NYC assassination news thread - Please no politics (1 Viewer)

[beer 30]

The ads on NFL games are for diseases that impact such a tiny subset of people. How is that even a good idea? I get the Ozempic-type ads, and the viagra ads, but some funky skin conditions impacting like 1/10000 to 1/50000 people, how does this even make sense to do?

I have psoriatic arthritis. One or more of those kind of obscure ads pertains to that or they did on the games I was watching. I was diagnosed in 1998 and have been taking a biologic injectable that currently runs about $1700/mth for 4 shots. It's made a pretty huge difference in my life allowing me to do things I couldn't before treatment started.

That said, in the 26 years I've been on this stuff, I've never met anyone else with psoriatic arthritis. The thing that gets me the most is the co-pay assistance the drug manufacturer provides that help me pay for this. They allot $7500/year to me to help with the cost. How's about you just lower the cost of the drug and we call it a day? I know it's probably similar to manufacturers warranties but it's a hassle to use, just make it easy for people. You've made your bank on the drug.

 

[thecatch]

I don't understand the thinking or media coverage of the "but" angle. Where someone influential can say this was a tragedy and they don't support violence, but Americans are upset and its time to have a conversation about healthcare. It's like there is an implication that if you use this event to spark a conversation, you're condoning the shooter's actions.

I'm of the belief that if you can see public sentiment brewing, ignoring it isn't the answer.

It creates a perverse incentive to use a murder as a vehicle to address the murderer's manifesto.

I get it, but is ignoring the perceived issues within our healthcare system the better solution?

Well it seems like we've made progress.

 

[Max Power]

I don't understand the thinking or media coverage of the "but" angle. Where someone influential can say this was a tragedy and they don't support violence, but Americans are upset and its time to have a conversation about healthcare. It's like there is an implication that if you use this event to spark a conversation, you're condoning the shooter's actions.

I'm of the belief that if you can see public sentiment brewing, ignoring it isn't the answer.

It creates a perverse incentive to use a murder as a vehicle to address the murderer's manifesto.

I get it, but is ignoring the perceived issues within our healthcare system the better solution?

Well it seems like we've made progress.

I'll rephrase. I don't understand the prioritization of the two points. I don't think acknowledging people are upset with the healthcare industry and looking to improve it is a tip of the cap to the shooter.

 

[thecatch]

I don't understand the thinking or media coverage of the "but" angle. Where someone influential can say this was a tragedy and they don't support violence, but Americans are upset and its time to have a conversation about healthcare. It's like there is an implication that if you use this event to spark a conversation, you're condoning the shooter's actions.

I'm of the belief that if you can see public sentiment brewing, ignoring it isn't the answer.

It creates a perverse incentive to use a murder as a vehicle to address the murderer's manifesto.

I get it, but is ignoring the perceived issues within our healthcare system the better solution?

Well it seems like we've made progress.

I'll rephrase. I don't understand the prioritization of the two points. I don't think acknowledging people are upset with the healthcare industry and looking to improve it is a tip of the cap to the shooter.

It is when you start the discussion with the "but" sentence that you were confused about.

 

[fatness]

United Health really isn't doing much to tamp down consumer anger against them.

UnitedHealth Is Strategically Limiting Access to Critical Treatment for Kids With Autism

ProPublica has obtained what is effectively the company’s strategic playbook, developed by Optum, the division that manages mental health benefits for United. In internal reports, the company acknowledges that the therapy, called applied behavior analysis, is the “evidence-based gold standard treatment for those with medically necessary needs.” But the company’s costs have climbed as the number of children diagnosed with autism has ballooned; experts say greater awareness and improved screening have contributed to a fourfold increase in the past two decades — from 1 in 150 to 1 in 36.

So Optum is “pursuing market-specific action plans” to limit children’s access to the treatment, the reports said . “Key opportunities” are outlined in bullets in the documents. While acknowledging some areas have “very long waitlists” for the therapy, the company said it aims to “prevent new providers from joining the network” and “terminate” existing ones, including “cost outliers.”

 

[Dezbelief]

Luigi Mangione indicted on first-degree murder charge in UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing

Mangione is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4.

www.nbcnews.com

New York has issued a 1st degree murder indictment.

 

[djmich]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

 

[IvanKaramazov]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

This is an opportune time to recall who saw this as a big deal immediately after it happened and who hand-waved it. One group had an accurate model of where public opinion is at the moment, and the other did not.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Luigi Mangione indicted on first-degree murder charge in UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing

Mangione is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4.

www.nbcnews.com

New York has issued a 1st degree murder indictment.

Seems aggressive from Bragg to add the "in furtherance of terrorism" element to bump this to first degree under NY law. I've no knowledge or experience in this but it seems to me maybe he's unnecessarily taking on a difficult proof issue. Prosecutors gonna prosecute I guess ...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Luigi Mangione indicted on first-degree murder charge in UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing

Mangione is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4.

www.nbcnews.com

New York has issued a 1st degree murder indictment.

Seems aggressive from Bragg to add the "in furtherance of terrorism" element to bump this to first degree under NY law. I've no knowledge or experience in this but it seems to me maybe he's unnecessarily taking on a difficult proof issue. Prosecutors gonna prosecute I guess ...

I'm not a lawyer, of course. But it seems to me as a citizen that "I'm going to lie in wait so I can shoot my target in the back for an easy kill" should qualify for the harshest possible penalty (life, in NY's case) without needing any further embellishment. It's weird to me that that isn't just the default criminal law regarding first degree murder everywhere. I get that states write their criminal statutes differently, but it seems like this should be a bottom-line standard.

Mangione's actions were obviously premeditated. He had a clear plan. There was no inflamed passion or any spur-of-the-moment considerations. He knew what he wanted to do, formed a pretty decent plan to carry it out, and did it. He explained his thoughts process rationally and lucidly. Lock him up and never let him out again. Why do we need another law to cover this?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Luigi Mangione indicted on first-degree murder charge in UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing

Mangione is accused of fatally shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4.

www.nbcnews.com

New York has issued a 1st degree murder indictment.

Seems aggressive from Bragg to add the "in furtherance of terrorism" element to bump this to first degree under NY law. I've no knowledge or experience in this but it seems to me maybe he's unnecessarily taking on a difficult proof issue. Prosecutors gonna prosecute I guess ...

I'm not a lawyer, of course. But it seems to me as a citizen that "I'm going to lie in wait so I can shoot my target in the back for an easy kill" should qualify for the harshest possible penalty (life, in NY's case) without needing any further embellishment. It's weird to me that that isn't just the default criminal law regarding first degree murder everywhere. I get that states write their criminal statutes differently, but it seems like this should be a bottom-line standard.

Mangione's actions were obviously premeditated. He had a clear plan. There was no inflamed passion or any spur-of-the-moment considerations. He knew what he wanted to do, formed a pretty decent plan to carry it out, and did it. He explained his thoughts process rationally and lucidly. Lock him up and never let him out again. Why do we need another law to cover this?

In my state it would certainly be a mandatory life sentence regardless of any "furtherance of terrorism" element, but someone posted the NY statute upthread and it is a bit odd - first degree being reserved for certain specific types of homicides like killing a witness or a cop or a terrorism murder, whereas normal murder is their second-degree homicide. I'm not sure how that plays into sentencing in NY. Bragg also charged counts of second degree homicide. I'm not sure why he included the first degree charge but agree that this seems like a very easy case for normal pre-mediated intentional homicide. For me, the terrorism charge is much less easy to prove at trial and will only complicate things. I guess its not unusual for prosecutors to over-charge ( @Zow ?) but in a high-profile case like this one I think I'd want to just take the low-hanging fruit and get it done.

 

[the moops]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

This is an opportune time to recall who saw this as a big deal immediately after it happened and who hand-waved it. One group had an accurate model of where public opinion is at the moment, and the other did not.

You should know better. One anonymous poll with dubious questions does not equal public opinion

 

[fatness]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

More detail on that poll result (from the polling company):
Do You Think The Actions Of The Killer Of The United Healthcare CEO Are Acceptable Or Unacceptable?
Age Group 18-29

Completely acceptable: 17%
Somewhat acceptable: 24%
Neutral: 19%
Somewhat unacceptable: 7%
Completely unacceptable: 33%

"The Emerson College Polling national survey was conducted December 11-13, 2024. The sample of registered voters, n=1,000, has a credibility interval, similar to a poll’s margin of error (MOE), of +/- 3 percentage points. The data sets were weighted by gender, education, race, age, party registration, and region.

It is important to remember that subsets based on demographics, such as gender, age, education, and race/ethnicity, carry with them higher credibility intervals, as the sample size is reduced."

 

[Jayrod]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

This is an opportune time to recall who saw this as a big deal immediately after it happened and who hand-waved it. One group had an accurate model of where public opinion is at the moment, and the other did not.

You should know better. One anonymous poll with dubious questions does not equal public opinion

Anonymous would make it more accurate, I think, and not sure how the question is "dubious".

 

[fatness]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

 

[BassNBrew]

The ads on NFL games are for diseases that impact such a tiny subset of people. How is that even a good idea? I get the Ozempic-type ads, and the viagra ads, but some funky skin conditions impacting like 1/10000 to 1/50000 people, how does this even make sense to do?

I have psoriatic arthritis. One or more of those kind of obscure ads pertains to that or they did on the games I was watching. I was diagnosed in 1998 and have been taking a biologic injectable that currently runs about $1700/mth for 4 shots. It's made a pretty huge difference in my life allowing me to do things I couldn't before treatment started.

That said, in the 26 years I've been on this stuff, I've never met anyone else with psoriatic arthritis. The thing that gets me the most is the co-pay assistance the drug manufacturer provides that help me pay for this. They allot $7500/year to me to help with the cost. How's about you just lower the cost of the drug and we call it a day? I know it's probably similar to manufacturers warranties but it's a hassle to use, just make it easy for people. You've made your bank on the drug.

I think the theory is that the $7500 should cover most of your out of pocket max so the drug becomes "free" to the user.

 

[Juxtatarot]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

Seems like a reasonably accurate poll, right? Even if it’s a bit biased and outside the margin of error, it still tells us the “support” for the killer is certainly significant.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

This is an opportune time to recall who saw this as a big deal immediately after it happened and who hand-waved it. One group had an accurate model of where public opinion is at the moment, and the other did not.

You should know better. One anonymous poll with dubious questions does not equal public opinion

Dude, it's just a normal poll like any other. This actually is, literally, how we measure public opinion.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm not surprised at the poll results at all. The same sentiment that led to the French Revolution and the guillotine and the Russian Revolution and the slaughter of the Romanov's is brewing in the US. Villifying your political opponents as Nazis and pitting us against each other in class warfare makes people think killing the opposition is a reasonable solution.

What makes it laughable in the US is those same people are getting angry while sipping lattes and getting updates on their iPhone, not dying of hunger out in the streets.

 

[Max Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

 

[GroveDiesel]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

 

[matttyl]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

It was also asked last week, Wednesday through Friday. Given the age range, could be a bunch of college kids who have had a few cocktails having just finished their finals and ready for winter break.

 

[Max Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

 

[beer 30]

The ads on NFL games are for diseases that impact such a tiny subset of people. How is that even a good idea? I get the Ozempic-type ads, and the viagra ads, but some funky skin conditions impacting like 1/10000 to 1/50000 people, how does this even make sense to do?

I have psoriatic arthritis. One or more of those kind of obscure ads pertains to that or they did on the games I was watching. I was diagnosed in 1998 and have been taking a biologic injectable that currently runs about $1700/mth for 4 shots. It's made a pretty huge difference in my life allowing me to do things I couldn't before treatment started.

That said, in the 26 years I've been on this stuff, I've never met anyone else with psoriatic arthritis. The thing that gets me the most is the co-pay assistance the drug manufacturer provides that help me pay for this. They allot $7500/year to me to help with the cost. How's about you just lower the cost of the drug and we call it a day? I know it's probably similar to manufacturers warranties but it's a hassle to use, just make it easy for people. You've made your bank on the drug.

I think the theory is that the $7500 should cover most of your out of pocket max so the drug becomes "free" to the user.

Ha, that used to work but now the insurance folks have got wise to this deal so rather than have insurance bare the brunt of the drug charge, they force you to use all of your co-pay assistance first which covers about 4 months BEFORE insurance will start coverage. Then it's $200 a month to me until it resets again so $1,600ish out of pocket.

It USED to be essentially free to me but they just changed that this year unbeknownst to me of course. Always a nice surprise.

 

[BassNBrew]

The ads on NFL games are for diseases that impact such a tiny subset of people. How is that even a good idea? I get the Ozempic-type ads, and the viagra ads, but some funky skin conditions impacting like 1/10000 to 1/50000 people, how does this even make sense to do?

I have psoriatic arthritis. One or more of those kind of obscure ads pertains to that or they did on the games I was watching. I was diagnosed in 1998 and have been taking a biologic injectable that currently runs about $1700/mth for 4 shots. It's made a pretty huge difference in my life allowing me to do things I couldn't before treatment started.

That said, in the 26 years I've been on this stuff, I've never met anyone else with psoriatic arthritis. The thing that gets me the most is the co-pay assistance the drug manufacturer provides that help me pay for this. They allot $7500/year to me to help with the cost. How's about you just lower the cost of the drug and we call it a day? I know it's probably similar to manufacturers warranties but it's a hassle to use, just make it easy for people. You've made your bank on the drug.

I think the theory is that the $7500 should cover most of your out of pocket max so the drug becomes "free" to the user.

Ha, that used to work but now the insurance folks have got wise to this deal so rather than have insurance bare the brunt of the drug charge, they force you to use all of your co-pay assistance first which covers about 4 months BEFORE insurance will start coverage. Then it's $200 a month to me until it resets again so $1,600ish out of pocket.

It USED to be essentially free to me but they just changed that this year unbeknownst to me of course. Always a nice surprise.

And this is what I love about insurance. My partner was able to apply to her co-pay last year while you weren't.

Of course they denied her PT last year saying she needed re-evaluation after 5 visits. New policy implemented by Blue Cross mid year. Strange that you can change the rules mid year. More interesting, no one at Blue Cross knew about this. Of course if you are in the general pool you get someone on the other side of the world helping you. If you fight with them for an hour you might get to a supervisor that speaks English. Even these supervisors didn't know about the new rule and was blaming the denial on the provider's coding. The provider is considering not taking insurance next year because they are spending more time on approvals than treating patients.

My "MIL" had a very important drug for her health denied twice. She finally went to Duke for a second opinion on her condition and they recommended the same drug. She explained the situation and that doctor said we have zero problems getting that drug approved. How that is even a possibility I don't understand.

Is it possible that we start a second thread as I don't want my disdain for the system to be equated in any way with supporting a murderer.

 

[Joe Schmo]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

 

[Joe Schmo]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Am curious where you are going with your addition, IK? Deflecting to score political points is my guess but I could be wrong.

 

[Capella]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

It was also asked last week, Wednesday through Friday. Given the age range, could be a bunch of college kids who have had a few cocktails having just finished their finals and ready for winter break.

Why do people keep making excuses for how much young people despise our system

 

[Jayrod]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

It was also asked last week, Wednesday through Friday. Given the age range, could be a bunch of college kids who have had a few cocktails having just finished their finals and ready for winter break.

That's some mental gymnastics right there. It is what it is. No need to try and explain it away.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Am curious where you are going with your addition, IK? Deflecting to score political points is my guess but I could be wrong.

I'm extremely unhappy with the level of political violence/unrest in the US today. It's more than just this one incident, and for some reason people refuse to acknowledge it regardless of what data you show them. It's maddening.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

It was also asked last week, Wednesday through Friday. Given the age range, could be a bunch of college kids who have had a few cocktails having just finished their finals and ready for winter break.

That's some mental gymnastics right there. It is what it is. No need to try and explain it away.

If a person doesn't believe this poll result, then they shouldn't believe any poll result ever. There is some extremely selective "I don't believe the evidence that is being presented to me" filters being applied here.

 

[djmich]

Am curious where you are going with your addition, IK? Deflecting to score political points is my guess but I could be wrong.

If there was a political deflection, it was bringing J6 into a healthcare CEO murder discussion.

 

[matttyl]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

 

[Max Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Am curious where you are going with your addition, IK? Deflecting to score political points is my guess but I could be wrong.

If there was a political deflection, it was bringing J6 into a healthcare CEO murder discussion.

There was additional conversation revolving around the violence of today being generational and tied to whatever societal maladies are affecting the youth which ignored the facts of recent political violence perpetrated by middle and older aged people as well. This multi-page discussion has many branches.

 

[djmich]

Am curious where you are going with your addition, IK? Deflecting to score political points is my guess but I could be wrong.

If there was a political deflection, it was bringing J6 into a healthcare CEO murder discussion.

There was additional conversation revolving around the violence of today being generational and tied to whatever societal maladies are affecting the youth which ignored the facts of recent political violence perpetrated by middle and older aged people as well. This multi-page discussion has many branches.

Um ok, but pretty sure it shouldn't have a political branch, which J6 is.

 

[Max Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

The killing of the CEO was a one off and not indicative of anything more than one person being unstable. Many folks reveled in the attempt to overturn an election result to the point that we are about to see political persecutions run amok and cheered on from the sideline. These persecutions will not be done by the youth but rather our older supposedly more thoughtful members of society.

I think you're missing the point. 41% of young adults found murder acceptable.... Thats not a one off. That's a problem.

 

[Joe Schmo]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

The killing of the CEO was a one off and not indicative of anything more than one person being unstable. Many folks reveled in the attempt to overturn an election result to the point that we are about to see political persecutions run amok and cheered on from the sideline. These persecutions will not be done by the youth but rather our older supposedly more thoughtful members of society.

I think you're missing the point. 41% of young adults found murder acceptable.... Thats not a one off. That's a problem.

41% of those polled found that murder acceptable, 51% of the electorate found attempts to overturn an election acceptable.

 

[Capella]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

I don’t blame you. Of course it’s sad to think this is where we are.

 

[BassNBrew]

That question was asked of 141 people ages 18-29 in that poll.

18-29 years

141

14.1

14.1

14.1

ECP_National_12.13.24.xlsx

docs.google.com

It was also asked last week, Wednesday through Friday. Given the age range, could be a bunch of college kids who have had a few cocktails having just finished their finals and ready for winter break.

That's some mental gymnastics right there. It is what it is. No need to try and explain it away.

If a person doesn't believe this poll result, then they shouldn't believe any poll result ever. There is some extremely selective "I don't believe the evidence that is being presented to me" filters being applied here.

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

The killing of the CEO was a one off and not indicative of anything more than one person being unstable. Many folks reveled in the attempt to overturn an election result to the point that we are about to see political persecutions run amok and cheered on from the sideline. These persecutions will not be done by the youth but rather our older supposedly more thoughtful members of society.

I think you're missing the point. 41% of young adults found murder acceptable.... Thats not a one off. That's a problem.

I didn't do a deep dive and relying on the poster's information, but I'm not putting much stock in a poll with only 141 respondents. Maybe IK is right and i shouldn't belief any poll.

 

[Max Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

The killing of the CEO was a one off and not indicative of anything more than one person being unstable. Many folks reveled in the attempt to overturn an election result to the point that we are about to see political persecutions run amok and cheered on from the sideline. These persecutions will not be done by the youth but rather our older supposedly more thoughtful members of society.

I think you're missing the point. 41% of young adults found murder acceptable.... Thats not a one off. That's a problem.

41% of those polled found that murder acceptable, 51% of the electorate found attempts to overturn an election acceptable.

I disagree with your interpretation of the events, but for the sake of the thread we should drop this.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

I don’t blame you. Of course it’s sad to think this is where we are.

If I ask 100 of my friends and family, I doubt 2% would find murder acceptable and those two probably would have misunderstood the question.

 

[BassNBrew]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

Link

I'll echo what I said pages ago. Younger generations (for the most part) have lived an instant gratification lifestyle, and this radical course of action is more in line with how they initiate change vs a longer drawn-out process.

I’m not convinced it’s a generational thing. A large percentage of January 6th rioters were in their 40s and 50s.

This is nothing like Jan 6th.

Using violence to affect change rather than let process run it's course creates the equivalence, imo.

You just described the entire summer of 2020. (Maybe that was where you were going with this?)

No, where I was going was agreeing with and offering further explanation for GroveDiesel's point that resorting to violence to affect change in today's society isn't relegated to just the younger generation.

I won't get political here, but that was a protest that got out of hand (for various reasons). It wasn't a pre-planned violent, armed, overthrow of the government that some think it is.
The CEO murder was just that... The intent was to kill, and that intent is supported by 41% of the younger generation.

Had J6 been an actual armed insurrection to kill people in the government, you wouldn't see any polling where 40% of any demographic would support that.

The killing of the CEO was a one off and not indicative of anything more than one person being unstable. Many folks reveled in the attempt to overturn an election result to the point that we are about to see political persecutions run amok and cheered on from the sideline. These persecutions will not be done by the youth but rather our older supposedly more thoughtful members of society.

I think you're missing the point. 41% of young adults found murder acceptable.... Thats not a one off. That's a problem.

41% of those polled found that murder acceptable, 51% of the electorate found attempts to overturn an election acceptable.

I disagree with your interpretation of the events, but for the sake of the thread we should drop this.

Thank you and well handled.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's another poll conducted by The Economist. It shows Mangione with a +9 favorable/unfavorable rating amont 18-29 year olds. Basically consistent with the Emerson poll. (He's only -1 among 30-44 year-olds).

I need for some of you to realize that your circle of family and friends isn't representative of the US population as a whole.

 

[El Floppo]

Here's another poll conducted by The Economist. It shows Mangione with a +9 favorable/unfavorable rating amont 18-29 year olds. Basically consistent with the Emerson poll. (He's only -1 among 30-44 year-olds).

I need for some of you to realize that your circle of family and friends isn't representative of the US population as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that's the wrong poll. If not, can you let us know what page the Mangione component is

 

[Capella]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

I don’t blame you. Of course it’s sad to think this is where we are.

If I ask 100 of my friends and family, I doubt 2% would find murder acceptable and those two probably would have misunderstood the question.

I don’t have hundreds of friends lol why would I want to talk to that many people but of the 5 I talked to about this one said yea that rules and the other wasn’t upset about it at all but also didn’t cheer it on.

 

[BassNBrew]

Sorry, was trying to give my fellow (younger) man the benefit the doubt above. It is the holiday season after all. Perhaps I shouldn’t have - and perhaps I should just be sad at society in general.

I don’t blame you. Of course it’s sad to think this is where we are.

If I ask 100 of my friends and family, I doubt 2% would find murder acceptable and those two probably would have misunderstood the question.

I don’t have hundreds of friends lol why would I want to talk to that many people but of the 5 I talked to about this one said yea that rules and the other wasn’t upset about it at all but also didn’t cheer it on.

You live in Florida right?

 

[Desert_Power]

41% of adults under 30 consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson acceptable, more than the 40% in the same demographic who say it’s unacceptable.

More detail on that poll result (from the polling company):
Do You Think The Actions Of The Killer Of The United Healthcare CEO Are Acceptable Or Unacceptable?
Age Group 18-29

Completely acceptable: 17%
Somewhat acceptable: 24%
Neutral: 19%
Somewhat unacceptable: 7%
Completely unacceptable: 33%

"The Emerson College Polling national survey was conducted December 11-13, 2024. The sample of registered voters, n=1,000, has a credibility interval, similar to a poll’s margin of error (MOE), of +/- 3 percentage points. The data sets were weighted by gender, education, race, age, party registration, and region.

It is important to remember that subsets based on demographics, such as gender, age, education, and race/ethnicity, carry with them higher credibility intervals, as the sample size is reduced."

This is very sad and I think evidence of a larger trend of support for violence.