Democrats can't prove Rittenhouse is a white supremacist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Democrats can't prove Kyle Rittenhouse is a racist.

This coming from the judge who oversaw the case and ABC news that is in love with the DNC, yet the President of the United States and the entire DNC claims the teenage boy is a racist and white supremacist.

There is no evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse has ever affiliated himself with racist groups, no evidence of hateful rhetoric on social media, and the teenager only shot white men who approached him to attack him. That is called defamation, and the teenager sure as hell better sue everyone he can, including the President for it. Hopefully the lad is not murdered along with his family because of such inciteful rhetoric from the President, the media, and entire DNC.

Also, the President of the United States should not be injecting his opinions on a court case that is underway or any court case for that matter, unless he wants to influence a decision by the jury. Why can't dementia Joe just hide in his basement the way he did before the election?

Who here is OK with the President of the United States commenting on a court case that might sway a result? Anyone?

This whole notion that Kyle Rittenhouse, along with the entire rigged judicial system is racist, is akin to conservatives claiming elections are rigged. If so, where is the evidence that proves this? I have actually seen evidence that the elections might have been tampered with, but no proof. Evidence that the elections were tampered with includes this article.


To date, though, I have not seen any evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a racist, let alone proof, yet the Left thinks it is Ok to scream to "blow up society" because of this alleged systemic racism, much like some conservatives want to "blow up" the election process because of it allegedly being rigged. Can anyone provide any?

In truth, neither side cares about proving anything. They just want their way and to hell with everything around them.

The difference though is, once these "protests" occur because of a election result, or because of a white police officer shooting a black man, one side is allowed to protest and cause loss of life and property it seems and the other is not. You can even be a white woman unarmed in the Capital and be shot dead by a black police officer, with no mention of the police officers name in the news, no mention of possible racism being the cause, and no subsequent death threats towards the officer and his family or even an investigation into it. However, on the streets of America this is not the case as we see with Kyle Rittenhouse even though Kyle only shot white men who were chasing him down and assaulting him. Imagine that, a boy with a gun is being chased down by angry protestors, so we are to believe he wanted to gun them all down? LOL. Or as we saw with the police officer in Columbus Ohio, all you have to do is to shoot dead a black person who has a weapon trying to kill another black person and you will be declared a racist by the media with Lebron Tweeting your name and address and that "You are next" with no blow back. Such threats to murdering people are perfectly fine in our PC culture. But this is avoided for police officers who protect the PC elite, no matter if they are in the Capital or elsewhere, much like the Mayor of Chicago defunds her own police, but only to increase police presence on her own street to keep herself safe while the rest of the city burns.

I suppose all the Left has is the racist history of the US to feed off of, while they use it as kindling to burn the rest of the country to the ground. Even when a nation elects a black man twice as President, and then elects a black to the Oval Office once more, we must all continue to declare that the country is still systemically racist as it ever was and demand our way or to hell with everything. In fact, we must continue pretending millions of white did not fight a bloody battle over ending slavery, pretending that Jim Crow laws were not done away with, and pretending that the Civil Rights legislation was ever passed. Those events apparently were just diversions to make us think that they country is still just as systemically racist as it ever was.

Not everyone who disagrees with the DNC, or owns an AR 15 is systemically racist and/or a white supremacist.

But this is how everything in the news is portrayed now. In fact, ask a democrat about any subject, such as Covid or global warming, and they will tell you that Covid is really a racist virus, and that global warming is harming blacks more than whites while it allegedly is destroying the entire world. Buy hey, in a world where math itself is racist, is it any wonder?
Rittenhouse: Biden Attacked My Character with "Actual Malice," I Have Lawyers Looking Into Lies about Me
 
As far as White Nationalists are concerned, white liberals are race traitors.

wn-sign.jpg

White liberals are racists.
1637683111859.png
 
It might not be over yet. A civil case with a sane judge would allow all that evidence, and have a lower bar of proof. OJ got off in his criminal trial, but was assessed 33 million in a civil case. The crazies have already given him more than two million, so a civil case might be worthwhile. No amount of money will bring the dead back, but it would be a travesty for that murderer to get rich as well as get off from the criminal case.
Remember that when you’re family is being chased by those who wish to murder them.
But you’re a cuck so would just watch.
 
You're a fascist if you believe that

“Fascism” is a word that gets tossed around pretty loosely these days, usually as an epithet to discredit someone else’s politics.

One consequence is that no one really knows what the term means anymore. Liberals see fascism as the culmination of conservative thinking: an authoritarian, nationalist, and racist system of government organized around corporate power. For conservatives, fascism is totalitarianism masquerading as the nanny state.

 
“Fascism” is a word that gets tossed around pretty loosely these days, usually as an epithet to discredit someone else’s politics.

One consequence is that no one really knows what the term means anymore. Liberals see fascism as the culmination of conservative thinking: an authoritarian, nationalist, and racist system of government organized around corporate power. For conservatives, fascism is totalitarianism masquerading as the nanny state.

Which government is most capable of being fascist- a small limited government or a bloated powerful government that locks people in prison without trial for protesting against it?
 
Which government is most capable of being fascist- a small limited government or a bloated powerful government that locks people in prison without trial for protesting against it?
The small limited government who is powerless against the corporations and rich people who own it.

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

Grover Norquist

Our government is already fucked up. The rich own both parties. And you know it.
 
The small limited government who is powerless against the corporations and rich people who own it.

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

Grover Norquist

Our government is already fucked up. The rich own both parties. And you know it.
Hilarious. Since when does a corporation have the power to arrest anyone?
Cite a case.
 
Remember that when you’re family is being chased by those who wish to murder them.
But you’re a cuck so would just watch.
Oddly, that hasn't happened over more than the last half of a a century, and I see no reason why it should in the next. You right wingers are such cowards. You see monsters behind every tree.
 
Oddly, that hasn't happened over more than the last half of a a century, and I see no reason why it should in the next. You right wingers are such cowards. You see monsters behind every tree.
You jerks see racism behind everything. Anything else?
 
Oddly, that hasn't happened over more than the last half of a a century, and I see no reason why it should in the next. You right wingers are such cowards. You see monsters behind every tree.

Yes, I've had numerous gun nuts here telling me how I would have been much "safer" I'd be if I had a gun. Since none of the bad things they say I need a gun for have happened to me in over 70 years, I seriously doubt they're about to start. I don't think anyone at the local church supper is going to snap and open fire, but you really never know.

There was a woman who's husband had attacked and threatened her, and she had called the police. They took a while getting there, and she said she wished she had a gun that day, in case he came back. He didn't and she was OK, but she wished she'd had a gun so would have been "safe". The thought of him taking her gun and using it against her never occurred to her. Stats show that members of gun owning households are more likely to be injured by that gun, than they are to use it for self defence.
 
That implies he is not an idiot anymore. He is going to be very rich.

No, he's not. A lot of people are going to make money off him, but he'll end up like George Zimmerman, because he's an idiot.

Rittenhouse got $1200 from the government, and he doesn't have a driver's license. Did he take driver training and get a license with the money? No, he used it to buy an AR15 and shot and killed 2 people within 24 hours of that purchase.

A fool and his money are soon parted and this kid isn't smart enough to hold onto anything for long.
 
No, he's not. A lot of people are going to make money off him, but he'll end up like George Zimmerman, because he's an idiot.

Rittenhouse got $1200 from the government, and he doesn't have a driver's license. Did he take driver training and get a license with the money? No, he used it to buy an AR15 and shot and killed 2 people within 24 hours of that purchase.

A fool and his money are soon parted and this kid isn't smart enough to hold onto anything for long.
Did you watch the interview? He does not come across as an idiot. He comes across as an American that somehow avoided being indoctrinated at his young age by progressive anti-American educators.
 
Yes, I've had numerous gun nuts here telling me how I would have been much "safer" I'd be if I had a gun. Since none of the bad things they say I need a gun for have happened to me in over 70 years, I seriously doubt they're about to start. I don't think anyone at the local church supper is going to snap and open fire, but you really never know.

There was a woman who's husband had attacked and threatened her, and she had called the police. They took a while getting there, and she said she wished she had a gun that day, in case he came back. He didn't and she was OK, but she wished she'd had a gun so would have been "safe". The thought of him taking her gun and using it against her never occurred to her. Stats show that members of gun owning households are more likely to be injured by that gun, than they are to use it for self defence.
I've heard the gossip of some of those white haired church ladies. Some of them should never be allowed near a gun or a car.
 
Looks like the prosecution had links to the Proud Boys, including his trip to Miami with them. That makes him a white terrorist in my books. Good luck with those law suits.
Did you mean to say the defense had some alleged unspecified links with the Proud Boys?
Because that would make sense, given your state of mind and context with the whole Rittenhouse
issue. Are you one of the people that consider Kyle Rittenhouse a "white supremacist"?

As it is your claim that the prosecution in the trial had links to a group you have been taught to hate
makes no sense, if you are out to get Kyle Rittenhouse.

You claim you don't drink when posting but this offers evidence to the contrary. If not drinking there
must be neurological reasons for such nonsense.
 
We don't think he's a WS.

It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.


It is reasonable to assume that police fear for their lives when they detain Black suspects. It is reasonable for conservatives to assume that Black voters will upset the political equilibrium if they are not systemically suppressed. And yes, it was reasonable to believe that Kyle Rittenhouse’s white jurors would grant him the privilege of self-defense.

The Rittenhouse verdict is proof that it is reasonable to believe that the fear of Black people can absolve a white person of any crime.
Rittenhouse didn’t have a restraining order, nor was he kidnapping a child!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top