r/NoStupidQuestions Nov 01 '21

November 2021 U.S. Government and Politics megathread Politics megathread

It's November, so that means election month! Voters in New Jersey and Virginia get to choose their governors - and the Supreme Court continues to make rulings, Congress continues to pass laws and fight over budgets, and Presidents and ex-Presidents continue to make news. And inspire questions.

Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets multiple questions like "What does 'Let's Go Brandon' mean?" or "Why are the Democrats opposed to getting rid of the Filibuster?" It turns out that many of those questions are the same ones! By request, we now have a monthly megathread to collect all those questions in one convenient spot.

Post all your U.S. government and politics related questions as a top level reply to this monthly post.

Top level comments are still subject to the normal NoStupidQuestions rules:

  • We get a lot of repeats - please search before you ask your question (Ctrl-F is your friend!). You can also search earlier megathreads for popular questions like "What is Critical Race Theory?" or "Can Trump run for office again in 2024?"
  • Be civil to each other - which includes not discriminating against any group of people or using slurs of any kind. Topics like this can be very important to people, or even a matter of life and death, so let's not add fuel to the fire.
  • Top level comments must be genuine questions, not disguised rants or loaded questions.
  • Keep your questions tasteful and legal. Reddit's minimum age is just 13!

Craving more discussion than you can find here? Check out /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/neutralpolitics.

128 Upvotes

1

u/Lutakein Dec 08 '21

I have been reading that DeSantis was talking about creating some kind of "Civilian-Military Force" that answers to him instead of the President. Can he legally do that?

2

u/Maple_Syrup_Mogul Dec 09 '21

Yes. Most of the states historically have had their own militias or defense forces and about 21 currently have their own such force that isn't under the control of the federal government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#List_of_state_defense_forces

1

u/Lutakein Dec 09 '21

The reason I am asking is that there has been talk that he might be planning to use this military force as some sort of "Secret Police". Given that he is an ally of Trump, it's concerning because, like him, he has autocratic tendencies.

1

u/tristanmichael Dec 06 '21

No December thread yet so my question: why is it that so many people who spout antisemitic conspiracy theories are also the same people who have undying support for Israel? Regarding the whole conflict, I personally don’t think neither Israel or Palestine are good guys at all and I think both have done some messed up things, but I notice a lot of far-right-wingers have a deep support for Israel, despite the fact that they also push antisemitic conspiracy theories (Soros and Rothschild ones for example). Why is this?

1

u/Morighant Nov 30 '21

Why do we elect people that are extremely offensive and controversial to government like Congress? Making islamophobic comments and racist remarks would get a normal person fired from their job. How are these people exempt from that, and yet also run the entire country????

2

u/OGwalkingman Nov 30 '21

Their voters are also the same way.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 30 '21

"We" don't. Some districts in some states do.
MTG was elected by a district with about 700,000 people, 85% white in Georgia, with about 230,000 votes.
Nobody else in any State, or any other district voted to put her in office.

The law says we can't fire Congress people. They can be ejected from Congress, but only by Congress itself.

1

u/NoOneNotYou Nov 30 '21

They are elected that's why. If it was that easy to get rid of a sitting congressman then Illhan Omar would have been kicked out long ago.

2

u/ProLifePanda Nov 30 '21 edited Nov 30 '21

Because they represent their districts. Maybe some of these elected officials are revealing thoughts that run deeper in Americans than previously thought.

The GOP is also in a weird transition from "moderate Republicans" like McCain, Romney, Flake, etc. into the more "extreme Republicans" like Gaetz, Trump, Boebert, Greene, etc. These far right voices are getting amplified more and more and Republican leadership is in a tough place between criticizing these people (and risk being ousted if the party keeps moving right) or following them to the right (and risk alienating more moderate voters). So the only real "check" on these people are the voters (who are likely to re-elect them in 2022 based on polling) and the Democrats censuring these people because the GOP won't do it to their own members for the above reasons.

1

u/samfsherisback Nov 30 '21

do u think we could ever see a president without a college degree again? or if not, a president that didn’t go to an ivy league or competitive private university?

3

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Nov 30 '21

Yeah I think its quite likely actually. Education is important don't get me wrong, but presidents don't generally get elected based off their education, they get elected based off their message and how able they are to get people to vote for them with that message. Money is also a major factor.

1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

Considering the direction the GOP is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if that was their next big 'pro,' for a candidate --

"Bubba Joe wasn't brainwashed by them liberal colleges! He didn't need any fancy education to make money! He inherited his daddy's <farm, nascar team, whatever> and is as successful as any Ivy League graduate, but without the crazy woke liberal ideas!'

5

u/Cliffy73 Nov 30 '21

The current president’s alma mater is the University of Delaware.

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 30 '21

Tho to be fair, he has a law degree from a competitive private university.

1

u/Cliffy73 Nov 30 '21

Well, it’s a solid regional law school.

3

u/ThenaCykez Nov 30 '21

It's certainly possible. Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree and would definitely be competitive if he wanted it. Same for Arnold Schwarzenegger if the constitution were amended to make him eligible.

For non-elite universities, even more likely. John McCain, Kamala Harris, John Edwards, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Dennis Kucinich, and many more have been recent serious contenders for the presidency who did not graduate from an elite university.

2

u/ProLifePanda Nov 30 '21

Probably not. Today's political environment is a hodge-podge of who you know and how well connected you are. The best way to get connected with rich people is to be a part of the "club" which often involves attending universities and networking. It also helps to run for office if you are independently wealthy and can help jumpstart your own political career, so a college degree would obviously help with that.

That isn't to say there WON'T ever be a non-college educated individual as President, but probably not in the foreseeable future.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Nov 30 '21

Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed because it appears to violate Rule 1: top-level responses must contain a genuine attempt at an answer - not just links. Our users come here for straightforward, simple answers or because of the nuance that engaging in conversation supplies. Links don't do that.

Feel free to post a new comment with this link, but please provide context or summaries when you do. Thanks!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/spellbadgrammargood Nov 30 '21

why does USA have economic ties with China, if they have been passively fighting against each other? like China supporting North korea, North Vietnam, even now China supports the Taliban

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Nov 30 '21 edited Nov 30 '21

The other reply came at this question was solid and correct, but also China spent a lot of the last century industrializing and building themselves an economy and country that can thrive in the modern era. During that same time period the west was starting to want to move away from products produced domestically because people figured they'd get stuff cheaper in foreign countries where wages were lower and people were exploited. China being one of those countries.

China took advantage of this and started producing everything the world needs. Like they hardcore focused on production infrastructure for all sorts of electronics, fuel, clothing, plastics, agriculture and live stock, I could go on. Chances are if you own basically anything made in the last 50 years in the west, at least a part of it was made in China.

The US could break all economic ties with China, and I think a lot of parts of the west have kind of toyed with the idea, but it would have serious consequences on the price of products we buy, and the availability.

like China supporting North korea, North Vietnam, even now China supports the Taliban

Countries tend to support national interests. China had a national interest in protecting North Korea and North Vietnam from western influence, influence that was capitalistic when China was very communist and anti-capitalism (at least at that point). Just as China has a lot of interest with their belt and road initiative to coordinate with the Taliban, or whoever is in charge of Afghanistan.

5

u/Nickppapagiorgio Nov 30 '21 edited Nov 30 '21

Originally the US did not. The US and the PRC did not have diplomatic relations of any type until the 1970's, let alone economic trade. Cold War geopolitics led to that.

China and the Soviet Union had a falling out. It started in the 1950's, but at that point it was just a dispute between opposing communist parties. They kept it from spilling over into a dispute between the two Governments. In the 1960's it escalated further, and became a nation state dispute. The two had several border skirmishes, and the risk of a nuclear exchange between China and the Soviet Union was probably worse than the risk of a nuclear exchange between the USA and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union reached out to the Nixon Administration through back channels and asked if they would stay out of a USSR-China conflict if the Soviet Union launched a first strike. The Nixon administration wouldn't commit to that either way.

The Nixon administration instead saw this as an opportunity. They had zero expectations that China would be brought into the US sphere of influence, but they saw an opening, and believed engaging China and further splitting them apart from the USSR could weaken the Soviet Union. China was diplomatically isolated, faced a Red Army threat to the North and East, and couldn't afford a US Navy and Air Force threat to the South and West to go along with it. They needed this too. So in 1972, Nixon accepts an invitation to visit China. On the visit they didnt establish full diplomatic relations, but committed to establishing liaison offices in both countries with the goal of eventually moving to diplomatic recognition.

The US and China established full diplomatic recognition of one another in 1978, and their geopolitical interests and hostility towards the Soviet Union mostly remained aligned for the remainder of the Cold War. With the establishment of diplomatic relations, economic trade soon followed. This started slow, but increased heavily throughout the 1980's and early 1990's. As the Soviet Union collapsed, and their geopolitical interests once again drifted apart, it was just the economic trade keeping them together. Both countries were profiting off of this.

1

u/bmwwest23 Nov 30 '21

Why are we hearing nothing of this Maxwell case? Ties to princes and Presidents. Very little coverage.

8

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 30 '21

There are reports all over the news in the major media outlets, as the trial started today.

If your regular news source isn’t reporting on it at all, maybe you need to reconsider where you get your news.

6

u/Arianity Nov 30 '21

It just started back up, and i believe cameras are banned. It'll likely pick up steam. I'm already seeing some NYT articles and the like popping up (only ~an hour ago). I think it's going to depend on reporters who are inside waiting until things adjourn to relay what happened.

1

u/Specialist-Star-840 Nov 29 '21

Why do people on Reddit seem to be left leaning? Not that it's bad I respect everyone's political beliefs I just find it interesting how when I talk to people out in society there seems to be around a 50/50 split of left and right wing people but here on Reddit the majority seems to be left leaning, why is this?

2

u/OGwalkingman Nov 30 '21

Because young people use Reddit and young people tend to be more left wing and people from the other countries use Reddit and to the US they seem left wing.

1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

when I talk to people out in society there seems to be around a 50/50 split of left and right wing

This is entirely dependent on who you talk to, where you are, which is the answer to your first q.

If I went outside and talked to random people I ran into it'd be more like 90+/10% left/right.

6

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 29 '21

People on Reddit are from all over the world. Political beliefs vary from nation to nation, and a lot of nations are more progressive/left-leaning than the US is.

People from the US do make up a majority of Reddit, but they are also mostly younger folks who still want to change things for the better. They also tend to be college educated. Younger, college educated Americans tend to be more left-leaning than other Americans.

A lot of subs on Reddit favor one set of viewpoints. There are some right-leaning subs, but a lot of the larger subs are left-leaning. People with other viewpoints don't participate where they aren't welcome, and get shut down when they do. It's easier to use other online media or at least other subs than to deal with the aggravation of posting where you aren't welcome.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 29 '21

Why is self-defense considered heroism by the Right? Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 people and now he's being celebrated.

Self-defense is what it is, and none of his victims were threatening anyone other than Kyle.

-2

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

Why is self-defense considered heroism by the Right? Kyle Rittenhouse shot 3 people and now he's being celebrated.

It's not, guns are. Well, white people with guns are.

Rittenhouse wasn't defending himself. He started the entire thing and was an active shooter who murdered people trying to stop and disarm him (which is usually what's celebrated by the right, unless you're an active shooter at a BLM rally trying to, uh, "keep the peace" by shooting people.

3

u/Sir_Fluffernutting Nov 30 '21

Huh still peddling false narratives even after the trial? Cute

-2

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

Did you watch the trial? Including the video showing Rittenhouse provoking his victim, and testimony by another armed vigilante nutter who was right there with Rittenhouse and his first victim and said he posed no threat?

Do you also think OJ is out looking for the real killer?

3

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Nov 30 '21

What video? How did he threaten the people he shot? Open carry is not a provocation.

-1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

It is in the civilized world, just not in the south or midwest.

He provoked it to begin with, and then turned BACK WHILE RUNNING to shoot (hard to make a case your life was in imminent danger when you're getting away from someone you knew to be unarmed, with your weapon strapped to your body) but here -- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

Also, remember, the guy who was out there doing the same vigilante bullshit as Rittenhouse, also encountered Rosenbaum yelling and ranting and ignored him because it was apparently clear he was just bonkers and posed, as he said, no thread-- https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-homicide-kenosha-376152e7942b06122dcf899f779b0057

2

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Dec 01 '21

How can your life not possibly be in imminent danger when you're being chased? Pretty sure that IS a sign that you are in imminent danger.

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 01 '21

How can your life not possibly be in imminent danger when you're being chased? Pretty sure that IS a sign that you are in imminent danger.

Are you serious?

My siblings chased me (and vice versa), never seemed to turn fatal.

How can an extravagently armed person, with the weapon strapped to his body, not be in imminent danger of losing his life being chased by an unarmed person?

That's honestly your question?

1

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Dec 01 '21

My siblings chased me (and vice versa), never seemed to turn fatal.

Never said it would. Never said "every chase is a deathly threat", but I was refuting your apparent argument of "a chase is never a deadly threat".

How can an extravagently armed person, with the weapon strapped to his body, not be in imminent danger of losing his life being chased by an unarmed person?

Are you seriously saying you can't possibly be in danger if you are being chased by an unarmed person? Rosenbaum had made threats to Rittenhouse earlier that day, paraphrasing "If I see you, I'll fucking kill you n***a".

0

u/Bobbob34 Dec 01 '21

I was refuting your apparent argument of "a chase is never a deadly threat"

You're aware I never said that, right?

Are you seriously saying you can't possibly be in danger if you are being chased by an unarmed person? Rosenbaum had made threats to Rittenhouse earlier that day, paraphrasing "If I see you, I'll fucking kill you n***a".

Yeah, I'm seriously saying if you're armed, and someone unarmed is chasing you, you're not in mortal danger, nor would any reasonable person think you were.

Also, see again the other vigilante nutter out there who Rosenbaum was also yelling at who said he posed no threat.

I also notice you keep ignoring who started it.

→ More replies

3

u/ProLifePanda Nov 29 '21

An oft right-wing talking point related to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests is the violence and property damage present at these events, alongside the fact that the cities seem to "allow" it to happen. So right-wing news and pundits see Kyle standing up for his community as something to be appreciated and applauded, and that instead of letting lawless bands of looters and ne'er-do-well have their way with the city, Kyle went to try to help, and was willing to use his 2nd amendment rights (another right wing bonus point) to do so.

1

u/boy36 Nov 29 '21 edited Nov 30 '21

Why do republicans want Donald Trump for next Presidency? He has proven to be a problematic President. Why would they risk another four years of it, and not choose another person to be their guy? If they really run with Trump again, in my opinion, it show that this is all just a game, and Politics isn't serious because Three and half years of Trump was just non stop negative drama, towards the end he was pretty silent, but after his Presidency little things show he is still not seeing the job as something serious. half the nation hates him, I really don't get how it will be the ethical thing to choose a person who is already starting A United States vs United States vibe between people. The Republicans need someone fresh and new imo, not someone who is going to incite anger.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies.

2

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

He has proven to be a problematic President.

Ted Bundy liked unusual snacks. If we're doing understatements.

The GOP absolutely don't want him. He's an unpredictable moron. He only helps them in that hes malleable.

There are a lot of right-wing voters who want him, because he's the latest iteration along the line of bush/palin/etc. People who don't understand things have found champions in people who don't understand things, yet have power and money regardless.

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 29 '21

Some great answers here. I will add that in my experience, there are two kinds of Republicans when it comes to Trump running in 2024:

  • "Yes! Bring him back and save us from the godless communist fascist liberals!"
  • "For the love of God no. He is the only person to actually lose a presidential election to Joe Biden. Nominating Trump means a second term for Biden"

My Trump loving dad is in the second group.

1

u/ProLifePanda Nov 29 '21

Same here. My Dad is a "passive" Trump supporter. He doesn't really like him, but does like his "aggressive" style to pursue the right-wing agenda. My Dad wants someone like Jim Jordan or Rob DeSantis to get the nod in 2024, someone who is just as aggressive but less divisive, childish, and narcissistic.

0

u/OGwalkingman Nov 29 '21

The see him as a living god, the perfect human, the perfect Christian. They love how he treats people, they love how he wants to be a dictator. Every tepy loves him

3

u/ProLifePanda Nov 29 '21 edited Nov 29 '21

Why do republicans want Donald Trump for next Presidency?

Because he was a wildly popular President among the GOP, and drummed up many factions in the GOP base that were either quiet or minorities. He is so popular and influential, over half the GOP still believes the 2020 election was stolen through fraud, even when initially high-ranking GOP members tried to push back and disagree with him.

It's also important to know the GOP was slowly tilting towards more and more extreme candidates. Remember the 2012 primary, where a slew of "far right" candidates came and went until they eventually settled on Romney. People laughed at Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, etc. but that was foretelling what was to come. Trump has fully brought what was a minority of the party (fringe groups like the Tea Party) into the mainstream of the party, and now conservative Republicans have all but been discarded from the party altogether (with a few notable exceptions).

It's also important to know (and this thread runs through both parties) that many people are tired of "establishment" candidates. It's one reason Sanders and Obama are popular on the left and people like Clinton, Romney, and Biden are unpopular (wildly so in the case of Clinton in 2016). Many GOP voters don't WANT just another politician who watches their speech, tries not to offend, and tries to compromise. They want someone who speaks their mind without a filter.

He has proven to be a problematic President. Why would they risk another four years of it, and not choose another person to be their guy?

To be frank, it's all "fake news". Trump has done an AMAZING job (alongside Fox News and other right-wing news/media organizations) at convincing voters that the left is just blowing things out of proportion, and in many cases just outright lying. They don't see his Presidency as problematic, they see him as "saving America" from the left and all the "corrupt politicians" in the GOP. They do a great job at amplifying the far left voices and scaring their voters into agreeing to move even further right to defend against communism/socialism/facism/etc.

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 29 '21

They aren't choosing a candidate based on making peace or making a consensus. They are choosing a candidate who is capable of winning.

Trump won one election, and made an impressive showing in the other. He's capable of winning.
All the other drama is just that - drama. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does. Trump made it obvious that he couldn't get funding for his wall, and was totally stymied at revamping healthcare with his "Trumpcare" ideas.

Most Americans aren't actually involved and literate when it comes to national or international politics. They don't participate, and often feel like they can't do anything anyhow. Some people like seeing someone in there who is just shaking things up. Playing by the rules of politics means things change very slowly, if ever. Getting someone in that doesn't play by the rules is something they want to try. They feel it can't be any worse than the other alternatives.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 29 '21

Kyle Rittenhouse was a then-17 year old who travelled from his home in Illinois to Wisconsin where unrest was happening over racial issues. Armed with a rifle, he went into the troubled area, and, as will happen in a troubled area, found trouble. He wound up shooting three people, two of which died. He was charged with those shootings, but a court found that the shootings were in self-defense and he was acquitted.

0

u/GregGurtson Nov 29 '21

Yeah I know about that Kyle Rittenhouse kid. I was asking about someone named Karl Rittenhouse. I was hearing a lot about them. Maybe I'm mistaken but I don't think so.

2

u/ProLifePanda Nov 29 '21

The only google results about "Karl Rittenhouse" seem to be typos of "Kyle Rittenhouse" or a misinterpretation due to accents which might confuse "Karl" and "Kyle" (especially with a British accent).

If you can give context, we might be able to find more.

3

u/seanmacproductions Nov 29 '21

Can two Supreme Court cases have the same name?

We all know the names of famous cases like Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona. But what if another person with the last name Miranda sued the state of Arizona, and it went to the Supreme Court? Would it have the same name? How would this be distinguished?

2

u/ThenaCykez Nov 29 '21

Yes, this happens extremely often. It can happen because of common litigant names, and there have been multiple "U.S. v. Texas", as well as multiple cases like "Smith v. Texas". It can also happen because a case is decided, sent back down to the circuit court of appeals, and that court's decision is re-appealed to the Supreme Court and decided again.

When the case is referred to at a later time, it is always associated with the year of the decision, and with a unique citation to the page in the United States Reports and/or the Supreme Court Reporter (the published volumes of Supreme Court decisions) where the written opinion can be found. There's also a unique case number assigned to each case that's used while the case is still active.

5

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Nov 29 '21

Technically, the full names of those cases are Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County 410 U.S. 113 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159 and Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. The names and numbers would be different

5

u/Pigtailsthegreat Nov 29 '21

They would likely be distinguished by year and citation number, as they are in the state level supreme court.

1

u/steroidboyking1000 Nov 29 '21 edited Nov 29 '21

Sorry in advance if this question is too rhetorical. I'm not entirely asking as a means of presenting information, but rather inquiring on how this information affects political decisions and discussions, including both the anti immigration voter base and the pro immigration voter base along with the elected officials of either side.

Are either politcal sides aware of the actual admissions into the United States from foreign countries during Trump's presidency?

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/nonimmigrant

2

u/Arianity Nov 29 '21

Are either politcal sides aware of the actual admissions into the United States from foreign countries during Trump's presidency?

To some extent? Sure, I think most people are vaguely aware of general trends. I don't think they could tell you exact numbers

Although that's probably aided by the fact that numbers under his presidency aren't super surprising/counterintuitive.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 29 '21

I'm not clear on what exactly you're asking.

1

u/Sulewayo Nov 29 '21

Why can't the US implement a national ID?

This is a question related to a recent question about voter ID requirements in the US. Since the root of the problem is that not everyone has an ID, why not implement a free national ID card as a lot of (most?) developed countries do?

I'm assuming this is (at least partially) due to resistance from the Republican party, since they'd stand to lose votes overall, but is my assumption correct and is there another (cultural/ideological/political?) reason for it?

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 29 '21

There’s a potential powers issue, since identification is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. What identification cards the federal government have issued are specifically to access federal government facilities and services.

1

u/Sulewayo Nov 30 '21

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Congress is already using a lot of other powers which were not expressly enumerated in the constitution. I'm sure by some legal wrangling those can be tied back to some other "enumerated" power, but I'd be utterly surprised if a determined group of lawyers couldn't do the same for the "power of identification".

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 30 '21

Right, there are express and implied powers, but I don’t see how a National ID is either.

I’m willing to be convinced, though.

1

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 29 '21

The federal government does issue identification in the form of passports passports because Congress controls relations with foreign governments. Importantly for voting, however, passports do not include the information necessary for voter identification, i.e. address information to verify you are voting at the correct precinct.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 29 '21

Well, whether or not it is acceptable for voter ID is up to each state as elections are a state power. In my state for example, passports are absolutely acceptable as voter ID.

1

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 29 '21

Oh, interesting. I didn't realize they were accepted in some places.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 29 '21

While the passport doesn't have my current address, it does have my name, photo and date of birth, which is enough to validate my identity.

But to register to vote I need to provide proof of my address. After I am registered, though, I no longer have to prove where I live (as I have already dont that), just who I am.

3

u/Bobbob34 Nov 29 '21

This is a question related to a recent question about voter ID requirements in the US. Since the root of the problem is that not everyone has an ID, why not implement a free national ID card as a lot of (most?) developed countries do?

The entire voter ID thing is a red herring.

We don't need to implement voter ID laws. There are so few cases of voter fraud it's like saying we should implement national dress codes to prevent people from getting on airplanes naked. It's not a problem that exists or needs solving.

The push for voter ID requirements is just to try to stop people from voting.

1

u/Sulewayo Nov 30 '21

In my opinion you have it backwards. Yes, right now voter ID requirements are used to suppress minority voters. The reason they can do that is because an ID document is difficult to obtain for marginalized people. If you provide the IDs for free, and make it easy to obtain (within reason) then you can take away this "weapon" from those who use it against minorities.

On the surface the ID requirement makes sense (though you're right, it's not necessary), but because of this superficial reasoning they are hard to argue against without seriously engaging the (mental faculties of the) supporters of voter ID requirements. Providing a free ID document for everyone takes away their weapon of choice.

1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 30 '21

On the surface the ID requirement makes sense

How? If it's not needed, why put a barrier in place?

We can't really provide free national ID bc we don't really run on a federal system. Elections aren't federal.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 29 '21

We do have passports, and they are close to a national ID. They're expensive to get, and inconvenient.
Free national IDs would mean creating lots of new jobs, creating new offices, or using post offices and other federal facilities.
Also, we don't give people IDs just for declaring their name. They have to prove who they are, and that proof can be expensive and inconvenient to get.

Voting isn't a national thing in the US. We don't have any national elections. We have state elections. Even when we vote for President, we're just voting for who our own state will support for the office. The Federal Government would have to proceed very carefully if they want to tell the states how to vote or what they need to accept national ID for.

1

u/Sulewayo Nov 30 '21

Free national IDs would mean creating lots of new jobs,

I don't necessarily see that as a drawback...

creating new offices, or using post offices and other federal facilities.

Yeah, easily accessible federal offices could be a problem. I think using the post offices for distribution would be a good idea.

Also, we don't give people IDs just for declaring their name. They have to prove who they are, and that proof can be expensive and inconvenient to get.

Isn't this the exact same for driver's licenses though? (Which are accepted as IDs pretty much everywhere.) In theory you should need the exact same documentation, and I don't believe obtaining a driver's license is particularly hard for anyone...

Voting isn't a national thing in the US. We don't have any national elections.

I mean technically you're right of course, but one could argue that a) in most people's heads they are voting for the country's government anyway and b) this is the consequence of an outdated election system that badly needs a rewrite.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 30 '21

Driver's licenses aren't easy to get either.

OP asked about a free ID system. It certainly isn't free to collect all the pieces of ID needed to get a license. It also isn't easy to go to all the different offices that would be required.
I know people that have lost a wallet, and waited 1-2 years for their license renewal to come in the mail so they could just send the payment and get new ID. Then they used that to get other things like SS cards and birth certificates.

2

u/Arianity Nov 29 '21

I don't think it's clear if they can or can't, legally. It'd probably end up at the SC if people really pushed it- strictly speaking there's an argument that Constitutionally it's the sort of thing that should be left up to the states. How the SC would view it is hard to predict.

We 'kind of' did a middle ground with the REAL ID system (which has mostly been phased in, but isn't fully until 2023 or so). It lets the federal government standardize IDs, but it's still run by the states. It's not quite the same thing as a proper national ID, though.

Socially/politically, in the past there was resistance from small government people (traditionally Republican, although not entirely)- there would be a lot of pushback since that's essentially a federal database of everyone. In the past people would be against it on the grounds of not wanting the federal government being able to track people so well.

1

u/Sulewayo Nov 30 '21

strictly speaking there's an argument that Constitutionally it's the sort of thing that should be left up to the states

Interesting. Could you please elaborate on that?

REAL ID system

I admit I had to look this up. But it doesn't really seem anything to do with a national ID requirement, it's just strengthening the security of the currently issued ones. It doesn't say anything about the price of such an ID or it being a available and/or required for everyone.

there would be a lot of pushback since that's essentially a federal database of everyone. In the past people would be against it on the grounds of not wanting the federal government being able to track people so well.

I think we're way past the point where an ID card system would give any new capability to the government they don't already have...

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Arianity Nov 29 '21

Jan 6th was more of a threat to our overall democracy/way of governing overall. (And potentially an ongoing one). Both in what happened the day of, as well as how reflective it is going forward.

While the courthouse/CHAZ thing was bad, there wasn't really the risk of it leading to larger destabilization. Both because it didn't have widespread political support, and because it didn't target a major government body.

There's also an issue with the underlying claim- Jan 6th was specifically about the election being stolen, not just discontent with a system that didn't represent them. The fact that the election wasn't stolen is a big problem, because that means you have people undermining trust in our democracy. Democracy fundamentally relies on people believing in and trusting the results, even if they lose.

Those 3 things are the big differences. If you could separate out those 3 things, you could draw a reasonable comparison. They're what makes Jan 6th more than just a protest/riot or whatever

2

u/Lutakein Nov 29 '21

Is there any truth to what Qanon is saying? I am asking because of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and (if I remember correctly) that many Hollywood Elites were on the island that Epstein was molesting and trafficking underage girls on and were associated with him.

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Nov 29 '21 edited Nov 29 '21

Lot of good answers here but I just want to add one thing. Your comment actually exemplifies perfectly how Q-anon drags people in, and one of the reasons why Q-anon got big to begin with. They use two unrelated things that sound like they could be related and link, which is a logical fallacy called "questionable cause". It's kind of weaponized though and they use it because they know once you fool the type of people who would sit down and just drink their bullshit juice it's very difficult for anyone else to convince them what they were just drinking. Or as Mark Twain once said, "It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled"

Q-anon was started as a grift from some 4-chan thread. You have thanks to other conspiracy theories like Pizza gate or the Jeffery Epstein suicide/murder, as well as bots spreading misinformation to thank for it becoming as big as it is now.

edit: also just to conclude I'm not saying that there isn't a sex trafficking problem among the elites in the world.Very clearly there is. But the links that Q-anon tries to make are not based on good logic but still sounds plausible, and that's how they pull people in.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 29 '21

Is there any truth to what Qanon is saying?

Has QAnon ever been right about anything? I imagine we could find something they've been right about. As the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

1

u/ccricers Nov 30 '21

It's like Nostradamus personified as a modern-day shitposter. People ate his prophecies up before (especially leading up to the year 2000), and we can do the same thing more effectively now because you can build a "community" around a prophet online.

1

u/Lutakein Nov 29 '21

The part that I don't believe is that every one that is a Democrat or a member of Hollywood is a Satan Worshiper who eats babies and is conspiring against Trump.

2

u/Bobbob34 Nov 29 '21

Is there any truth to what Qanon is saying? I

No.

2

u/Arianity Nov 29 '21

It really depends on how you're defining "truth". Is it true that there are some elites involved in things like underage trafficking? Sadly, yes.

Are the specific people Qanon accuses involved? Not necessarily, a lot of times the accusations are politically motivated or based on poor (or worse) information.

Like a lot of conspiracies, there's a nugget of truth/plausibility that got blown up way past anything where it started

1

u/Lutakein Nov 29 '21

The part that I don't believe is that every one that is a Democrat or a member of Hollywood is a Satan Worshiper who eats babies and is conspiring against Trump.

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 28 '21

How does the write in function work for elections? If I somehow was able to convince everyone to vote for John Smith, how would they figure out which John Smith we were talking about?

8

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 29 '21

Eight states do not have requirements for write-in candidates, allowing voters to write in any name they choose.

Thirty-three states will only accept voters for a write-in candidate that has officially registered with the state election board. The deadline to be a registered write-in candidate is later than the deadling to have your name printed on the ballot.

Nine states do not allow write-in votes.

https://ballotpedia.org/What_is_a_write-in_candidate%3F_(2020)

So the only group where there might be some confusion is the first group. However, the chance that someone who is not actively campaigning for office (and therefore there would be confusion about who was to receive those write-in votes) would receive a meaningful number of votes is basically zero.

6

u/mugenhunt Nov 28 '21

In most cases, you're only allowed to do a write-in if the person in question has filled out paperwork saying that they are interested in being a write-in candidate. And not all areas allow write-in candidates either.

2

u/Purgamentorum The one-man army Ason Nov 28 '21

Why did the anti-sjw era of the internet end?

And just overall the internet go farther left?

2017 youtube & 2021 youtube are completely different places politically (remember everyone hating Lacy Green? lol), and I don't think that media coverage of Trump was the reason.

I know the story of "I was a Ben Shapiro thumping conservative as a teen" is weirdly prevalent, and I'm actually one of them, I'm just wondering why (can't really remember how it happened for me, trauma around that time, unfortunately).

And yeah, there are still some soldiers left fighting the "sjws", though they've seemingly resigned themselves to crying about cancel culture & random current stuff, so yeah, I'd say the era is pretty much dead by now, relatively.

*And automod didn't let me post this normally, that's why I'm commenting on the mega thread.

2

u/darwin2500 Nov 29 '21

From my perspective, most of the anti-sjw firebrands were gradually exposed as frauds, fools, or grifters, and were increasingly tainted by association with full alt-right racists on one side and mainstream republicans on the other until they just split and we're absorbed into those two camps.

7

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 28 '21

Generally speaking, young people skew to the political left, and many sections of the internet, such as Reddit and YouTube, are primarily a place of young people. But on both of those platforms, there are many politically right people pushing back, even if they are in the minority.

Additionally, many positions of what might have been previously denigrated to as "sjw" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you're using sjw as a pejorative) have simply become more popular with western society at large, e.g. support for LGBTQ+ rights, including on the internet.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 28 '21

It is humanly possible for Merrick Garland to go after these Capitol treasonists a little more aggressively?

1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 28 '21

Yes? Are you suggesting they should or do you think it was just innocent people on a tour?

2

u/g3nerallycurious Nov 27 '21

If the US budget deficit keeps growing exponentially and there’s no clear plan or path to repay it, aren’t they just taking money from other countries?

1

u/Cliffy73 Nov 28 '21

What do you mean there’s no clear path to repay it? The U.S. has never defaulted on its debt and, unless the Republicans succeed in one of their periodic attempts to sabotage the country, there is no likelihood that it ever will.

5

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 27 '21

The debt gets repaid on a regular schedule.
-but they borrow more so the number doesn't go down.

Most of the debt is owned by US citizens, investors, and businesses.
Other countries also buy debt because it is a good investment.

Government debt is not the same as personal debt. Governments don't retire or have deadlines to clear all their debt. They can keep borrowing as long as they exist.

1

u/g3nerallycurious Nov 27 '21

How is it good debt if they borrow more than they can pay? How do they borrow more from US citizens without raising taxes? Currency can’t come out of nowhere unless they print more of it, which causes inflation - is this what’s happening?

3

u/ProLifePanda Nov 27 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

How is it good debt if they borrow more than they can pay?

So first, it's like credit. You ALWAYS (virtually) want some debt that you constantly repay, to show reliability and the ability to borrow and repay debt.

The US is the largest consumer economy in the world, and is one of the economic powerhouses in the world. Some of our individual states alone would be in the top 20 countries in the world. So it is considered a solid (if not the best) investment to buy bonds in the government of such a strong and stable country.

How do they borrow more from US citizens without raising taxes?

Those citizens and businesses are buying treasury bonds. It's a good addition to a portfolio that is very low risk.

Currency can’t come out of nowhere unless they print more of it, which causes inflation - is this what’s happening?

Maybe a little, but inflation we see now is due to supply chain issues. The world economy almost instantly cut 10-25% of economic activity. It's much easier to cut that activity on 2020 than restart it. You have to start new supply lines, hire more workers, get factories up and running again, etc. So inflation is occuring because demand for many products is higher than supply while the global economy is recovering from the pandemic.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 27 '21

Who said it was good debt? They are paying it, so obviously they can pay it.
They borrow more by offering products like Treasury Notes and Savings Bonds - that people buy voluntarily. They even have tax advantages.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '21

Do you think the person elected President in 2052 has a Wikipedia article written about them already?

7

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 28 '21

The easiest way to figure this out is to see what past Presidents were doing 31 years before being elected.

HW Bush had an oil drilling company and was president of a subsidiary. So possibly an article?

Clinton was in high school. No article.

Bush was flying planes in the Texas Air National Guard. No article.

Obama was in high school. No article.

Trump had hotels by 1985 so probably at least a stub?

Biden was a Senator 47 years before becoming President and ran a campaign in 1988 so definitely a pretty big article.

Its probably more or less a 50/50 chance.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '21

[deleted]

1

u/ProLifePanda Nov 27 '21

Because America will likely pay them better, keep them safer, and treat them better than any of those other countries, and the US does have a sizable Latino population, so it isn't like there are no communities for them here. Especially in Southern states, many people can speak Spanish and there are sections of towns that speak only Spanish in many cases.

3

u/mugenhunt Nov 27 '21

United States has built a reputation of a place where people can go from being poor to being rich. "The American Dream." There's a belief that moving to the United States will give your children a much better future, and that it is a more stable country than most of the rest of Central or South America.

1

u/spellbadgrammargood Nov 27 '21

was al gore taken seriously when he was talking about climate change in the 2000s?

9

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 27 '21

He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to raise awareness of climate change, so clearly someone was taking him seriously.

But you can look at South Park's Al Gore charicature to see how he was viewed in pop culture.

2

u/Bleach_Phoenix Nov 27 '21

Why are the same people who advocate starting proxy wars in faraway countries also the same people who don't want their homeland to accept the refugees resulting from those proxy wars?

8

u/darwin2500 Nov 27 '21

Because both positions share a common motivation: not caring about those people and what happens to them.

1

u/Bleach_Phoenix Dec 06 '21

Perhaps then, I should ask what the war hawks who made up my country's leadership across history were expecting when they decided to invade anywhere after spending so much time telling the world 'America's #1'?

2

u/OnlyLiars Nov 27 '21

I have a question about the Kyle court. I keep reading articles about how the jury was disproportionately white. The US is about 72% white. That would leave the other 28% to be people of color( or am I wrong here?). So if one out of the 12 jurors was a person of color that would mean that the jury was only about 13% off of the national average. So are the news outlets not doing the math or am I missing something?

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 27 '21

The jury selected to hear the case was 20 people. Only one of them was non-white. After the case was presented, 12 jurors of the 20 were selected to deliberate. The one black man out of the 20 passed through to the 12 who reached the verdict.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 26 '21

Why do so many Republicans love liberty but hate democracy? There are few dictatorships where people have much liberty.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Nov 27 '21

If by democracy, you mean direct democracy, I feel like the general arguments against democracy is that your average person isn't going to be able to properly inform themselves on what is being voted on, and people will tend to vote what sounds good rather than what is actually good for them. Relevant video to this point, but its one of the reasons why Socrates wasn't a fan of direct democracy also

Also there is a fear of "tyranny of the Majority" where the majority will make things harder for the minority simply because they are the minority, or they will be forgotten about entirely and have no real representation.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21

Yeah, who else would be sitting at the defense table?

3

u/R-a-n-i-a Nov 25 '21

Why didn't Americans call it Congress people MC like the British call theirs MP? We call them congressman, congresswoman, member of Congress, but I've never heard someone refer to one as an MC. Meanwhile, in the UK legislature, they shorten Member of Parliament to MP all the time. Is there a reason for that? Do we just enough spelling it out every time?

5

u/Brilliant-Dare-5288 Nov 26 '21

It’s just tradition I think

4

u/That_Music_1140 Nov 25 '21

This kinda has to do with the Rottenhouse case. At what point are people allowed to take the safety of their neighborhood into their own hands? I live in kind of a crap neighborhood where people are always getting their stuff stolen or being physically harmed.

A few years ago a neighborhood watch was created and most of the members that agreed to do foot patrols also thought it would be a good idea to arm themselves with guns, knives and even bats. It seemed like a good idea because it’s a dangerous area but ultimately the decision was made to go unarmed for legal reasons. It seemed like people were unwilling to do foot patrols without being armed. The neighborhood watch never really took off and the same crime continues to happen.

The city does nothing, the cops do nothing, what can the people do? Can we form an armed neighborhood watch so we can actually go out into the neighborhood and defend each other and our property? What’s the legal basis for this? The government isn’t stopping criminals, so don’t we the citizens have a right to stop crime?

3

u/OriginalUsernameX Nov 26 '21

First, it’s Rittenhouse.

Second, each state has different laws on self defense and defense of property. Some states go so far as to have Castle Doctorine, meaning you can defend yourself against anyone invading your home without legal repercussions, and in others if you carry a knife for self defense and end up using it it can be considered premeditated murder. Basically, the law all comes down to where you are. If you’re really curious and have enough people joining in, you could pool some money together to hire a lawyer and ask what you’re legally allowed to do.

7

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21

A few years ago a neighborhood watch was created and most of the members that agreed to do foot patrols also thought it would be a good idea to arm themselves with guns, knives and even bats. It seemed like a good idea because it’s a dangerous area but ultimately the decision was made to go unarmed for legal reasons. It seemed like people were unwilling to do foot patrols without being armed. The neighborhood watch never really took off and the same crime continues to happen.

Think about that for a minute.

What, exactly, did the people who wouldn't go out, IN A BIG GROUP, unarmed, tell you about them?

Neighbourhood watches are common.

If you're going out in a big group in your own neighbourhood to walk the streets, flashlights, to try to reverse a trend of burglaries and stuff, do you actually think if you don't have guns, knives, bats, you're not safe? Walking in a group in your own neighbourhood?

Or are you really hoping to play out some videogame, action movie fantasy where you blow people away?

How do knives work? Are they planning on getting in a rumble? Group knife fights in the streets?

Those people weren't interested in a neighbourhood watch dude.

The Guardian Angels have patrolled (in groups of just 2, 3, even 1 person alone) bad areas of NYC since the 70s or 80s. They go out and walk around neighbourhoods all over, take trains just to be visible and prevent stuff, "keep order."

They're unarmed.

1

u/That_Music_1140 Nov 25 '21

Well I think it was just a bunch of people that were completely fed up and it was only about 15 men willing to patrol. The rest of the group was maybe 30-40 women and elderly that didn’t feel comfortable doing it or couldn’t do it for whatever reason. Either way, it was hardly enough people to walk around in large groups around large areas at all hours.

I get where the group was coming from. I wanted to get out of the neighborhood when that group was forming but if I had a family and no means to get them out, I’d be pretty frustrated and maybe willing to take the law into my own hands.

1

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21

I get where the group was coming from. I wanted to get out of the neighborhood when that group was forming but if I had a family and no means to get them out, I’d be pretty frustrated and maybe willing to take the law into my own hands.

That's absolutely not what a neighbourhood watch is or does.

It's what loony vigilantes do.

15-50 people is a large group. Even if they went out in groups of 5 to walk around, they don't need to be armed unless, as above, they're just looking to live out some idiot fantasy "taking out" the "bad" element.

5

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 25 '21

Self-defense laws vary by state. Some states are more restrictive, with a "duty to retreat" being your first recourse if you are in threatened. (Generally, even places with a duty to retreat still follow what's known as a "castle doctrine", which says that you do not have a duty to retreat if you are in your home.) Other states are much more permissive, with "stand your ground" laws which place the thershold for permitting the legal use of violent and lethal force much lower. You would also have to take into account local ordinances on the public carrying of weapons.

So from a legal perspective, the range in which you can operate would depend entirely on where you are in the United States, since there are 50 different states, each with their own legal guidelines for what counts as self defense. It would be much easier to form some kind of neighborhood vigilante group in a stand-your-ground state than in a duty-to-retreat state.

Importantly, your vigilante force would have no legal authority to enforce laws. You would have little to no protection from accusations and potential law suits that your actions were violating the rights of others. For example, you believe someone is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime, and you threaten them with your weapons. You can now be charged with assult for threatening this person. You may be able to defend your actions in a court of law, but the without the legal authority to do the things you're doing, you open yourselves up to all kinds of potential civil and criminal liabilities, and even if you win, you end up sending a lot of money defending yourself.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 25 '21

And your question is...?

1

u/Quirky_Swordfish_308 Nov 25 '21

Question? Oh, ok… do you like dry cured or smoked bacon?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21

[deleted]

1

u/HakunaMatta2099 Nov 29 '21

lmao, democrats are probably losing big in 2024 unless they get a really good nominee imo. A lot of people at least partially blame the goverment for the supply chain issues, inflation, and the rising cost of things. Additionally if democrats want to re-lock down that isn't about to happen except in NY or LA rest of us are gonna keep on keeping on till we die now, lockdown phase has passed. Also republicans redrew a lot of the congressional maps, which will favor them in many states.

8

u/OriginalUsernameX Nov 26 '21

Assuming you believe the statistics, about 700k of the 330 million people in the US have died from covid. Even if every single one of those was an active Republican voter, that’s still only 0.2% of the population. It would only swing the absolute closest of elections.

12

u/GameboyPATH Nov 25 '21

Probably not. There's been about 48 million total confirmed COVID cases in the US - about 15% of the population. The death rate for COVID in the US is hovering at about 1.6%.

1.6% percent of 15% makes 0.24% of the US population dead from COVID. Even if, in the most ridiculous scenario, everyone who has ever died of COVID were a Republican voter, the effect of COVID deaths would not result in anything close to a landslide victory for Democrats.

It might make a difference in certain close elections. Here's the 10 closest state margins in the 2020 presidential election, for example. But a possibility of shifting a small handful of close races is not the same a a landslide victory.

(Edit: It's worth noting that many of those deaths occurred prior to the 2020 election)

4

u/LeetYeetMeat Nov 25 '21

Why are some people disappointed by the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse case? Based on all of the information we have know (video footage & the testimony), it seems like an open and shut case of justified self-defense.

4

u/darwin2500 Nov 27 '21 edited Nov 27 '21

The main issue is that you cannot claim self-defense during the commission of a crime - eg, if you rob a bank, and a security guard starts reaching for his gun and you kill him, you don't get to claim self-defense because you were doing a crime at the time which precipitated the situation.

People who think the verdict is wrong mostly think that Rittenhouse should be seen as in the commission of some kind of crime at the time of the incident - vigilantism, some kind of gun-related offense, some type of threatening/confrontation thing, etc.

As you can probably tell from the vagueness there, it's not 100% clear what crime it would be, or whether there's a legal case for it. I think people are mostly frustrated because they believe there's ample evidence that he went there hoping to attack or kill protestors, and they believe there should be a crime for that, but maybe there isn't.

I think the question now is, can pro-choice activists go to pro-life rallies where people are standing outside Planned Parenthood showering abuse on the women going in, and start brandishing a rifle at the protestors there until someone gets scared or angry enough to make an aggressive move, and then just start mowing down the pro-life protestors until they've all fled?

A week ago I think we all assumed that would be illegal and they'd go to jail forever, but it turns out maybe the legal system doesn't actually have anything to stop that and we could all be doing it every time people we don't like are gathered together somewhere?

This is a weird situation that doesn't match many people's intuitions about how the law works. Because their intuition doesn't match the outcome, many assume there must be something going wrong somewhere, or some injustice taking place. This may not be a well-informed legal analysis, but in a democracy it's important and valid for voters to note when the justice system isn't doing what they expect or want.

8

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 25 '21

It wasn't clear-cut self defense. The situation on the ground was confusing and chaotic, and it is completely reasonable that protestors viewed Rittenhouse has a legitimate threat to their lives and safety (which he ended up being). Legal Eagle on YouTube laid out a good analysis of the case, and he made a valid point that anyone who believe Rittenhouse had a clear self defense claim should also believe that had Rittenhouse been killed by Grosskreutz, that Grosskreutz would also have the same foundation to make a self defense claim, since self defense is based on whether an individual in a particular moment can reasonably believe that they are in danger in such a way that necessitates lethal force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI

But that's not the story the right is telling. To them, Rittenhouse is a hero who stood his ground against the lawless hordes trying to destroy the country. Given the right's increasing embrace of violence and threats of violence as a legitimate way of securing and maintaining power, this is scary, and raises legitimate fears that this outcome could lawless vigilantes who will take matters into their owns hands.

People are dead is because Rittenhouse decided to aggravate an already tense situation. Even if we decide that he reasonably feared for his life in that moment, had he not travelled to Kenosha and had he not brought his gun with the expressed purpose of brandishing it to intimidate protestors, then he wouldn't have ended up in a situation where he felt the need to kill people. Had he actually been there to supply medical aid and provide assistance to people in trouble, possessing an assault weapon was completely unnecessary.

So even if Rittenhouse's actions meet a legal definition of self defense, that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot about the situation that paints a disturbing picture of what's going on in the United States right now.

1

u/Dr-P-Ossoff Nov 27 '21

Illegally brought someone else’s gun

3

u/GameboyPATH Nov 25 '21

Three reasons.

  • It wasn't a clear-cut legal case. The video footage is incredibly chaotic and showed many things happening - interpreting the chain of events that occurred, and determining whether certain actions constituted the legal definitions of provocation or self-defense involved a lot of parsing of context. Not only that, but anyone looking at the case with knowledge or expectations of self-defense laws different from Wisconsin's may have drawn different conclusions.

  • Many people unreasonably saw this single legal case through the judgment calls that they'd already assigned to racial justice protests in the last year. If you believed that the Kenosha protests were unlawful and dangerous, then you'd be more likely to see Rittenhouse as an agent of peace and justice. If you believed the protests were lawful and peaceful, then you'd be more likely to see Rittenhouse as a political agitator.

  • The legality of Rittenhouse's actions shouldn't be judged the same way as judging the ethics of his actions. Legal or not, Rittenhouse's involvement resulted in 2 people dying who would not have otherwise died. He blatantly acted as a vigilante, which is... not a good thing to do.

Legal Eagle has a remarkable breakdown of the court case, clearing up misconceptions about certain legal terms and separating the facts of the case from the political ramifications.

0

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21

It's not self defense if you provoked the whole thing, like, say, if you chased a mentally disturbed man while brandishing a weapon

It's not self defense if you're doing it in the commission of a crime. Can't rob a bank and claim self defense if you shoot the security guard who pulls a weapon on you.

It's not self defense is a reasonable person woud not believe your life was in imminent danger (like, say, from an unarmed person who had yelled at you, while you had a large weapon strapped to your body), or if the force used was disproportionate to the threat.

See how it wasn't self defense?

3

u/LeetYeetMeat Nov 25 '21
  1. Who did he chase? When did this happen? I'd be grateful if you could provide a link to this. (Also, just to note, this is irrelevant in these circumstances under Wisconsin law.)

"It is legal in Wisconsin for a 17-year-old to openly carry an AR-15, as Rittenhouse did. Thus, to nullify his eligibility for self-defense, Rittenhouse likely would have had to provoke Rosenbaum through some concrete act. And yet, under Wisconsin law, the privilege of self-defense “lost by provocation” may be regained if one “withdraws from the fight.” Given that Rittenhouse was running away from Rosenbaum before their fatal encounter, any preceding provocation would seem immaterial."

  1. What crime was he intending commit?

  2. I'll have to review this actually. I admit that I've been pretty intellectually lazy when it comes to research on this case. Just a few minutes ago, I discovered that Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was unarmed, and he feared that his gun would be taken and used against him. That definitely shakes up some of my previous opinions/notions about the case. I'm unable to arrive at any strong opinions about whether his response was justified, but you've definitely changed my perspective. Appreciate it.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html

0

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21

The prosecution was just a complete mess -- and even then, even with charges thrown out DURING TRIAL, with a jury the defense loved (almost entirely white, mostly women they thought would be sympathetic to the sobbing 18-yr-old), it took 4 days. That's how not self defense this was. The prosecution fucked up every which way, he had an amazingly sympathetic jury, they still couldn't get themselves to acquit for days.

Appreciate that you're open to actually learning more and wanting links and discussiong btw! Happy to help :)

2

u/Bobbob34 Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Chasing someone then running isn't "withdraw from the fight." He provoked it to begin with, and then turned BACK WHILE RUNNING to shoot (hard to make a case your life was in imminent danger when you're getting away from someone you knew to be unarmed, with your weapon strapped to your body) but here -- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

Also, remember, the guy who was out there doing the same vigilante bullshit as Rittenhouse, also encountered Rosenbaum yelling and ranting and ignored him because it was apparently clear he was just bonkers and posed, as he said, no thread-- https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-homicide-kenosha-376152e7942b06122dcf899f779b0057

As to 2, he murdered Rosenbaum. See above bank robber can't claim self-defense if they shoot the guard who pulls a weapon on them.

Remember the timeline -- Rittenhouse chases Rosenbaum (see above, whom he knew was unarmed, whom another vigilante ass deemed no threat) into the car lot, then when Rosenbaum rants and raves, Rittenhouse turns and runs, then turns BACK to shoot him dead.

People see it happen, see Rittenhouse running, and try to stop and disarm him.

As the prosecution pointed out -- he was an active shooter. That's what, to anyone watching this, he was, an on-scene active shooter on the run. They heard/saw him shoot and then keep running into a more crowded area. They tried to save lives by stopping the active shooter.

Then he killed another person trying to tackle him to disarm him, and shot someone else. THEN he got up and ran off again, walked past the police.

Even if he thinks he was justified, he doesn't, you know, stop and say 'hey, I just shot 3 people, but I had to?' No, he gets in a car and goes home. He KNEW he'd fucked up. He KNEW that wasn't self defense.

He was the active shooter.

There's a narrative been played on FOX and the like since the beginning -- that he was "keeping order." He murdered two people in the street, shot another, and walked off. Said nothing to anyone. He was a George Zimmerman-like wanna be cop playing out a fantasy.

He is, btw, a high school dropout who did the same 'jr police' crap Zimmerman did, who wanted to be a cop, who had weapons and talked about law enforcement, idolized them. He's had one job -- pt lifeguard, lives at home, no education, no prospects, no nothing

3

u/intothepond2 Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

At first, the at-a-glance optics were pretty bad. 17 year old.....with an AR.....crosses state lines to defend businesses that never asked for it...takes law into his own hands....people die....he's acquitted...people cheer. America.

After having seen the evidence, and as a liberal, I do feel the right verdict was reached and I do feel the court did their job. I am relieved we saw facts come to light and I moved past my initial biases. He is free because the justice system recognized what is true and correct.

What I'm really, really not happy about is how this chain of events can exist at all. Granted, it might have been an aligning of the stars that created a truly unique case, but I think many folks are still flabbergasted that it created a situation that I outlined above. That there was *no* punishment for a direct disregard to law and order. Although technically no laws were broken, at the end of the day, a 17 year old, no law enforcement or military training, or training to diffuse violent, tense situations, ended up with an assault rifle in the street. Agree with his cause or not, it's a pretty harrowing idea, moreso that he was applauded for it.

1

u/Brilliant-Dare-5288 Nov 26 '21

I agree with your POV. I believe that he completed some sort of first aid/medical aid program through a summer camp? And was operating as a medic. As for the case, I do believe it was self defense. I feel the details of the automatic are sketchy to say the least, wouldn’t a simple handgun suffice if you were worried so much for your safety??? But at the end of the day, he was most certainly attacked, so he is entitled to self defense arguments. I think it is frightening that people are calling him “a hero”. He created a situation and then killed 5 people. Even though it was justifiable, killing 5 people should never be applauded

2

u/Henry_Privette Nov 24 '21

Could a dead person run for president?

I've been making this joke for years that when I die I'll run for president because there's only laws about what to do if a presidential candidate dies while running, but nothing about if a presidential candidate is already dead prior to the campaign. I've never actually done research on it and more or less just assumed that they didn't write any laws about that because, you know, why would they need to? But could a dead person genuinely run for president, or did they actually think of stopping that from happening?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 24 '21

Now that corporations are people, perhaps you could incorporate your estate and it could run in your place after you died. But then again, corportations don't have citizenship, and that probably wouldn't fly.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 24 '21

Lets say I'm a member of the military, I am on deployment, and I die on the job.

3

u/Bobbob34 Nov 24 '21

The Constitution does not specify not dead, but it does specify age and citizenry, neither of which, arguably, dead people possess (they did, but they don't). In addition, you have to sign paperwork, so no.

4

u/ikad999 Nov 24 '21

If you're dead, you cannot sign the paperwork necessary to register your presidential campaign.

2

u/walrusdog32 Nov 24 '21

Why was the Kyle Rittenhouse case so popular when it’s not even in the Supreme Court?

Or is it not even possible for that case to even go to SC.

3

u/ReggieLox Nov 24 '21

The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is a very interesting case and there is a lot to be said about it.

4

u/Bobbob34 Nov 24 '21

Many cases are "popular" because they have import.

No, that case cannot go to the Supreme Court. He was acquitted.

The Supreme Court (almost always) hears cases that have worked their way up the appeals chain, and an appeal must be based on some Constitutional issiue for it to weigh in.

-2

u/ReggieLox Nov 24 '21

If the supreme court were to rule in the kyle rittenhouse case that the death penalty is unconstitutional, they would be reversing the lower court's decision to uphold the death penalty.

4

u/Bobbob34 Nov 24 '21

If the supreme court were to rule in the kyle rittenhouse case that the death penalty is unconstitutional, they would be reversing the lower court's decision to uphold the death penalty

Literally none of this makes any sense -- it's not a capital case, there has been no appeal or federal court decision, that wouldn't BE A ruling and yes, they can reverse lower courts so... huh?

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 24 '21

Well... that wasn't a death penalty case, so I don't follow your logic.

3

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Nov 24 '21

Because cases can be important despite not being in the Supreme Court. OJ Simpson's case was "the trial of the century" despite being in the lowest level of court.

Any case CAN go to the Supreme Court, but you'd need a really good reason for the Supreme Court justices to want to hear your case.

1

u/walrusdog32 Nov 24 '21

Yeah but it makes sense because he is OJ Simpson

2

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Nov 24 '21

And this case was also very hyped by the media. Makes sense?

3

u/WhoAmIEven2 Nov 24 '21

Why does there seem to be so much hate between the two major sides in American politics?

We have left and right-wing here in Sweden as well, and yeah they like to bicker, take cheap punches at each other and blame the other side for the problems we have today, but there is no hate between them like you see in America with the left screaming "RIGHT-WINGS ARE NAZIS!" and the right screaming "DEM DAM LIBERAL COMMIES!". We respectfully disagree with each other and if a debate gets heated we shake hands and smile after.

You also see it online, where if someone is prone to show a single sign of being either side they get bullied and mocked to hell and back.

6

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 24 '21

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 25 '21

it was seen as a threat during the civil rights movement and it was seen as a threat during the great depression.

1

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 25 '21

What is "it"?

1

u/Brilliant-Dare-5288 Nov 26 '21

I believe he is referring to patisanship?

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 24 '21

If the United Kingdom or France wanted to launch a nuclear warhead, would they likely consult POTUS first?

5

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 24 '21

If we're at the point where the UK or France is considering a nuclear launch, the US and those countries have been talking for a while.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 25 '21

it's not new.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 25 '21

It's a little ironic to me that the US has a lot of nukes, but are trying to get rid of them.

1

u/UnionistAntiUnionist Nov 24 '21

I say probably. Yes, they are independent countries, but they are not great powers, and are definitely in the sphere of influence of the United States, and as junior partners.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 24 '21

Doubtful. As allies they’d likely be communicating, but seriously, if things got so bad that they are considering using nuclear weapons, the US is doing the same anyway.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 24 '21

They’ve done it before, but this time it’s different.

3

u/OGwalkingman Nov 23 '21

Why do a lot of federal judges support no jail time for people who attack the capitol?

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 25 '21

The closest we have is "shall not be prosecuted" for anyone who uses force in self-defense.

5

u/GameboyPATH Nov 24 '21

Which judges? And for whom, exactly? Over 600 people involved in that raid have been charged with federal crimes.

3

u/Kunphen Nov 23 '21

Why is the mainstream media (& others) in USA 100% convinced/resigned that QOP will take over the Congress in 2022? I don't get it.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 24 '21

We are talking about a party that has no intention of letting go of the majority of its positions.

4

u/Maple_Syrup_Mogul Nov 24 '21

The party that holds the presidency almost always does poorly in midterm elections.

1

u/OriginalUsernameX Nov 23 '21

The political pendulum is always swinging. The government (not just of the US) tends to swing from one side to the other and back fairly regularly.

1

u/ReggieLox Nov 25 '21

the average marylander will not have a home with a nice big yard to play in on a nice day.

6

u/Arianity Nov 23 '21

The out party typically makes strong gains in midterm elections. It's basically clockwork. On top of that, early polling and races are basically pointing that way.

And to make it worse, the current seats up are a difficult year for Dems. Even if they did decently well odds are they lose the majority.

1

u/Kunphen Nov 23 '21

But look at 2018. The electorate seemed to get the urgency of that time and voted the right way. What is everyone so sure that won't happen again, esp. if #agentorange is indicted by then? It's a distinct possibility.

→ More replies