Can you find any examples of a double homicide defendant being afforded so much benefit of the doubt about his intent, or why he was so heavily armed, or how the judge prohibited otherwise damning state-of-mind type evidence, and went on to throw charges out the window as the trial progressed, when the defendant is black?

Not gonna lie, psych, I’m jealous of your thick feathery locks

What’s your secret? Head and shoulders? Rinse and repeat?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:28 am Not gonna lie, psych, I’m jealous of your thick feathery locks

What’s your secret? Head and shoulders? Rinse and repeat?

What, exactly, is a “Christian Nationalist”? If I’m gonna be labeled as one, I’d at least like to know what it is?

Nice try, CoyDC!

If you’d like me to reply to your question, I only think it’s fair for you to reply to my questions first.

also gonna just leave this one here

Fox News was very much allowed in the Rittenhouse family and Legal Defense inner-circle. The lawyer admitted as much last night on Cuomo.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:05 am

Let the victory lap begin. This kid is going to be a millionaire.

The idea was to incite rioting and brutally to suppress it as a lesson for the left when Trump declared Martial Law. Though in his crazed last days, it didn't quite play out that way, the message has been sent that the right can make a straw man enemy, false flag its trauma, and brutally suppress peaceful protests. It has been documented that almost all of the rioting was incited by white supremacist actors playing out that script. I realize that being a witting tool of evil is not a lot for psych to hang his hat on, but there it is.

sdoyel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:20 am Fox News was very much allowed in the Rittenhouse family and Legal Defense inner-circle. The lawyer admitted as much last night on Cuomo.

The lawyer had some pretty impressive thoughts on the challenges Rittenhouse will face going forward. Suffice it to say becoming Tucker’s apprentice is not consistent with what the lawyer advised.