u/Solarwinds-123

There is a reason that miracles are called miracles, and are not the norm.

You sound demented.

Being "punished" for something doesn't work when it happens before you did that thing. She could have given up the baby and there would be nothing to punish her for. She made a choice to kill her baby.

Edit: nice job blocking me because you can't defend your idea that women should be able to kill their children. I bet you support Lindsay Clancy too.

You can stop trolling at any point.

Didn't we all know that Reddit is full of bots and has been for ages? And these are mainly left leaning subs, too.

But in reality, that post is meaningless. The OP has no knowledge of statistics or anything else, and both the infographic and the actual calculations are AI slop. The OP admitted it.

I'm sure liberals are going to ignore that and pretend that it's proof that all conservatives are Russian bots or whatever.

Why is this even here? Go back to /r/politics

That's a ton of questions. I can't promise I'll answer every single one of them, but I'll assume you're here in good faith and give it a shot.

However, if you wanted stability AND fiscal responsibility, why the hell did you vote for Donald Trump? Do you think he's stable?

His first term was pretty stable, despite the media circus. Pretty much everyone expected more of the same.

You do realize he's spending our money for all his vanity projects, etc., right?

I really don't care about the fucking ballroom or the reflecting pool. We have needed a new ballroom for ages, and I think it's a disgrace that we've had to host foreign dignitaries in tents on the grass. The reflecting pool shenanigans were embarrassing, but ultimately just not important compared to the big picture items like Iran.

Next, who gets to decide traditional values? I assume that you're talking about biblical beliefs you and a lot of people have and have had for years. I have done Bible studies over the years with many different Christian religious groups out of curiosity and every one of them had some tweaking they did with the various parts of the Bible to suit their idea of "traditional values" so which one should America go with in your estimation? Do you think you have the right to force others to believe how you believe? Do we need a state religion? Personally, I hope that never happens!

First of all, I'm Catholic so that argument doesn't work on me. We didn't tweak the Bible, we wrote it. But no, I was not talking about enforcing worship or a state religion. I don't want that either. I was referring more to traditional American values like family, community, patriotism, and social order. I also want abortion banned (with exceptions for the health of the mother), but that's not entirely relevant.

I agree illegal aliens should not be here either BUT I do know this administration has arrested and detained and deported people who are citizens or had filed the paperwork to become citizens. Were you not aware of that? Do you think it's okay?

Yes of course I am aware of that. I also understand that there isn't a police force in the world that has never arrested the wrong person. It sucks when that happens, but unfortunately police are human and do sometimes make mistakes. Expecting 100% accuracy is nonsense. I do think they should take more responsibility when they do make mistakes, but mistakes are going to happen. Also, to my knowledge no actual citizens have been deported. Filing paperwork to become a citizen does not make you immune to arrest until you have been sworn in.

And what about the people, the refugees, that are fleeing a country where they are being tortured and killed and seek asylum here? Do they have to be white for you to accept them into our country? Just wondering.

I feel for them, and true refugees should be given shelter. But most asylum claims are bogus, they are economic migrants who have been coached by NGOs in what to say so they get to stay indefinitely. I believe that if you are a legitimate refugee, you should present yourself at a port of entry and ask for asylum then be detained until your case is heard. Anyone who sneaks in illegally and then only claims asylum after they're caught should be shipped out.

And what is this nonsense about whether they have to be White? Of course not, that's bullshit. It doesn't matter what skin color they are, as long as they can integrate into our society and contribute to it. I think some groups of migrants have failed there, but that has more to do with their culture than their skin color.

Yeah, I want a prosperous country and society too but in my time as an adult since the 1970s, I'm seeing a country slide into inequality among the different social classes. The rich are literally getting richer at a much faster rate than the rest of us including the middle class. If you want the statistics on that, prove to me that you really care enough about this country to check and see exactly what changes in our economy have occurred in the past 50 years, past 25 years and in the past 10!

First, I don't need to prove anything to you. But if it helps, the 1970s are where conservatism started going wrong. I probably hate the Fusionists and neoconservatives more than you do. Welding religious conservatives to libertarians has been a disaster and explains so much of why Republicans don't do what they say they want to. I align much more with others like Teddy Roosevelt, Robert Taft, and paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan. In that sense, I think Vance and the postliberal movement represents the best hope for modern conservatism, while Trump himself was the bridge between the Fusionists and the populists.

It strikes me that you really have no clue about anything because you probably listen to the same people all the time to get your news and social referencing. You need to expand your boundaries. Being a Republican today is nothing like it was when I was a kid. It has changed considerably! I suggest you go find out what has happened and where they used to be compared to where they are today. I wish you well and I hope you really do enlighten yourself. I won't hold my breath however.

It strikes me that this is an incredibly smug series of bad faith assumptions, and if I had seen it before I started responding I probably wouldn't have bothered. But here I am, so I might as well waste a little more time.

Would it surprise you to learn that I probably get my news from the same places you do? I have a subscription to the NY Times, and I rarely watch Fox News. I take in a variety of sources, because I despise echo chambers.

There's one major difference between you and I: I may think your political beliefs are wrong, but I respect that you're trying to do what you think is right. I don't just assume you have those beliefs because you are stupid or that you need to "enlighten yourself". Unfortunately, few blue-aligned people are willing to extend me the same courtesy.

Obviously her body temperature did not drop 20° in 20 minutes. Nobody has ever said that it did. That was never an argument made.

If Patrick did this and it was explainable in the court docs, why did every single juror understand that Lindsay did it? I suppose they didn't watch the trial?

Everything I said is true. Show me evidence that I'm wrong and I will reevaluate.

Obviously she didn't. She killed the kids first, before going out the window.

Exactly. They take the existence of a house next to the house, a very ordinary thing, and turn it into part of some vast conspiracy about her being waterboarded or whatever. As if that would have left a very large and obvious hole in the snow by itself.

No, no it doesn't. Why would anyone try to kill her with a hose? That's so bizarre. That's not how you kill someone.

Then again I thought killing someone with an exercise band was bizarre too, but Lindsay did it anyway.

"Hose was out in winter" is not a suspicious thing. That's very ordinary. Hoses are just kinda there.

I've done no such thing. Many women, probably the overwhelming majority of women, recognize the truth that Lindsay Clancy killed her children. The 9 jurors who were women also understood this.

There is nothing sexist about recognizing the very obvious truth that nearly all of the people pushing these insane conspiracy theories about Patrick being his own nanny in a wig are women. Not most women, but mostly women.

Why are you talking about women as though we are a hive mind?

I've done no such thing. Many women, probably the overwhelming majority of women, recognize the truth that Lindsay Clancy killed her children. The 9 jurors who were women also understood this.

There is nothing sexist about recognizing the very obvious truth that nearly all of the people pushing these insane conspiracy theories about Patrick being his own nanny in a wig are women. Not most women, but mostly women.

I do, and I know that if you are wearing indoor clothing they will get soaked very quickly. I learn this lesson again every time I have to shovel.

I also know that in addition to the small amount of snow on the ground, the ground itself was likely saturated. The spot she was laying was also right next to a downspout for the gutters, carrying water that had been melting off the roof and depositing it right next to her.

Kinda? Just like fabric, hair also will absorb moisture like the wick of a candle draws up wax.

It isn't valid if they are "asking questions" that are totally detached from reality, especially when they refuse to accept it. I promise you, there is a zero percent chance the nanny's testimony filmed during the trial was actually Patrick in a wig.

And it is also not valid to accuse someone of molesting their child without evidence. Not only is it not valid, it is actually illegal to do so. People aren't just wondering, they are outright making definitive statements that Patrick was molesting Cora.

Truth isn't a popularity contest, so I don't really care about down votes.

How does her being wet not make sense? She was laying on the saturated ground in the snow. Fabrics wick moisture.

Part of the reason is that DNA testing is expensive. If they tested every inch of every band that would be a significant cost.

The other reason is that in this case, it doesn't really matter. The bands were in their home, and had been used by both of them and even the children had played with them. Their DNA is on pretty much everything in the house, so it can't really tell us much. If the weapon was a gun or knife that they didn't own, then yeah doing multiple DNA tests could help figure out where it came from. But for an object that was known to be in the house and used by everyone, and sweated on, the presence of their DNA just doesn't give us any information that would justify the expense.

Same reason they didn't fingerprint the nightstand and other things in the bedroom. Of course their fingerprints would be there, it was their bedroom.

Which makes sense, because we already know Patrick was the last one to touch them when he ripped them off the children. I'm sure he wasn't gentle with it either, so that explains his DNA. They also didn't test every part of every band, but rather different areas on each of them.

Just like the knife, I think people were also getting confused by the difference between fingerprints and DNA on the bands as well. Both were explained during the trial, but I guess that doesn't matter. They heard there were no identifiable fingerprints on the bands or knife, and ran with it without waiting to hear why.

It's understandable. We all fall short of our own standards sometimes, and something about this case gets us riled up and acting on emotion.

It's tragic all around.

My opinion on the case is that Lindsay killed them and is culpable. I believe she did it out of depression, she wanted to kill herself and saw the children as an obstacle to that (like the alleged voice said, she had to kill them so she could kill herself). I think she was in a profound mental health crisis, but that she had the ability to stop herself.

What sealed it for me is that she said the command hallucination went away immediately after killing the last child. At that point, it may have been possible to revive some or even all of them. She could have called 911, could have taken the bands off and tried CPR, and she did none of that. She continued to try to kill herself after the voice had stopped, instead of trying to help the children. That says to me that she did want them dead, which establishes mens rea.

I believe that Patrick is a victim here. There's some debate about how good a father he was, but it isn't relevant to the issue. Lindsay frequently wrote in her journal about how supportive he was

He also hasn't expressed his grief in the exact ways TikTok wants him to, but there was never going to be any winning there. If he doesn't cry, they call him a sociopath. If he shows tears, they say he is faking them. It's the same thing that happened to Amanda Knox (who has spoken up on his behalf). People want the perfect victim, that expresses the exact right amount of emotions in the exact right ways, and the real world doesn't work like that. People are messy.

I do think some of what Patrick says about Lindsay is untrue. I don't think he's lying to us, but rather lying to himself. He has to believe that the doctors screwed up and missed something, or the medication caused it, because he can't face the alternative that he married someone capable of this and didn't see it. Or he did see it, but didn't want to acknowledge it.

Not necessarily, but the way they were doing it is unhinged. Watch the Bratz doll video and tell me that person isn't a few cards short of a full deck.

Or the people saying that Patrick was molesting his daughter (based on zero evidence except what they made up in their sick minds)

Or the ones who are now saying that Patrick dressed up in drag to testify in court as his own nanny.

I imagine they at least looked at him, it was clear he wasn't wounded.

And yes, police work here was shoddy. But that says more about them than Patrick. And suicide is far more common than murder,.so the context clues pointed towards suicide.

She didn't appear to be actively suicidal at the time, and had supposedly been getting better. That's why I was careful to write "history of suicidal ideation". She was improving, so there was no reason to suggest an immediate risk for running a few errands.

As far as why she didn't pick a better time, unfortunately people in a mental health crisis generally don't act in ways that make sense to the rest of us. Yes, it would have been logical to wait for a bigger window. But depression and intrusive thoughts don't always want you to wait for the optional time.