They are Threatening Us in the Lower Classes.

Dec 29, 2024 3:05 PM

#1 They want us to Know Our Places.

#2

#3. I have more in common with my MAGA neighbors than I do with any Billionaire.

In for a penny, in for a pound as they say... if the punishment is the same, might as well make it count.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My snappy motto for us all that i hope will be spread in 2025:

BILLIONAIRES ARE THE ENEMY OF THE WORKING CLASS

2 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

2 years ago (deleted Jan 30, 2025 1:13 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

By whom? Someone else so that you don’t have to take any risk?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 140 Dislikes 4

Oooh that's a paddling.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

v

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

2 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Rich taking advantage of the poor? Tell me it ain’t so Joe. /s

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This is what happens when we let the rich dupe us into voting for their politicians.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The problem is, are we, as persons, willing to DO the things needed to be done, and risk our entire lives and well being, AND our families, to do so? ARE we to that point?

2 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 2

IMHO I’m afraid we may be. 😔

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

1 person is/was. 1 person that we know of so far. I’m sure there have been others.

2 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 2

Tax cuts for Batman?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

When your family member is intentionally and maliciously left to die because of a health insurance's greed, you might feel the answer is yes.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Except that literally happens hundreds of times EVERY day and exactly ONE person did anything.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Given Trump won the popular vote, people are not even willing to do the simple and easy things.

2 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

Nope!

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#3 the right literally exists to serve the interests of the rich. That ideology is expressely against the proletariat.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

very funny to keep seeing americans who think that it's about reconciling their right wing and fascist parties.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Oh look, you liberals are catching up to what we leftists have been saying since 2001... Welcome to the party!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Time to eat the rich

2 years ago | Likes 129 Dislikes 11

No. Leave the bodies as a warning

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Seemingly tasteless, better used as soil nutrients.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Yum yum yum

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

You aren't going to do shit.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

Ironically, even doing nothing, he's still more useful to us than you fucks. You're not helping either- infact you're shooting down people who actually DO want to help.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yeah nobody ever does shit. This one guy does something and most people here and on other social media think there’s gonna be a revolution. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there’s absolutely not. There’s not gonna be an army of civilians OR military that’s gonna go out and off CEOs and the billionaire class. Wish that were the case, but it’s not. And the downvotes on this comment will show how definitely people here are in denial or living in fantasy land.

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Idk, all it will take is a bit of organization and rallying. With the right charismatic person and organizing guerilla tactics and this precarious house of cards will topple.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

You americans better start a fundraiser to get the best fcn lawyer there is. This is not about murder anymore.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Are you just figuring this out *now*????

This isn't new. Shit, in the 80's the Reagan admin was trying to treat cocaine cartels as terrorist organizations.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

You should be a happy & compliant worker drone with no ambition for a better life.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

The poor aren't poor because the poor are greedy. The poor are poor because the rich are greedy.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

The only color that matters is green. It's always been class warfare. The elite know this and know if we came together they would be fucked.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

This has been known by a lot of us, for a long time now. First they set a precedent by legitimizing the practice of detaining accused terrorists indefinitely, snatching up foreign citizens from countries we've invaded. Then they started going after the alt-right crazies that most people in the U.S. don't actually like, because they knew the MAGA twits wouldn't have many defenders. Now they've done this to an accused murderer. One precedent at a time.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

#3 the only difference is that you realize this but I bet they really don't. Also, they probably support the billionaire class without realizing it.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

2024- The US Oligarchs won. They bankrolled Manchin and Sinema to block progress and the oligarchs will use every cheat code to take what they want. Look at Musk's tweets about going after whoever he wants:

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

#1 it's a state terrorism charge. Patriot Act was federal legislation and it expired in 2020.

Jesus Christ, people.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

#2

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

They can try and throw everyone tying a a green ribbon on their car in jail...

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

What do the green ribbons mean? I missed that one.

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

to the oligarchy!

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Commenting bc I want to know too

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The other person has since replied with the meaning, if you are curious

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just shit I made up just now, based on the green Luigi hat, but also dissidents in east germany did something like that, tied white ribbons to their cars. Signal your dissidence to others while maintaining a high degree of plausible deniability, why officer I just came back from a wedding whatever do you mean.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Nice. I tried to get DALL-E to generate me a "like a MAGA hat but it's green and says LUIGI" but it balked at that and didn't even say why.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because Luigi is a character owned by one of the most lawsuit happy companies in the world.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My understanding of the Patriot act is that it allows the use of foreign surveillance/intel (ignoring any US laws that may have been broken obtaining it) and allows non-US citizens to detained indefinitely without trial. The application of those laws to US citizens in the US would cause potential issues around constitutional rights and ultimately the validity of the Patriot act. However , IANAL.

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The terrorism charge is a state charge under NYS law, it’s not a federal charge so it does not fall under the Patriot act.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My understanding was that Guantanamo is used (illegally imo) as a place that is exempt from US law, as it is leased foreign territory. I didn't think that had anything to do with terrorism, but rather that they are apprehended outside of the country.

These people are not charged with a crime. Seems a misunderstanding to think a terrorism charge has anything to do with deportation, no matter how ridiculous.

I am also not a lawyer...

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Guantanamo was used to hold people detained under the Patriot act and I agree that it is likely to be illegal (definitely illegal under international law - very likely illegal under US law although the supreme court will likely rubber stamp any outcome for non-US nationals) if properly examined. Using the Patriot act to try and upgrade charges against a US citizen on US soil is likely to cause significant issues - and I'm not sure the supreme court would be interesting.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I would go as far to say that in spite of the supreme courts willingness to be brought, that they would struggle to rule its use constitutional. I realise that is supposition, but the Patriot act is built on very unsteady legal ground and largely relied on defendants not being in a position to test it legally.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

AFAIK, the patriot act is not related to detention except in the case of border crossing. Again, my understanding is that Guantanamo has been used to detain people captured outside of the US borders.

Wikipedia maintains a list of those detained at Guantanamo and I would be interested to see which might be related to the Patriot Act or any other domestic act.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees

For the record, I maintain that this an illegal and immoral detention, that uses barely clear loopholes to skirt the constitution.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You're correct that it's unconstitutional to detain U.S. persons indefinitely without trial. It's dense, but the case to read is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

@OP #3 No you don't. Your MAGA neighbors are on the side of the rich.

2 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

It's like saying "We shouldn't be fighting German soldiers during World War 2, we should be fighting Nazis!"

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

A lot of maga is also seeing that they are getting overcharged for medical. This could be uniting beyond parties for some. 🤔

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

They're the ones who keep voting for it. And they know that.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yeah, if MAGAts apply even the Slightest degree of reason and logic.

So...

It's never going to happen.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Believe it or not, most people don't care about which color of asshole is running the show, or at the very least, don't make it their whole personality.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The terrorism charge is bunk. Sure go to jail for murder and all that. But it's bullshit to claim terrorism.

2 years ago | Likes 375 Dislikes 9

It’s so a military court can charge him. The military has social healthcare so they wouldn’t relate to the “not covered” issue. It’s so they can have a trial for the media without it being a fair one.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

Wait… so he was in the military? What rank, branch?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The patriot ct allows for terrorists to be tried under weer military tribunal, which is far harsher than civilan courts

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

its was never about him being a terrorist. It is about setting a precedent to be able to mark anyone, they wish to, as a terrorist and just skip all the stupid restrictions like, giving them lawyers, and having a jury and give them law abiding prison sentences. All that can be skipped if you can just mark anyone as a terrorist and just make them disappear.

2 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

Pretty sure that’s not accurate

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No jail. Jury nullification only.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wasn't it terrorism though? I struggle to see how it wasn't.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They don't need the terrorism charge to stick. With simply the charge of terrorism, they can jail him indefinitely without trial. The *Patriot* Act is one of the most undemocratic pieces of legislation ever passed by the US Congress. Shows what happens when the public is motivated by fear...willing to surrender any freedom for the illusion of security.

2 years ago | Likes 100 Dislikes 4

The terrorism charge is a state charge, not a federal charge. and therefore does not fall under the patriot act.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because if they offered him bail it would be crowdfunded in a second.

2 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 2

you know I brought this up in a comment some time ago and was told that "the patriot act only affects foreign threats, hence guantanomo bay". I just shook my head in disbelief. because the patriot act allows for full supervision of private citizens by the federal government, in order to find "terrorists" citizen or not. so if you think the patriot act can't qualify Luigi as a terrorist, try again

2 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 4

It's been nipped in the bud a bit. Haebus corpus rights got restored a few years after the Patriot Act was passed, and specifically for guantanamo Bay detainees in 2006 with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Thanks W.! /sarcasm

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

It's 100% terrorism. It's perfectly in keeping with the origin of the term itself in the Terror of the French Revolution, when terror was deployed by Robespierre and besties as the justice of the masses. The guillotine is THE quintessential weapon of terror.

You're only downvoting me because you LIKE this instance of terrorism and resent the pejorative connotation. Terrorism is terrorism, even if we subjectively think that it's being used against the right people for the right reasons.

2 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 10

Yeah I'm confused by the outrage over the terrorist charge when it's the perfect embodiment of the actual definition of terrorism... violent acts intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy. Just because you agree with what he's trying to change doesn't make it any less true that it's terrorism.

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Right, I can't even begin to imagine what this was about if NOT terrorism. Y'boi gunned a man down to change the policies and behavior of an entire class of people--it's textbook. It's exactly the same impulse that drove Al Qaeda to 9/11 or Hamas to 10/7: the terrorist(s) punch up, asymmetrically, against soft targets symbolizing systems of oppression.

If anybody's uncomfortable with those comparisons, I sure as fuck hope you aren't upvoting guillotine memes. That's what the guillotine means.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

But it isn't a BS claim. Billionaires are terrified.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not. It's standard practice considering the manifesto. The 2022 Buffalo shooter also had a manifesto, got charged with terrorism, and they're considering the death penalty for him, too. I think this is an important distinction people often overlook.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 9

Manifesto lol ???? Documenting thoughts… they are called notes, unless you want to make it buzz worthy… then it’s called a manifesto

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Words have definitions whether you *feel* like it should or not.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But not for these evil as fuck companies. If a company kills a million people it’s lucrative not murder.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

You are completely right. But I'm not wrong either. If you have a manifesto and commit a crime, you'll be slapped with a terrorism charge.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I wouldn't call his writings a manifesto. It's more a set of semi-coherernt ramblings of Luigi expressing his frustration. Law enforcement and media are calling it that out of convenience.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

A manifesto is a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer. Words have meaning whether you emotional children want them to or not.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I suspect the terrorism charge is an attempt at sticking Mangione with 1st degree murder, instead of 2nd degree murder. They'll likely want to put him away for life without parole.

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

It's a slam-dunk 2nd degree murder case. Proving 1st degree is gonna take work. Terrorism is a huge fuckin' stretch, but I don't think the terrorism charge is related to sticking him with murder.
Dude has zero chance of parole regardless, he's shown no remorse.

2 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Nor should he.

2 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 0

well 1st degree means you can prove planning and intent, so I don't doubt that charge sticking, it's the terrorist charge that's to me a scare tactic to protect people of wealth who earned praying on people who could not help themselves due to the current system

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

preying*

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

New York is weird when it comes to murder. It's only 1st degree if it's a cop/politician or during certain other felonies/terrorist acts. So since he just rode in and shot him with robbing him or anything, it's 2nd degree.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It’s because of the way he planned and executed the hit and things said on social media. Most here don’t bother reading anything before replying.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 22

Do you mean the things he said on social media, or the things we've been saying?

If the former, then what did he say? If the latter, then that's a threat made towards us, the people. Kinda like terrorists do, right?

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

We read it. We just don’t have much sympathy for dead “healthcare” CEO’s.

2 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 1

I haven’t much sympathy either, but I’m not putting his murderer on a pedestal and paying his defense either.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 8

I'll pledge for a gofundme.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Why not?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sincere questionDo you think that he shouldn't be charged with terrorism because there are significantly worse people who are not or that his actions didn't meet the criteria of terrorism?

The quick google definition of terrorism is: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Based on that, his actions were terrorism (at least how I see it). None of that is saying if his actions are good or not.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 11

His act clearly fits NY state law's specific definition of terrorism, and NY is bringing the charge. I personally think they're politically motivated in doing so, but as long as prosecutors are elected officials like they are here, politics are inevitably going to work their way into their legal decisions.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Considering the reasoning for a lot of people who commit mass murder, or even murder a specific person, I think either this doesn't meet the standard, or a LOT of others which we haven't charged terrorism on, do, and I feel the former more applicable.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense to me. I have trouble with picking up on people's reasoning and logic, so I appreciate the insight.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

He only terrorized the 3%.
A school shooter terrorizes way more people. Not to mention the difference in vulnerabilities. Possible medical bankruptcy terrorizes more citizens. Jan 6ers and church mass murderers weren’t even charged like that. The company that pushed opioids with the Sacklers for decades just got pardoned by Biden. It’s never been so rigged. The 3% is scared of us for the first time in a long time.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

School shooters aren't trying to make anything happen. There's no goal. They're not terrorists, they're just awful people doing awful things for no good reason.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thanks for the response. I can totally understand the reasoning. In my head, I don't call those actions terrorism due to the fact that it's, for lack of a better word, legal evil. That obviously doesn't absolve them of their actions. That being said, it's also a minor aspect of the conversation in the big picture.

Thanks again for the response

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I like your responses. We need to have more conversations where everyone is a winner. All heard and valued. It’s okay to be so opposed it’s laughable. You’re a self educater for life.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thanks. I really appreciate that. I get people have to be wary online about others being disingenuous. It's hard to find a balance between gullible and cynical.

Have a great day

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If Jan 6, the George Floyd protest response by cops ect weren't charged as terrorism, than Luigi isn't a terrorist either. We can't pick and choose when we call something terrorism. It either all is, or none of it is.

2 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

Thanks for the reply! I can understand that logic. I have some weird hang ups involving language, so I think that caused some of my confusion, but I appreciate your explanation.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I don’t think it’s “hang ups involving language,” but more like “what they do is terrorism, what we do isn’t.”

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Yes the cherry picking is a reoccurring issue! How are Trump and Bezos and the Sacklers and so many other soul pirates not behind bars. They should be insider trading their asses for “life insurance” in the pen.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Can we... NOT glorify prison rape?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

...except your examples are all from different jurisdictions, with different legal definitions of terrorism. So we kinda HAVE to pick & choose what is and isn't terrorism. Mangione's shooting of the parasite absolutely fits NY's definition of terrorism (they're who's leveling it, not Feds - OOP's rambling about Gitmo is nonsense). It likely fits the definition even before the manifesto, but with it, it definitely does. Whether NY can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt is another story, tho.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It's a federal charge, meaning there is no jurisdiction. They can, and should have, charged all those other people with terrorism. What Luigi did was not terrorism

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's not a federal charge, it's a state charge. And federal charges absolutely have jurisdictions. And by his own description (or by a reasonable unbiased person's POV), what he did was terrorism - certainly under NY's definition of it (which is the one being applied): it was a violent act (specifically murder) meant to influence a civilian population. That's true whether you approve or disapprove of it. Terrorism is a means, not an end - it can be used for laudable purposes or evil ones.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1