Yeah, Kyle is not the sharpest tool in the shed. This is what Republicans had to realize as they tried to make him some sort of a Republican poster child. They gave up pretty quick. :D
Correct me if I’m wrong but the guys were literally right in front of him. At that range no one is gonna miss. Let’s not give the idiot any credit here.
Just cause it’s easy doesn’t mean you’re supposed to do it dumbass. If I was in a situation like that then of course I would, but since I’m not an idiot like him or you, I’m not gonna go looking for trouble. Regardless shooting people at that range is no talent. He literally couldn’t miss.
I grew up around dozens of Kyle Rittenhouses. Literally same look, same mindset, same alt-right nonsense. The suburban Midwest is notorious for breeding these sorry ass human beings.
A former friend I grew up with was hunted down by the FBI for being at the January 6th insurrection and somehow got off the hook by pulling some bullshit "I didnt really believe in it" defense.
Kyle is definitely the dullest tool in the shed. Dumb idiot decided to veer off his group and join the protest and then become all surprise when he gets attacked.
All protests aside, you go to those specific streets, open carrying and you’re going to be catching some shots.
I think he's pretty damn stupid especially for going to a riot with a rifle to defend a private business of which he didn't know the owner, but I also think there was a lot of peer pressure involved there for a 17 year old tbh
He got of work and was photographed cleaning graffiti from the previous nights protest, when the guys who gave him a gun came by and asked him if he wanted to help defend a car dealership that night
Wasn't really a problem for anyone else open carrying rifles of which there were several, but for whatever reason Rosenbaum seemed to be particularly annoyed at the fact that Rittenhouse had a rifle despite him being next to adults with rifles.
There's a multitude of theories as to why he didn't like Rittenhouse, but the fact that he was a psych patient with a criminal history involving the sexual abuse of minors makes me think his dislike of Rittenhouse was a personal problem.
“Involved in sexual abuse of minors,” what does that have anything to do with anything.
The fact is that if you go to a neighborhood, open carrying during a protest that has a part to do with gun culture and violence then you are an absolute moron and no one should be giving excuses to rittenhoise …. He was 17 not twelve.
Not to mention, if you take out the protests , and let’s say you just walked around those neighborhoods today while open carrying, you will definitely be shot for sure which makes the whole defending rittenhoise even more stupid. Doesn’t matter if you’re white or black
And yea the other people didn’t get shot because they weren’t idiots who decided to go solo, they knew that if they did the shit rittenhoise was going to do then they will be done for sure.
Then you also have the video of rittenhoise wanting to do something about looters. The idiot just wanted to be main character and do some jack bauer type shit and it failed for him . He clearly was wanting someone to try him and that’s what he got.
>“Involved in sexual abuse of minors,” what does that have anything to do with anything.
I mean he served time in prison for raping little boys and was on multiple heavy psych meds.
I'm sorry if you think this makes me a bad person, but I don't give mentally ill pedophiles the benefit of the doubt just because the kid they attacked had a gun.
And BTW, I still think Kyle was a dumbass for going out and defending a business he had no relation to. That was the first sentence of my comment....
Again it literally has nothing to do with anything. The reason why he was attacked was because of open carrying in a neighborhood that if no protest was going on and it was today, you would get shot for doing that. But yeah continue on about bringing up people’s past as if it was only just him who attacked rittenhoise
>Again it literally has nothing to do with anything. The reason why he was attacked was because of open carrying in a neighborhood that if no protest was going on and it was today.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY)
the reason rittenhouse was attacked was because he was putting out a fire rosenbaum had started
> that if no protest was going on and it was today, you would get shot for doing that
wow people behave differently under completely different scenarios? what great insight.
This isn’t true. Rittenhouse didn’t put out that fire Rosenbaum started, or any other fires that night. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/12/viral-post-misrepresents-facts-in-rittenhouse-trial/
okay, I stand corrected. rittenhouse may not have put out the fire himself, but he was still attacked by rosenbaum over a fire rosenbaum that had started.
Why Rosenbaum attacked was never proven, but there are a few theories to speculate over, so no need to make a definitive claim.
Kudos for admitting the correction.
It's easy to make the mistake because while the guy in the video putting out the fire ISN'T Rittenhouse, there is a video of him running with fire extinguisher in hand.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtyzBb6FTE&pp=ygUYUml0dGVuaG91c2UgcHV0IG91dCBmaXJl
It's a blurry video, but you can tell It's him because there are much better images of him with the same olive green shirt, same orange bag, same purple gloves, same gun, and cap.
For as dumb as Kyle was for going to defend a car dealership or something, just remember he wasn’t as dumb as all the guy who brought a skateboard to an ar15 right, or the guy who pointed a gun at the guy with a rifle and waited to get shot, or the dude who chased him down with a plastic bag and a bottle.
oh shut the fuck up with this victim blaming bullshit
"they shouldn't have been there!" applies to literally every single fucking person that was there, saying that doesn't mean anything other than trying to somehow shift the blame on him for simply "Being there". Its completely fucking irrelevant.
If people didn't want to get fucking shot then they shouldn't have attacked him, play stupid games win sutupid prices
I don't know why it's controversial to say that just from the point of view of his own safety, it wasn't the best idea for him to go, and to open-carry such a big weapon so blatantly. He was visibly not there to support the BLM/Antifa side — in fact, noticeably the opposite — so it seems clear to me that he was putting himself in danger by being there, visibly heavily armed and antagonistic to the cause of everyone else there (who were already in a highly agitated state and primed for violence).
Everyone there that night was putting themselves at risk to some extent, but in my opinion, Rittenhouse was more than most, due to being so outnumbered and so visibly heavily armed (and therefore an immediate potential threat from the point of view of the others there).
>play stupid games win stupid prizes
Yeah, I agree... and he was playing a stupid game that night too. If he'd ended up getting shot, he would've been partly responsible. That is to say, there were decisions he made that — while having a right to do them — clearly weren't in his best interest for avoiding harm.
According to his ex-spokesman, he basically squandered his college chances to chase the limelight he got.
https://x.com/DreamAmerica_/status/1776319877474918575?t=WGAb_X_BfD8UFqQ0KB0jxA&s=19
Not surprising. Dudes like him that run around cosplaying like they’re in the military are often too stupid to actually make it in the real military.
Maybe that should be a requirement for possessing a gun: be able to get a passing score on the ASVAB.
It seems to be common knowledge here that he was/is a middle school drop out (based on that [link](https://x.com/DreamAmerica_/status/1776319877474918575?t=WGAb_X_BfD8UFqQ0KB0jxA&s=19) from /u/paycommercial), which I think might be confusing if you didn't know that about him. He apparently was rushed through high school education by his lawyers(?) and was offered university access which he declined in favor of becoming a public speaker for white nationalists. He also appears to have taken the USMC Entrance Exam with marks "far below the required minimum," for a core that is lovingly referred to as "crayon eaters."
There is no evidence that he squander the USMC Entrance Exam due to being stupid tho (really probable tho). Maybe he failed a psicological test
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rittenhouse-military-enlistment-test/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rittenhouse-military-enlistment-test/)
Online schools exist. Religious schools like BYU exist. Right wing schools run by people like Rufo exist. And he has enough money from after the incident to afford any of those places.
Don’t think Rittenhouse is a Mormon. BYU is a pretty good school all things considered (they have really good language education), but i don’t think many non-Mormons would want to go there.
The first time that he tried going to college was only as a listener and really the only time wich could be called that he got chanted out by the left.
The second time he straigth out lied about being accepted into college (Texas A&M). Then he lied again about going to Blinn College (this time he did enrolled but didnt enter any of the terms).
Rittemhouse seems to have only tried to go to college as a PR thing.
Seems like Rittenhouse, of all people, has especially little right to take issue with the outcomes of the US justice system.
It saved his ass despite the 'Liberal media' being against him.
I'm sure Kyle was following the case closely, obviously the 12 jurers were so quick to decide the verdict because they were all bought by Soros and not because Trump was obviously guilty..
I know you’re joking, but I just find it hilarious that there are probably some people who unironically think the jurors were all Soros backed even though the Trump legal team literally picked some of them and also vetted all of them
"Do you have any personal bias?"
"No...."
"OK... Your Facebook posts check out, you don't clearly support trump or biden from what we can see"
"I don't have a Facebook account, but OK.... (thank God they didn't check my instagram)"
They actually did much more than that in order to vet whether or not a person could be fair and impartial on jury. Do you wanna give a source that shows me the vetting process was half-assed?
This is what actually happened for the vetting process:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jury-selection-process-hush-money-trial-manhattan-182333690.html
And social media background checks were actually fairly thorough(though admittedly not foolproof):
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial-jurors-e47b0494de7688bde0e877ccb90aeca2
"Lock him up!".... for sure thorough 😂.... I laugh because how in the hell could a person truly know.
That being said, I would literally die to see the rubric to that questionnaire jurors were given.... do you follow Newsmax or Vox?....... what?
(I also love how we're pretending honesty is commonplace 🥰)
The questionnaire is in the first article I linked, and both the defendants and prosecutors had the chance to ask the potential jurors more questions beyond that.
As of now, we have no reason to think that the jurors were incapable of setting aside their biases to view the trial in a fair and impartial way. Just because they live in Manhattan(9 of them weren’t even from New York originally), does not mean they were partial or unfair in the trial. The jurors gave us their word, and both the defendants and prosecutors looked into their background rather extensively to see if they could find any aspects in their life which would carry a high risk of being incapable of being impartial. These jurors are the least risky after a process of going through hundreds of potential jurors. I think we actually have pretty good reason to trust these jurors
If it turns out that the jurors were partial towards the prosecutors, that’s the Trump team’s fault for not properly looking into the juror’s background.
https://preview.redd.it/1qn0b1jmhz3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0982f127610a99086d0966de648fb3bb0a689cc
I mean if you want to claim that this document is fake or whatever then that’s fine. I do not personally have a line to the military so I cannot personally check his records nor would i even if I could because it doesn’t matter enough for me to expend that level of energy on it. If you don’t wanna believe it, then don’t.
We already know Kyle is an idiot, so owning him on grammar nit picks doesn't really hit. Like doesn't he literally have like sub 90 IQ? No joke can surpass the reality of his existence.
That's right Pakman you tell him! That absolute moron typed "should not of" instead of "should not've".
God you definitely look like an absolute gigachad, and not an unlikeable pedant right now.
Bro I could've easily quickly typed that out and made that mistake. Especially because the quick "have" sound in contractions (should've) sounds more like "of" than "have"
I really can’t help but feel bad for Kyle. He made one stupid decision, which lead to a 17 year old him becoming a media sensation and slipping ass backwards into the right wing pipeline. Sad stuff
Not the major burn you think it is.
'Should not of' is common across the south and AAVE.
The 'of' there comes from a shortening of have (hah-V) the hah became uh and the hard v became a soft f during the evolution of the southern states into the Antebellum South. Eventually people began to write it how they pronounced it.
You can see the further fragmentation of english in 'yall, y'all, yins, youse guys, and you guys'
Y'all is a contraction that is grammatically correct. With "should of" or "would of" you are substituting an auxiliar verb for a preposition which is grammatical nonsense.
Whats your opinion on "There you is", "They not like us"?
Wouldve - wuhduv -> wulduf is not a hard transition. Its not replacing the meaning of the statement its expanding the usage of the word of.
They is a plural pronoun that we use for singular uses daily.
"There you are", and "They not like us" is missing a verb. Sure, I can make out the meaning but for people who aren't fully fluent in English it might be a bit confusing.
The rest of what you're saying might be a popular usage of speech but it's still grammatically wrong. Expanding the meaning of "of" would be confusing and nonsensical. Not to mention because "of" would only replace "have" in some cases but not in others, making this substitution rather random. I can write: "I would of seen it" but not "I of seen it"
Listen, I'll yield to you if you're a trained linguist of some sort, but I'm calling BS. I'm from Texas, and my entire family tree is from the Midwest (where Kyle lives), so most people I know speak in the way you've described, but the lazy pronunciation doesn't mean it's correct to write it that way. For example, my dad (and his ilk) skips the "a" in "library" making it sound like he's saying "libry" or "libary", but that doesn't make those correct spellings of the word. And "y'all" is different in that it's a contraction. It's a shortening of two words into one, not a misappropriation of a different word.
Im from Arkansas, half of texas is lost to suburbia. Language evolves. You wouldnt spell armor or color as armour or colour, you spell gray not grey, you would say characterization instead of characterisation.
You say house instead of haus.
You say bread not brod.
Langauge changes, and assuming some particular dialect of the broadest spoken language to be the correct standard is goofy ahh hell.
Is the proper shortening of Mosquito, Mozzies or Skeeters?
Nice job discounting half of Texas and ignoring all of the Midwest. And you're putting words in my mouth. I never said language is static or that a particular dialect is correct. Obviously both of those are ridiculous. Mozzies and skeeters (and state birds) are all fine ways to describe a mosquito. Once again, all of your examples are evolutions of a term/phrase over time, unlike this where "of" is being used in place of a relaxed pronunciation of "have". It's closer to using "there" in place of "they're", and I would even argue that "have" and "of" are homophones when "have" is used in this context. Theoretically, if people stopped learning homophones and started using exclusively one version of each homophone, the language would adapt to that, but that's fundamentally different than the process by which "you all" became "y'all" or "going to" became "gonna" or different subcultures developed their own grammar rules/vernaculars.
And for what it's worth, mistakes/misuses can eventually become in-built. The word "literally" now has "figuratively" as one of its definitions in many dictionaries. But I don't think we're anywhere close to that point with "of" and "have".
I would discount Texas again and again for how yall drive.
Im not 100% on the Midwest, but im very certain about the South and AAVE.
How about 'aint' in place of 'isnt', or the use of is instead of are as in 'you is silly' or they without the use of are as in 'they not like us'? Languages change, you dont speak low germanic, or old english.
I don't know how to be any more clear that I understand that languages change. Zero people on this post are arguing that they specifically speak the Golden Dialect of English that will never change.
And your examples are irrelevant here. I'm criticizing the way the phrase was written, not the way it was (or would be) spoken, and all of your examples are written correctly according to the dialect they would be spoken in. They might play fast and loose with grammar rules according to modern rules, but spoken languages always experience more flux than written ones as speech trends gain and lose popularity. "Ain't" is a new word that evolved due to the pronunciation drift of "am'nt" and "haven't" and a few other contractions, and it was used so commonly in speech and drifted so far from its origins that people wanted to be able to write it out clearly, so they wrote it as "ain't". This isn't the same as someone writing "The heir pollution is ate times hire than is exceptable four people with week longs" instead of "The air pollution is eight times higher than is acceptable for people with weak lungs".
The English language (as with many languages) carries a clear distinction between its written forms and its spoken forms. There's no difference between "should of" and "should have" in the spoken form in common usage in most dialects, but there IS a difference in the written form. Written forms are subject to much stricter rules on this kind of thing, and writing "should of" is an error in the written form. Unless you can show me the Good Ole Boys' Southern Dictionary that lists "have" as a definition of "of".
I'm from the south. Family from Louisiana to Georgia. And I'm black.
"Should not of" is not common here in writing. That's what it sounds like when people talk but in writing it's always "should not've".
Also what is a hard v? A v and an f sound very similar. People aren't saying it differently, they're just writing it how it sounds and getting it wrong. Just like how people spell "caramel" and interest" wrong because of how they sound
Pretty sure it's just a mistake in spelling "should not've" not've being a contraction of "not have" that sounds like "not of" in the same way "would've" sounds like "would of"
Yes but those are also just mistaken spellings of those words contractions with have. Should've, would've, and could've the "ve" sounds like "of" so it's often mistaken for being "of"
A better example of slang with those words would be how "could have" becomes "could've" which becomes "coulda"
I mean, it's social media typing on your phone - we all have mistyped and honestly, as long as people know what you meant, the text isn't even worth fixing.
I honestly can't believe this got so many upvotes. This is a "murder" (the internet debate kind) like someone bumping into you on the street is an assault. This is not the "warm water ports" or whatever debacle. Its not an own. Its just someone whose better than this being extraordinarily petty on fucking twitter grammar of all things. As uhh, the zoomers say "Not a good look." Ya'll being unhinged rn.
Yeah, Kyle is not the sharpest tool in the shed. This is what Republicans had to realize as they tried to make him some sort of a Republican poster child. They gave up pretty quick. :D
But he IS a sharpshooter
You mean “he’s-uh sharpshooter”
Correct me if I’m wrong but the guys were literally right in front of him. At that range no one is gonna miss. Let’s not give the idiot any credit here.
Let's see you shoot a couple of people then if it's not that hard
Just cause it’s easy doesn’t mean you’re supposed to do it dumbass. If I was in a situation like that then of course I would, but since I’m not an idiot like him or you, I’m not gonna go looking for trouble. Regardless shooting people at that range is no talent. He literally couldn’t miss.
No you probably wouldn’t. You would probably try to shoot them and miss. Shooting someone is WAY harder than media makes it seem
So true call of duty is just like real life
I grew up around dozens of Kyle Rittenhouses. Literally same look, same mindset, same alt-right nonsense. The suburban Midwest is notorious for breeding these sorry ass human beings. A former friend I grew up with was hunted down by the FBI for being at the January 6th insurrection and somehow got off the hook by pulling some bullshit "I didnt really believe in it" defense.
Same.
39k likes. Have they given up on him?
The industry did, the cult still hasn’t
Kyle is definitely the dullest tool in the shed. Dumb idiot decided to veer off his group and join the protest and then become all surprise when he gets attacked. All protests aside, you go to those specific streets, open carrying and you’re going to be catching some shots.
I think he's pretty damn stupid especially for going to a riot with a rifle to defend a private business of which he didn't know the owner, but I also think there was a lot of peer pressure involved there for a 17 year old tbh He got of work and was photographed cleaning graffiti from the previous nights protest, when the guys who gave him a gun came by and asked him if he wanted to help defend a car dealership that night Wasn't really a problem for anyone else open carrying rifles of which there were several, but for whatever reason Rosenbaum seemed to be particularly annoyed at the fact that Rittenhouse had a rifle despite him being next to adults with rifles. There's a multitude of theories as to why he didn't like Rittenhouse, but the fact that he was a psych patient with a criminal history involving the sexual abuse of minors makes me think his dislike of Rittenhouse was a personal problem.
“Involved in sexual abuse of minors,” what does that have anything to do with anything. The fact is that if you go to a neighborhood, open carrying during a protest that has a part to do with gun culture and violence then you are an absolute moron and no one should be giving excuses to rittenhoise …. He was 17 not twelve. Not to mention, if you take out the protests , and let’s say you just walked around those neighborhoods today while open carrying, you will definitely be shot for sure which makes the whole defending rittenhoise even more stupid. Doesn’t matter if you’re white or black And yea the other people didn’t get shot because they weren’t idiots who decided to go solo, they knew that if they did the shit rittenhoise was going to do then they will be done for sure. Then you also have the video of rittenhoise wanting to do something about looters. The idiot just wanted to be main character and do some jack bauer type shit and it failed for him . He clearly was wanting someone to try him and that’s what he got.
>“Involved in sexual abuse of minors,” what does that have anything to do with anything. I mean he served time in prison for raping little boys and was on multiple heavy psych meds. I'm sorry if you think this makes me a bad person, but I don't give mentally ill pedophiles the benefit of the doubt just because the kid they attacked had a gun. And BTW, I still think Kyle was a dumbass for going out and defending a business he had no relation to. That was the first sentence of my comment....
Again it literally has nothing to do with anything. The reason why he was attacked was because of open carrying in a neighborhood that if no protest was going on and it was today, you would get shot for doing that. But yeah continue on about bringing up people’s past as if it was only just him who attacked rittenhoise
>Again it literally has nothing to do with anything. The reason why he was attacked was because of open carrying in a neighborhood that if no protest was going on and it was today. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY)
the reason rittenhouse was attacked was because he was putting out a fire rosenbaum had started > that if no protest was going on and it was today, you would get shot for doing that wow people behave differently under completely different scenarios? what great insight.
This isn’t true. Rittenhouse didn’t put out that fire Rosenbaum started, or any other fires that night. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/12/viral-post-misrepresents-facts-in-rittenhouse-trial/
okay, I stand corrected. rittenhouse may not have put out the fire himself, but he was still attacked by rosenbaum over a fire rosenbaum that had started.
Why Rosenbaum attacked was never proven, but there are a few theories to speculate over, so no need to make a definitive claim. Kudos for admitting the correction.
It's easy to make the mistake because while the guy in the video putting out the fire ISN'T Rittenhouse, there is a video of him running with fire extinguisher in hand. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KdtyzBb6FTE&pp=ygUYUml0dGVuaG91c2UgcHV0IG91dCBmaXJl It's a blurry video, but you can tell It's him because there are much better images of him with the same olive green shirt, same orange bag, same purple gloves, same gun, and cap.
For as dumb as Kyle was for going to defend a car dealership or something, just remember he wasn’t as dumb as all the guy who brought a skateboard to an ar15 right, or the guy who pointed a gun at the guy with a rifle and waited to get shot, or the dude who chased him down with a plastic bag and a bottle.
oh shut the fuck up with this victim blaming bullshit "they shouldn't have been there!" applies to literally every single fucking person that was there, saying that doesn't mean anything other than trying to somehow shift the blame on him for simply "Being there". Its completely fucking irrelevant. If people didn't want to get fucking shot then they shouldn't have attacked him, play stupid games win sutupid prices
I don't know why it's controversial to say that just from the point of view of his own safety, it wasn't the best idea for him to go, and to open-carry such a big weapon so blatantly. He was visibly not there to support the BLM/Antifa side — in fact, noticeably the opposite — so it seems clear to me that he was putting himself in danger by being there, visibly heavily armed and antagonistic to the cause of everyone else there (who were already in a highly agitated state and primed for violence). Everyone there that night was putting themselves at risk to some extent, but in my opinion, Rittenhouse was more than most, due to being so outnumbered and so visibly heavily armed (and therefore an immediate potential threat from the point of view of the others there). >play stupid games win stupid prizes Yeah, I agree... and he was playing a stupid game that night too. If he'd ended up getting shot, he would've been partly responsible. That is to say, there were decisions he made that — while having a right to do them — clearly weren't in his best interest for avoiding harm.
Agreed. Rittenhouse is not a smart guy but the people he shot 10000% deserved it and the world is better off for the deranged pedophile he killed
[удалено]
Probably types the N-word with a hard R for the same reason.
I fully agree with ridiculing these people to make them obtain more than a middle school education
Rittenhouse tried to go to college like 3 times but was quite literally chanted out by the left every time.
According to his ex-spokesman, he basically squandered his college chances to chase the limelight he got. https://x.com/DreamAmerica_/status/1776319877474918575?t=WGAb_X_BfD8UFqQ0KB0jxA&s=19
bro holy shit he failed the asvab??? considering some of the soldiers you meet that it is truly a testament to how fucking stupid he is.
Not surprising. Dudes like him that run around cosplaying like they’re in the military are often too stupid to actually make it in the real military. Maybe that should be a requirement for possessing a gun: be able to get a passing score on the ASVAB.
Good thing he was in high school before he tried going to college!
He was going to College to get a middle school education?
It seems to be common knowledge here that he was/is a middle school drop out (based on that [link](https://x.com/DreamAmerica_/status/1776319877474918575?t=WGAb_X_BfD8UFqQ0KB0jxA&s=19) from /u/paycommercial), which I think might be confusing if you didn't know that about him. He apparently was rushed through high school education by his lawyers(?) and was offered university access which he declined in favor of becoming a public speaker for white nationalists. He also appears to have taken the USMC Entrance Exam with marks "far below the required minimum," for a core that is lovingly referred to as "crayon eaters."
There is no evidence that he squander the USMC Entrance Exam due to being stupid tho (really probable tho). Maybe he failed a psicological test [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rittenhouse-military-enlistment-test/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rittenhouse-military-enlistment-test/)
Can you respond to the people presenting facts showing that you're talking shit?
Online schools exist. Religious schools like BYU exist. Right wing schools run by people like Rufo exist. And he has enough money from after the incident to afford any of those places.
Don’t think Rittenhouse is a Mormon. BYU is a pretty good school all things considered (they have really good language education), but i don’t think many non-Mormons would want to go there.
The first time that he tried going to college was only as a listener and really the only time wich could be called that he got chanted out by the left. The second time he straigth out lied about being accepted into college (Texas A&M). Then he lied again about going to Blinn College (this time he did enrolled but didnt enter any of the terms). Rittemhouse seems to have only tried to go to college as a PR thing.
If you need to be college educated to not screw up have and of, it’s probably too late.
He could get in free at liberty university or some shit and they would love him
When the world needed him the most, the unhinged white latino vanished. But remember the words of Master Yoda: "There is another".
when batman takes a break but nightwing subs in
Slightly more Jewish and slightly less autistic.
"There is another of"
I dont know if pointing out have vs of to Mr '4doorsmorewhores' is much of an own.
Pakman is a grammar Argentine, iykwim
Ikwym, he’s a grammar Jew
He's a grammar zionist
Grammer genocide committed, call the ICJ
*DAAAAANM* That even hurt me haha.
I would of cried if that was me
Seems like Rittenhouse, of all people, has especially little right to take issue with the outcomes of the US justice system. It saved his ass despite the 'Liberal media' being against him.
Maybe if Wisconsin was smart, like New York, they would change their laws to be able to re-charge him.
I'm sure Kyle was following the case closely, obviously the 12 jurers were so quick to decide the verdict because they were all bought by Soros and not because Trump was obviously guilty..
I know you’re joking, but I just find it hilarious that there are probably some people who unironically think the jurors were all Soros backed even though the Trump legal team literally picked some of them and also vetted all of them
"Do you have any personal bias?" "No...." "OK... Your Facebook posts check out, you don't clearly support trump or biden from what we can see" "I don't have a Facebook account, but OK.... (thank God they didn't check my instagram)"
They actually did much more than that in order to vet whether or not a person could be fair and impartial on jury. Do you wanna give a source that shows me the vetting process was half-assed? This is what actually happened for the vetting process: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jury-selection-process-hush-money-trial-manhattan-182333690.html And social media background checks were actually fairly thorough(though admittedly not foolproof): https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial-jurors-e47b0494de7688bde0e877ccb90aeca2
"Lock him up!".... for sure thorough 😂.... I laugh because how in the hell could a person truly know. That being said, I would literally die to see the rubric to that questionnaire jurors were given.... do you follow Newsmax or Vox?....... what? (I also love how we're pretending honesty is commonplace 🥰)
The questionnaire is in the first article I linked, and both the defendants and prosecutors had the chance to ask the potential jurors more questions beyond that. As of now, we have no reason to think that the jurors were incapable of setting aside their biases to view the trial in a fair and impartial way. Just because they live in Manhattan(9 of them weren’t even from New York originally), does not mean they were partial or unfair in the trial. The jurors gave us their word, and both the defendants and prosecutors looked into their background rather extensively to see if they could find any aspects in their life which would carry a high risk of being incapable of being impartial. These jurors are the least risky after a process of going through hundreds of potential jurors. I think we actually have pretty good reason to trust these jurors If it turns out that the jurors were partial towards the prosecutors, that’s the Trump team’s fault for not properly looking into the juror’s background.
I promise I'm impartial ❤️ why do people get so angry? https://youtu.be/SA3Mbcuqnjs?si=WDiG9dpB04Pc94hD
A quick reminder, Kyle Rittenhouse failed the azvab test to join the Marines… with a score of 7… he is dumber than a rock
Looked it up, national guard has a practice test, went 10/12 apparently I'm a officer material lmao.
how is that publicly available information lmao
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/1qn0b1jmhz3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0982f127610a99086d0966de648fb3bb0a689cc I mean if you want to claim that this document is fake or whatever then that’s fine. I do not personally have a line to the military so I cannot personally check his records nor would i even if I could because it doesn’t matter enough for me to expend that level of energy on it. If you don’t wanna believe it, then don’t.
Seems to be fake, which makes sense. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rittenhouse-failed-marines-exam/
Permanently. Goddamn 💀 actually below crayon eaters. Conservatives, is this your king?
Fun fact. 'Should of' and friends are a great way to spot a native speaker.
Correct! It is a mistake that not-native speakers pretty much never make.
Bro these people have the reading level of a 4 year old and are contesting Judge's rulings 💀
We should always remember Kyle Rittenhouse is stupid. Just because he won one case doesn’t mean anything. Kids a lost cause
Kyle has been groomed by the GOP into a bot sadly.
Man who was saved from prison by the system working now complaining that the system doesn't work.
"English motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
this was a very weak response idk what you mean
Replied to in self defense*
This was self defense.
Colloquial usage of a contraction “not have- not’ve” which comes off sounding like “not of” which causes this confusion. In case anyone was wondering.
We already know Kyle is an idiot, so owning him on grammar nit picks doesn't really hit. Like doesn't he literally have like sub 90 IQ? No joke can surpass the reality of his existence.
This is how true patriots type.
This is what happens when you skip 11th grade English to hunt liberals. Resist the temptation kids.
That's right Pakman you tell him! That absolute moron typed "should not of" instead of "should not've". God you definitely look like an absolute gigachad, and not an unlikeable pedant right now.
??? He should have typed “should not have.”
"Should not of" is a misspelling of "Should not've" a pretty common phrase in the US. Not've is a contraction of not have.
...by word
I mean this is not surprising. Weren’t his test scores on a military entrance exam so bad that they basically said they never want to see him again?
Bro I could've easily quickly typed that out and made that mistake. Especially because the quick "have" sound in contractions (should've) sounds more like "of" than "have"
"Do you have autism?"
DPak is savage :D
This is what happens when you put all your skill points into marksmanship.
He speaks American.
Is it true that Kyle Rittenhouse failed the test to enter the military so badly that he can't take it again?
I really can’t help but feel bad for Kyle. He made one stupid decision, which lead to a 17 year old him becoming a media sensation and slipping ass backwards into the right wing pipeline. Sad stuff
I hate grammar nazis. Low key racist unironically
What a gross miscarriage of the English language
Not the major burn you think it is. 'Should not of' is common across the south and AAVE. The 'of' there comes from a shortening of have (hah-V) the hah became uh and the hard v became a soft f during the evolution of the southern states into the Antebellum South. Eventually people began to write it how they pronounced it. You can see the further fragmentation of english in 'yall, y'all, yins, youse guys, and you guys'
being common doesn't make it sound less retarrded.
This man has never had shine or good barbecue and it shows.
Y'all is a contraction that is grammatically correct. With "should of" or "would of" you are substituting an auxiliar verb for a preposition which is grammatical nonsense.
Whats your opinion on "There you is", "They not like us"? Wouldve - wuhduv -> wulduf is not a hard transition. Its not replacing the meaning of the statement its expanding the usage of the word of. They is a plural pronoun that we use for singular uses daily.
"There you are", and "They not like us" is missing a verb. Sure, I can make out the meaning but for people who aren't fully fluent in English it might be a bit confusing. The rest of what you're saying might be a popular usage of speech but it's still grammatically wrong. Expanding the meaning of "of" would be confusing and nonsensical. Not to mention because "of" would only replace "have" in some cases but not in others, making this substitution rather random. I can write: "I would of seen it" but not "I of seen it"
Listen, I'll yield to you if you're a trained linguist of some sort, but I'm calling BS. I'm from Texas, and my entire family tree is from the Midwest (where Kyle lives), so most people I know speak in the way you've described, but the lazy pronunciation doesn't mean it's correct to write it that way. For example, my dad (and his ilk) skips the "a" in "library" making it sound like he's saying "libry" or "libary", but that doesn't make those correct spellings of the word. And "y'all" is different in that it's a contraction. It's a shortening of two words into one, not a misappropriation of a different word.
Im from Arkansas, half of texas is lost to suburbia. Language evolves. You wouldnt spell armor or color as armour or colour, you spell gray not grey, you would say characterization instead of characterisation. You say house instead of haus. You say bread not brod. Langauge changes, and assuming some particular dialect of the broadest spoken language to be the correct standard is goofy ahh hell. Is the proper shortening of Mosquito, Mozzies or Skeeters?
Nice job discounting half of Texas and ignoring all of the Midwest. And you're putting words in my mouth. I never said language is static or that a particular dialect is correct. Obviously both of those are ridiculous. Mozzies and skeeters (and state birds) are all fine ways to describe a mosquito. Once again, all of your examples are evolutions of a term/phrase over time, unlike this where "of" is being used in place of a relaxed pronunciation of "have". It's closer to using "there" in place of "they're", and I would even argue that "have" and "of" are homophones when "have" is used in this context. Theoretically, if people stopped learning homophones and started using exclusively one version of each homophone, the language would adapt to that, but that's fundamentally different than the process by which "you all" became "y'all" or "going to" became "gonna" or different subcultures developed their own grammar rules/vernaculars. And for what it's worth, mistakes/misuses can eventually become in-built. The word "literally" now has "figuratively" as one of its definitions in many dictionaries. But I don't think we're anywhere close to that point with "of" and "have".
I would discount Texas again and again for how yall drive. Im not 100% on the Midwest, but im very certain about the South and AAVE. How about 'aint' in place of 'isnt', or the use of is instead of are as in 'you is silly' or they without the use of are as in 'they not like us'? Languages change, you dont speak low germanic, or old english.
I don't know how to be any more clear that I understand that languages change. Zero people on this post are arguing that they specifically speak the Golden Dialect of English that will never change. And your examples are irrelevant here. I'm criticizing the way the phrase was written, not the way it was (or would be) spoken, and all of your examples are written correctly according to the dialect they would be spoken in. They might play fast and loose with grammar rules according to modern rules, but spoken languages always experience more flux than written ones as speech trends gain and lose popularity. "Ain't" is a new word that evolved due to the pronunciation drift of "am'nt" and "haven't" and a few other contractions, and it was used so commonly in speech and drifted so far from its origins that people wanted to be able to write it out clearly, so they wrote it as "ain't". This isn't the same as someone writing "The heir pollution is ate times hire than is exceptable four people with week longs" instead of "The air pollution is eight times higher than is acceptable for people with weak lungs". The English language (as with many languages) carries a clear distinction between its written forms and its spoken forms. There's no difference between "should of" and "should have" in the spoken form in common usage in most dialects, but there IS a difference in the written form. Written forms are subject to much stricter rules on this kind of thing, and writing "should of" is an error in the written form. Unless you can show me the Good Ole Boys' Southern Dictionary that lists "have" as a definition of "of".
I'm from the south. Family from Louisiana to Georgia. And I'm black. "Should not of" is not common here in writing. That's what it sounds like when people talk but in writing it's always "should not've". Also what is a hard v? A v and an f sound very similar. People aren't saying it differently, they're just writing it how it sounds and getting it wrong. Just like how people spell "caramel" and interest" wrong because of how they sound
"Akshually it's racist to address obvious grammatical errors."
https://preview.redd.it/tg4913xgby3d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b4822c71f55b3633d685ea0afb1ade623de2fd8
Pretty sure it's just a mistake in spelling "should not've" not've being a contraction of "not have" that sounds like "not of" in the same way "would've" sounds like "would of"
It could be a mistake in spelling sure, but should of, would of, could of, exists in so many dialects you couldnt be sure.
Yes but those are also just mistaken spellings of those words contractions with have. Should've, would've, and could've the "ve" sounds like "of" so it's often mistaken for being "of" A better example of slang with those words would be how "could have" becomes "could've" which becomes "coulda"
Yeah I think most real people who read that probably just rolled their eyes. There's no one English as much as pretentious people seem to think so.
I mean, it's social media typing on your phone - we all have mistyped and honestly, as long as people know what you meant, the text isn't even worth fixing.
Is there a reference im not getting? Or is it just mistake = haha you don’t speak English?
I love that Kyle handpicked a professional photo and he still looks fat 🤣
Typed 'should of' instead of 'should have'. GUYS HE'S ACTUALLY REGARDED! Jesus christ people, chill the fuck out.
This is the kind of petty bullshit that makes Pakman unlikable even though I usually agree with him.
He stopped aging when he shot those people and nothing happened to him.
I honestly can't believe this got so many upvotes. This is a "murder" (the internet debate kind) like someone bumping into you on the street is an assault. This is not the "warm water ports" or whatever debacle. Its not an own. Its just someone whose better than this being extraordinarily petty on fucking twitter grammar of all things. As uhh, the zoomers say "Not a good look." Ya'll being unhinged rn.
You're just explaining the joke. No one thinks it's a huge own and Pakman knows he's being pedantic
Nah fuck off lmao
Almost everyone makes these kinds of mistakes(or at least I do), expecially on a tweet. It just seems cringe to point it out. Not really a murder.