Here
12d ago
2020 uPenn engineering grad with a manifesto, had the same fake id as what was used at the hostel
ETA: goodreads link is no longer accessible lmao
Here
12d ago
In kind of "rough order," first the surviving spouse, if no surviving spouse (or if spouse doesn't sue), then the children, if no surviving children, then the parent, if no parents then dependents (not applicable here, dude was homeless...), and then if none of those, the executor/representative of the estate (again, not applicable here). Friend/acquaintance only applies if you qualified as their dependent.
Here
12d ago
I find it interesting that the people celebrating the "vigilante justice" of the UHC assassin are the same people upset about the Daniel Penny verdict.
Here
14d ago
There's also the reality of the diaspora. There's no way to avoid foreign thought in elections when so many voters live abroad. There would need to be a like mandatory "homecoming" of the diaspora (~9 million Romanians, for instance) before being allowed to vote on anything.
Here
14d ago
Is there proof that Georgescu knew that money was being spent on social media campaigns on his behalf and didn't chase down the exact amounts to report it properly? Because tbh it just kind of seems like he didn't think he was gonna win, either.
Do campaign finance statutes include provisions for cancelling elections if money is underreported? Here it's generally fines and such, not undoing the election itself.
Is there any evidence the current ruling party knew about the social media campaigning but didn't do anything about it because Georgescu is a partiless nobody and they thought he would just leech some votes off the far-right party?
Here
14d ago
If there was a round of voting left, why not trust voters to Make The Right Decision and vote for the non-TikTok runoff candidate if Georgescu is such an obvious threat to democracy for checks notes foreigners making him trend on social media? Can't all the angry Romanian protestors just vote for Lasconi as the "fix" for this "problem?"
Current President's term ends on Dec. 21, but the next election isn't until March. Current president exceeding his term is a constitutional issue.
Here
16d ago
Anthem has walked back their controversial decision to cap anaesthesia coverage. While it's likely just a timing thing, there's a kind of weirdness where it might seem like they walked it back due to the assassination - no one wants to get got. The last thing anyone needs is to seem like assassination works.
Here
16d ago
The killer left behind bullet casings, which was at first viewed as “oh, this was an amateur – what kind of professional doesn’t police their brass?” even with the suppressor on the gun. Then it was revealed the three bullet casings each contained a different word: one said deny, one said defend, one said depose. Some speculated it was related to a book titled “Delay, Deny, Defend” about the evils of insurance companies, although the title doesn’t quite add up.
Other speculate the word “Depose” has to do with the recent DOJ probe into Brian Thompson for insider trading.
I was stunned watching many on social media celebrated the murder like they were celebrating the death of a terrorist. UHC is the largest provider of Medicare advantage in the country. We need better insurance, absolutely - but insurance is the only reason many can even afford basic care in the first place. UHC isn't even one of the insurance companies that yesterday decided to stop covering anesthesia in the middle of surgeries if the surgeries took too long (although UHC has the highest percentage of denied claims, in part because of their share of the Medicare advantage market).
If people don't like denials of coverage now, I think they'd hate rationed healthcare under a "Medicare 4 All" system even more; the government-run V.A. shows exactly how bad we are at those kinds of systems. Some coverage and cheaper procedures is better than wait times or tribunal refusals due to resource shortages or determined societal need.
Although I can't expect the people celebrating his death to understand that. Most Americans have a loose grasp, at best, of how health insurance works; I had recently seen an Xcretement with the following sentiment:
A Starbucks worker on the @organizeworkers call saying that working in a union Starbucks in the South could become the only way for some young people to get gender affirming care under Trump has me crying in the club 😭
Which is... bafflingly incorrect. Insurance covering a surgery doesn't suddenly make that surgery legal in whatever state? It's just... not how any of this works, although I don't know why I expected a Starbucks unionization attempt to know any better.
Does the United States have it in us to engage in vigilantism? Will all CEOs, billionaires, etc., start to show up on the chopping block? Is "eating the rich" leaving electoral politics behind and instead taking matters into their own "hands?" Will this change the gun control debate at all? How dystopian are we about to get? Or, like everything else, is this tapping the sign of "nothing ever happens?"
I believe it's the latter; this will get forgotten about quickly. Billionaires et. al. can afford private security, but there's been a recent movement attacking small business owners as the "petit bourgeois," who are less likely to be able to afford that kind of stuff. Those grievances are likely more local, though, and less likely to make the news. Local level "activism" doesn't generate attention, so maybe it's less of a concern. Idk. I don't think Americans have it in us to truly seek a revolution. Even the "Insurrection" would have continued the status quo of the government system, just with a different person at the top.
Here
19d ago
Biden just set a precedent of pardoning future crimes.
It's minimal - the pardon was issued during the day Sunday and covered up until Sunday at midnight - and probably accidental; it feels like someone leaked the pardon news so Biden just ripped the bandaid off and pardoned Hunter a day early.
Pardoning for future crimes - however minimal - is still improper. Ex parte Garland states that presidential pardons are only for crimes after the crime's commission. But the Hunter pardon wasn't written to be severable (i.e., if a part is deemed invalid, the whole can still stand). Is Hunter Biden's pardon thus entirely invalid, because the couple of hours of future pardon is "against the rules?"
Or will we as a country accept the pardoning of future crimes moving forward? Can Trump now walk into the Oval Office day one and issue pardons for his entire administration for any federal crimes committed during his tenure? He can point to the Hunter pardon as allowing this kind of power, and he wouldn't necessarily be incorrect.
Social media marked all of this up as jokes - "Hunter can go on a one man purge tonight!!" and "hookers and crack for Hunter tonight!" I haven't seen it floating around legal blogs or anything of the like quite yet, although in the grand scheme of things, a few hours of future immunity isn't that big of a deal.
For the party of "Defending Democracy™️", pardoning crimes not yet committed is not really what they should be going for. The culture war discussion will focus on Biden being a liar yadda yadda, but the scarier part of this is the few hours of future immunity until midnight yesterday remaining unchallenged.
Here
19d ago
I'm not 100% that this is pissing all over his legacy, per se.
An interesting "culture war" piece of this is why it was a blanket pardon stretching back to when Hunter first joined Burisma. The "innocent" argument is that even if Biden simply pardoned Hunter for the gun/IRS charges, there would be continued lawfare trying to tie the Bidens to shady backroom dealings in Ukraine.
The less innocent argument - the one that will spawn a thousand conspiracy theories - is that there's a lot of "there" there and Biden is protecting himself, not just his son. And seeing how much rationality gets expensed towards the "innocent" theory will be interesting to watch unfold.
The discussion along party lines have also been eye raising. The three things I've seen from Dems have been "Trump pardoned/will pardon worse!!!", "guess I won't vote for Biden again, hurr hurr" and "wow cons are melting down!!" The three things I've seen from cons are "I'm a father, I get it," "well, Biden lied," and the aforementioned "so... Why ten years?"
There's a reason why exit polls had voters listing Democracy as their #1 issue had those voters breaking 50/50. "Democracy" is not a winning issue for Dems when their messaging on this stuff sucks. The cons are acting more conciliatory about this than they are.
Here
27d ago
Random theories about this election I’ve seen discussed so far:
We have left-wing musings that the failure to reach low-propensity voters comes from a “lack” of a left-wing media ecosystem, which makes me scratch my head somewhat, given the disproportionate skew of media to the left. There doesn’t appear to be any introspection or soul-searching here. The issue might not be a lack of left-wing media, but a lack of trust in that media; becoming more online creates a healthy level of skepticism about what we consume, especially as AI becomes more prevalent.
Some pundits are decrying the existence of right-wing echo chambers as corrupting our young men while fleeing to Bluesky and Threads so they don’t have to interact with conservatives. Bluesky “block lists” of conservative voices appeared almost overnight, to overcome the lack of algorithmic protections.
And, of course, everyone’s bringing up their favorite culture war issues as the “reason” why Trump won, but I don’t think it’s that simple. It’s not that factory workers in the rustbelt are transphobic, it’s that factory workers in the rustbelt are tired of someone’s pronouns being given more attention than their grocery bills. Abortion received a ton of support on referendums while their states still went to Trump; is it because we made having children a “women’s issue” instead of an economic one? Telling women they should lie to their husbands who they voted for isn’t a great way to win over men who already feel scorned by today’s society.
I also don’t understand how the party who claim to be championing women and minorities is also the party fighting so hard for mail-in ballots. Secret ballots are a feature of the system, not a bug. Filling out the ballot at your kitchen table makes it really hard to hide it from your husband, or your employer. The weird creepy ads about “people can look up your voting record and won’t date you if you don’t” also don’t help with this, especially when several of these ads didn’t clarify that while whether you voted is public, who you voted for is not. The social stigma of voting Trump is still high, as people get uninvited from Thanksgiving with their own families for leaning conservative.
In the meantime, my guilty pleasure is watching liberal election-denier conspiracy theories. arr “SomethingIsWrong2024” displays a shockingly bad grasp of data analysis, because “all my neighbors had Kamala signs!!” and the like. I feel like I’m in an alternate reality when I see things stated “Vance was a bad pick, no one was excited about him” because I remember the enthusiasm for having someone young and capable on the ticket. Maybe I’m just stuck in my own echo chamber, and don’t realize it; I should do my own introspection.
Here
27d ago
I remember the Obama era narratives of the “Coalition of the Ascendent.” If demographics were truly destiny, Republicans wouldn’t touch the Presidency again. Obama’s “resounding” 2012 victory prompted the infamous Republican “Autopsy.”
This narrative ignores the numbers, though. 2012 wasn’t a triumph for Democrats, but a warning – while the Republican candidate had gained just under 1 million more votes than the 2008 Republican candidate, the Democrat had lost a little over 3.5 million voters. While Hillary Clinton eked out a plurality of the popular vote,* this trend continued in 2016: the Republican candidate gained about 2 million more votes than in 2012, while the Democratic candidate lost ~60k votes. A minor number, to be sure, but a trend nonetheless. 2012 wasn’t a victory lap, but instead a demonstration that the “Obama coalition” was a mirage, a flash in the pan – a demonstration that we all missed at the time.
As the 2024 election is mulled over by pundits to see what, exactly, went wrong, I wonder if we are missing similar “warning signs” in trends. The Bernie-Bro-turned-Trump-supporter pipeline a la Joe Rogan could be symptomatic of voters aligning more along an axis of “insiders vs. outsiders” instead of policy preferences, education, age, or race; while there are correlations with each of those things to an “insiders vs. outsiders” axis, none of them are definitive. Are we similarly looking at the 2024 election the wrong way, especially as we make judgment calls while several million votes have yet to be counted?
Some of the most prominent Republicans right now identified as Democrat-aligned during the Obama era (Trump, Vance, Elon, Tulsi; I’d throw RFK in there too but I’m not sure that he views himself as a Republican). Republicans are winning over tech bros and unions, and bleeding college-educated voters. There’s talk about this just being a Trump thing, it’ll go away. It was a big anti-incumbency year, worldwide. The elite will reclaim their rightful place as the only right, correct, egalitarian way forward. Etc.
*Talking heads bicker about how Trump “only” receiving a plurality of the popular vote decreases his significance, even while clinging to Clinton “winning” the popular vote in 2016 despite also receiving a plurality, and not a majority. The semantics are amusing from a culture war perspective – the war on language continues – but ultimately meaningless.
Here
28d ago
The Gaetz drama did take the heat off of Hegseth, though, who is now having his own sex allegations circulate.
Here
28d ago
Isn't that what specialists are for, though? If you need a guy who knows what to do with a knuckleball, you go to that guy, who specialized in it. But if you're dealing with fastballs and curveballs, then your local guy is good enough.
There's a death of generalists in medicine underlying a lot of this, in part because everyone wants the guy who's good with knuckleballs. But not everyone is going to face a knuckleball, and you don't need to go to the specialist otherwise.
Here
28d ago
There's also the pressure to publish and research while also being a doctor that downgrades the focus the profession has on actual patient care.
My friends jumping through the residency hoops rn are kind of frustrated about it; they have to explain their "side hustle" almost instead of being able to say "I just want to be a doctor" to get "good" residency spots.
Here
1mo ago
The 4B movement has already been disavowed by the American Left for not being inclusive of trans ideology (i.e., transwomen who may still have their initial bits and parts are not getting laid by a 4B chick; transmen are also encouraged not to do the same; it inherently focuses on reproductive functions; it started on a message board that includes anti-trans sentiment), which makes all of this somewhat odd to me - the gender divide isn't going to swing back to the Democrats by Democrats telling biological women that they can't have feminists movements without biological men being lifted up within those movements.
Here
1mo ago
After the election, the president of the Student Advisory Committee of Harvard’s Institute of Politics insinuated that the IOP’s longstanding commitment to non-partisan civic engagement would be put aside to stand against the “threat” of Trump.
The Director of the IOP quickly rebuked the student, as did alumni. The original op-ed was modified to clarify that this was a student proposal, and not an official act of the IOP that could potentially endanger its tax status as a nonprofit in association with the school.
I was more shocked by the quick response than by the student’s comments; it’s taken for granted that the academy is the stronghold of Democrats. As friends and I contemplate government service, we’ve talked often about what doors we’d be closing off entirely by entering the administration now, and how that would impact our trajectory. Mentors have suggested waiting until certain milestones to provide easier routes back into the private sector, but we all agree that academia is DOA outside of like Hillsdale.
Part of these discussions included off-handed references to China’s “loyalty pledges” for students attending plum universities or receiving scholarships to study abroad. Given the academy’s existence as another wing of the Democratic Party, is there a possibility of colleges or universities ensuring students meet certain political beliefs in order to attend their institution? Would it impact their tax status to do so, and if yes, is that the only thing stopping them?
Private non-profit Christian institutions make their students sign statements of faith in order to attend. BYU is an example, although their agreement is slightly more complicated than faith, per se (as TracingWoodgrains has spoken about before). Patrick Henry College includes a bit about the number of books in the Bible to keep out Catholics. It’s not a stretch to thing secular colleges could have students sign statements about their culture war/social beliefs in order to attend. Will the privileges of Ivy League degrees be gatekept for the “woke?”
Is that, in a way, what diversity statements have been doing for years? Maybe diversity statements weren’t about meeting racial categories, but instead to ensure a certain level of “buy-in” to DEI ideology. As an aside, in the post-SFFA world, the number of students interested in the Federalist Society doubled at my law school. It could just be an “election year” thing (the last data point we are able to access easily is 2020, which doesn’t count due to the remote education) or it could be a “freeing” of conservatives entering the upper echelons of professional education. More data is needed here to support this anecdata.
Purity testing at schools is, of course, nothing new. For instance, we had a professor banned from teaching first-year mandatory courses because he donated to the Republican party in 2012, a thing that still doesn’t sit quite right to me. Why are people looking through their professor’s donation records? As people uninvite family members to Thanksgiving due to who they voted for, can universities deny students on the same grounds? Would some universities feel inclined to?
I’m not entirely sure. The demographic cliff means that universities have to start making themselves more enticing somehow. Degrees are too expensive for their value, nowadays, and many are choosing to forego higher education in favor of the trades or other endeavors. Schools like America University saw their acceptance rate almost double and yet still didn’t hit their enrollment targets. Can schools (even elite schools) afford to have an ideological purity test for entry?
Here
1mo ago
The University of Michigan Central Student Government voted to impeach their president and vice president for (i) incitement to violence (an instagram post on the "SHUT IT DOWN" account encouraging students to pack a CSG budget meeting in early October); (ii) cybertheft of CSG property (changing the password on the student government instagram account and voicing support for the student protestors; and (iii) dereliction of duty (attempting to defund student orgs at Michigan and attempt to send the money to Gaza).
The student leaders had explicitly run on a "shut it down" ticket, receiving 47% of the vote back in March (granted, less than 20% of the student body voted). The leaders had pledged to "halt all CSG activity and associated funding until the University fully divests from companies profiting off Israel’s military campaign in Gaza," were voted in, and then proceeded to do... exactly what they had promised. But living up to their promises is, apparently, enough to impeach them for.
There were some challenges to their campaign, citing unfair election tactics, but they were ultimately sworn in to their posts back in April - and only now has impeachment been brought forth, eight months later.
Is this a window into a changing tide of how culture war issues are discussed on college campuses, or do students just get frustrated when they start feeling the actual impact of their actions (no funding for their organizations)? Is "support" for Gaza dying, and if yes, what is the new cause de jour that will rise to take its place?
Here
1mo ago
Why? Because she is a recent convert to the Republican party, or are there other concerns with her?
Here
1mo ago
NYC is ending their voucher program, although it's not clear that Trump has anything to do with it. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4980386-new-york-city-ending-migrant-debit-card-program/
Previously, illegal migrants were given ~$1k a month ($350 a weeks) for groceries via prepaid debit cards while they were staying in hotels. It started in part because the free food vendor previously used by the city wasn't cutting it, so it was viewed as more cost efficient to switch to the cards.
Here
1mo ago
There's about 16 million votes cast but not yet counted as of right now, with a reasonable expectation of 55% of those votes going to Harris. Trump will still handily win the popular vote, but turnout almost rivals 2020. I wouldn't be shocked to see Harris hit 75 million, which, even if it's not quite Biden numbers, is still better than how Trump did in 2020.
Here
1mo ago
I think that also came out in those ads and texts about "your friends can see whether you dated" or the like "Men, women won't want you unless you're a voter, and she can check" stuff. Our Democracy assumed that anyone engaged in the civic process for the sake of their peers would be on the side of Our Democracy. They could not understand that the social pressure to vote may actually involve the exercise of democracy against Our Democracy.
So the conspiracy theory I'm currently hearing bounce around is that this is an "I am Sparticus" situation. I'm not advocating this position, but solely sharing for its potential cultural implications.
The theory goes something like this: Luigi, being an engineer with a 3D printer, made himself a copy of the New Jersey fake ID, the gun, and wrote up a manifesto to turn himself, banking on the recent results of the Daniel Penny case to show that the popular support for the UHC shooter ensures jury nullification of the assassination.
They cite to things like the hair line (?) and the fact he had the gun and manifesto on him while chilling in this random McDonald's. Idk. I don't follow the logic.
More options
Context Copy link