|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41652 Posts
Trump would answer but his answer would be in the form of an anecdote about someone coming up to him and saying "sir" because there's going to be so much money, you're not going to believe this, so much. They're going to be bringing us checks. The biggest checks. That's what people are saying. You know checks have gotten smaller. They used to be so big. Like Arnold Palmer's equipment. When the golfers would all shower together while I watched they would all laugh and cheer. It was great. But you can't talk about that these days without being cancelled. You can't. Because of the media. But I'm going to fight them. You know they lie about me so much. They say that I said checks have gotten smaller, I never said that but they lie about me. It's so sad. They need the ratings because they're failing and they love to lie about me because people love me. I was in a town last week, maybe it was a city, Kansas City, great city, love Kansas, great steaks. You know I used to have a line of steaks. Trump steaks, people loved them.
|
On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person?
It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state.
It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation.
|
On December 10 2024 18:11 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state. It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation.
I almost reported you for being an adbot then.
|
Some crimes are worth the time, you know?
|
On December 10 2024 18:11 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state. It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation.
As opposed to what? Ditching everything and trying to blend back in to normal society and get a 9 to 5 job? Seems like once you go anti-capitalist assassin you're probably set on that trajectory until you're caught so you might as well keep your tools for the next hit.
|
On December 10 2024 17:05 KwarK wrote:
Trump would answer but his answer would be in the form of an anecdote about someone coming up to him and saying "sir" because there's going to be so much money, you're not going to believe this, so much. They're going to be bringing us checks. The biggest checks. That's what people are saying. You know checks have gotten smaller. They used to be so big. Like Arnold Palmer's equipment. When the golfers would all shower together while I watched they would all laugh and cheer. It was great. But you can't talk about that these days without being cancelled. You can't. Because of the media. But I'm going to fight them. You know they lie about me so much. They say that I said checks have gotten smaller, I never said that but they lie about me. It's so sad. They need the ratings because they're failing and they love to lie about me because people love me. I was in a town last week, maybe it was a city, Kansas City, great city, love Kansas, great steaks. You know I used to have a line of steaks. Trump steaks, people loved them.
Saw part of the interview he gave on NBC. It's so insanely clownish hearing him speak every single time he opens his mouth. It's never not word salad.
Maybe he's perfected the art of horoscope readings where everything he says can mean everything to everyone so he gets the benefit of the doubt every single time.
|
On December 10 2024 17:05 KwarK wrote:
Trump would answer but his answer would be in the form of an anecdote about someone coming up to him and saying "sir" because there's going to be so much money, you're not going to believe this, so much. They're going to be bringing us checks. The biggest checks. That's what people are saying. You know checks have gotten smaller. They used to be so big. Like Arnold Palmer's equipment. When the golfers would all shower together while I watched they would all laugh and cheer. It was great. But you can't talk about that these days without being cancelled. You can't. Because of the media. But I'm going to fight them. You know they lie about me so much. They say that I said checks have gotten smaller, I never said that but they lie about me. It's so sad. They need the ratings because they're failing and they love to lie about me because people love me. I was in a town last week, maybe it was a city, Kansas City, great city, love Kansas, great steaks. You know I used to have a line of steaks. Trump steaks, people loved them.
Well done. This is pretty accurate.
|
On December 10 2024 18:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 18:11 KT_Elwood wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state. It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation. As opposed to what? Ditching everything and trying to blend back in to normal society and get a 9 to 5 job? Seems like once you go anti-capitalist assassin you're probably set on that trajectory until you're caught so you might as well keep your tools for the next hit.
if* it was a professional hit it’s not far outside the realm of possibility to have a patsy. it doesn’t need to be a conspiracy, just a guy paid or leveraged to take the fall.
ofc we don’t know any of that yet so that’s extremely speculative. hopefully this guy doesn’t get epstein’d.
i’d say it’s far more likely just a disgruntled customer, though it would be quite weird to be a disgruntled healthcare customer barely off his parents healthcare, hopefully a clear picture comes out. he may well have some kind of tragic backstory :\. though from what little is posted online the kid could have been another tlnet poster. valedictorian, masters in IT fields.
ah, the latest is that he had chronic pain from a back surgery. disgruntled is checking out.
|
On December 10 2024 18:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 18:11 KT_Elwood wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state. It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation. As opposed to what? Ditching everything and trying to blend back in to normal society and get a 9 to 5 job? Seems like once you go anti-capitalist assassin you're probably set on that trajectory until you're caught so you might as well keep your tools for the next hit.
If he wanted to kill more people, getting caught with evidence wasn't the smart move - if it's the person.
|
On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
That said, yes, the child of a spy born in the US would probably be a US citizen. Do you have any actual examples? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals? Why would a spy's child be a US citizen if a diplomat's weren't? Where exactly are you taking us with this...? Oh, nevermind. I get it. You think "legal immigrant spy." Of course. Well, yes. Most spies are/were legal immigrants. Or actually already US citizens. Anyway, another bizarre niche situation, which you decided to bring up. I'm still waiting for examples.
Do you think the child of spies should be a US citizen or not?
On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
As for invasion, the last time the US was invaded by a foreign force was... never, or so long ago that nobody remembers. The 14th Amendment was not only written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War (its main purpose being to enshrine citizenship of freed blacks), it was written in the same century the aforementioned burning of the White House by a foreign army happened and that fact had not escaped public knowledge at the time. I do not give a flying fuck what you remember or not. Neither of those were foreign invasions. The former is a civil war, and the latter was during the US' war of independence. The US as a country didn't really exist yet until that war was won. Until that time the question of who could become a US citizen was a bit of a moot point. In any case, I highly doubt that the authors of the 14th amendment were worried about British invasions on US soil, and were definitely far more worried about ensuring that former slaves would be considered US citizens.
The White House didn't exist during the Revolution, it was burned in the War of 1812. Basic history.
There was no DC until after the Constitution established a stronger federal government and built a seat for it. The previous capital - as such - would best be described as having been Philadelphia.
The authors of the 14th Amendment would certainly not have relied on the assumed invincibility and imperviousness of the continental US as a reason to not preclude enemies from becoming citizens. That makes no sense.
On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:
But seeing as we've discarded diplomat, I am not sure what the authors did have in mind when discussing someone who is born or naturalized in the United States, but wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Whether or not they correctly follow the law is moot. They are subject to its jurisdiction. The only other case I could think of was Native Americans in their reserves, but Native Americans get singled out specifically in the subsequent paragraph, so it'd be quite inconsistent wording.
Native Americans were not given citizenship until the Snyder Act in 1924 passed, despite that hurrr the amendment says "all people," because it was interpreted that they were not under the jurisdiction of the US.
I don't know why we have "discarded diplomat" as you put it. It's possible for there to be more than one case here. Diplomat can be one. I'm only saying I would sooner give citizenship to the child of a legal diplomat than an illegal random. Diplomats are invited guests, that follow the applicable immigration law to arrive and are able to be kicked out by the sovereignty of the US government, even in your hypothetical worse case mass killer who comes under diplomatic immunity, kills a bunch of people, gets kicked out, and somehow doesn't have his immunity suspended by the country that sent him - or by the US who said no in this case fuck your immunity our generosity ran out. (But oBlade the US would never do this - No, the US will always defend itself regardless of what you're "supposed" to do. Roosevelt had German spies in the US executed by military court.)
On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
But I know that the children of Nazi soldiers all over Europe are legal citizens of wherever they were born, usually because the mother was a local. This is an important observation. There are countries in the western tradition without unrestricted birthright citizenship. Somehow the sky has not fallen there. On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
In the case of an invading soldier bringing a wife/girlfriend from home along, and the child being born locally, I haven't a clue what would happen, but I'd probably say that if things progressed that far, the US constitution would be locally suspended there anyway, and after the US reconquered that land, an arrangement would have to be made. As was the case in Europe post-WW2. Is your point that, barring martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, a constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to bear arms and proscribes quartering of soldiers, that same Constitution was written with the assumption that every single soul born on the land, no matter to who, no matter whether to foreign invader or not, was automatically a citizen? EXCEPT the child of a diplomat? Is this where you stand? Anyway most of this tangent is moot for this reason: It is not an amendment denominating what categories of people have to obey the law or not. Everybody has to obey the law. That's why it's law. Obviously "and under the jurisdiction thereof" means something else. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" could mean either one of two things from the perspective of originalism: 1) It refers to both people born in the United States and people born under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning not the States themselves but also territories. (Unfortunately this explanation is not in the cards because Congress has had to legislate citizenship for US territories.) 2) It refers to people who are born in the United States "while" (scare, not direct, quote) also under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning something essentially like while adhering to the law, while applicable citizenship/immigration law applies to them. Not while simply being in a place where they'd have to follow US law, which as explained above, refers to everybody in the US to begin with - whereas again, historically, not everyone has gotten citizenship, so the clause wouldn't mean that. That isn't what that sentence means, though. Breaking the law doesn't mean you aren't under its jurisdiction. If you weren't under its jurisdiction there would inherently be nothing to break. Legal language is precise. If they meant to exclude people transgressing the law, they would have used words that mean that.
There was no such law at the time to be excluded or not. Not all legal language is precise which is why there's court cases with thousands of pages arguing and interpreting this stuff. The exclusion is that birthright citizenship goes to everyone that it applies to, that the authors of the amendment were smart enough to realize they couldn't enumerate who it doesn't apply to precisely in a way that wouldn't be prohibitively restrictive, because of their inability to foresee all eventualities. That doesn't mean it's anything goes.
On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +
Here is my personal map of most law-following to least law-following ( - denoting what I think are distinct but anyway approximately comparable categories)
National
Green card - Permanent resident
Visa holder - legal resident
Tourist - diplomat
Illegal immigrant (overstay)
Illegal immigrant (illegal entry)
Spy - Terrorist - Invading Army
I would not personally draw the line under the 7th line like you, but closer to the 3rd line, although I can see arguments for the 2nd or 4th.
Like this is definitely something clarified multiple times by acts of Congress and also by SCOTUS cases as to where the line is - and the existence of a line. They both have a say from different angles - Congress can enforce the amendment more or less aggressively but they couldn't undo the protections afforded from the amendment by settled case law (ultimately SCOTUS). If things swing too far you don't need another amendment to reclarify things slightly in the other direction any more than you needed an amendment to get to where we are now from where we were in the 19th century (which we didn't).
Once again, following the law or not is irrelevant. Spies and terrorists in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of how many laws they are breaking at any given time. The only one there where you could say it's iffy is the invading army, because by nature of being an invading army, they are suspending the constitution in places they conquer and putting their own laws in its place. The US loses jurisdiction there by merit of having lost control of that territory to someone else who is imposing their own jurisdiction. If the US reconquers that then whatever happened in the meantime has to be reconciled with the (new) US law. If lots of invaders had babies, that is something I don't think is covered by the 14th amendment! So... I guess maybe you were right, and the authors were indeed worried about giving citizenship to hordes of red coat wearing babies. It isn't a very likely explanation, but it's more likely than that they meant to revoke criminals' citizenship!
It is not about "following" in the sense of "guilty" or "not guilty," it is about something deeper.
Don't know why you are suddenly mentioning "revoking criminals' citizenship."
It is also again never assumed, that just because the US were invaded, that the US tacitly agrees those parts aren't the US anymore, which is why someone born there might not be an automatic citizen. That doesn't exist anywhere. That's nowhere in the Constitution or any law. You are making it up. Lincoln specifically said secession is illegal and it wasn't recognized that the South wasn't part of the US. If Virginia couldn't say it wasn't part of the US, then there's no reason to think an occupying force, led by Brazil, claiming Virginia as part of Brazil, would have its misapprehension that Virginia was part of Brazil and not the US legally recognized by the US.
I was asking you not so you could figure it out, I happen to know the answer as SCOTUS already gave an opinion deciding that issue:
The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
It has nothing to do with territory - in this case. It has to do with the fact that due to a born child's parents, a child can lack allegiance to the country. Whether you are in the employ of another country's diplomatic service, or loyal to another entity like an Indian tribe, or other country's military, friendly or otherwise, meaning you are entering the US to do things against it and without its permission, and with no allegiance to it, meaning you are not under its jurisdiction.
In our example, children of normal people born in Virginia during occupation would be citizens. Children of Brazilians occupying Virginia would not be. Unless SCOTUS decided something new.
I say allegiance because this is something also SCOTUS figured out a century ago in Elk v. Wilkins when an Indian renounced his tribal status and then said look, I'm a citizen, because I was born in the US. It wasn't enough. It took Congress granting citizenship to Indians also. Which I agree Congress can do. Or at least try to. They can give citizenship to MORE than the amendment applies to. They could pass a law clearly enshrining anchor baby citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants tomorrow if they wanted.
I would personally say even a child of a spy/terrorist with legal status who was convicted of treason/espionage/terrorism should not be assumed to be a birthright citizen. I do not particularly have examples of this, although I haven't looked, but it's clearly a case where the issue of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be applied.
Altogether, there are exceptions based on the issues both of "location" and of "parents. For example, is a ship, an airplane, American Samoa - do these places count and to what degree.
Here are real exceptions to the 14th amendment from history and now that I'm aware of:
1) Indians (until 1924)
2) Puerto Rico and other territories (until whenever they got it)
3) American Samoa and other unincorporated territories (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today)
4) Children of diplomats (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today)
5) Children of enemies who have invaded the country (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today)
You say hey oBlade, there's no mention of legal vs. illegal immigrants, gotcha. You wouldn't expect that because in the 19th century there was no distinction of "legal" and "illegal" status period. There doesn't need to be. It's open to interpretation - judicial interpretation - and to legislation, by the inclusion of the phrase.
Banning people born to those who have no legal status - no legal right to be in the country, loyal to foreign countries - from automatically being citizens - seems not out of place in the above list as it's close to #5 already. Look forward to Blumpf testing it.
|
On December 10 2024 16:55 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 16:14 Legan wrote:
Have any politicians been asked how they will address people's dissatisfaction with healthcare insurance companies and healthcare in general? It seems like it would be an obvious question to ask from the incoming administration. Or are politicians already on holiday vacations? Politicians have no intent on addressing people's dissatisfaction with healthcare, they have zero intentions of answering that question at all
Why would they when their voters don't demand it from them?
That's a big part of what Democrat voters/supporters have had stripped from their understanding of how things change in the US. It's delusional to think Democrats will get better as a consequence of voting for them when they assure you they won't.
On December 10 2024 22:14 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 18:46 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 18:11 KT_Elwood wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? It is pretty weird that the guy had 120% of all evidence on him after he managed to fled the scene, the city, the state. It's a pure swedish penis enlargement pump situation. As opposed to what? Ditching everything and trying to blend back in to normal society and get a 9 to 5 job? Seems like once you go anti-capitalist assassin you're probably set on that trajectory until you're caught so you might as well keep your tools for the next hit. if* it was a professional hit it’s not far outside the realm of possibility to have a patsy. it doesn’t need to be a conspiracy, just a guy paid or leveraged to take the fall. ofc we don’t know any of that yet so that’s extremely speculative. hopefully this guy doesn’t get epstein’d. i’d say it’s far more likely just a disgruntled customer, though it would be quite weird to be a disgruntled healthcare customer barely off his parents healthcare, hopefully a clear picture comes out. he may well have some kind of tragic backstory :\. though from what little is posted online the kid could have been another tlnet poster. valedictorian, masters in IT fields. ah, the latest is that he had chronic pain from a back surgery. disgruntled is checking out.
He also could have been the type to shoot random people at a school or crowded place and instead directed his rage somewhere society appreciated.
|
Automatically considering anyone who isn't in America legally as being an invading entity is a bigger can of worms than making them as extra-legal as diplomats.
The problem I see with the conservative advocates of denaturalization and mass deportation is where these people will go and the legal ramifications of these acts. There wouldn't be any reason to charge someone with a crime for acts against an invader of the nation. There would be other nations whom these people are citizens of who would very rightly be upset if their people were considered invaders if they got lost and overstayed their vacation visa. The roundups of random people off the street be they citizens or no will get a lot worse if they have no legal protections. Why can't I rob the house of an invader and kill them? Worse yet why shouldn't I?
Also where would these people go? The most non-addressed part of mass deportations, other than the obvious concentration camps for the populations of rounded up individuals, is where they are suppose to go. Nations are not just going to accept random millions of undocumented, unconsenting, and uncooperating refugees just because you dump them in their country. It would really suck If I had to adopt my friends kids so they didn't get sent into the system but I would much rather them stay in America where they can have a life than be shoved into another country that they have no citizenship. The idea of a constant hot potatoes of "invaders" being passed from one country to another until they're all dead is horrifying.
You say hey oBlade, there's no mention of legal vs. illegal immigrants, gotcha. You wouldn't expect that because in the 19th century there was no distinction of "legal" and "illegal" status period. There doesn't need to be.
I mean you said it not me.
|
On December 10 2024 23:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
That said, yes, the child of a spy born in the US would probably be a US citizen. Do you have any actual examples? Or are you just inventing hypotheticals? Why would a spy's child be a US citizen if a diplomat's weren't? Where exactly are you taking us with this...? Oh, nevermind. I get it. You think "legal immigrant spy." Of course. Well, yes. Most spies are/were legal immigrants. Or actually already US citizens. Anyway, another bizarre niche situation, which you decided to bring up. I'm still waiting for examples. Do you think the child of spies should be a US citizen or not?
I reserve judgment. I am not saying what is desirable, just interpreting what is constitutional. If you don't like it, push to change the constitution.
Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
As for invasion, the last time the US was invaded by a foreign force was... never, or so long ago that nobody remembers. The 14th Amendment was not only written in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War (its main purpose being to enshrine citizenship of freed blacks), it was written in the same century the aforementioned burning of the White House by a foreign army happened and that fact had not escaped public knowledge at the time. I do not give a flying fuck what you remember or not. Neither of those were foreign invasions. The former is a civil war, and the latter was during the US' war of independence. The US as a country didn't really exist yet until that war was won. Until that time the question of who could become a US citizen was a bit of a moot point. In any case, I highly doubt that the authors of the 14th amendment were worried about British invasions on US soil, and were definitely far more worried about ensuring that former slaves would be considered US citizens. The White House didn't exist during the Revolution, it was burned in the War of 1812. Basic history. There was no DC until after the Constitution established a stronger federal government and built a seat for it. The previous capital - as such - would best be described as having been Philadelphia. The authors of the 14th Amendment would certainly not have relied on the assumed invincibility and imperviousness of the continental US as a reason to not preclude enemies from becoming citizens. That makes no sense. Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:
But seeing as we've discarded diplomat, I am not sure what the authors did have in mind when discussing someone who is born or naturalized in the United States, but wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Whether or not they correctly follow the law is moot. They are subject to its jurisdiction. The only other case I could think of was Native Americans in their reserves, but Native Americans get singled out specifically in the subsequent paragraph, so it'd be quite inconsistent wording. Native Americans were not given citizenship until the Snyder Act in 1924 passed, despite that hurrr the amendment says "all people," because it was interpreted that they were not under the jurisdiction of the US. I don't know why we have "discarded diplomat" as you put it. It's possible for there to be more than one case here. Diplomat can be one. I'm only saying I would sooner give citizenship to the child of a legal diplomat than an illegal random. Diplomats are invited guests, that follow the applicable immigration law to arrive and are able to be kicked out by the sovereignty of the US government, even in your hypothetical worse case mass killer who comes under diplomatic immunity, kills a bunch of people, gets kicked out, and somehow doesn't have his immunity suspended by the country that sent him - or by the US who said no in this case fuck your immunity our generosity ran out. (But oBlade the US would never do this - No, the US will always defend itself regardless of what you're "supposed" to do. Roosevelt had German spies in the US executed by military court.) Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
But I know that the children of Nazi soldiers all over Europe are legal citizens of wherever they were born, usually because the mother was a local. This is an important observation. There are countries in the western tradition without unrestricted birthright citizenship. Somehow the sky has not fallen there. On December 09 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:
In the case of an invading soldier bringing a wife/girlfriend from home along, and the child being born locally, I haven't a clue what would happen, but I'd probably say that if things progressed that far, the US constitution would be locally suspended there anyway, and after the US reconquered that land, an arrangement would have to be made. As was the case in Europe post-WW2. Is your point that, barring martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, a constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to bear arms and proscribes quartering of soldiers, that same Constitution was written with the assumption that every single soul born on the land, no matter to who, no matter whether to foreign invader or not, was automatically a citizen? EXCEPT the child of a diplomat? Is this where you stand? Anyway most of this tangent is moot for this reason: It is not an amendment denominating what categories of people have to obey the law or not. Everybody has to obey the law. That's why it's law. Obviously "and under the jurisdiction thereof" means something else. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" could mean either one of two things from the perspective of originalism: 1) It refers to both people born in the United States and people born under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning not the States themselves but also territories. (Unfortunately this explanation is not in the cards because Congress has had to legislate citizenship for US territories.) 2) It refers to people who are born in the United States "while" (scare, not direct, quote) also under the jurisdiction thereof - meaning something essentially like while adhering to the law, while applicable citizenship/immigration law applies to them. Not while simply being in a place where they'd have to follow US law, which as explained above, refers to everybody in the US to begin with - whereas again, historically, not everyone has gotten citizenship, so the clause wouldn't mean that. That isn't what that sentence means, though. Breaking the law doesn't mean you aren't under its jurisdiction. If you weren't under its jurisdiction there would inherently be nothing to break. Legal language is precise. If they meant to exclude people transgressing the law, they would have used words that mean that. There was no such law at the time to be excluded or not. Not all legal language is precise which is why there's court cases with thousands of pages arguing and interpreting this stuff. The exclusion is that birthright citizenship goes to everyone that it applies to, that the authors of the amendment were smart enough to realize they couldn't enumerate who it doesn't apply to precisely in a way that wouldn't be prohibitively restrictive, because of their inability to foresee all eventualities. That doesn't mean it's anything goes. Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 05:11 Acrofales wrote:
Here is my personal map of most law-following to least law-following ( - denoting what I think are distinct but anyway approximately comparable categories)
National
Green card - Permanent resident
Visa holder - legal resident
Tourist - diplomat
Illegal immigrant (overstay)
Illegal immigrant (illegal entry)
Spy - Terrorist - Invading Army
I would not personally draw the line under the 7th line like you, but closer to the 3rd line, although I can see arguments for the 2nd or 4th.
Like this is definitely something clarified multiple times by acts of Congress and also by SCOTUS cases as to where the line is - and the existence of a line. They both have a say from different angles - Congress can enforce the amendment more or less aggressively but they couldn't undo the protections afforded from the amendment by settled case law (ultimately SCOTUS). If things swing too far you don't need another amendment to reclarify things slightly in the other direction any more than you needed an amendment to get to where we are now from where we were in the 19th century (which we didn't).
Once again, following the law or not is irrelevant. Spies and terrorists in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of how many laws they are breaking at any given time. The only one there where you could say it's iffy is the invading army, because by nature of being an invading army, they are suspending the constitution in places they conquer and putting their own laws in its place. The US loses jurisdiction there by merit of having lost control of that territory to someone else who is imposing their own jurisdiction. If the US reconquers that then whatever happened in the meantime has to be reconciled with the (new) US law. If lots of invaders had babies, that is something I don't think is covered by the 14th amendment! So... I guess maybe you were right, and the authors were indeed worried about giving citizenship to hordes of red coat wearing babies. It isn't a very likely explanation, but it's more likely than that they meant to revoke criminals' citizenship! It is not about "following" in the sense of "guilty" or "not guilty," it is about something deeper. Don't know why you are suddenly mentioning "revoking criminals' citizenship." It is also again never assumed, that just because the US were invaded, that the US tacitly agrees those parts aren't the US anymore, which is why someone born there might not be an automatic citizen. That doesn't exist anywhere. That's nowhere in the Constitution or any law. You are making it up. Lincoln specifically said secession is illegal and it wasn't recognized that the South wasn't part of the US. If Virginia couldn't say it wasn't part of the US, then there's no reason to think an occupying force, led by Brazil, claiming Virginia as part of Brazil, would have its misapprehension that Virginia was part of Brazil and not the US legally recognized by the US. I was asking you not so you could figure it out, I happen to know the answer as SCOTUS already gave an opinion deciding that issue: Show nested quote +The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. It has nothing to do with territory - in this case. It has to do with the fact that due to a born child's parents, a child can lack allegiance to the country. Whether you are in the employ of another country's diplomatic service, or loyal to another entity like an Indian tribe, or other country's military, friendly or otherwise, meaning you are entering the US to do things against it and without its permission, and with no allegiance to it, meaning you are not under its jurisdiction. In our example, children of normal people born in Virginia during occupation would be citizens. Children of Brazilians occupying Virginia would not be. Unless SCOTUS decided something new. I say allegiance because this is something also SCOTUS figured out a century ago in Elk v. Wilkins when an Indian renounced his tribal status and then said look, I'm a citizen, because I was born in the US. It wasn't enough. It took Congress granting citizenship to Indians also. Which I agree Congress can do. Or at least try to. They can give citizenship to MORE than the amendment applies to. They could pass a law clearly enshrining anchor baby citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants tomorrow if they wanted. I would personally say even a child of a spy/terrorist with legal status who was convicted of treason/espionage/terrorism should not be assumed to be a birthright citizen. I do not particularly have examples of this, although I haven't looked, but it's clearly a case where the issue of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be applied. Altogether, there are exceptions based on the issues both of "location" and of "parents. For example, is a ship, an airplane, American Samoa - do these places count and to what degree. Here are real exceptions to the 14th amendment from history and now that I'm aware of: 1) Indians (until 1924) 2) Puerto Rico and other territories (until whenever they got it) 3) American Samoa and other unincorporated territories (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today) 4) Children of diplomats (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today) 5) Children of enemies who have invaded the country (remain not automatic citizens at birth even today) You say hey oBlade, there's no mention of legal vs. illegal immigrants, gotcha. You wouldn't expect that because in the 19th century there was no distinction of "legal" and "illegal" status period. There doesn't need to be. It's open to interpretation - judicial interpretation - and to legislation, by the inclusion of the phrase. Banning people born to those who have no legal status - no legal right to be in the country, loyal to foreign countries - from automatically being citizens - seems not out of place in the above list as it's close to #5 already. Look forward to Blumpf testing it.
You're right. I didn't know about the war of 1812. Fair point, and it is something I could imagine that the authors of the 14th amendment might have in mind, excluding the babies of invading armies from becoming citizens does sound like a plausible meaning for that sentence now.
More to the point, if you already had those two SC quotes handy, why did you let a bunch of foreigners hypothesize about what the SC might consider the meaning of that sentence rather than just educating us?
Incidentally, the case you quoted is about as close to illegal status as you can get. It's a man born of Chinese parents who came to work in the US during a time when Chinese were explicitly forbidden entry into the USA due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts.
The second case you quoted is the other exclusion I hypothesized they might be talking about: Native American reserves, which are US territory but did not fall under US jurisdiction. As you so deftly pointed out, that is not very relevant since the people Trump wants to remove are not native americans living in reserves, and US jurisdiction now extends into the reserves anyway (insofar as the reserves still exist).
And finally, you mention diplomats, which earlier you said were not what was meant because you clamed diplomatic envoys fell under US jurisdiction at the ending of the civil war, and thus wouldn't be excluded in this manner. Now it seems they do, and from the opinions you quoted, seem like an intentional target.
Regardless, I feel fairly confident in saying that the language is sufficiently unambiguous that even Trump's stacked SC won't find enough wiggleroom to disagree with the majority opinion of 1898 and would agree that regardless of the citizenship and legality of their parents' presence in the USA, they are both in the US (undisputed) and under its jurisdiction (only source of wiggleroom, but fairly convincingly debunked in that 1898 opinion).
|
On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person?
I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter.
It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy.
|
On December 11 2024 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter. It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy.
So a combination of a patsy to take the fall plus corrupt cops planting evidence? Ok.. I guess it’s still not as far fetched as Trump staging someone to take a headshot at him and miss by a few centimeters to gain sympathy. I dunno why people jump to conspiracies immediately instead of thinking the most likely scenario might be the true one.
|
On December 11 2024 02:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2024 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter. It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy. So a combination of a patsy to take the fall plus corrupt cops planting evidence? Ok.. I guess it’s still not as far fetched as Trump staging someone to take a headshot at him and miss by a few centimeters to gain sympathy. I dunno why people jump to conspiracies immediately instead of thinking the most likely scenario might be the true one.
Not saying cops planted evidence. Saying this guy made everything they need for a nice and tidy narrative. They felt the heat of the situation and saw a nice out and didn't see any need to ask questions. Its a "everyone wins" situation
|
I find it more unlikely that they happen to randomly find a guy who has exactly the right kind of evidence on him. But who knows, he may or may not be the perpetrator. We'll see what comes from a thorough investigation.
|
On December 11 2024 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2024 02:54 BlackJack wrote:On December 11 2024 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter. It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy. So a combination of a patsy to take the fall plus corrupt cops planting evidence? Ok.. I guess it’s still not as far fetched as Trump staging someone to take a headshot at him and miss by a few centimeters to gain sympathy. I dunno why people jump to conspiracies immediately instead of thinking the most likely scenario might be the true one. Not saying cops planted evidence. Saying this guy made everything they need for a nice and tidy narrative. They felt the heat of the situation and saw a nice out and didn't see any need to ask questions. Its a "everyone wins" situation
You literally said the manifesto was planted on him exactly as they would plant drugs on someone
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On December 11 2024 02:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2024 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter. It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy. So a combination of a patsy to take the fall plus corrupt cops planting evidence? Ok.. I guess it’s still not as far fetched as Trump staging someone to take a headshot at him and miss by a few centimeters to gain sympathy. I dunno why people jump to conspiracies immediately instead of thinking the most likely scenario might be the true one.
Agreed, it’s an exceptionally annoying habit. Sure folks have long enjoyed conspiracy theorising but it was largely confined to traditional big hitters like JFK, Jimmy Hoffa or the ‘moon landings’.
Now it’s seemingly every single story going.
|
On December 11 2024 03:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2024 03:07 Mohdoo wrote:On December 11 2024 02:54 BlackJack wrote:On December 11 2024 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2024 16:59 BlackJack wrote:On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Yea, you're not gonna convince me that these are the same two people. Skin color is different, bridge of the nose is different, the eyebrows and eyes are different. It's just not the same guy. If the photo on the left was confirmed to be the guy that shot the CEO then if I was the defending attorney I would use it as evidence that the man they arrested is not the shooter. EDIT: They're not even charging him with murder. Even the police know they don't have enough to actually prove he's the killer. They're just going to parade him on TV to make it look like they solved the case. Mangione is charged with one felony count of forgery, one felony count of carrying a firearm without a license, one misdemeanor count of tampering with records or identification, one misdemeanor count of possessing instruments of a crime and one misdemeanor count of false identification to law enforcement authorities, according to a criminal complaint released Monday. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html Do you think they nabbed some other guy with a ghost gun, multiple fake IDs, and a manifesto explaining his actions? Or that there is some kind of conspiracy to frame an innocent person? I think a guy impersonating him was fortunate enough to find law enforcement desperate enough to accept him as the shooter. It’s kinda funny how a manifesto is planted on them exactly as they would plant drugs on someone lmao. Gun, ID made to match last known, then just remove drugs from the “planted evidence bundle” and add a manifesto. It all feels like the guy made his best effort to give cope everything they need to be confident they got the right guy. So a combination of a patsy to take the fall plus corrupt cops planting evidence? Ok.. I guess it’s still not as far fetched as Trump staging someone to take a headshot at him and miss by a few centimeters to gain sympathy. I dunno why people jump to conspiracies immediately instead of thinking the most likely scenario might be the true one. Not saying cops planted evidence. Saying this guy made everything they need for a nice and tidy narrative. They felt the heat of the situation and saw a nice out and didn't see any need to ask questions. Its a "everyone wins" situation You literally said the manifesto was planted on him exactly as they would plant drugs on someone
I was comparing it to how stuff is planted because of how neat and tidy the whole situation was. The manifesto being planted wouldn't really make any sense if the guy isn't denying the manifesto is his. If he was denying it was his, I would of course have more reason to think it isn't him.
I suppose my larger point is the same whether it was planted on him or he packaged everything up and made sure not to destroy any evidence: not totally sold its him yet. It could be. But it is too odd to dismiss other possibilities. We don't really have any kind of incentive to yell "final answer!" when its still so early. I'm just saying the current situation is odd for many reasons and I lean towards "Luigi is not the shooter". Its the same conclusion so you're welcome to think I think that for whatever reason you read my post to indicate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeZTsi9WEAEuENr?format=jpg&name=small)
