![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Doesn’t matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
Doesn’t matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I’m a murderer whether or not I’m convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it’s not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn’t make him innocent though.
OJ Simpson also wasn’t convicted.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That’s murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.
The UK has some real cabbage head PMs cycling through, and shot themselves in the foot by leaving the EU.
Trump served a four year term as president.
People already are starting to forget somebody just took a shot at trump. I don’t think the 18 month cycle was ever necessary.
I imagine somebody well connected enough to be an envoy doesn’t share in the living conditions of the average citizen
I’m not saying they’ll do it, I’m saying it’s incorrect to state that there’s no valid strategic target when there absolutely is.
Ukraine?
Striking inside their territory won’t matter all that much if they can just nuke Kiyv.
And breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe for everybody, regardless of who the target is.
Plenty of people are looking at the data, reaching the conclusion that Biden realistically can’t beat Trump, and calling for an alternate strategy.
They’d say your aim was a fucking stupid one, because they see running Biden as a sure path to Trump, versus an admittedly unlikely but still possible hail-mary of running a different candidate.
I don’t think the comment you replied to justifies the level of scrutiny you’re putting it under.
Polling post-debate more or less justifies what it says.
I don’t answer questions from people who can’t answer my own.
You didn’t ask a question.
If you think the only reason people would be against Biden running at this point is because they’re secret Republican shills, I genuinely think you may need to spend more time offline.
I have to ask: are you just ignorant of the position of the anti -Biden crowd, or are you intentionally misconstruing it as them preferring Trump over Biden?
Place your bets, people: is it willful ignorance or just denial?