That low? That is a shock.
Young, like under 26? Like never having had to supply their own health insurance maybe?
Shock poll? Who is shocked?
I’m shocked that the number isn’t higher, does that count?
Just 41%?
The pain felt in the US is still not high enough.
You better believe they skewed this poll to get the result they wanted
I’m willing to bet that most people are indifferent, end of the remainder the vast majority are in support of the killing
110% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Only 41%?
I think of it this way. 41% are willing to say the killing was justified to a perfect stranger.
Guessing here, but an absolutely a MINIMUM of an additional 20% find it secretly acceptable.
After the shooting, hundreds [if not thousands] of doctors and nurses were posting stories about how insurance companies had literally killed people by withholding treatments.
If you live your life in a way that makes a lot of people want to kill you, you can’t be surprised when you get shot.
Seems low. Like if they polled exclusively young conservatives or something.
Same, this number seems way too low. Even from my skewed perspective of a “old guy” - fastly nearing 40.
A further 19% were neutral.
“I have no strong feelings one way or the other.”
―Neutral President“If I don’t survive, tell my wife, hello.”
―Neutral President“All I know is my gut says maybe.”
―Neutral President
I don’t think I’d be considered “young” anymore, but I don’t know if I’d say I support it.
Is the world better off without him? Yes.
Did he deserve to die? Yeah, probably.
Do I want to support vigilantism? Probably not.
Would it have been better if he had to deal with some terrible incurable and deadly disease? Yeah, if karma was real.
I’m almost 40. And I support it.
All other avenues are closed. All the proper and acceptable forms of redress are either coopted or outright captured. Civil, political, or otherwise. Peaceful Protest is universally ignored because it lacks the implicit threat of violence that makes it effective elsewhere in the world.
“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” ~ Jean Jacques Rousseau
Many of these polls are written in way to ellicit a biased response.
Others have already covered how this works, but I’ll add to it anyway.
If you ask a question like “do you condemn violence against healthcare CEOs?” A lot of people are going to say yes, because they view themselves as people against violence and respond mostly to that first part.
If you ask "did brian thompson deserve to die for his crimes? Many of the same people will say yes to that too, because people have an innate desire for justice.
Polls do this all the time. It’s part of social engineering and plays on the phenomenon that the Asch Conformity Experiments analyzed. Around 35% of people will change their opinions to fit everyone else’s even if the answer or opinion is very obviously incorrect.
Don’t let them take the narrative back.
“Do you think your house is too small”, vs “would you like a bigger house” … >> x% of people happy with size of their house
“Do you condemn hummus?”
I wonder how the terrorism charge affects things. Are people going to stop saying they support him out of fear or disgust? Will other people (and/or the government) go after people that say they support him because they can claim they’re supporting a terrorist? Will people become less affected by the word “terrorist” because it’s being applied in this way?
More than that I bet. Much more.
They’re sharing such a low number to make people think it’s not supported by the vast majority
That is shocking. Get your shit together, 59%!
America is still too rich imo.
I think economic collapse is near, next 10 years.
That’s when we would have a chance to recalibrate this country
Room for improvement. Modest.
That’s actually a lower number than expected
only?
That low?
There’s a teensy bit of data massaging to make the approval rating appear lower… in my opinion of course.
The respondents were asked to rank “acceptability of the killers actions” on a scale of 1 to 5.
Assumin’the average “young voter” views gunning strangers down as:
[1.very unfavorable]
(You would, if asked about murder, say it was bad As a rule. right? I would too. Ya know, unless it was justified.)
Looking at it that way, the same data looks a lot different suddenly.
33% young voters still think the killer is completely unjustified.
7% think there was some justification
19% are undecided if the CEO deserved to die for what he did
24% think the killer was mostly justified… But have reservations
17% believe he was 100% in the right
I got a little free with the interpretations but you get the idea, You could decide to frame the data this way too. there’s a saying: statistics don’t lie but statisticians do. Here’s my 100% true alternate title using the data but presented with the story I want to tell:
67% of Young Voters at Least Partly Approve of Killers Actions
“Don’t completely disapprove” might be better phrasing
Selective selection of selected data by billionaire controlled media still can’t get below 41%
It’s awesome how willfully they exclude or manipulate in attempt to soften the information.
Yeah that’s the shocking point for me
I’m of two minds about it. Half the time, I want to build a statue of Luigi
The other half of the time, I’m feeling the Tolkien quote, “many that live deserve death, and many that die deserve life. Will you give it to them?”
In other words, at no point do I feel that Brian Robert Thompson didn’t objectively deserve to die. He is objectively doing more good for the world as worm food than he did as a living man. My only question is on the ethics of anyone actually killing him. On one hand, no one should have a right to make that call on their own. On the other, it’s not like he was ever going to face justice any other way.
I wonder if this dilemma is reflected in this poll. You can believe that killing the CEO was unacceptable, while also believing he absolutely deserved it.
Well said.
I don’t usually wish cancer on people, but if I had to choose, I’d probably have wanted him to go this way than by vigilante justice.
I’ve been trying to tell you guys this is an echo chamber on the issue.
It’s a wake up call, but it’s not really going to change anything. You want universal healthcare? We need a general strike. Shut everything down for a month and demand it.
Rather then a general strike the perfect time to get it would have been voting for it in November. Even if everything shut down tomorrow, cities and towns burned, and people starved for months the GOP would spit on you.
Which party advocated for universal healthcare in the 2024 election? Sure wasn’t the Democrats.
If the DNC had a supermajority you can bet your ass we’d have single payer. We almost had it in 2010 but came up 1 vote short when an independent voted no alongside every single Republican.
Republicans are so anti-public-healthcare that many of them want to gut medicaid, medicare, and often say things like supporting “Pure Privatization” and “get the government out of healthcare”.
This is a clear partisan issue: DNC want it and GOP don’t want it.
Maybe the DNC of 20 years ago wanted it, but you’re only fooling yourself if you think they want it now.
Find out! Let them do it, the GOP certainly aren’t going to so let the DNC try.
They won’t try lol. The Harris campaign made it quite clear that it wasn’t part of their platform. The Clinton campaign argued against it. The Biden campaign said something about a public option that wasn’t mentioned again after the election. The Dems did their best to stop any momentum Sanders had when he campaigned on single-payer.
They don’t want to do it.
Vote Dem or the people directly opposed to the thing you pretend to support win. Very easy choice. You should be supporting and promoting the Dems.
If voting actually worked it would be illegal. It’s meaningless as long as the DNC Services Corp controls the controlled opposition party.
lmao why would they even play pretend? We’ve seen other places in the world like China and Russia don’t face any consequences for being opaquely authoritarian and single party.
You’re basically saying that US Democracy is fake and that swapping policy stances every 4 to 8 years is a big act? Whats the payoff?
I think we can vote to get all of the things we care about but people are too stupid and easily mislead to try it.
