RITTENHOUSE Verdict unleashes CELEBRATIONS, on the RIGHT

Of course not.

A reasonable conclusion. Rittenhouse's actions were consistent with that objective.

Not that you would disagree, but Rittenhouse had every legal right to be there, period. Given how Rittenhouse acted that night, I see no reason to believe he would have used his weapon if he had not been assaulted.

I'd like us all to agree that there is no justification for looting, arson, or attacking police or others because of anger over perceived or actual injustices.

 

We disagree.

 

Exactly. This is was bothers me, why so much support from BLM and the dems? Why do they support and defend the thugs who took their supposedly mostly peaceful protest, and turn it into three destructive nights of arson, looting and destruction? The news media and others seem to be protective of the thugs who were chasing and attacking Rittenhouse. Even BLM is sympathetic for Rosenbaum, a pedophile who seemed to be taking part in the arson that night,and screaming racial slurs and threatening to kill Rittenhouse and his crew.

 

Needs to go back the way it was. Less not more governing needs to be done out of DC.

 

It changed the senate from a federalist body of the Congress that directly represented the state governments, and turned it into a pseudo extension of the people's house.

Agreed. We need the states to have a voice in what goes on. Instead we have Senators who will actively vote in opposition to what the state's desires, in direct opposition to federalism

 

No problem, I have done that before, and felt really silly.

 

I think it would have worked better without political parties. We don't have an august body taking a long look at legislation, but instead a body focused on partisan politics. Case-in-point ... then Senate Minority Leader McConnell expressing his dedication to using the Senate to defeat President Obama.

 

I suggest you take a look at the stability of countries employing the British parliamentary system. Majority governments are extremely powerful.

 

You have this because of direct election of senators. They have to rep constituencies of the great unwashed, instead of their own state's legislators. This means they have to act in ways the great unwashed find most pleasing as they are not insulated from their whimsy at the voting booth.

 

You're right: the initial goal of giving each of the States 2 votes has been deflected, and rightly so, imho.

However, I have yet to read a convincing justification in favor of the undemocratic and outdated rule that awards each of the States the same number of senators, whatever their population, as if the individual citizen of 1 State was worth more than that of its neighbor.

 

The usual comeback is that some states engaged in bitter in-fighting and sometimes took months to actually send both senators to Congress. IMHO that is the state's problem, if they do not want to be represented, it only affects them.

 

Senators represent states, not people.

 

They were originally appointed by the state, not voted in.

 

Yes, and . . . ?

 

I think turning it into a vote was a mistake but don’t know the rational behind it. I haven’t studied it.

 

It really doesn't matter. Senators still represent states.

 

Yes but I think they being elected has some confused.

 

So it would seem.

 

Well we can blame that on the lack of civics education. It appears many here lack that education.

 

Turning our Senate into a Majority vote chamber would not transform it into a British Type Parliamentary System, thus it would be an apples to oranges comparison would it not?

I guess that you must be arguing for a Parliamentary system. I was merely arguing for the contemplative rules of the Senate within the US System.

 

It’s sad and scary that we have to celebrate rule of law being upheld. It is a bad sign, it’s as if any day now, the justice system will be replaced by court of public opinion, media and politicians trying cases and convicting publicly. Man, in can see why the celebration, clinging to what we have today, knowing it may disappear any minute and succumb to mob like rule

 

Too many are intimidated by those with extreme views and actions.

Some of the news media. We have dishonest coverage of events by different media outlets depending on the attitudes of their viewers toward what's happening. Critical Race Theory is not taught in public schools, nor are teachers telling white students they should be ashamed of being white. Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself while engaged in lawful activity. So why does Fox News defend the first lie and CNN, MSNBC, etc. defend the second? Simple: $$$. Their viewers turn away if they don't hear news confirming their bias.

They decided he was on their side. They applied the same logic some rightwingers use to defend the criminals who invaded the Capitol building.

Rosenbaum was acting like the criminal he was. He may have seen a baby-faced Kyle Rittenhouse as someone he could attack with impunity, his last, fatal mistake.

 

"Less" (not none) makes sense. There are some things only the feds have enough money or authority to make happen.

 

A bad sign, indeed.

My question to those on the extremes of either side: if you don't like this system, what do you propose as its replacement?