Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
newsweek.com
Kyle Rittenhouse's sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her "brother's unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family."
You are viewing a single comment
they need to cross state lines to kill more unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
https://youtu.be/Bv21bE9PWtE?t=10366
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard! The other guy literally just had a bag (lol dumbass).
See this is what's so great. Circumstances don't actually matter, you can go looking for blood equipped with a weapons meant to kill as many people as fast as possible, and as long as someone flinches, you can just murder them! It's completely legal. I fucking love america.
Let me preface this with: Rittenhouse is a shithead and his politics are shit. But: have you watched the videos? If you've got a gun and someone tries to grapple with you, that is now a life or death situation. If you let them take your gun, you could very well be dead. It's not a surprise that the jury acquitted him. Both shootings were demonstrably self-defense. I'm sick of us lefties falling for the same type of knee-jerk propagandistic nonsense the right always falls for.
Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn't have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn't have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don't think he was "looking for blood."
That being said, the guy didn't just "have a skateboard" we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just "flinched." They were both clearly aggressors.
Was he justified in shooting them? I'm not so sure. I tend to lean towards "no." But the fact that you're grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn't feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.
Except that there's a recording of him saying he wanted to shoot people
Typical librul carin bout facts
Why was he doing that? Because I still haven't heard why. Was he just out for blood and decided to attack a random teenager?
I don't know why either. But my guess is he was being chased for shouting the N word at a BLM protest. Just a guess though. I doubt he was being cordial.
My guess is he was pointing the rifle at people like a moron.
Two things can be true.
Anyone can guess anything happened in the holes of our knowledge that confirms what we want to believe is true. How is your guess any better than the guess of some conservative who believes he was being attacked by criminals and had the right to defend himself?
Actually we have a pretty clear course of events from earlier in the night that helps paint a picture of why it started, though with Rosenbaum dead we can never "know," we at least have some clues. Kyle was dressed similarly to another dude who put out Rosenbaum's dumpster fire at the gas station from the "Shoot me N-word" video (the difference being that dude had a plate carrier while kyle did not). Rosenbaum and his friend Ziminski continued to start fires throughout the night, and at one point Kyle runs by alone. Rosenbaum then steps from behind the car he was hiding behind (as seen on the FBI drone footage) and initiates the chase screaming "I'm going to kill you." Kyle gets cornered as Rosenbaum grabs for it, shoots Rosenbaum, hears "get him" and starts running towards police, gets hit with a rock and downed, misses jump kick man, gets hit with a skateboard and Huber tries to take his gun and gets shot, then Grosskreutz's fake surrender.
Seems to indicate to me that it was started by Rosenbaum mistaking his identity and thinking he was the guy with the fire extinguisher from earlier.
It's not any better than anyone else's. I never claimed it was. That's why I reiterated that is was an
opinionguess rather than fact.I never said my guess was more valid than others. If you feel I worded it that way then that's on you. I was just saying what I felt regardless of what others feel on the subject.
Edit: opinion to guess correction
What's the point of guessing like this then? I don't get it
I'm just posting my opinions online like the rest of us.
I just felt like it.
I guess this is my issue, it's a guess about the facts to justify an opinion, rather than an opinion about the facts.
The most prominent explanation being that he was stopping an active shooter. But even if we accept that story, it completely undercuts the effective argument of "but he just had a skateboard and flinched!"
I think everyone in this situation thought they were doing the noble thing. It's just easier to process if we assume one person is a bad guy, and the other person was acting nobly and rationally in pursuit of some higher purpose, rather than accepting the messy truth.
Except you are suggesting that the person with the skateboard was in the wrong. If he was stopping what he thought was someone about to kill people, which is not the most unfair assumption to make of a kid with a rifle who is obviously not approving of what he's seeing, how was he in the wrong? Isn't that the sort of person the news usually presents to us as the hero?
No I'm not. I said what I said: he was not some person just holding a skate board who flinched, as painted, but an aggressor. Or are you arguing that charging someone and then hitting them with a skateboard is not aggressive?
Again, I did not say he was in the wrong. I just explicitly said I think he believes he was acting nobly.
Is defending people aggression? Because it seems like that is what he was doing just based on inference.
You realize that you're ultimately agreeing with my point: this is not some guy who just flinched, but as you are painting him some hero that chased down someone he thought was about to kill people.
You think he was justified, and maybe he was, but the top level commenter tried to paint this as some innocent person getting shot for not doing anything other than flinching, which grossly misrepresents what you and I both think happened.
I certainly don't agree with your point that defending people is aggression.
I understand that, and I certainly did not say you do. I said you agreed with my ultimate point which I made clear. Why misrepresent what I said?
We had moved on to talk about whether or not defending people is aggression, something you suggested. I didn't misrepresent anything.
Your words:
Again, I would argue that defending people is not aggressive. Something I have yet to see you even acknowledge I said, let alone agree or disagree with.
If you try to Defend yourself from a Random Person with a Gun you DESERVE TO DIE!
No one alleged that Rittenhouse pointed the gun at anyone before he was charged. You need to reexamine your priors on this one.
Who said anything about anyone deserving to die? Certainly not me.
"Defend yourself" by chasing a fleeing guy?
Hate to break it to you bud but that doesn't fit the legal definition of self defense anywhere in America.
In some states you aren't required to retreat yourself if you have the legal right to be where you are when you're attacked (this is called "stand your ground" laws). However if the attacker starts fleeing and you pursue you are not allowed to chase them and finish the job. Even if they break into your house, if you surprise them and they run out before they get shot you aren't allowed to wing shots wildly at them down the street. If you see someone murder someone and run away, it is illegal for you to chase and kill them, you're required to let the police take over from there.
Rittenhouse however did attempt to retreat from Rosenbaum who was chasing him and threatening to kill him, until he was cornered and had to shoot Rosenbaum when he reached for the gun. After that, the crowd shouted "he just shot that dude, get him" and surprise, he started running away from the mob of people. Then the dude with a rock took him down, he rolled over, missed jump kick man, then Huber hit him with the trucks and tried to take his gun, which Rittenhouse defended again, then Grosskreutz came and faked surrender before pulling out a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have and Rittenhouse defended again.
At every point, Rittenhouse attempted retreat from those who were attacking him. Vigilante mob justice is super cool or whatever but it is illegal, the crowd had no legal right to "chase a fleeing felon" just as CCW holders don't have that right. Thankfully.
Yeah, try to minimize this after you let someone whack you on the head full swing with a skateboard--that is, if you survive. They weigh over 10 pounds on average, did you know that? Very literally a potentially lethal weapon. Also, he actually WAS hit by a full swing of said skateboard, on the head, before he shot at that guy, who was clearly trying to kill him by doing so.
Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.
Trying to kill someone is not a "flinch". This is some absurd fantasizing you're doing.
Everyone shot by Rittenhouse was actively in the act of attempting to kill him at the moment they were shot. The first LITERALLY screamed "I'm going to kill you", and after chasing him down, tried to wrestle his rifle out of his hands (gee, wonder what he might want to do with it if he got a hold of it?). The second tried to cave his skull in with a heavy, blunt object. And the third was only shot after he pointed his handgun at him--luckily, Rittenhouse was able to react fast enough to stop him.
No. Rittenhouse is a fucking fool who should be ashamed that his decision to bring a rifle to “assist as a medic” caused this entire scenario. Wandering alone, caused this scenario. He only walked on the charges because he was juuust within the law, not because he was a hero
Like yes, when he was filmed extinguishing a dumpster on fire, and walking around asking people if they need help, that’s admirable. But just as we rightfully criticize cops who let situations escalate and are ‘forced’ into using lethal force, so too with Kyle. He's the idiot who inserted a rifle into the scene and went wayyy away from friendlies off on his own
Is that the story now? I thought he was protecting businesses that never asked for his help.
He had gloves and a med bag that was completely insufficient for anything remotely traumatic. Like, yknow gunfire
Oh so "wandering alone" is it? You gonna tell a lady that "wandering alone" is what caused her rape?
Fortunately, people aren't legally justified in attacking "alone" people for being alone.
Never said Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz were justified. The court ruled correctly that in that microcosm of each shooting, Kyle acted lawfully. He didn’t magdump, or shoot at the crowd +20 yards away, he didn’t threaten others.
But if you can’t see why him roaming alone in a riot situation with a rifle caused this scenario? Bruh.
If he left the rifle at home, he wouldn’t have gotten into a wrestling match over it with Rosenbaum. If he had stayed with the group, Rosenbaum wouldnt have had the chance to fight him. If he hadn’t violated the curfew in place to go be a wannabe hero, none of this would have happened
Ah so he should not have been out alone at night in that short skirt, I understand now, he was asking for it! He actually liked it anyway, I could tell, walking around alone like a slut like that just begging to get his gun taken, how could Rosenbaum resist?
The “she deserved it” analogy is super tortured, and not analogous at all. Like I already said, he was violating curfew to LARP as a combat medic. And if you can’t see how adding a rifle into the mix escalated the scenario, then there’s no getting through to you, clearly.
Tbf everyone there was violating curfew. The only one who arguably had a legitimate reason was Rosenbaum, being let out of a mental facility after threatening suicide for being caught touching his GF's underage son, because the hospital decided to discharge him right into an active riot. One could also argue that none of this would have happened without that, and also none of this would have happened if Rosenbaum hadn't tried to kill anyone, and that this wouldn't have happened had the police not shot Jacob Blake for kidnapping kids while armed with a knife, and that this would never have happened had Blake simply not kidnapped any kids or had a knife.
We could play this game all day, frankly. I lean more towards "Rosenbaum shouldn't have attacked him screaming I'm going to fucking kill you and this never would have happened," personally.
Objectively untrue. The 'scenario' was instigated by a maniac going into a literal homicidal rage over having a dumpster fire he set, extinguished. It had literally nothing to do with the fact that the person who put out that fire was armed.
P.S. Well, actually, it may have, but not for the reason most think--I have a 'pet theory' that Rosenbaum freaked out on Rittenhouse because he wanted to get shot and killed. This is based on a few things: the fact that Rosenbaum was suicidal--in fact, he was let out of a mental health facility's 3 day hold FOR a suicide attempt literally THAT DAY. Secondly, simply the fact that the way he reacted makes literally no sense, completely over the top, and would be arguably comically exaggerated if it happened in fiction. And reason 2.5 is that he, unarmed, screamed death threats at and then chased down and attacked a clearly armed person, which is something only someone who was completely out of their mind, and who had no sense of self-preservation, would do.
We can play the blame game all the way back to Chauvin, gutting of mental health facilities, slavery, etc but Kyle decided to insert a rifle into a situation that neither he, nor the rifle, was invited to. He went looking for problems to solve, strayed far from the group he was seen with/the police/safety/etc and naively went towards the rioters and protesters.
Regardless of morality or the law, that decision has ruined his life and caused the death and injury of multiple others. They were turbo dumb for chasing him, but Kyle was astoundingly stupid to drive from his home and come to Kenosha. He was looking for trouble to solve, got in too deep and like the untrained and dangerous fool he was, shot his way out of it.
He had orders of magnitude more justification in being there than any of the three who attacked him. His father lives there, for crying out loud--it's part of his community. Also, those three came from further away, and have zero ties to Kenosha. They fucked around, they found out. If they had left Rittenhouse alone, he would have continued with his graffiti cleaning, fire extinguishing, water bottle dispensing, and basic medical aid giving, until the end of the day, and gone home. That's literally all he was doing until a maniac went into a literal homicidal rage in response to a fire he set being extinguished.
On the contrary, the way he handled the threats to his life was admirable and respectable, and I honestly don't know how he could have handled it better than he did:
If every cop in the US was as disciplined in their firearm usage as Rittenhouse was that day, we'd have way fewer police shooting scandals in this country.
Since you're being shit on in this thread, I just wanted to thank you for being so thorough and objective in your responses here, and for your links to sources. We need more people like you on Lemmy.
Wow, very unexpected, pleasant surprise, thank you for this, truly. It's hard not to get discouraged sometimes, to see people so aggressively pushing back against even the most easily-verifiable facts.
Thanks again for going out of your way to say that. :)
Agreed. Thank you for taking the time to try to educate.
Don't forget in the dumpster fire video (which btw, Kyle wasn't even the dude who put out the fire, but they were both wearing OD green shirts and jeans. The dude who put out the fire had a plate carrier and a different face, but close enough that I think Rosenbaum mistook Kyle for that guy). After that Kyle lookalike puts out his fire Rosenbaum gets in his face screaming "shoot me N-word" (I censored it, Rosenbaum had a pass I guess because nobody cares he said it.)
In not familiar with exactly what happened that night but just an uneducated guess:
All of the threats that Kyle encountered was in response to the fact that he was playing Timmy Toughguy and actively strolling around with a gun...
If he was just wandering around being an unarmed cunt then the chance of being swung at is still not zero but pretty damn close to it.
If at any point he ran - and kept running, or dropped the gun and ran, fully retreating from the crowd I doubt he would have been chased too far and the need to shoot would have been eliminated
In the same way he (correctly) saw others as a threat, the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle that was a 50x larger threat well before they threatened him. Even if he intended to do nothing with it, he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it and he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat - of course they would try and disarm him at a bare minimum.
The threat to Kyle at this point was genuinely high because most adults in the US - or anywhere - instantly recognise what a random civilian in public with an assault rifle means - mass shooting. This is exactly the message Kyle intended to send in order to scare rioters off. If he wasn't there just to scare people off then he was there to actively murder people. At this point I could put it down to a dumb kid making a really stupid mistake. Maybe worth a few years in jail for gun charges or inciting violence?
But he didn't retreat as he was being threatened - a fraction of what he was threatening others. He chose to attack instead and it's at this point he deserves to spend the rest of his days rotting in jail. He tried to send a message, that message wasn't received so he murdered those who were fearing for, and attempting to protect their own lives.
Kyle choose to be the aggressor - and much greater threat to anyone there - from the start. He wasn't protecting his own family, house or neighbourhood, he crossed state lines to be an aggressor. Kyle continued to act as the aggressor at every stage of the encounter.
Fuck Kyle.
No one could watch the videos and come away with this take you've constructed. He obviously is retreating in both videos. And carrying a gun in the open is not a provocation to violence. Not is it illegal in Wisconsin.
I hope that, rather than knee-jerk down vote, people will go watch both videos. We can do better than shitheads on the Donald.
People don't care what is legal. Bring guns to this shit is what the issue and no mount it is legal going to change anyones opniom or would make them want to be around this shit stain or anyone else bringing weapons around like that.
People don't like guns around legal or not.
And I don't like Taylor Swift but there's not shit I can do except not listen to the radio. Can't attack everyone who plays "she wears short skirts."
People have a legal right to do legal things whether or not you like it and trying to stop them using physical violence makes you the aggressor both legally and morally.
He exercised his rights, I hope he enjoys rest of his life haha
Tbf, he likely has a "rest of his life" because he did. All in all I'd say that's better than dead.
Could have been avoided if he did not bring the gun to the party ;)
Interesting definition of party, I guess.
The problem comes in with
Perhaps this may surprise you, but you are not legally justified in trying to kill someone just because they have a gun. Also not allowed to kill someone who has just legally defended themselves in a deadly force encounter, that is for the court system to decide. It is legal to get involved in third party encounters, however you best be sure you're not helping the side that will later be declared the aggressor in court and so it is generally seen as very risky to do.
Ok at this point it may behoove you to actually look at at least the videos of the incident if not the whole trial which was streamed. He did run. He walked by a car, Rosenbaum popped out screaming "I'm going to kill you," Kyle runs, chase ensues, Kyle gets cornered and turns around to find Rosenbaum reaching for the gun, Kyle shoots Rosenbaum 4x, makes a phone call, the crowd yells "he just shot that dude, get him," Kyle starts running again, unknown man hits him with a rock in the back of the head which downs Kyle, Kyle rolls over and misses Jump Kick Man, then another dude walks up but surrenders when Kyle points his rifle (but didn't fire), then Huber hits him with a skateboard and gets shot attempting to take Kyle's rifle, then Grosskreutz feigns surrender and pulls out a gun he wasn't legally allowed to own pointing it at Kyle, Kyle shoots, Gabe backs off, Kyle gets up and goes to the line of police cars right up the road who give him a bottle of water and tell him to go home, he turns himself in the next day.
Again, you can't "disarm someone" who is legally carrying a gun, that is illegal to do and constitutes a deadly threat, and if he shoots you for trying he will get off.
But he did, at every opportunity and by all definitions he retreated until he was cornered and then again until he was downed by a rock to the back of his head.
"The aggressor" isn't whoever you decide, it's the guy screaming "I'm going to fucking kill you" while chasing you through a parking lot.
If you're not familiar, why don't you inform yourself? There's plenty of video footage of the night. There's plenty of witness testimony. We all hate Kyle, myself included, but it doesn't help to go around spreading misinformation. It makes our side look like imbeciles living up to the memes.
This is a lot of words to say that you don't understand that nobody freaks out about someone open carrying in a state where open carry is legal.
No one felt threatened by his presence. No one reacted to him showing up. No one had any problem with him walking around doing his thing for hours, while the rifle was strapped to him the whole time. If him merely existing with a rifle on him was such a threat, why is that? How come no one gave a shit about him except for a crazy guy who set a fire that Kyle put out?
Funny how this question never gets an answer, because there's no way to answer it honestly without piercing a massive hole in your argument.
Pfft , so if he didn't kill everyone that night, obviously the people he victimized were the only ones who had any issues with him open carrying. Looks like someone is projecting massive argument holes.
This is simply objectively bullshit, and you obviously don't live in an open carry state. Nobody gave a shit about his rifle. There is video of him walking around, rifle in plain view, and nobody is even giving him a second glance.
More bullshit--even if he was trying to 'send a threatening message', he clearly failed, see referenced video above
Another lie. NOBODY "responded" to him being armed. He was attacked by a maniac for putting out the dumpster fire said maniac set. Had literally nothing to do with his rifle. And that attack is what caused the two other idiots to try to kill Rittenhouse, and in turn reap the consequences.
Your delusion that he was this menacing, threatening presence just by existing in Kenosha while having a rifle strapped to him is pure fantasy, period.
I don't care. The fact that you want to defend him says it all.
You've established pretty unambiguously that you don't care what the facts are. You've got your narrative, and you're gonna cling to it with both hands, inconvenient truths be damned.
That's not a virtue, you know. But defending the truth against lies, even if they are lies about your enemy, is. You should consider it.
Defending pieces of shit is not a virtue. It would be a vice actually, you hypocrite.
So, like, a club. A mace. A melee weapon against a semi-auto 5.56 broomstick with enough rounds to kill 30 people in as many seconds (with aiming) before requiring a reload.
Phew. Lucky he was there to be the timely victim; otherwise, who would that guy NOT SHOOT and the skateboard guy NOT HIT? It could've been anyone not injured at all from those people.
Heads up, clubs, maces, and melee weapons are all classified as deadly weapons by the US gov because it is easy to kill people with them. Take a CCW class (you're not obligated to actually go through with getting the permit by just taking the class), it teaches you the laws regarding self defense in your area, including things like "blunt objects, knives, and significant disparity of force (like say 3 v 1), are all considered "deadly threats" and you're allowed to defend yourself with equal opposing force (which is to say "deadly force.")"
Wrong. Not against anything, because Kyle was literally trying to flee when he was struck.
But both are lethal weapons, so it's absolutely reasonable and justifiable to use either of them to prevent being killed by someone attacking you with the other.
Rittenhouse was 100% in the right to shoot that guy, who was trying to kill him, and had already landed blow that could have succeeded in doing so.
he didnt kill that guy
Never understood the absolutely twisted psychology of people who defend this gutter sludge of a human.
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, but the misinformation around the event only makes our side look like imbeciles. There is plenty of video footage and witness testimony. The whole trial was recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the points being brought up in this thread. Kyle was a dumb 17 year old that should never have been there with a rifle.
Remember: the whole Kenosha riots started because of misinformation. The victim turned out to be a guy wielding a knife and running away in a car with two kids he was in the process of kidnapping. But, because of all the other events going on in the country, the narrative got twisted really fast.
There is plenty to criticize Kyle for. Idiot 17 year old at the wrong place and wrong time with a rifle. Repeating misinformation helps no one. I know social media is one big game of telephone and we can believe whatever we want since we all live in our own epistemic bubbles now but we gotta do better.
The person I responded to is a defender of conservatives in general. I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about spreading misinformation, as I did nothing like that.
Lemmy in general I've noticed has a disregard for facts and really likes the overt sense of virtue signaling. Sure, Kyle is an awful human being, but there has to be a way to analyze the facts of the matter without resorting to using so much emotionally charged language. It comes off as really hollow and meaningless.
There is plenty of misinformation on the left in general surrounding the actions of that day. I noticed you are exclusively concerned with the ethical analysis of the situation while the person you are arguing with is clearly discussing the legal justification under American law. This type of game leads to a continuous back and forth in which wrong facts keep bubbling to the top. The Kenosha riots themselves were started because of the false assumption that another innocent black man was being targeted by law enforcement just off the tail of massive protests in MPLS a few weeks earlier.
Okay. There's nothing unfactual about saying no one should be defending Rittenhouse.
Again, I never made any comment except that defending Kyle Rittenhouse means the commenter is shitty. Because he is. I'm not diving into the details because 1) I don't need to 2) I don't really care about the details of the case -- I heard enough about them years ago.
There has to be a way to discuss whether an action is justified regardless of who the perpetrator is. Context matters. If we just go on these endless tirades attacking people nothing of substance is being accomplished except perhaps trying to score feel good points, and if that's your goal then you do you. I personally find it's more effective to counter their arguments with stronger counter arguments rather than calling conservatives "pathetic for being victims" or using ad-homs non stop.
So what if they're defending Hitler? Were on Lemmy, we have mountains of facts and arguments for why Kyle was in the wrong. Let's analyze those arguments and show a better way. I'm sorry if I come off as tone policing. I'm just tired of this inability to form strong counter points even though we know Kyle was not justified in being there with an AR-15 on that day.
You're still acting like I was engaging in spreading misinformation. Seems you cannot read.
Just engage with the arguments instead of attacking people. Why is that so hard?
Conversely, why is it so hard for people to not defend shitbags?
I don't agree with the conservatives that defend Rittenhouse. There is really no justification for the actions that led to 3 people dying that day. But I can understand how conservatives reached their conclusions about it. In order to counter their positions, I have to first understand how they reached it. Conservatives will always emphasize the legal arguments in the Rittenhouse incident and dismiss the ethical framework that allowed it to happen it the first place. That's all.
Going to go walk my dog now.
You're projecting--it's people like you who are the armchair psychologists convinced of your assumptions of his motives, even when the facts directly contradict them.
All I'm doing is stating the facts. If they contradict your narrative, that's because the narrative is wrong. Period.
Your motivations aren't hard to ascertain.
You've proven beyond a doubt in this thread that your ability to ascertain motives is severely impaired.
Example: if you think my motive is to do anything but correct misinformation, you're wrong (again).
And yet I've tagged you for supporting other conservatives specifically in the past.. must have been total coincidence lol
Sounds like conservatives are more likely to get lied about around here, lol.
The fact that you tag people for reasons like that just tells me that you're just another of the people who cares more about "supporting" a political team, than you are about finding and defending what's actually true, regardless of which 'team' that truth may make look good or bad.
When you find me spreading the kind of easily-debunked falsehoods I'm correcting here, you might have an argument that holds some water. Don't hold your breath, though.
It tells me that you defend conservatives habitually. Because, like a lot of things conservatives want to make complicated, it's not
Stopped reading at the first sentence.
If I do, it's because people here lie about them habitually. I defend the truth from lies, wherever I see it happening. The political 'alignment' of the one being lied about means nothing to me; no matter how desperate you are to project your partisan tribalism onto me, I'm not like you.
Yep what a good little "moderate" 😂
LMAO nice username jackass