politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Well, if you're right maybe you should.link sour es so people believe you?
What type of source would you be willing to accept?
I know that your claims do not arise from primary sources. No audio or video recordings from Kenosha show her to be present. No witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense ever testified to involvement that could be construed as proving your claims. I cite the trial transcripts in supporting mine.
I will note that you have provided no source for your claims. I know they did not arise from any primary source, but I do not know what secondary source you are relying on. Are you willing to accept major news organizations, such as Associated Press? They reported that false claims of her involvement were widely reported in social media.
Fact check.org also refuted claims of her involvement.
Politifact concurred.
Are you as certain of Rittenhouse's culpability in the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, as you are about your claims about Wendy Rittenhouse's involvement?
"Oh, you were misinformed about something worthy of a snopes article, have you considered that you might also be wrong in opposing murder?"
Get the fuck out of here with this fallacious nonsense. Kyle Rittenhouse has said he wanted to kill protesters. He's as innocent as OJ Simpson.
Yes. That is my question. Is it possible that the same sources and methods by which you came to be misinformed about his mother have also caused you to be misinformed about the actual circumstances of the attack?
12 jurors all heard the same evidence, and concluded that his use of force was justified against all three of the people he hit, and a fourth that he fired upon and missed. What do you know about the case that leads you to believe differently?
Were you aware that there was a fourth person to attack Rittenhouse?
Were you aware that Gaige Grosskreutz ("Byecep") was live streaming, captured Rittenhouse stating he was going to police, observed him running toward police, and still called for mob violence against Rittenhouse?
These are all from primary sources: people and video directly involved. They aren't from reports or commentary. If any of this information is new to you, how confident are you that you now have all the relevant information? How confident should you be?