An observation on Red & Blue team members…

[anonymoose]

... based on the predictions and reactions of the Rittenhouse and McMichael cases.

Blue team members refused to accept obvious facts of the Rittenhouse case, even refused to acknowledge what was clearly evident on video. Some here still refuse to accept the unanimous verdict of the jurors who took 3 1/2 days to carefully consider the testimony and video.

Red team members who followed the Aubery case unanimously (I don't consider TDAK to be on any team) predicted the McMichael convictions based on the testimony and certainly agreed with the verdict.

Also look at the statement from dim pols. Biden, e.g. He fully implied in a tweet that Rit was a white supremacist before the trial when there has never been any evidence, ever, that he was one. Then he goes on to say he was disappointed in the verdict.
Wisconsin gov. states the verdict has "reopened wounds" . No governor. It has closure.

Which team is the more rational here? Isn't it obvious?

[BattleofHodow]

Even if Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist.

Which there's no proof of.

That is protected by the 1st amendment freedom of speech & the right to assembly.

These Stalinists think that Black Live Matters are entitled to be racist rioters.

But, White people are inherently wrong & racist & need to be punished for that.

They are incredibly insecure, illogical & overly emotional.

[Concart]

... based on the predictions and reactions of the Rittenhouse and McMichael cases.

Blue team members refused to accept obvious facts of the Rittenhouse case, even refused to acknowledge what was clearly evident on video. Some here still refuse to accept the unanimous verdict of the jurors who took 3 1/2 days to carefully consider the testimony and video.

Red team members who followed the Aubery case unanimously (I don't consider TDAK to be on any team) predicted the McMichael convictions based on the testimony and certainly agreed with the verdict.

Also look at the statement from dim pols. Biden, e.g. He fully implied in a tweet that Rit was a white supremacist before the trial when there has never been any evidence, ever, that he was one. Then he goes on to say he was disappointed in the verdict.
Wisconsin gov. states the verdict has "reopened wounds" . No governor. It has closure.

Which team is the more rational here? Isn't it obvious?

Funniest post of the day. Thanks for the laugh.

[The Anonymous]

Funniest post of the day. Thanks for the laugh.

That's right!!!

[anonymoose]

Funniest post of the day. Thanks for the laugh.

Why? What's not true about it?

[Concart]

Why? What's not true about it?

Dude, you are just trolling. But I had a good laugh over it. I am pleased that some (I wouldn't even say most, but some) Trumptards have decided that hunting down and lynching a black man is probably not the best thing to do, your conclusion that they are therefore more 'rational' might be the funniest thing I've ever seen posted here. Carry on.

[anonymoose]

Dude, you are just trolling. But I had a good laugh over it. I am pleased that some (I wouldn't even say most, but some) Trumptards have decided that hunting down and lynching a black man is probably not the best thing to do, your conclusion that they are therefore more 'rational' might be the funniest thing I've ever seen posted here. Carry on.

That didn't address the OP. I'm disappointed in you. You've become more radicalized and irrational lately. Maybe that's a symptom of being "woke"?
" I am pleased that some (I wouldn't even say most, but some) Trumptards have decided that hunting down and lynching a black man is probably not the best thing to do" has zero to do with the OP.

[Concart]

That didn't address the OP. I'm disappointed in you. You've become more radicalized and irrational lately. Maybe that's a symptom of being "woke"?
" I am pleased that some (I wouldn't even say most, but some) Trumptards have decided that hunting down and lynching a black man is probably not the best thing to do" has zero to do with the OP.

I should be able to sleep tonight even though you're disappointed in me.

I'm laughing at your conclusion. YOU think that a collective group of people that believe that the election was stolen by Italian satellites, Venezuelan dictators and fake Chinese ballots is more 'rational' than those who don't share that belief. THAT is humorous.

IMHO, the Rittenhouse verdict, even though it may technically align with the law, and in fact the entire incident and the 'red teams' reaction to it are indictive of the institutional and partisan racism that still exists in this country. ANYONE who suggests that a 17 year old black protester with an AR-15 walking the streets after curfew wouldn't have been immediately arrested is lying to themselves. The reaction of the Red Team is to bestow sainthood on a punk kid who lied about being an EMT, and ran like a coward instead of treating the people he shot. Rittenhouse is now their hero. That is far more troubling to me than the verdict. But if you consider them 'rational' and 'unemotional' then we clearly don't share a common understanding of what those words mean. Continue.

My statement has everything to do with the OP, because what happened in Brunswick was an old fashioned lynching. Period.

[anonymoose]

. I am pleased that some (I wouldn't even say most, but some) Trumptards have decided that hunting down and lynching a black man is probably not the best thing to do,

Which red team members considered hunting down and lynching a black man OK? I don't recall any.

[Concart]

Which red team members considered hunting down and lynching a black man OK? I don't recall any.

How many predicted the outcome and said the verdict was just. I can think of one. In general, I've seen them whine that the camera man shouldn't have been convicted, and then there is TDAK and volsrock. But I guess they 'don't count'. Not sure why. What I haven't seen is a single member of the 'red team' call this what it was. They just figured these good old boys went just a little bit too far.

[anonymoose]

I should be able to sleep tonight even though you're disappointed in me.

I'm laughing at your conclusion. YOU think that a collective group of people that believe that the election was stolen by Italian satellites, Venezuelan dictators and fake Chinese ballots is more 'rational' than those who don't share that belief. THAT is humorous.

More rational in regards to these cases. I don't consider most on this board to be very rational.

IMHO, the Rittenhouse verdict, even though it may technically align with the law,

At least you admit that.

and in fact the entire incident and the 'red teams' reaction to it are indictive of the institutional and partisan racism that still exists in this country.

I don't see where racism has anything to do w/ Rittenhouse.

ANYONE who suggests that a 17 year old black protester with an AR-15 walking the streets after curfew wouldn't have been immediately arrested is lying to themselves.

Possible, but a hypothetical situation that never happened. Irrelevant to the OP.

The reaction of the Red Team is to bestow sainthood on a punk kid who lied about being an EMT, and ran like a coward instead of treating the people he shot.

He was supposed to treat people he defended himself against when a mob was after him? Irrational.

Rittenhouse is now their hero.

To some, for sure. I saw others, including myself that said he was guilty of incredible stupidity being there. Personally I think he's more a hero to them because he symbolized how the right to self defense was STILL found to be legal and lawful.

That is far more troubling to me than the verdict.

IMO what was on trial here was more the right to self defense. I never could give a shit about the kid.

But if you consider them 'rational' and 'unemotional' then we clearly don't share a common understanding of what those words mean. Continue.

Turns out they were in agreement w/ the jury. And it's highly improbable that all 12 jurors were "trumptards".

My statement has everything to do with the OP, because what happened in Brunswick was an old fashioned lynching. Period.[/QUOTE] Agreed. But what the mob in Kenosha was trying to do was lynch Rittenhouse not knowing that he had just successfully defended himself against Rosenbaum. Chase him down and kill him before knowing the reality of the situation.

[anonymoose]

and then there is TDAK and volsrock. But I guess they 'don't count'.

TDAK doesn't count AFAIC. He's on another planet. I didn't see what volsrock posted about the case. If he defended the McMichaels he'd be an exception to the red team's rationality. Virtually all that I saw from the reds agreed w/ the verdict.

[Concart]

More rational in regards to these cases. I don't consider most on this board to be very rational.
At least you admit that. I don't see where racism has anything to do w/ Rittenhouse. Possible, but a hypothetical situation that never happened. Irrelevant to the OP. He was supposed to treat people he defended himself against when a mob was after him? Irrational. To some, for sure. I saw others, including myself that said he was guilty of incredible stupidity being there. Personally I think he's more a hero to them because he symbolized how the right to self defense was STILL found to be legal and lawful. IMO what was on trial here was more the right to self defense. I never could give a shit about the kid. Turns out they were in agreement w/ the jury. And it's highly improbable that all 12 jurors were "trumptards".

My statement has everything to do with the OP, because what happened in Brunswick was an old fashioned lynching. Period.

Agreed. But what the mob in Kenosha was trying to do was lynch Rittenhouse not knowing that he had just successfully defended himself against Rosenbaum. Chase him down and kill him before knowing the reality of the situation.[/QUOTE]

I see. So before a 'good guy with a gun' can shoot an active shooter, he should sit him down and interview him first. Got it. That's nonsense. All Rittenhouse had to do after he shot Rosenbaum was drop his gun, call 911 (the cops were literally a block away) and surrender. Instead he ran. Leaving a dying man without the benefit of his vast EMT skills. Great hero the red team has there.

Yes, they were in agreement with the jury. And the Lions might beat the Packers. Doesn't make them a better team.

[anonymoose]

All Rittenhouse had to do after he shot Rosenbaum was drop his gun, call 911 (the cops were literally a block away) and surrender. Instead he ran. Leaving a dying man without the benefit of his vast EMT skills. Great hero the red team has there.

Sure, in retrospect that's exactly what he should have done. Ever kill someone? I haven't. I have no idea what I would do in that situation but I'm sure I'd be in shock. Only a few seconds earlier he never woulda dreamed he'd have to kill an attacker.
Yeah, he's a stupid punk and he shoulda thought beforehand what might happen. His mother is incredibly stupid too.
BTW, I perused a couple of volsrock's posts on the McMurphy's. He's dead wrong. But that's the only one I could see on the red team that felt that way.
Look at BidenPresident, e.g. He still thinks Rittenhouse is guilty. Althea still thinks Rittenhouse did the pursuing in spite of the verdict, in spite of all the video evidence. Look at domer's posts, gemini's, owl woman's. That's off the top of my head. And they still consider Rittenhouse to be a murderer.
Can you name five from the red team that even thought the McMichaels weren't guilty even before the verdict? Admittedly I didn't follow that as closely. Could be that's why I didn't see the reds defending the McMichaels but I don't recall them loudly proclaiming the McMichaels' innocence. Especially from those that followed the trial.
And that's what this thread and OP is about. It's confined to comparing and contrasting the reds and blues attitudes in these two cases.

[Jack]

... based on the predictions and reactions of the Rittenhouse and McMichael cases.

Blue team members refused to accept obvious facts of the Rittenhouse case, even refused to acknowledge what was clearly evident on video. Some here still refuse to accept the unanimous verdict of the jurors who took 3 1/2 days to carefully consider the testimony and video.

Red team members who followed the Aubery case unanimously (I don't consider TDAK to be on any team) predicted the McMichael convictions based on the testimony and certainly agreed with the verdict.

Also look at the statement from dim pols. Biden, e.g. He fully implied in a tweet that Rit was a white supremacist before the trial when there has never been any evidence, ever, that he was one. Then he goes on to say he was disappointed in the verdict.
Wisconsin gov. states the verdict has "reopened wounds" . No governor. It has closure.

Which team is the more rational here? Isn't it obvious?

It's all about 'Team Loyalty'. Each Cheerleading Squad goes with the Talking Points. Reality, comes in a distant second place.