EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4657
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Billyboy
369 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22407 Posts
Best to lawyer up, stay quiet, and hope you make it to trial. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1022 Posts
On December 10 2024 11:45 Vindicare605 wrote: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeZTsi9WEAEuENr?format=jpg&name=small) 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. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shooter-monday/index.html This is just conspiracy nonsense. Skin color is often washed out on security cameras. The picture used of Luigi makes it look like he has a unibrow, but it's actually just shadowing. The creator purposely used a deceptive picture. Other pictures since his arrest show that he does not have a unibrow. Your picture also draws a black shape over part of his face for some reason, like it's trying to hide something. You're being taken in by someone trying to create a conspiracy. In the picture below, the guy on the right is definitely Luigi, the guy they caught, and that picture has been circulating for days. The only question would be if the guy on the left is the same man. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/news/y7pvahoad8-ahbxywnokp/Sequence_01.00_06_22_17.Still006.jpg) The Luigi guy they caught had a 3d printed gun with a suppressor. He had forged documents (with his picture on them). Had a manifesto. Nobody just dumped those things on him. He would have had to be in on the conspiracy from the beginning. And of course they charged him with murder very soon after your post. They just had the easier charges to charge him with first. They first charge him with those to make sure that they don't have to release him while they put together what they need to charge him with murder and it didn't take long to do that either. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 11 2024 04:08 Billyboy wrote: Wouldn't a super rich good looking guy who graduated from a fancy prep school as valedictorian and then graduated from an Ivy league university be the exact opposite of who you would pick to be a patsy? A very salient point, but wouldn’t the best patsy be one folks would consider unlikely? I am actually joking on the latter point, I think you’re 100% bang on the money here. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5150 Posts
On December 11 2024 02:18 Acrofales wrote: 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? I wanted to lead you by an obvious example that the legislators of the 19th century were not that dumb that they would make an amendment that didn't account for such cases, and then note why a century of law has agreed there are minutiae to work out in the implications of the text. On December 11 2024 02:18 Acrofales wrote: 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. He was born before the Chinese Exclusion Act, no...? So despite potential Chinese technological ingenuity re:time travel, we can infer that his parents were not excluded from being there based on the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The question was despite being visibly Chinese, was he an American citizen. On December 11 2024 02:18 Acrofales wrote: 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). What are you talking about remove? These two things are different issues: 1) Deporting people who have no legal status (already the law) 2) No longer granting automatic citizenship to people born in the future to parents who have entered or remained illegally at the time of birth (indeterminate - only citing law is Title 8 US Code 1401 which comes from the INA of 1952, which simply repeats the 14th Amendment verbatim "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not explaining what that does or doesn't mean any further) The citizenship status of Indians did not come, for example, from some court ruling that actually Indian reservations are really pure US, or from a president declaring that they are all annexed and part of the US again. It wasn't from a determination of what "jurisdiction" meant in the Indians case. Congress has always had power to regulate commerce among Indian tribes. For a while since there has been centralized federal law enforcement, they also have been given jurisdiction over federal crimes committed on reservations or among Indians (this is somewhat famously dramatized in Killers of the Flower Moon) and state law enforcement also gets mixed in too. These are both levels/facets of "jurisdiction." The reason is not that the "jurisdiction" issue was settled for the purpose of that amendment - it wasn't - it can be an overlapping confusing mess for the Indians today. Congress simply declared separately that they were citizens, irrespective of that amendment. The same is actually true for Puerto Rico and so on. The citizenship there comes from legal statutes - passed laws, not from court judgments. Courts have actually ruled citizenship isn't automatic in territories - which was important in US history as the US actually used to be even bigger - having controlled Cuba and the Philippines - and it would be awkward to make those places independent after making everyone born there under your rule citizens, just because they didn't meet the same fate as Alaska and Hawaii which managed to become states - and those rulings haven't been upturned, only made irrelevant due to new laws that explicitly carve out citizenship. Let me just ask you. What would be a worse injustice against the amendment: The fact that children born of illegal aliens are automatically citizens but American Samoans aren't? (current situation) Or a universe where born American Samoans/Puerto Ricans/etc. are automatically citizens but the children born to illegal immigrants aren't? (Trading one for the other) Or are these both equally fair/unfair? What's your gauge on these? On December 11 2024 02:18 Acrofales wrote: 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. Not what I meant. Rather, you (or someone) had said essentially this part means everybody except diplomats, so that part must just be referring to (only) diplomats obviously. Diplomats alone. But it's not that cut and try, because the words diplomat and ambassador existed in the 19th century, and they could have just written that and voted on it if that were to be the only exception. The language chosen is very intentional in any case and amendments don't get through with random inaccuracies. On December 11 2024 02:18 Acrofales wrote: 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). Would you like to go on record saying "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment means there's no basis for gun laws and regulations? After all... "legal language is precise" as we say? Personally I see the wiggleroom in both cases. Lindsey Graham I think introduced or plans to introduce a bill to that effect as SCOTUS alone isn't the only avenue to seek reform for this. | ||
KwarK
United States41671 Posts
On December 11 2024 03:16 Magic Powers wrote: 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. Nobody said that was the alternative. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
On December 11 2024 04:08 Billyboy wrote: Wouldn't a super rich good looking guy who graduated from a fancy prep school as valedictorian and then graduated from an Ivy league university be the exact opposite of who you would pick to be a patsy? Alternatively, Luigi's background makes it very easy for him to emerge mostly unscathed if it turns out he's not the shooter. Plenty of family wealth and resources to defend himself if it turns out the only evidence is the evidence he had on him. All of Luigi's background and recent struggles make him an ideal person to decide "fuck it, what a golden opportunity to help this guy out". Some components of this story appear so meticulously planned you could argue Luigi as a red herring is somewhat reasonable. If we imagine a situation where a month from now Luigi is finally found to be the wrong guy, it will mean the entire effort to find the real shooter was abandoned early and all hopes of ever finding him are gone. To reach ever further, rich privvy types like Luigi always fantasize about throwing it all away and risking it all on a bold vision. All while lacking the confidence and courage to actually do it. You could argue serving as a red herring would be the ideal situation for both of them. | ||
|
Billyboy
369 Posts
On December 11 2024 05:37 Mohdoo wrote: Alternatively, Luigi's background makes it very easy for him to emerge mostly unscathed if it turns out he's not the shooter. Plenty of family wealth and resources to defend himself if it turns out the only evidence is the evidence he had on him. All of Luigi's background and recent struggles make him an ideal person to decide "fuck it, what a golden opportunity to help this guy out". Some components of this story appear so meticulously planned you could argue Luigi as a red herring is somewhat reasonable. If we imagine a situation where a month from now Luigi is finally found to be the wrong guy, it will mean the entire effort to find the real shooter was abandoned early and all hopes of ever finding him are gone. To reach ever further, rich privvy types like Luigi always fantasize about throwing it all away and risking it all on a bold vision. All while lacking the confidence and courage to actually do it. You could argue serving as a red herring would be the ideal situation for both of them. One can argue anything, does not make it remotely likely. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
On December 11 2024 05:44 Billyboy wrote: One can argue anything, does not make it remotely likely. Also true. For me, there is no explanation for any of this that doesn't have massive holes. So I am mostly agnostic. People explaining away stuff as a mental breakdown when he was apparently meticulous and calculated days before feels forced and working out the calculations backwards. | ||
|
Billyboy
369 Posts
But who knows his reasons, I'd be super shocked if it was not him. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
On December 11 2024 05:49 Billyboy wrote: I think he likely realized he was fucked when he saw his picture everywhere, also likely loved all the positive attention he was getting and wanted the credit. People do a lot of fucked up shit to get famous. But who knows his reasons, I'd be super shocked if it was not him. It feels so open right now nothing would shock me but i also won't be surprised if we eventually conclusively learn it was him. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 11 2024 05:47 Mohdoo wrote: Also true. For me, there is no explanation for any of this that doesn't have massive holes. So I am mostly agnostic. People explaining away stuff as a mental breakdown when he was apparently meticulous and calculated days before feels forced and working out the calculations backwards. You can be meticulous and calculating while suffering a mental break you just generally can’t sustain it for very long. I never proferred that as a personal pet theory, merely a possibility. You seem to be discounting things like irrationality, instability, or indeed just sloppiness from the equation, and if one does that, well yes a lot of stuff won’t necessarily make sense. Alternatively, perhaps one reason the guy didn’t attempt to dump the incriminating evidence he had on his person was because he calculated it would be more likely to get him caught, not less. It took 6 days to find him after all. If I’m him I’m thinking maybe, there’s an infinitesimal chance I might have skated, and if that WERE the case then trying to dispose of a gun introduces another risk, so it might be prudent not to try. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10099 Posts
On December 11 2024 05:47 Mohdoo wrote: Also true. For me, there is no explanation for any of this that doesn't have massive holes. So I am mostly agnostic. People explaining away stuff as a mental breakdown when he was apparently meticulous and calculated days before feels forced and working out the calculations backwards. The massive holes primarily being that his eyebrows look different in 2 grainy photos and that there is … too much… evidence pointing to him? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3554 Posts
On December 11 2024 06:18 WombaT wrote: You can be meticulous and calculating while suffering a mental break you just generally can’t sustain it for very long. I never proferred that as a personal pet theory, merely a possibility. You seem to be discounting things like irrationality, instability, or indeed just sloppiness from the equation, and if one does that, well yes a lot of stuff won’t necessarily make sense. Alternatively, perhaps one reason the guy didn’t attempt to dump the incriminating evidence he had on his person was because he calculated it would be more likely to get him caught, not less. It took 6 days to find him after all. If I’m him I’m thinking maybe, there’s an infinitesimal chance I might have skated, and if that WERE the case then trying to dispose of a gun introduces another risk, so it might be prudent not to try. I think people would benefit a lot from watching more TV shows about real crimes. Criminals often display the most absurd behavior that gets them caught. People project their own rationale onto others, but that's not how things work in real life. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
On December 11 2024 06:36 BlackJack wrote: The massive holes primarily being that his eyebrows look different in 2 grainy photos and that there is … too much… evidence pointing to him? Not really trying to argue it since it feels like it’s kind of a benign question to argue anyway. Low info situation right now and not really anything at stake whether it’s him or not. So I’m not really interested in trying to convince you or list out each detail that seems odd. I don’t mean this in a “leave me alone” way, just specifying it wasn’t my intention to convince anyone. More so just sharing my thoughts and seeing what info others have | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 11 2024 08:13 Mohdoo wrote: Not really trying to argue it since it feels like it’s kind of a benign question to argue anyway. Low info situation right now and not really anything at stake whether it’s him or not. So I’m not really interested in trying to convince you or list out each detail that seems odd. I don’t mean this in a “leave me alone” way, just specifying it wasn’t my intention to convince anyone. More so just sharing my thoughts and seeing what info others have But you simultaneously seem to want to hide behind it being a low info situation, while postulating on what you think at various junctures whenever suits. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7004 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23371 Posts
On December 11 2024 08:21 Zambrah wrote: I mean, when else should someone postulate vague ideas, if theres lots of factual information that seems like an environment where postulation is a lot harder, this is the prime opportunity to speculate, a fishy seeming situation without a ton of information about a current event less than a week old You can hold off for a day or two, there’s nout forcing you to immediately speculate. If people of the right were posting like Mohdoo currently is in this thread they’d be dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists, as should he on this current tangent. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15322 Posts
On December 11 2024 08:16 WombaT wrote: But you simultaneously seem to want to hide behind it being a low info situation, while postulating on what you think at various junctures whenever suits. I think speculation has a place in any situation. Its all a matter of how much confidence or certainty people attach to it. I am attaching almost none. I was just being clear I am not saying anyone else is wrong because I think saying someone is wrong requires more confidence than speculation. Just kinda shootin the shit and discussing. Not everything needs to be an argument and sometimes we can freely discuss conflicting theories without it being combative | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7004 Posts
Maybe he wanted to get caught so he could get his message out there in the court room, maybe he hadn't put any meaningful forethought into his plan beyond the first day escaping the hit, maybe he was planning to travel around the country to avoid capture and just hadn't disposed of anything yet. I don't really see any reason to give two shits about how right wingers in this thread might be treated in a similar hypothetical situation, I mostly don't respect right wing beliefs on a fundamental level, but right wing conspiracies are also typically weird and more insane (ring of satanic pedophiles in a pizza place's basement) than speculating on the situation around why such a seemingly intelligent person would get caught with a baffling amount of incriminating shit given he seemed to have damn near evaded capture. | ||
| ||
