Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
mat said:
www.newsweek.com

Trump Is Heading for a 'Red Mirage' Win on Election Night, Data Firm Says

President Donald Trump could appear to win the election in November by a landslide only to lose when mail-in ballots are counted days later, a Democratic group has warned.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Could this be used by Shitgibbon as a legal challenge?
Click to expand...
He absolutely will and it is already being planned — this eventuality is one of the reasons he is so vigorously attempting to paint mass mail-in voting as a source of likely widespread fraud.

And, as I have said many times, he *will* declare victory as soon as the counted vote tallies from in-person voting are mostly in, showing him to have the edge, but before the majority of mail-in and provisional ballots have been counted, which will be mostly for Biden.

He’ll then paint any shift to Biden winning due to the mail-in and provisional ballets as “fraud” perpetrated by the Democrats and Gina, before challenging them in court and perhaps even eventually deeming the election illegitimate altogether.
 
Vic said:
Shot someone attacking him with a paper bag.... self-defence?
Click to expand...
He was running from the guy and heard a gun shot. Same guy had approached him where he was having an interview and try to disposses him of his gun. Close by eyewitnesses also claimed Rosenberg grabbed the gun before he was shot.

The case for Self Defense is pretty strong on the facts only. The DA charging will probably try to argue because Rittenhouse was under 18 and thus illegally carrying a weapon anyways, self defense shouldn't apply.

That however is suggesting self defense most likely would have applied had he been 18.

My sense is a Judge is unlikely to find the (
you were in violation of a misdemeanor by holding the gun therefore you can't claim self defense when someone accosted you after attempting to retreat). Just not sure that's a legitimate bar to self defense.
 
Dax777 said:
According to a reporter who was privy to most of the facts, Kyle was being interviewed by an interviewer. And I believe the first person he shot walked up and tried to grab his gun. (***I believe they were fucking with him. Seeing as they knew he was young). He then did a juke move to avoid Rosenberg, backed off and started running.

The guy who was later killed, Rosenberg, then gave chase and threw a bag of something at him as her ran and continued chasing. As the got to the end of the car lot they were in, someone took a shot ( videos of the fire angle seem to suggest it was a warning shot in the air) at this point Rittenhouse turned and fired 4 shots at Rosenberg who had caught up to him.

He then circles around the car. In the videos you see the reporter who had followed the chase, take off his shirt to help the victim.

Kyle comes out of hiding, sees the victim and makes a call that he'd killed someone.

He then started running again, and was chased down, knocked on the back of his head, he trips on himself and falls. On guy drop kicks him but mostly missed and injures himself. Second guy hits him with a skateboard and then grabs and pulls the gun. Rittenhouse gathers and shoots. That's the 2nd fatal victim. 3rd victim had a glock in his hand, froze and raised his hands, then suddenly lurched forward and Kyle takes another shot that rips his bicep.

If the Reporters story is true, then it seems a few 'protesters' were just fucking with him.

***( My opinion)
Click to expand...

Are you regularly in the habit of routinely referring to criminals/murderers or alleged criminals/murderers by their first name only, as if they are your best mate?

Is the Yorkshire Ripper just 'Peter' to you?

Old Bundy close enough to be merely good old 'Ted'?

There seems to be only two explanations for that, frankly, nuts way of referring to this guy (well, three, but I'm going to assume that he isn't actually your mate).

Either you are pathetic enough to think that people will be subtly influenced by your attempts to humanise him and sympathise with him by making him sound like the guy next door, without realising what you are doing.

Or you are actually one of the people who has already fallen prey to others doing this yourself and you are aping them subconsciously.

Either way, it's laughably dimwitted,haha, lol, rofl (or should that be Rolf?), etc.
 
He went where he wasnt wanted today,didnt mention the name of the chap shot seven times in the back but showed much sympathy for property damage in the aftermath

The brother called him racist and refused to meet him
 
SebastianBlue said:
He absolutely will and it is already being planned — this eventuality is one of the reasons he is so vigorously attempting to paint mass mail-in voting as a source of likely widespread fraud.

And, as I have said many times, he *will* declare victory as soon as the counted vote tallies from in-person voting are mostly in, showing him to have the edge, but before the majority of mail-in and provisional ballots have been counted, which will be mostly for Biden.

He’ll then paint any shift to Biden winning due to the mail-in and provisional ballets as “fraud” perpetrated by the Democrats and Gina, before challenging them in court and perhaps even eventually deeming the election illegitimate altogether.
Click to expand...

Agree that is his plan however. Mail in voting is likely to be closer aligned to the two parties than people think. The GOP relies on older voters - they will want to mail in the votes. This plan also only works if he wins the counts of in person voting, he may not.

Its also pretty irrelevant what he says after the election as it is all done state by state, each state has to count the votes and agree they have a winner. If they fail to do that then it ends up in court and the court will move fast, it would go to the supreme court before the key date of 14th December. The election winner is confirmed on that date and Congress count the votes in from the collage. If a State fails to send in a result then congress has license to push on. So it is highly possible that we end up with Congress declaring Biden the winner in December with Trump still contesting the result. But its too late then for him, it would all be over in the new year.
 
jma said:
Are you regularly in the habit of routinely referring to criminals/murderers or alleged criminals/murderers by their first name only, as if they are your best mate?

Is the Yorkshire Ripper just 'Peter' to you?

Old Bundy close enough to be merely good old 'Ted'?

There seems to be only two explanations for that, frankly, nuts way of referring to this guy (well, three, but I'm going to assume that he isn't actually your mate).

Either you are pathetic enough to think that people will be subtly influenced by your attempts to humanise him and sympathise with him by making him sound like the guy next door, without realising what you are doing.

Or you are actually one of the people who has already fallen prey to others doing this yourself and you are aping them subconsciously.

Either way, it's laughably dimwitted,haha, lol, rofl (or should that be Rolf?), etc.
Click to expand...
Neither. Rittenhouse was long and wasn't sure I had it right initially. The shooter was cumbersome coz there were 2 shooters. The Criminal/Murderer would simply speak to my bias (or as is the case, yours.) Perhaps the defendant or the charged would have worked. But I wasn't trying to find the most perfect description.

But none of that is particularly relevant to the facts Vic asked about or the possible legal conclusion that could be drawn there from.

Vic asked what happened prior and I gave a detailed explanation of all the known facts. Everyone can draw the conclusions they want or add other known facts.

You've done neither. Instead you've resorted to insults. Coz you know, it feels good. Carry on :)
 
Dax777 said:
Neither. Rittenhouse was long and wasn't sure I had it right initially. The shooter was cumbersome coz there were 2 shooters. The Criminal/Murderer would simply speak to my bias (or as is the case, yours.) Perhaps the defendant or the charged would have worked. But I wasn't trying to find the most perfect description.

But none of that is particularly relevant to the facts Vic asked about or the possible legal conclusion that could be drawn there from.

Vic asked what happened prior and I gave a detailed explanation of all the known facts. Everyone can draw the conclusions they want or add other known facts.

You've done neither. Instead you've resorted to insults. Coz you know, it feels good. Carry on :)
Click to expand...
I don’t believe you.
You clearly sympathise with the racist murdering shit, and are doing your best to make excuses for him, in the same way as you make excuses for the orange turd inflaming every situation he can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.