There is a certain irony in this, given that such behaviour (demonstrating that rule of law applies only to the peons) is what has so inflamed the public in support of Mangione.
This is the reason why Kamala was predicted to win. In reality, the "I don't care which candidate is in the office" was the top choice this recent election.
I would argue the 2024 election was quite the opposite.
> More than 155 million Americans voted in 2024: 156,302,318 to be exact. That’s the second largest total voter turnout in U.S. history in absolute terms. It is also just the second time that more than 140 million people voted in a presidential election.
Don't use absolute numbers here, that's lying with statistics.
The correct metric would be relative turnout and that doesn't support your claim:
> In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900
People can care and think the two candidates with a chance to win are too bad to endorse with a vote, leading them to stay home and spend their time more wisely than in what they might consider to be a farce of democracy.
They may also live in an area where their preferred candidate has no chance of winning, making their vote a waste of time.
Of course it makes a difference to vote for what you actually want, no matter if they win this time. If you don't have an appointment at the euthanasia office and you (or someone who can vote in your name) is in good enough health to reasonably go, I can't (currently) think of an argument why it wouldn't be worth one's time to vote for who should govern you
Speaking of relative: since the term "landslide" has been thrown around in the direct aftermath of the election quite a bit, it's interesting to note that nationwide, Trump only received 1.5% more votes than Harris.
This is especially telling in the light of the numbers you just gave on voter turnout.
The enthusiasm gap was entirely on the Democrat side this past election. Donald Trump won considerably more votes this past election than he ever has. There are also a significant number of prominent former lifelong Democrats that switched to being Trump supporters. Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., and Elon Musk come to mind.
> Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. That is the second highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020. Trump won 3,059,799 more popular votes in 2024 than he won in 2020 and 14,299,293 more than he won in 2016. He now holds the record for the most cumulative popular votes won by any presidential candidate in U.S. history, surpassing Barack Obama. Running three times for the White House obviously helps.
Quite astonished to see Elon Musk being used as an example of someone whose views are worth following. If someone goes from e.g. Red Cross employee to ever more worrying statements and eventually outright racism and misinformation, I'm worried what happened to them (some disease?) more than thinking "ah crap, the racism party was right after all, let me go and vote AfD now"
So, turnout was still really high but not literally the highest in 120 years. Who's talking about lying with statistics again?
This is all worthless anyway. We don't use the popular vote to determine presidency. Reports show That turnout among youth was lower than 2020, but still really high in battleground states. That tells me the youth already lost faith of their vote counting.
The relative turnout is always going to be more interesting given that population growth means you'll almost always soon exceed your total turnout within a few election cycles:
> In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020, which was the highest voter turnout rate in a U.S. presidential election since 1900. Nonetheless, turnout in 2024 was still high by modern standards. The 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (63.8 percent) is the only other election in the last 112 years to exceed 63 percent voter turnout. If you are wondering, the election of 1876 holds the record for the highest percentage voter turnout: 82.6 percent. That was one of America’s most controversial and consequential elections—and not in a good way. It was also an election in which more than half the adult-age population was ineligible to vote.
There are actual statistics about this past memes though.There were conservative personalities dogged down in trying to reject Luigi.
I get your point. But the key difference is that "giving support" is a lot different than getting out to vote (which pains me to say). Statistically, 58% of those young people voting for Kamala didn't even bother going to the polls.
The worst spreader of this was the justice system though. You escalate crimes so high in a hug profile case, of course it will spread like wildfire.
In the case of Mangione, some stats proved his support reached the real world. If I remember correctly, something like 43% of <30s approved of his crime.
31% positive for those under 45, 8% positive for those above 45.
41% negative for those under 45, 77% negative for those above 45.
Not the majority, even for younger people. And remember, this is just U.S. opinion; people in other countries might view this differently (likely even more negatively).
Not an American, so I don't really have much say in it. But, if 31% of your younger population is thinking that assassination was justified... That's tens of millions of people. I would be wondering why, and how that is even acceptable. It's definitely showing how it can't be categorized as black/white issue.
Look at the website for that polling company. It is bizarre. None of the people on the people page have the company on their LinkedIn pages. Seems to be astroturf.
Edit: look at the photos of the people… AI generated perhaps?
Ah, thanks, I forgot the real numbers. That's still tens of millions of people supporting an assassin, which majority or not, should tell you something about this country.
Ok, show me a non-peon who shot a man in broad daylight and on video and didn't face the law afterward.
Edit: I mean on purpose, obviously. Drunk driving hardly counts. (Nobody gets in a car drunk with the intention of hurting anyone, they are usually just trying to get from A to B.) Accidents don't count. We're talking about a comparable action here, something that meets the legal definition of murder and which was also not prosecuted. Deeds from war probably don't count because it doesn't meet the definition of murder under law (although, many war crimes and misdeeds abroad are punished) and soldiers are peons. Cops killing people on duty don't count because they aren't doing it unprovoked (when they do, it is usually prosecuted as murder), and they too are peons.
Also, to the people complaining about the edits, sorry I can't reply to 50 comments all saying about the same kind of stuff. I keep hitting the rate limit.
There has been worse, such as the affluenza case. I don't think peons get away with running over a bunch of people and then claiming they didnt know better because they grew up too rich.
They ad up though. How many DUI murders are equivalent to a single premeditated murder?
But yeah, people in these positions rarely need or want to directly kill someone, they have other means to achieve their goals.
Yet many financial or other white collar crimes are usually never prosecuted or result in a slap on the wrist.
Obviously they are not the same as murder but still the impact ads up. Defrauding or ruining thousands of people or crashing the global economy is not that far off.
Then you have police officers regularly getting away with outright murder and facing no consequences (of course that’s a different class)
Right! It was an accident, not murder! Even if they were drunk. And high. And on Valium. And doing 70 in a residential neighborhood. And on a restricted license from a previous DUI...
...Doesn't mean they meant to kill someone! Completely different crimes.
CIA officer Allen Lawrence Pope flew a B-26 bomber targeting civilian merchant vessels in Indonesia as part of an operation to overthrow the Indonesian president by weakening the economy and inspiring local discontent. He personally claimed to have "enjoyed killing Communists". His plane was shot down, and he was eventually returned to the US, where he continued to fly planes for the CIA.
Does this count? Or is the government allowed to indiscriminately kill civilians whenever and wherever they feel like it?
Bug issue is we have more than enough research and awareness that you can consider drunk driving a "choice" not just some unfortunate accident. You're not relieved of all mental cognition when you're drunk.
The thing here is, the non-peon has other means to get the same result, just caring about if he did it or not does not make the situation less worse - same intention, same severity.
Not a conspiracy-theory fan or anything but this basic power distribution is obviously skewed for people who are rich(er) and that's a fact.
As someone else mentioned Duck, I’ll add all the questionable police shootings that gets a slap on the wrist as the Police can be seen as the enforcers of the upper class / c-suite
Absolutely blows my mind that, in 2025, anyone can treat getting in a car drunk and causing death as anything less than premeditated. Motonormativity strikes again, I guess.
