Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Aristotle66, Dec 16, 2021.
There are always 2 opposing partisan positions. Did I have to tell you that?
Wrong! You need, not only to be a proven criminal, but a convicted criminal to be in prison. He hasn't been convicted. But proven... most definitely.
We have gone through this many times in threads where Trump was the topic. This one is about the press. And I have already had too many posts deleted by mods for going off-topic to waste much time on this. And you don't have arguments to open a thread on that topic. So I guess that's that....
We have great candidates for high offices. It's just that Republicans keep getting and electing the lousy ones. So they can then complain about how bad the government, full of those incompetent candidates they elected, turned out to be. And that's how they justify their attacks on democracy.
People were convinced Kyle Rittenhouse was proven to have murdered people. How'd that work out? Your belief that its proven Trump is a criminal means nothing until you get a conviction. And you can't even get enough evidence to put him in a courtroom. Much less prove he's guilty.
The media has their own truth and favor one party over another. That is not what the media should be about. They are all about spreading the kind of government that THEY want. We should, in fact, pass a law that no media can endorse any candidate or party.
So FOX and MSNBC both "favor one party over another?"
????????????? Not sure what you are asking as you stated the obvious. So do ABC, CBS, NBC, Wapo, the NYT's, etc. I stand by what I said.
Of course he was proven to murder people! But that's not illegal in Wisconsin. So as I predicted before the trial ended, he was set free. But prosecutors didn't have as many choices as they have with Trump.
Your desperate attempts to change the subject are again duly noted.
Nope, he did not murder anyone. He in fact defended himself. Murder is when you kill someone unlawfully. Defending ones life, even if it takes a life to do so, is NOT murder. Doing something you dislike =/= criminality. And that is why the media should not be advocating for democracy, or anything else. They are currently promoting things and facts and reality does not line up with those things they are promoting. You accept what media tells you because they support your personal bias and agenda. But you don't support the media that is against your personal bias and agenda. Fox News for example you dismiss as being right wing and at best you will do your own "fact checking" when they claim something. Usually by referring to media that you do like and espouses similar bias that you have. At worst you won't even bother watching/listening/reading anything that they do and just dismiss it as false.
The media tells you that Trump attempted a coup by inciting a riot, an insurrection. They first tried to use cherry picked words out of Trumps speech to assert that claim while ignoring all context. When that didn't work they then started by claiming that everything that Trump said between election night and Jan 6 caused the "insurrection". They spin things to promote that view. And you don't even question it.
All of this is why the media should not be promoting ANYTHING.
It is unlawful to go out on the street and shoot and kill an unarmed person. Just not in Wisconsin. But societies with laws based on human morality, not Wisconsin, are what sets the standard.
the media sould (not) advocate for anything. they should--report!-- the news!!! not take any side. imo.
golem, i may have gotten your post wrong. so if i did sorry. but are you saying that a person (can't) defend themselves when on the streets? just only in their homes? did i get that wrong? most states have--self defence laws, either on the street or in your home. and i said most, not all. iirc.
also, if your talking about the rittenhouse case. only guessing here on that. but the three people he shot were all armed. 1 with a knife, no 2 with a skate board used as a club. no 3 with a gun. so none were unarmed. if rittenhouse is who you are talking about. thanks.
I don't think you could elect anyone much worse than Obama. He not only had a lousy economy, but his foreign policy was bad. Yet the bias news played him so, Democrats think he was one of the best presidents we ever had.
It IS unlawful to go out and murder anyone, be they unarmed or not, in ANY State in this Union. It is also unlawful to attack someone to the point that they are in fear of their life. And when in fear of their life they can lawfully shoot the person that is making them fear for their life. Doesn't matter what State that you are in. That is a fact. Wisconsin is not the only one that you can do this in. Every State in the Union you can defend your life. That is fact. The media may tell you different, may make you think different. But the media is not telling you the truth.
And being armed or unarmed does not matter. People can kill with their hands. That is a fact. In fact there are a myriad of ways in which one can kill someone with their bare hands.
Actually Rosenbaum, the first attacker, was unarmed. But he was running full bore at Rittenhouse and forensics shows that he was attempting to grab Rittenhouse's gun barrel. Half his palm had stippling from the gun shot and the other half did not. The combination of the stippling being on his palm (as opposed to being on the back or side of the hand) and only covering half the palm is how it was determined that Rosenbaum was grabbing for Kyle's gun.
A person can. This person got himself in a situation in which he ended up murdering people. The fact that this is legal in Wisconsin does not make the term "murder" any less applicable. Which is what the poster was objecting to.
However, it's off-topic. This thread is about the media and democracy. The Rittenhouse case was discussed in the appropriate threads. And all these off-topic deviations are only meant to obfuscate the point that has been established here, which is that the media (by which I'm referring to real journalists) are and should be biased to favor democracy.
Yes. And you are a murderer the very second you murder somebody. And you are a proven murderer, the second there is proof that you murdered that person, and you are a convicted murderer when you go before a jury and that jury finds you guilty.
Same goes for any crime. As I said, at this stage Trump is, not only a criminal, but a PROVEN criminal. The "convicted" part is the only one still pending. And it will be then, but only then, when he goes to prison.
Thanks for participating in helping me make my case....
Except in order to be considered as murdering someone you must be convicted of it. Otherwise you are just assumed to be a murderer. Killing =/= murder. Even in laymen's terms "murder" is about the unlawful killing of someone. Rittenhouse was proven to have not acted unlawfully. To call him a murderer requires you to ignore definitions. You wish to ignore this because the media wants you to believe and convinced you that Kyle is a murderer. And yet you want them to advocate for "Democracy". Tell me, what is their version of "Democracy"? Is it where everyone is heard? Or is it where only the slight majority is heard and the trampling of the minority? We can already see that when they advocate for somethings its actually effective. But is what they advocate for good? Or full of lies and half truths? So far I've seen nothing but lies and half truths.
For example, it is true that Trump said "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore." But then they have ignored everything else that he said in that same speech. Things like "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" and "And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them." And many more things. By ignoring those things they are only telling half truths. And they are doing so in order to advocate for their own agenda. And yet you still wish for them to be advocates?
Btw, I thought you were pissed that I wasn't on topic? I've made our conversation on topic and yet you still continue to remain off topic.....
Nonsense! You are a murderer the second you murder somebody. Convicted or not.
But you were the one who brought up some nonsense before about peaceful protesters being gassed because some contractor wanted to put up a fence... so, you must forgive me... it's nothing personal. But that statement defined for me how much effort I should put in carrying out a serious conversation with you.
I suggest you try a lot of serious research and arguments in the topics you discuss if we are ever to erase that episode from our minds.
Meriam Webster would disagree with you. Along with all other dictionaries, both common and legal.
Sorry, but the report came out and showed that the clearing of that park was not due to Trump. That has factually been established. Once again, you have shown that you do not uphold what you claim in your sig. Even your precious CNN admits that. LINK: Trump: Watchdog report finds Park Police did not clear protesters from Lafayette Park for Trump's visit to St. John's Church last June - CNNPolitics
your quote: You are a murderer the second you murder somebody so if i get your quote, correctly, anyone including cops defending themselves, or others, soldiers in war time, or you personaly, defending yourself or your family. are a murder & if the attacker is killed? so all need to be convicted of murder and sent to prison for many years? is that correct? just asking here so i understand. thanks.
No. I'm only talking about "murder".
I'm not talking about conviction. Only about murder.
Look.... I've gone through this before many times. As a matter of fact, I just got through it in this thread. So I know what your point in the end will be. But it's a strawman. I say again: you are a murderer when you murder somebody. You are a proven murderer when there is ample proof that you committed that murder. And you are a convicted murderer when that proof is shown to a jury and they decide to send you to jail.
If somebody breaks into your house and kills somebody in your family, that person, at that exact moment, becomes a murderer. If you kill them, you have killed a murderer. Even though that murderer was never and will never be convicted (because they're dead!). As soon as forensics analysis is done and it's proven that they killed your family member, that person becomes a PROVEN murderer. But they will never be a convicted murderer.
The same goes for any crime. The relevant example here is Trump, who is a proven criminal who has not yet been convicted.
ok, so in your opinion, what is the difference? self-defence/ killing/murder both=someone dying!! what's the difference?
your quote: Look.... I've gone through this before many times. As a matter of fact, I just got through it in this thread. So I know what your point in the end will be. But it's a strawman really? what is my point? no offence meant all i'm trying to do is understand where your coming from. you and i have not gone through this before, to the best of what i can remember.
your quote: You are a proven murderer when there is ample proof that you committed that murder ok, what is the difference between self-defence killing/ & murder?
question: if some one breaks into your house, and you shoot or kill them (before) they can harm any of your family or yourself. in your opinion, is the home owner a murder?
your quote: You are a proven murderer when there is ample proof that you committed that murder. again i ask, what is the difference of self-defense and someone dies, and a murder?
thanks for giving me your view point. again i mean no offence in any way.
The difference is that murder is not self defense. Murder is also not an accident (what they call "act of God")... nor is it military defense of your country, or an executioner carrying out a lawful death sentence (even though I do oppose the death penalty) And there might be other circumstances I'm not considering at this very moment in which killing somebody is not "murder". But the point is that when the act IS murder, it's murder the moment it's committed. Not one second after.
Separate names with a comma.