Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unfortunately, the video evidence presented by the MSM was manipulated by the politically driven prosecution. Those who limited their information, including VIDEO, to MSM sources can only understand the case as presented by the MSM. It is entirely possible to assemble facts and video into a false narrative, and the MSM are masters of this. The only way to fully understand what happened is to review ALL of the news, video, and information available from ALL sources. Especially sources that don't align with one's bias. We cannot find the truth until we consciously replace searching for information that proves what we believe with searches for what the truth actually is.
And all this was promoted and perpetuated by the MSM. This means that those who limit their perspective of the political landscape to what the MSM engineers for them don't know anything else. We see a much broader picture, but lefties are limited by a very narrow stream of information.What disturbs me most is the knee jerk statement made by a then presidential candidate, several woke politicians, and news media talking bobble heads. Now that a jury has declared his innocence these same individuals, including the President, declare it’s a travesty of justice and promote more CRT and gun control crap. In short these morons declare self defense equates to guilty in the press until proven innocent and if that fails just burn cities to the ground.
After seeing what the old news people have turned into Dan Rather for instance I think we’ve had Pravda since Viet Nam.We don't have journalism in this country anymore. We have Pravda.
The context added, as you pointed out is a good point. Those who limit their consumption of news and propaganda that is aligned with the political narrative of the MSM only understand that narrative.What you're saying is true, but I didn't watch the videos through an MSM conduit. I watched the videos that were circulated online, particularly on here. There was just a lot of context that was missing until the testimony/evidence was presented at trial. Many key details were first heard at trial, which highlights why it is irresponsible to judge situations like this on anything less than complete information.
There is a good reason why lefties and righties do not agree on the Rittenhouse case. We have each gained our perspective on the case from news sources, but we don't all take advantage of the same sources. There has been a very broad range of news and information available that ranges from politically motivated propaganda, to evidence of what really happened on the night of the shooting. Those who limited their news sources to politically motivated MSM sources are only able to see the case as engineered by the MSM. Those who took advantage of the additional news available beyond the MSM were able to get a much broader understanding of what happened.
Indeed. Not everybody understands that we cannot trust ANY news source, and not everybody knows how to vet news and propaganda.
.
Where that is correct to a degree, there is a larger underlying problem.
The core of the problem is the inability of people to understand that "news" has simply become commentary in general.
Whatever news source anyone chooses to use when they develop their opinions on any subject ...
Is not an adequate replacement for written law, or substantial evidence.
The entire prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse was mishandled by the District Attorney and Prosecutors.
With the evidence available, and the assumed knowledge of anyone who completed law school and passed the Bar Exam ...
It isn't hard to see where the Prosecution was overzealous, over-charged the Defendant, and made unreasonable requests of the court and jury.
However ... It is obvious the jury was capable of coming to the same conclusions during deliberations.
There was no harm, no matter how taxing the ordeal most certainly was for the Defense and Defendant, in letting our legal system work as intended.
The law, as written, doesn't care whether or not anyone agrees with it ... It is what it is.
.
The general public either took their facts directly from the trial or they took their facts directly from the mainstream media, and there was a grand canyon-sized chasm between those two.
I haven't seen you or Mac1958 reply with anything that demonstrates having read or understanding the opening post. Why do you think lefties and righties disagree about the Rittenhouse case?
If I may: ( you are right about the media of course....but ) Lefty portends to be the arc-angel of honesty and intellect and yet retreats from any and all facts that do not agree with his predilections.I haven't seen you or Mac1958 reply with anything that demonstrates having read or understanding the opening post. Why do you think lefties and righties disagree about the Rittenhouse case?
BUT no chasm between what republican liars spout ?? Election was a fraud ? Trump won?? lolSorry, had a light bulb go off so I'm adding a quick follow-up; the biggest problem I see are the people who don't recognize that there IS a chasm between the truth and what the media tells them.
There is a good reason why lefties and righties do not agree on the Rittenhouse case. We have each gained our perspective on the case from news sources, but we don't all take advantage of the same sources. There has been a very broad range of news and information available that ranges from politically motivated propaganda, to evidence of what really happened on the night of the shooting. Those who limited their news sources to politically motivated MSM sources are only able to see the case as engineered by the MSM. Those who took advantage of the additional news available beyond the MSM were able to get a much broader understanding of what happened.
By broader you mean racist. The fact is that Rittenhouse did not live in Kenosha so he had no business being there. He also had no business with a rifle. He was not a police officer. There is no law in any state that allows a 17 year old to carry a gun. Apparently your sources need to be informed.
that's a good question and i just scrolled through the rest of the topic before i forget this.evmetro said:Why do you think lefties and righties disagree about the Rittenhouse case?
If lefties were capable of objective thought, they wouldn't be lefties.If I may: ( you are right about the media of course....but ) Lefty portends to be the arc-angel of honesty and intellect and yet retreats from any and all facts that do not agree with his predilections.
Lefty owns no mirrors ( Borrowed from RickWa of Political Jack) and fails to self examine at any time. You will never see a retraction posted by anyone from the left.... That is a dead giveaway. There is a totalitarian mindset that is irrevocable and unreasonable to the nth degree....it is always right and simply cannot be wrong. This makes them very dangerous. Failing to proselytize verbally immediately becomes a justification for violence that is always justified no matter what the result. When one of them becomes a casualty....there is no possible route that you can take to get around the totalitarian block that is on their offended sensitivities. They will see it as unjust no matter what the circumstances. All logic and truth be damned they are convinced that there is something missing that will rescue
their position and so they refuse to reconsider. It is a very serious mental and emotional disorder.
Jo
I believe that most Americans believe the verdict was correct, even if Kyle is a terrible person, and was looking for trouble.There is a good reason why lefties and righties do not agree on the Rittenhouse case. We have each gained our perspective on the case from news sources, but we don't all take advantage of the same sources. There has been a very broad range of news and information available that ranges from politically motivated propaganda, to evidence of what really happened on the night of the shooting. Those who limited their news sources to politically motivated MSM sources are only able to see the case as engineered by the MSM. Those who took advantage of the additional news available beyond the MSM were able to get a much broader understanding of what happened.
www.psychologytoday.com
We will first have to agree that the left only has the MSM version of the case, and that righties have both versions.that's a good question and i just scrolled through the rest of the topic before i forget this.
The two sides disagree because of their personal and world views. Their basic belief system.
I'll say more but first i would like you to put down what you think may be the reason for the disagreement on things such as the rittenhouse case. Would you?
