Rittenhouse wants Biden to Apologise to him

Post Reply New Topic

The difference is that Danielle Bregoli actually seems to have more to offer than having once been in a situation.

Sandman was actually a victim of sloppy reporting, that didn’t verify what it saw in viral video, in a situation he hadn’t done anything at all. We idiots on social media “made” him, it could be said, so I don’t blame him for making lemonade.

But Rittenhouse made the news and went to court because two people died at his hand. He did something. I hate that he is trying to parlay this into something more. He’s no innocent victim here in any way, shape or form, IMHO. Even if the actions that put him in the news were self-defense, he intentionally went to an area of violent civil unrest and known risk.

Meh, I don't bother reporting people.

But it was funny to watch their persecution complex kick in to high gear upon hearing the suggestion.

I would much rather Biden apologized for the damage he has done to this country during his political career. We can start with being one of the primary authors of the 1994 crime bill would led to the mass incarceration of Americans, mostly people of color, for minor offenses. Perhaps he'd like to apologize for supporting the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration.

I'd also like him to apologize for supporting the Iraq War, and all the other wars since then. I'd like him to apologize for being a serial plagiarizer. (Look it up, it's hilarious. )

I'd also like him to apologize for all the campaign promises he's now abandoned.

But I guess as long as he ain't Trump, we're f*****g golden! Great times ahead! Let's shoot fireworks. I'm almost orgasmic at the thought!

Last edited by VegetableMan on 12 Dec 2021, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Agreed. IMO, Rittenhouse just seems to want more attention for himself.

Him getting acquitted on all charges made this case open-and-shut.

Also, it was also obvious that this kid was not remorseful at all during his trial.

Words and subtlety can be tricky to some, so I'll try to explain this in a few words as possible.

Person 1: He's a murderer!
Person 2: Murder is a crime, and he was found not guilty of a crime, so it can't be murder.
Person 1: Well I still think he's a murderer!
Person 2: Well, that's technically wrong, but ok.

They are disagreeing, but there is no expectation to change. They don't agree, but they aren't trying to make the other person change their behavior. They could go back and forth like this for hours, and they're till just disagreeing, not trying to CHANGE things. It goes no further than "I think you're wrong". OTOH...

Person 1: He's a murderer!
Person 2: Murder is a crime, and he was found not guilty of a crime, so it can't be murder.
Person 1: Well I still think he's a murderer!
Person 2: WELL HE ISN'T SO STOP CALLING HIM ONE!! !

Now a demand is being made. Change is expected. One party is expecting the other to bend to their will. There is now an expectation attached to the disagreement. Now it's "I think you're wrong, and I expect you to do something about it".

Do you actually have any tricks other than modified gaslighting? You have a thousand ways of saying "everything you said is stupid", but that's about all you say.

Now, why exactly does anyone "have to admit" what you're claiming about bad information and bad takes? Because you said so? Surely you don't expect people to just take your word for it? Let me guess... "It's too stupid to even try to explain!" - more gaslighting. "It's stupid cos it's stupid, cos it's stupid! That should be OBVIOUS!" So it's obvious, but you still can't explain it. Wild.

Figuratively speaking, of course, you can GTFOOH with that "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid!" crap. Cos that's all it is. Naturally, you are in fact welcome to keep doing it. Sometimes it works, on those who aren't used to it. But those who know better, know better.



"That's a stupid question!"
"You'd be surprised how well it works..."

I will point out that the vast majority of Americans thought, at the time, those were the right moves. Should he apologize for representing the voters and believing the same things they did? Or just acknowledge that time has proven some positions to have either been wrong, or too riddled by unintended consequences to have been appropriate?

He’s kept what I’ve seen as the most important campaign promises, but any voter who expects a president to keep them all hasn’t got a clue how our government works. One man is not in control. He cannot act unilaterally. And, well, I accept that there will always be information driving policy that you and I just don’t know. That a candidate for president just doesn’t know. Some of the promises he should have been able to affect but has not seem to fall under that banner. Others have fallen into the trap that creating new policy is often easier than undoing existing policy. So I get it. I’m disappointed, but I get it.

I doubt the teenage kid Rittenhouse is acting completely on his own. I'm sure he's being told what he should do by much older adults. I'm sure the same went for Sandmann.

They are both teens, There is no way they are independently launching legal battles on their own. They have both financial backers as well as being offered free legal support.

It would be cold day in hell if the same "benefactors" offered this level of support to a black man.

Yeah, just like OJ Simpson.

We know what the law says, we know what the juries decided, and most of us "know" that both of them actually killed people needlessly.

I hope you know I'm just yankin' your chain, kraftie; I think you and I see very much eye-to-eye here.

Uggh, this guy again. Midwits really are the worst, just enough there to feel like it merits a response, but so tedious.

For a guy who seems to strongly object to implications about the relative intellect of other posters, this is an odd way to start out. Am I supposed to "realize what it feels like" and change my ways? Are you simply jealous that I'm better at it, given that your own signature style here is long winded rants berating people about how wrong they are about things, with all of the included implications? Maybe you're just a hypocrite? Who knows.



Heh, for a guy who's about to complain about "gaslighting", it's funny that you'd start out by misrepresenting the situation, as people aren't saying "I think he's a murderer", they're saying "he is a murderer", and if they're Fnord, doing so with his signature sneering moral superiority, which oddly you never seem to object to. I don't know about you, but I tend to value factual accuracy in absolute statements, and as you've astutely observed, "murderer" does have a specific meaning, one that does not apply to Kyle Rittenhouse, so "you're wrong, stop misstating the facts" is a completely anodyne and legitimate ask.



Don't sell me short, I also regularly accuse people of lying, deluding themselves, partisan blindness, hypocrisy, baseless moralizing, megalomania, bad faith, and projection, among other things, I pride myself on variety. For example, you're being very dishonest here regarding my posting style, and I know you know better because it's clear you follow many of the threads I participate in even if you don't post, so should I assume that you're being malicious because I know that you know what you say is wrong, should I assume you're not smart enough to know better, should I assume you're just trolling me with bait to waste my time, which is it?



How about the previous threads on the subject, where my and Brictoria and Pepe had it exactly right from the very beginning? Bric even had it 100% correct in the original thread from when it happened, which happens to mirror my own thinking on the case that took place away from here. It sure looks like you didn't understand what I meant in a comment not directed at you and went off half cocked, which is honestly pretty par for the course for you, as my months of explaining my position was readily available if you'd bothered to think about it for a second and look at the other threads.



Eh, you're not stupid, you just think you're smarter than you are and are both hostile and long winded, an unfortunate combination to be sure. However, as you're not stupid, I would invite you to look carefully at the posters you think I'm saying that about, and tell me you honestly disagree. In many ways, that's actually me being charitable, as intellect is something you're born with and can't really change much one way or the other, but dishonesty is, and with some of the people here, you really have to pick one or the other based on their behavior.

Some people have difficulty reading between the lines.
I'm not one of "them".

It was curious to see a person who is so "adept" at hearing (or, more likely, imagining) "dogwhistles" not picking up on this...

Well that's settled
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-will-not ... ki-1652666

Have you ever seen the ACLU, NAACP and BLM etc offer that level of support to a white man?

Last edited by Matrix Glitch on 13 Dec 2021, 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.