DahGangalang

Good.

I had a Nissan as a second car. It was near impossible to repair with resources locked behind paywalls and subscriptions. It was impossible to find repair manuals (which were treated nearly as religious texts growing up). I regretted how often I had to pay someone to double check my fixes were up to spec.

Replaced it with a newer Honda and love it. Despite being ~7 years newer, it is easier to fix and also performs better.

For all my economy car needs I intend to run Hondas going forward and was super fearful this merger would bring some if that Nissan repair philosophy to Honda. Glad its a dead deal.

I think it depends on when you look back from.

I think of WWI, the Inter-War period, and WWII as three separate periods of time and they cover about 40 years.

I think of The Louisiana Purchase (1803), the start of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) as all happening about the same time, despite covering about 45 years (before double checking just now, I could've sworn the Mexican-American War was in the 1830's, and that Monroe was president in ~1816, which only drives the point home more).

I doubt we'll feel the difference by 2100, but between 2200 and 2300 is when I expect that blending to happen.

........how tf did I hear that wrong. Wow, thats my bad.

Ah, I kinda figured it was some far-right/Nazi junk, but yeah, pedos need to gtfo.

Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record

Def support him getting the money for a strong defense. Justice is a process, and the prosecution needs to be held to accounts if they try to sidestep any rules / try to rush this through.

I'd buy the most of the rest of the evidence being circumstantial, but, man, the guy plead guilty.

But even if it wasn't Luigi that shot that CEO, doesnt this change him from a Folk Hero to just some guy who was falsely accused?

Like, it feels like some people in this thread are saying "he's a hero of the people for disposing a petty oligarch" and also "he didn't actually kill anyone; the guy in the video could've been anyone". Those two statements don't seem to logically follow.

Am I missing something here?

Wow, thats some bullshit.

I showed up right after the drama with their instance.

What was their deal?

The fact that government gets two tries is an insult to the American public

What do you mean by this? I thought only NY state got to take a whack at him? Is some other court claiming they get to try him too?

Mkay. I don't agree with the "he didn't do it" sentiment, but definitely sympathize with the "he did nothing wrong" side.

Suppose we'll see how the courts play it. I'm confident it won't be a happy time if they throw the book at him.

Quick acknowledge on this comment. Just saw it after posting my other comment. Gonna make an edit to that one just to keep the discussion linear.

Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.

Naw, and I def agree we're all just armchair lawyering until the case actually hits court.

But I've seen the video camera footage. Someone definitely shot and killed the United Health CEO. It seems a logical conclusion (based on what's come out PLUS LUIGI PLEADING GUILTY) that Luigi did the act.

To argue that it wasn't him in that video feels the same as arguing that the guy we need to be supporting is still at large (and thusly the supportive sentiment online should be sent to someone else).

I feel like there's a logical gap here. Either he did it and deserves support for taking out a petty oligarch, or he didn't do it and there's a hero still out there in hiding. It doesn't seem.like this community is arguing for that latter option.

Am I missing something here?

Edit: just saw your down thread comment. So it sounds like you're thinking this was some kind of glowie op? I've actually not heard anything to that effect. Can you explain how you think that all came together? I'm genuinely curious.

Edit: I heard he plead guilty which is not the case. A lot of what I say presumes that was how he plead. Leaving up my comments for completeness of record.

I mean, he was caught on camera doing it. There's a bunch of other evidence, which is (as i understand it) largely circumstantial. But then he plead guilty.

Like, someone definitely killed the United Health CEO. I guess I could see an argument that it wasn't Luigi Mangione, but if it wasn't him, then shouldn't the rally of support be towards the actual killer? Isn't arguing Luigi wasn't the killer the same as arguing "we're supporting the wrong guy"?

It seems like assuming Luigi was the killer is a safe assumption and thusly the support for him is correct. At that point, it seems the only thing to sort out is which degree of murder this counts as. Lol, unless someone is trying to argue the killing was accidental, but even then, that's just differentiating between murder and manslaughter.