It’s always the “hilariously wrong” people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding.

About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it.

If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help?

Because you think they are going to shoot someone else.

everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1

I don’t think they’re 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land.

He’s very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd.

And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe “you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people”?

If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there’s a pretty high chance they’ll shoot at you.

And if you believe there’s a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it’s legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law.

I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I’m saying it’s really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn’t even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so.

Whatever his “real” reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse’s presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home.
The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up.

“he didn’t mean it” is not a legal or moral defense.

If someone’s officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from “You say X when it was actually Y because…” than in saying “You claim X, so let’s assume X is true…”

I’m not going to argue with you about his “true” reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let’s meet in the middle at Rittenhouse’s stated reason. His official reason was “to defend property” which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches.

As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine.

I don’t know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn’t even his.)

He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives).

With Invisibility and Phasing you don’t need to pick Super Rich.

Okay, so we have SpoonBlade, but where’s the Fork?

Or A

Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.

So, 2 main responses to that:

1. Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).

2. Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
   See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.

(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)

This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say “Strawman” and act like you’ve achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.

You’re not being very clear here.

1. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.

2. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?

But it would serve as an effective distraction from the penis.

1. why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in “self defense” is vigilantism.

2. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their “life threatened for no reason” and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse’s situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?

Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he’s been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system.

His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests).

Rittenhouse

Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives.

“Property is more valuable than human lives.”
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…