You must log in or register to comment.
Tough guy
I swear he has such a punchable face.
I’m not touching him with my bare hands.
Can I have your turn then?
I’ll punch him for both of us - I work in the trades, I’m used to industrial strength hand cleaners.
He’ll kill you and become even more of a hero
I doubt he can squeeze a single orange on his own.
Did you forget the /s?
War crime worthy, ngl.
Remember when this tough guy got bullied on the internet?
He looks like a baby that just ate a lemon wedge for the first time.
So they call him Tampon Tim for having provided sanitary products? Do they think this is somehow insulting or belittling? I’d call myself that and act like it’s my superhero name any day. WTF kind of mindset are these people in?
He is going to stop the red wave.
Oh fucking bravo.
Isn’t red associated with communism in the USA? It just gets more confusing.
Yeah, but since 2000, it’s been the republican color. We were pretty over the whole communism thing at that moment in time.
Valid. It still confuses me regularly though, because I remember “the reds” to be the enemy of the USA.
Having said that, it’s probably true either way.
Removed by mod
Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. Granted I may not have a nuanced understanding of the economic system used by the Nazi party at that time.
Removed by mod
Red is the color of the Republican/Conservative party in the US
Free IUDs! Hell ya.
They hate women.
If you help women, you are worthy of scorn. You might as well be a woman if you like them so much, amirite?
He really should start calling himself that at events and interviews, they’ll all stop calling him that immediately.
Absolutely, just own up to it. Have the interviewers ask him why that’s become his nickname, he can share some background, maybe some anecdotes if he has any. Suddenly, Tampon Tim is a badge of honor.
Hopefully not a red-badge
i have been told that they are also available in the boys bathroom. Having feminine products placed the boys bathroom confuses / emasculates them.
The same group that removes their children from what limited sex education. Same guys that don’t wipe their ass because it is too gay
The relevant text of the law is
The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district.
so, I think “boys bathroom” only in the case where a school has trans-boy without puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Clearly a very edge case, but right-wing propaganda depends on blowing up rare events or special circumstances, pretending they’re happening everywhere, all the time, and therefore an immediate threat to the way their audience has always done things.
Remember when they were trying to say there was kitty litter boxes for the “Furry kids who identified as cats”
It was only in schools in one specific area, and in order to have a way for students to shit during a school shooting because they were THAT common
I think I can understand how it would be confusing to someone to have female sanitary products in a male bathroom at a school. I can understand that these people feel like this is part of what influences youth to develop a certain way, and they want to prevent this development at all costs.
But it is really hard to stomach that there are people who think the existence of a tampon in someone’s surrounding makes them question their gender, and removing the tampon restores order somehow.
I know if I were a kid, I’d just be confused but that’s about it. I mean, worst case scenario this is just an excuse for schools to double up on tampons and have more supplies for female students, a demographic that often has its needs ignored.
I can understand how that would be confusing to someone, but access to a place where you can change a child’s diaper, or get a necessary product for your daughter, should not be exclusive to places that are designated for women. Every conservative father should be able to relate to that. But I obviously am unable to relate myself.
I would imagine a conservative man does not deal with dirty diapers in public, possibly not in private either. The child would remain with the mother until toilet trained.
The general theme of the conservative meta is not understanding that others have needs different than their own.
That’s not the conversation, as I’ve heard it. The real rub is tampons in the boy’s bathrooms, in schools, for 4th graders through high schoolers. Not involving diaper change stations or grabbing necessary product for daughters.
Can someone PLEASE make a Tampon Tim shirt already??? I’m ready for the “FUCK Joe Biden” and “Say no to the ho” crowd to tell me my shirt is inappropriate around children.
I don’t think we should encourage stigmatizing periods
They never progressed or have regressed to a middle school mentality. Literally an insult a kid who just learned about and is skeeved by menstruation would use.
He should just take that name and run with it haha
Walz’s stance isn’t even that restrictive. He’s signed bills for better background checks, which is pretty reasonable. We have background checks for all kinds of other dangerous situations, its not a new concept or a difficult thing to pass. He’s signed a bill to remove guns from those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Is Rittenhouse implying here that he poses a danger to himself or the general public? If Walz’s policies should take the guns away from Rittenhouse then that’s what I get out of this. Kyle is acknowledging, even advertising, that he is a continued danger to those around him.
Walz owns guns. He’s a hunter. Trying to paint him as anti-gun is pretty silly.
My feelings does not care about your facts and logic. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Most things requiring background checks weren’t guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, so it’s not quite comparable.
The Bill of Rights literally says “well-regulated”.
The current laws are a violation of the constitution because they are clearly not well-regulated by any reasonable definition.
In context of the time period it merely meant that the militia, which was every able bodied man in the country, should be well supplied in arms and ammunition. Not that the government should “regulate” the militia like a military.
In context of the time period
The real source of the problem. If we had done regular updating of the Constitution like some of the Founders wanted we wouldn’t still be arguing over if 18th century phrasing still applies.
Honestly at this point, if somebody’s best criticism is something is “unconstitutional”, it’s tough to not question why their best defense is a 250 year old piece of paper that was never meant to be dogmatic.
Oh come on. Everyone gets a vote now. If you suppress someone’s vote, it’s unconstitutional.
14th, 1868
edit: or shit: 26th, 1971
14th, 1868
14th what?
Oh, you mean the 14th Amendment, as in the document can be updated and changed.
You act like human nature has changed. Crimes still occur and the right and ability to defend yourself and your property is still very much relevant. What is your opinion of the police? Do you trust them to come and protect you if someone breaks into your house, or do you expect them to come and shoot you?
I seem to read this as you thinking I’m not in favor of gun ownership, just because I suggest clarifying the main rule that gives that right that we still argue about its meaning today. If it was clearer, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I did think that since it’s a standard basis for arguing against the 2nd. The only issue with the language is people ignoring the separation between the justification of the right and the right itself. It doesn’t matter what they said the right was for, whether it be for self defense or a militia for defense of the nation. The right stands on its own as the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s a deliberate misinterpretation.
The real problem is enshrining so many explicit rights in the constitution to begin with. The American constitutional framers couldn’t have known better because they were so early to do it they didn’t really have a model to follow, but I think history has shown that it was an error.
When Australia came to framing its constitution over the last decade of the 19th century, they had the benefit of looking at all the countries that came before, and considered putting a bill of rights into the Australian constitution and made a deliberate decision not to. It’s better for the legislature to decide what’s right for the current conditions than to be stuck with trying to interpret some text from a century ago in a completely different context. We have the benefit of a much, much less politicised judiciary as a result.
Explicit isn’t so much a problem, but nuance.
Example: the right to free speech is explicit a good and pretty well irrevocable thing, however some constraints such as using a public space to promote hate, speech meant to cause mass panic or harm or similar abuses are not protected as an exception to the broad basic right.
A part of the issue with the second is the population is so fiercely militaristic (we make such a monument of our military as being the greatest of heros) and individualistic that people will twist the wording any way they like to claim they should have the right to a tank rather than to thin what is reasonable for the general population.
Then there are the folks thinking they can revolt against a tyrannical government armed with globe covering drones because they have 100 rifles in their basement, but those are more especially deluded exceptions.
In the context of the time period, it was a replacement for a standing army.
As we have one, then obviously that amendment no longer has any meaning then? So we should just remove it. Cool.
I’m more for disbanding the standing military than disarming the citizenry.
Why not both?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You do realize that there were private warships, correct? You act like these things were never allowed. They were allowed for those who could afford them. If you can afford a tank or a warthog go right ahead. Also maybe do a little research. There is no M15.
deleted by creator
And they helped us win conflicts. Private warships. Privateers. Cannons, and bombs, and gatling guns in private hands with no issue until people like Reagan got afraid of the blacks and started cracking down on inner cities.
How many gun owners are part of a militia?
Every single one.
plus trained and disciplined. Not just supplied, able.
That was the reason for the right, not a command.
lol
Yeah, i want his guns taken away.
Why? Apparently he’s an american hero.
not anymore lol, he said one thing they didn’t like and immediately became a target of transvestigations. the same people who called him a hero now call him a transgender psyop trying to hurt maga. fucking perfect.
Oh no. He’d be a cute chubby girl tho.
Honestly, regardless of how whiny he is, one tweet does not a consensus make. It’s extremely tiring to see people claim that some huge majority thing something because a few psychos on twitter said something stupid.
Huh? Where are you getting this from?
He’s confusing Americans with Muricans.
Makes sense, that does happen a lot.
He really is an American hero. Here is the evidence for that claim.
deleted by creator
…the news?
Hardly.
Weird thing to say to a retired command sergeant major. I bet he didn’t even intentionally cross state lines to murder someone either.
I’m Australian so being an english speaker on the internet I have an opinion on American politics because no matter how hard I try to escape it I cant. So if I have to hear about it incessantly Im going to keep throwing my half informed opinion in.
But FUCK ME is the Harris/Walz ticket well thought out. You have a sitting Dem VP who is female and a POC with a history of being “tough on crime” and a male white late middle aged former high ranking NCO veteran with a history of some super liberal policies in his midwestern home state…
The big, glaring thing they missed is that nobody really likes Harris. She did poorly in the primaries, had a terrible approval rating as VP, and her platform is basically Biden’s, and he had a pretty low approval rating as well. She has “diversity hire” written all over her.
That said, she ticks a lot of boxes and Americans tend to have pretty short memories, so I think she has a fighting chance. If she had a stronger campaign when she ran for President, she’d be a lock-in. I think she needs to sound like Obama to win the election.
We are witnessing an idiot’s grift. There is no other place in the world for a Rittenhouse other than prison.
I mean, absolutely fuck Rittenhouse to death, but isn’t it pretty likely that a retired sergeant major DID in fact cross state lines to murder?
But that’s legal murder. Wait, they both committed legal murder then. Nevermind
MAYBE we just don’t kill at all? I don’t know, I’m just spitballing.
It’s not murder when it’s Desert Storm
he’s so desperate to become relevant
Getting a real job is yucky and un-american
He’s has 2 civil lawsuits pending against him. Depending on the outcome, whatever assets he has may be taken away and wages garnished for the rest of his life.
He was relevant there for a hot minute when he spoke out against Trump, but now he’s doing whatever he can to get back in MAGA’s good graces.
Being relevant justifies his killings. He needs to feel relevant because without it he’s just someone who killed people, and that’s a much heavier weight to carry. Poor guy is going to have to live the rest of his life being a murderer that nobody likes, waaah 😭
Honestly I think he’s just trying to roll his notoriety, fame into easy money & a cushy career. His conscience is clear. This is about money. Occam’s razor.
He’s absolutely building a portfolio to eventually become a regular guest on Fox.
relevance is overrated
Removed by mod
He’s allowed to kill again.
deleted by creator
Wrong person survived that night
The guy he shot was a pedo. - and a felon*?
Edit : Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out. https://apnews.com/article/shootings-gun-politics-58c52e6d36475b5e7cd79ccaeffb5416
“If you don’t agree with the extrajudicial execution of a person by an 18-year old dipshit, you’re a pedophile”
Seriously, put some attempt in please. That is just fucking lazy
Not what I said. The things I said were two different statements. Don’t come at me cause you’ve got small skeletons in your closet.
That’s a joke.
You’re right, what I meant was the guy deserves some sympathy because he’s dead. The guy does not deserve sympathy based on his previous actions, AND he tried to kill some kid.
Kyle is objectively in the right here, but he shouldn’t have been where he was, doing what he was doing. Fuck Kyle. I’m not condoning him.
Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.
You’re trying to claim ^ that doesn’t clearly imply that people who downvoted your comment were “probably pedos”?
Eh. Is this really worth the effort? For either of us?
I like forums. If you don’t, then don’t use them.
Especially don’t use them if you don’t have the moxy to stand behind your own words. Word’s which you said. Which go like this:
Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out.
You’re trying to walk back the thing you now realise was pretty silly to wrote down. So youre trying to ignore your bs while still replying something.
You directly implied people who disagree with you are pedophiles. What an intellectual take.
Yea you said that part already cause it’s what I said. By that logic if you are disagreeing that this isn’t worth the time to keep going back and forth about youre probably a pedophile.
I like forums too 🙂. I also realIze what I said was fucking weird and back tracked a bit. If you let this go, I’m sure your experience here will be ever so slightly less negative. There’s plenty of other things to be doing on Lemmy then arguing with someone who’s joke didn’t land for you specifically.
It would be entirely easier to call me a dick out loud, chuckle at how much better you are for thinking a different opinion and moving on.
I am willing to bet kyle is one too.
deleted by creator
Hey, Trump is both of those things too, per courts of law. You must be pretty broken up he survived the attempt, huh?
I’m voting for Harris…
Whether the person he shot was a convicted or suspected felon is absolutely irrelevant, vigilante justice is no justice at all, not to mention that he had no way of knowing anything about the people he shot.
That said, I absolutely believe all three were legitimate self-defense. The problem here isn’t that he shot people in self-defense, but that he was a minor in possession of a firearm. Anyone who enabled him to bring that firearm to Kenosha should be held responsible (if they haven’t already).
I agree with all of your points.
So you admit he was fighting for his life?
What a ridiculous thing to say. They didn’t insinuate that in any way.
The other gun would disagree with the validity of that.
Why did he cross state lines with a weapon after threatening violence?
Because it’s not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.
And what “shit” was he doing there?
Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.
He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.
If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…
And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
Don’t fuck around if you don’t want to find out.
It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.
HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!
Why weren’t you in the trial, out of curiosity? I’d have thought they’d be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering…
https://heavy.com/news/gaige-grosskreutz/
I didn’t remember it perfectly, but certainly a lot that is ignored by those who hate Rittenhouse. I was mistaken when I said the guy with the handgun is a felon. He WAS a felon and seems like an all around piece of shit, but his felony was expunged so he was legally allowed to possess a firearm. He did have a loaded handgun in his hand when approaching Kyle though.
Dude. He was found not guilty. If there was evidence of him being there for no reason other than to kill somebody then I’m sure he would have been convicted. I remember fairly well that he retreated but got attacked by a guy trying to hit him in the head with a skateboard (weapon) and shooting the arm of a felon brandishing a handgun at him.
I’m sure Kyle is glad you’re out here white-knighting for him.
Whatever you say bro.
What is like to simp for a useless little rightwing murderer?
…I think he’s saying he wished Rittenhouse was dead. Since he was the survivor.
He looks like such a soft, little cupcake. Why do all these new Republicans look like they’re wearing guyliner?
Nothing wrong with that BTW, just noticing a trend. Are they not getting enough sunlight in the closet?
Have you not seen how their leader looks? He’s a pudgy bag of fat, and malice.
One can only pound so many McDonald cheeseburgers in accordance with their identity before it begins to have an effect.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Tampon Tim will stop the red wave.
Imaginary fights in their head. What a sad life.
Imagine just living like this and fuming.
Not imaginary for this removed. He crossed state lines to commit murder.
He figured he already got away with three murders, he can do it again.
Secret Service, arrest this… I will not call him a man…
His Hitler hairdo is making me feel ill.
Phew, for a minute there I lost myself.
Hey, Tampon? Tim?
Yeah, to me it reads like wee Kyle was just being polite and offering Tim Walz some of it’s spare feminine hygiene products.
It’s really sad to me that one of the most powerful tools in the republican campaign’s arsenal is juvenile nicknames for their opponents. An actual Trump campaigning innovation: Lying Ted, crooked Hillary, sleepy Joe, etc. And it works. Like really, really well.
Turns out many voters are swayed by elementary school level debate tactics.
That makes sense though, given how many voters have an elementary school level maturity and education.
Any voter that stupid is no longer a voter, they are a drone. There’s no choice in the vote, they are reacting to basic stimulus, like a pillbug avoiding light.
It seems like only one party wants and creates drones.
It’s not sad. It’s by design.
Same thing as “orange man bad”. It takes away critical thinking and simplifies the issue for their little brain.
#ComeAndTakeWhatExactly
#WhatDidTimTakeFromYou
that is not what i thought the hashtag/pound was used for
“Come and take it” is a pretty standard gun nut refrain. So he did actually use that hashtag correctly.
Except that nobody wants to take his stupid gun. Very reputable for whipping up ammosexuals though.
Rittenhouse is a murderer.
Threatening to kill again
Disagree, all three counts were legitimate self-defense. Two people tried to grab his gun, and a third pointed a gun at him, and each of those are clear-cut cases of self-defense.
The real issue here is that he shouldn’t have been there with a rifle in the first place. But if you have a firearm and someone tries to grab it, it’s your responsibility to maintain control of that firearm. I don’t think he is a murderer, but he was (and probably still is) an irresponsible kid who shouldn’t have unsupervised possession of a firearm.
He went there looking for an excuse to commit self defense. He’s a fucking murderer.
Again, putting yourself into a dangerous situation isn’t a crime.
I don’t think he’s a good person and he’s certainly not a hero, but I also don’t think he’s a murderer. He’s a minor who should not have been armed in that situation. But once he was in that situation, his actions were justified self-defense.
Again, putting yourself into a dangerous situation isn’t a crime.
Going there with the intention of killing people is. Which Rittenhouse did.
You can’t pre-meditate self-defense. You can go somewhere with the expectation that you’ll need to defend yourself, which is dumb, but not a crime. Planning to hurt someone is very different from trying to put yourself into a situation where hurting someone would be justified. The first is a crime, the second is just being stupid.
For example, look at those people who do 1st amendment “audits” who basically go to places where they know the police would be called with the hope that the police will violate their rights (e.g. filming at a police station). That’s not a crime, but it’s usually a waste of time, but it sometimes provides a valuable service if it creates a situation where bad cops break the law on camera and get held accountable. But whether it provides a valuable service or not isn’t particularly relevant here, what’s relevant is that it’s not a crime.
And that’s what happens here. Kyle Rittenhouse is one of my least favorite types of people, but I firmly believe that he was justified in using his firearm in self-defense. That doesn’t make him a hero or even a good person (I think he’s a terrible person), but it does mean he’s not a murderer. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person, and his actions were lawful self-defense.
You can’t pre-meditate self-defense.
Of course you can. You just go somewhere intending to get in a fight and kill your opponent.
Which is what Rittenhouse did.
Sure, but he didn’t start the fight, he just placed himself into a position where a fight was likely to occur. If you start a fight (e.g. with fighting words), then you can be charged with a crime, potentially murder. That doesn’t seem to be the case, so just placing yourself into a tense situation with the hope that someone else will initiate isn’t a crime in itself.
