Joe Money, Joe Problems: the November 2021 U.S. Politics Thread

Which, fair.

I don't think I've overheard any spoken opinions farther left than right-of-center in years.

And they all have this little chuckle in their voices, like they were discussing their grandchildren or something like that.

The closest thing I had was people at work who thought everyone agreed with them that Bernie was a misogynist who cost Hillary the election

Bernie discussion in public is always interesting to me because everyone seems to agree that he's socialist nut who will destroy what America's about while also admitting they think all his ideas are good

The closest thing I had was people at work who thought everyone agreed with them that Bernie was a misogynist who cost Hillary the election

― Chappies banging dustbin lids together (President Keyes), Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:47 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i recall this being ilx

Who wants to be really depressed and angry? It's a trick question. Anyway, not only are opposing protesters already starting to yell at each other and squabble in Kenosha, those assholes who pointed guns at people from their St Louis porch are apparently there, too.

Outside of the US you can switch any controversial discussion into ‘at least we ain’t as bad as the US’ and at the very least people will nod in agreement and forget their differences for an afternoon.

Anyway, not only are opposing protesters already starting to yell at each other and squabble in Kenosha, those assholes who pointed guns at people from their St Louis porch are apparently there, too.

to be fair there looks to be like 10x as many reporters as protestors

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/world/americas/democracy-decline-worldwide.html

"U.S. Allies Drive Much of World’s Democratic Decline, Data Shows" - duh

no no we don’t do that any more

off topic and we all know CNN is trash but seeing Jeffrey Toobin on there is some disgusting white male privilege on display! who the fuck was clamoring for this guy to be back on tv?

Interesting article!

Rather, backsliding is endemic across emerging and even established democracies, said Staffan I. Lindberg, a University of Gothenburg political scientist who helps oversee V-Dem. And such countries tend to be American-aligned.

This does not mean Washington is exactly causing their retrenchment, Dr. Lindberg stressed. But it isn’t irrelevant, either.

Basically it is really about the US failing as a liberal model more than foreign policy, which is in line with what a lot of americans want (unfortunately imo).

I saw an article recently where Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Nowhere) warned that normalizing political violence will undermine democracy. My immediate thought was the people who are embracing political violence in the USA don't see that as a 'warning', but as a sign of their continuing progress toward their goal of gaining exclusive power as a permanent ruling minority. The next step would be ethnic cleansing.

I'd like to live in Nowhere, to be honest. Even if Wyoming is full of absolute shitheel fascists, it remains one of the more beautiful state in the US, if only because there just aren't that many people or large cities.

I saw an article recently where Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Nowhere) warned that normalizing political violence will undermine democracy.

"My father did it the right way, though, none of you dumb fuckers even noticed us undermining democracy!"

While Washington encouraged democracy in Western Europe as an ideological counterweight to the Soviet Union, it suppressed its spread in much of the rest of the world.

^probably wouldn’t have hurt to pull at this thread a little more but that’s probably too much to expect.

anyways i’m sure our cozy relationships and tacit support of the very worst inclinations of such bastions of democracy like Saudi Arabia and Israel don’t undermine our credibility at all

The Times is going with some good old pre-war racism to define Portugal, Spain and Italy as non-western European, I guess.

No one is making that assumption.

Hold up (and let me know if there is a better place to talk about this bullshit), but *how* did Rittenhouse get to Wisconsin? I had heard it was his mother, but apparently that might not be true? Then again, all I can find are statements saying there is no *evidence* she drove him there, which seems like a CYA move, especially since I can't find anything that explains how he got there. Lots of "he went there on his own," but how? I did see that he got a ride *back* from Kenosha, so he clearly didn't drive himself.

Got a ride from gUber

The Facebook posts about the Kenosha Guard led some of the sleuths to misapprehend Rittenhouse as a militia member. (He belonged to no such group.) Because he lived in Illinois, people assumed that he had travelled some distance, for nefarious purposes, and had “crossed state lines” with his rifle. (The Rittenhouse apartment was a mile south of the Wisconsin border, and Rittenhouse had been storing his gun in Kenosha, at the house of a friend’s stepfather.) Rittenhouse’s age led some to conclude that his mom had “dropped him off” at the protest. (He drove himself to Kenosha.) One widely shared image showed an armed, camo-clad woman, captioned “terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother.” (Some other lady, some other place.)

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante

Yeah, I saw that. I think a bunch of articles in reputable places are conflating/confusing *downtown* Kenosha specifically with wherever exactly his friend lived (in the greater Kenosha area, or Kenosha county, or whatever). So I think he got a ride from *someone* from Antioch, IL (maybe/likely mom), to where his friend lived and where he regularly hung out, and then he and his friend drove themselves to downtown Kenosha. I had incorrectly thought his mom drove him there, but "there" I think was just to his friend's in greater Kenosha, WI (where they had the gun), not to downtown Kenosha specifically (where they drove on their own and murdered two people). (His friend said he gave him a ride back home to Antioch afterwards, which implies he didn't drive himself to WI.)

Antioch may be a mile across the state line but it's still over 20 miles from the part of Kenosha where the shit went down

Yeah, but which part of Kenosha does his friend live in? How far is that from where the protests were? That's what I mean about newspapers et al. just using "Kenosha" as a catch-all. Kenosha has a population of 100,000, and it's surrounded by a bunch of relatively nearby not-tiny cities. Racine is about the same population and only a 15-minute drive away, and indeed I just looked it up and apparently his friend Dominick Black may live in Racine. So I think it's just been lazy/sloppy reporting that's claimed he simply "drove to Kenosha" (like that otherwise great New Yorker piece). *Someone* first took him to Wisconsin, because Dominick Black drove him back home to Antioch.

(None of this matters, just fuel for my "his mom is a bad person, too" arguments. I was corrected by someone yesterday who said "no, his mom didn't drive him to Kenosha, that's misinformation" and indeed there is apparently no evidence she did drive him to Kenosha. But someone *did* drive him to Dominick Black's house, I guess in Racine, where he often went to hang out, and I assume that was his mom, who claims she had no idea what he was up to, and may be telling the truth, though she did know they had guns up there. And *then* they decided to get in the middle of this, grabbed the gun and drove themselves to Kenosha from there.)

it is interesting after hearing about “bussed in protestors” all my adult life, it seems like all the counter-protestor violence in 2020 was by folks who were m/l “bussed in”.

sometimes in a very literal sense, eg Portland, DC etc

Well, because they *have* to bus in people, since the locals clearly aren't doing a good job at stopping Antifa, the election, etc.. I mean, that's just common sense.

at the risk of picking a scab, i saw some tweets from an NYT reporter about the tumbler with the jurors names on it. the judge said he had gotten questions about it and that he had been using that practice for 20 years. also all 6 jurors excluded were white (3 men, 3 women) and the one apparent person of color (out of the original 18) was remaining on the jury. there is a video clip of one of the defense attorneys apparently looking disappointed that one he liked was taken off, though it wasn't that clear to me why he was making faces.

the general affect of this type of thing is that the defendant has less to object to, which means nothing to complain about on appeal (and jury selection issues are v sensitive on appeal). so in a way it should make us all happy except you do have to be convicted first, so, :/

yeah apparently this is just something the judge does, it's not a big deal, but I do get why this is so frustrating given that Rittenhouse has been treated less like a defendant on trial for murder and more like a kid on a field trip to see how the criminal justice process works up close

IMO the real upsetting thing is that both the video of him expressing a desire to shoot shoplifters AND the video of him repeatedly punching a woman in the face a week prior were both deemed inadmissible. I feel like if you're the prosecution you're trying to make the argument that Rittenhouse's intention was less to "help the community" and more to police unruly protestors. Both these videos seem to make the case that Rittenhouse is a hothead with his own ideas of who deserves to live and who deserves to die. And yet you can't use either so it's all a big game of "what was he thinking when he went to patrol the streets with an AR-15". Can't help but think that if someone murdered a Proud Boy and was on video saying "I wish I could murder a Proud Boy" that evidence would actually be deemed very relevant

Just kidding, we all know the guy would be wasted by police before even getting a trial

kinda wonder what the long deliberation means in this case. typically that's good for the defense but in the Chauvin trial they deliberated for 2 days and found him guilty of everything. of course disinfo merchants like Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec are all over Twitter amplifying the obvious lie that certain jurors are afraid for their lives because they want to exonerate him but think they'll wind up murdered by Antifa or whatever. weird that Twitter won't take action against stuff like that

yeah i think the intent to shoot shoplifters is pretty relevant and more worthy of being mad about. the punching a woman thing i don't see how it could be admitted but they could like, prosecute him for that? i didn't see anything about it at all though.

From the New Yorker article:

This view was buttressed when another kind of video surfaced. Weeks before the shootings, Rittenhouse had been hanging out with other teen-agers on the Kenosha waterfront when an argument erupted involving the younger of his two sisters, McKenzie. Reese Granville, a rapper who happened to be cruising past with a friend, filmed the altercation with his phone. (In the video, Granville and his friend could be heard debating what would happen if the police arrived: “It’s all white people, boy. We Black—we goin’ to jail.”) When a girl started to fight with McKenzie, Rittenhouse punched her, repeatedly, from behind. Bystanders broke it up by turning on Rittenhouse: “Don’t put your hands on a female!”

I have no clue if that sort of thing is usually admissible during a murder trial but since the difference between a manslaughter conviction and a 7-figure career as an "Antifa expert" on FOX seems to be the question of "who was the aggressor" I would think a video of Kyle inserting himself into another altercation and deciding to repeatedly punch a woman might be relevant

Defense tells judge their reading of the law indicates the jury should be able to watch it once, in public, and that's it.

— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) November 17, 2021

Prosecution says jury should be able to play the videos as many times as they want. Allowing for stopping, pausing, rewinding, etc.

— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) November 17, 2021

hmmm. seems like this video may be bad for Rittenhouse

Trying to understand why a jury wants a piece of evidence is nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, in other news, good god Kevin McCarthy is a complete and utter piece of shit.

yeah total scumbag

The parade of GOPukes trying to somehow explain, minimize, whatabout, or otherwise excuse Paul Gosar's stupid anime would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. My kid knows what would happen if he created and posted a video about killing a classmate. Congratulations, Gosar, you're not smarter than an eighth grader.

yea feel like any other profession besides US Congressman you'd be fired for something like that on the spot

literally on the floor of Congress explaining what anime is

how did America get to this point

"I lived in Japan! I speak Japanese!"

Hahaha, Chip Roy. Let's make this about the tyrannny of vaccine mandates.

cheer up Paul, I'm sure your immediate family will be there to comfort you.

Oh Louie Gohmert, never change.

#Rittenhouse judge says he could rule on a mistrial motion after a verdict or if the jurors ask to see the disputed drome video. https://t.co/ILthxUjm5t

— Michael Tarm (@mtarm) November 17, 2021

#Rittenhouse judge tells prosecutors: "There is a day of reckoning with respect to these things." https://t.co/dOgUp7ntXm

— Michael Tarm (@mtarm) November 17, 2021

The judge is going to let the jury see the drone video and says if it proves unreliable "it's going to be ugly" for the prosecution.

Prosecution wants them to see it on a 4K tv for best viewing. Defense is objecting, says the picture is distorted by playing an hd video on the tv

— Stacy St. Clair (@StacyStClair) November 17, 2021

ok I'm really trying to believe this is all standard trial shit but how do you justify this unless you're actively rooting for the defendant

things being "standard" and justified are different is what i've been trying to say though

pretty sure you can't declare a mistrial after a verdict though

Is it common for judges to fret at length about the authenticity of zooming in on a cell phone video?

Next you’ll tell me that this trial hinges on the difficulty of opening a PDF

all kinds of insane bullshit happens and no one should expect anything from this! i'm sorry! stop watchingggggggg