Being a political prisoner is not mutually exclusive from having committed a crime. Like I said, it was the way they went after him, even while they were hesitant to charge him with the crime for political reasons.

Okay, get back on topic, losers and aliases.

My guess is that the Lamplighter alias thinks it's being less confrontational by referring to "your alias" rather than "you", but it just comes across as extremely passive-aggressive trolling.

It's about damn time. The way they went after Assange was a fiasco that backfired badly.

History will record him as a political prisoner.

"Dylan Mulvaney never posted about violence or pedophilia."

This is true, but Dylan did post a lot of stuff that came across as misogynist trolling, which also isn't cool, especially when one is promoting oneself as a spokesman for gender tolerance.

"effects"

Affects.

#5- Comey don't play that.

"Lol. Another right wing moron who knows more than the experts"

LOL at politicizing proper English and grammar and painting yourself as an illiterate moron.

TOGNIAGN.

"less and less people"

!!!

Fewer.

I don't agree with promoting illiteracy.

And that's the last word.

"The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender"

These were both being used prefixes, as you can see. Although even then, they're being used incorrectly as adjectives when the base of the word is a noun.

Any dictionary which lists "literally" as meaning the exact opposite of literally has zero credibility.

Any dictionary which promotes illiteracy is not a real dictionary.

Nope. Neither are real words in English. Trans is a prefix, which means "across" something when combined with something. It's not a real word by itself.

This wouldn't even be an issue if genders weren't segregated in the first place and no one had to wear clothes unless it was under 60 F.

"Trans is their new N-Word."

Ironic because neither one of those are real words.

"I don't support anyone's attempt to murder anyone."

All your comments in this thread belie that claim.

Testimony by third parties clearly established that it could be reasonably inferred that Rosenbaum was attempting to kill Rittenhouse when he grabbed his gun. So there's only two possibilities here: either you think Rosenbaum was justified in his attack and Rittenhouse didn't have the right to defend himself against that, or you're ignoring the relevant facts in the case because you're a dishonest troll like Snoofy and Reinheit often are on this board.

Yeah, you are, because you don't have an honest take. If it wasn't for his political views, you wouldn't support Rosenbaum's attempted murder of him nor the subsequent mob violence, in which people became angry and violent in the same way others did based on hearsay and rumors during lynchings.

Retort users should take note... some of your posts may come back to haunt you if you ever decide to become a "trans" influencer.

They should go back to the original meaning of gymnasium.

"Okay. Tell us about the facts that were excluded by the judge."

Fine, let's talk about that. A few weeks earlier, Rittenhouse shot his mouth off about a video he saw of some looters at a CVS. If he had actually shot rounds off at random looters, then that likely would have been admissible as evidence, but since he never did anything like that it was irrelevant to the charges against him, just like Rosenbaum's and Huber's past bad behavior was irrelevant and was excluded by the judge when the defense wanted to bring it up.

"88%"

Ironic.

No matter how much of POS Rittenhouse might be, the lying trolls in this thread proven themselves to be bigger ones.

"Thanks Grandpa, we can all read wikipedia. "

Obviously you haven't.

A case could also be made that Ziminski is culpable for Huber's death and Grosskreuz's maiming.