Donations surging after millions of people become aware of something is … what happens when millions of people become aware of something. I’m aware things are more complicated. I tried to keep it simple enough that you could understand it. Let me ask you a question in small words.
What evidence of any kind do you have that the donations are money laundering?
Ah, so now we’re pivoting to “Mangione has no reason to launder money” and “a million easier ways exist.” Cute deflection, but it doesn’t address the actual point: the pattern of suspicious surges in donations post-media attention. That’s the hallmark of laundering—using a legitimate front to obscure questionable sources.
Your casino analogy? Outdated and irrelevant here. Laundering today thrives on exploiting public-facing campaigns precisely because they appear “too obvious” to question. And your claim that platforms wouldn’t facilitate this? Laughable. Platforms are tools, not moral arbiters.
But sure, keep dismissing this as a “crackpot theory.” If you’re so confident, feel free to provide your sources proving why this pattern is beyond suspicion. I’ll wait.
Let’s get back on track. YOU made a claim that requires proof. You stated that donations to Luigi are actually money laundering. When pressed about your lack of any evidence you make a lot of noise signifying nothing. I say again. Where is your proof?
Oh, Michael, sweet summer child: your “gotcha” logic is as sharp as a spoon. Demanding proof while ignoring the obvious patterns is peak smooth-brain energy. Congrats.
You’re not “getting back on track”; you’re derailing into willful ignorance. Platforms are tools, not truth arbiters—just like your comment is noise, not substance.
Pro tip: next time, bring a thought instead of this intellectual tumbleweed. Until then, enjoy being the poster child for why debates need IQ minimums.
Donations surging after millions of people become aware of something is … what happens when millions of people become aware of something. I’m aware things are more complicated. I tried to keep it simple enough that you could understand it. Let me ask you a question in small words.
What evidence of any kind do you have that the donations are money laundering?
Ah, so now we’re pivoting to “Mangione has no reason to launder money” and “a million easier ways exist.” Cute deflection, but it doesn’t address the actual point: the pattern of suspicious surges in donations post-media attention. That’s the hallmark of laundering—using a legitimate front to obscure questionable sources.
Your casino analogy? Outdated and irrelevant here. Laundering today thrives on exploiting public-facing campaigns precisely because they appear “too obvious” to question. And your claim that platforms wouldn’t facilitate this? Laughable. Platforms are tools, not moral arbiters.
But sure, keep dismissing this as a “crackpot theory.” If you’re so confident, feel free to provide your sources proving why this pattern is beyond suspicion. I’ll wait.
Let’s get back on track. YOU made a claim that requires proof. You stated that donations to Luigi are actually money laundering. When pressed about your lack of any evidence you make a lot of noise signifying nothing. I say again. Where is your proof?
Oh, Michael, sweet summer child: your “gotcha” logic is as sharp as a spoon. Demanding proof while ignoring the obvious patterns is peak smooth-brain energy. Congrats.
You’re not “getting back on track”; you’re derailing into willful ignorance. Platforms are tools, not truth arbiters—just like your comment is noise, not substance.
Pro tip: next time, bring a thought instead of this intellectual tumbleweed. Until then, enjoy being the poster child for why debates need IQ minimums.
beanzie out
You have made a statement that requires proof and you have none. There is no “obvious pattern”.