politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It is relevant to history. You can either tell the Trump story that a bullet hit his ear, or you can say that he caught shrapnel.
The only way that would be relevant would be if there was a determination that the shooter was trying to do some kind of ad hoc false flag thing, as opposed to writing his own name into history. Everything we know at this point indicates that the latter is true, and the former is not.
Whether Trump's injury was the result of a fired projectile or a piece of shrapnel, the injury was caused by an assassination attempt.
We all know what really happened.
A trick he learned back in his WWE guest star days.
(This is meant as a joke, please do not be upset. I mean no disrespect to WWE fans.)
You know, it's funny because the moment I saw the picture where you could see a little blood, I thought to myself "did anyone make sure he didn't have a ketchup packet in his pockets?"
And sure enough, I'm never original...
I thought I was the only one whose first thought was that W wasn't surprised on 9/11 when I saw the clip of him being informed. Turns out a LOT of people had that thought. 😂
Not a ketchup packet, a razorblade
The truth is still the truth, even if there is no material difference in the implications.
That's true.
It's also relevant because one of Trump's current campaign statements is that he "took a bullet for America" which may be another lie.
It would certainly neuter that (over)statement, but I honestly wouldn't go as far as to call that one a "lie" without some indication that he knew that it wasn't a bullet he was hit by. I don't think that even a reasonable person wouldn't come to the conclusion that "Shots were fired, at me, now my ear is bleeding all over my face" as "I was hit by a bullet."
except if the shooter was just shooting into the crowd and hit like a railing or something then it wasn't an "assassination attempt" it was a mass shooting.
Frankly, it could be a mass-shooting anyway, simply one that had a high-profile figure as one of the targets. Apparently he had explosives in his car and some sort of remote detonation mechanism, so it was clearly about more than just Trump alone.
Fair. None of that speculation is inherently any better than the mass shooting speculation though, there's similarly zero indication he had anything personal against Trump. He even had potential dem targets in his search history. There's no sound evidence for anything so far, that I've heard at any rate.
Though I do think it's a little far-fetched that what appears to be an intelligent engineering student is going to think sneaking over and planting explosives is going to be a viable plan. That's a little video gamey.
Again, there is also no evidence he specifically wanted Trump dead and was not simply committing a blaze-of-glory act of terrorism for some misguided chance at fame. Having no evidence does not mean we default to one preferred interpretation.
Regarding the rooftop, from all indications he carefully scouted his method. The drone, the rangefinder, the ladder, etc. The building was local police's responsibility, as well, they actually even had a cop inside that very building. Regardless though, it certainly was embarrassing for the SS anyway, hence the director resigning.
Successfully shooting Trump would garner more fame than any of the other things you described. He unquestionably wanted to shoot Trump, I think. After Trump dropped down and got piled on by the SS, though, he seems to have begun shooting other people.
Not really. I'll give you a "for instance". Few people know this story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian.
In this case, although in danger, Trump was being shot at by someone who couldn't shoot.
Bush was thrown at by someone who couldn't throw
Got WAY closer than 60ft though.
I remember watching that and losing my shit.
Of course at the time, it was because I was a teenager and "haha president almost got hit by a shoe"
Now it's funny for different reasons, but still.
You know where "close" counts?
Horseshoes, hand grenades, and ~~The Secret~~ nuclear weapons.
Welease The Secwet Weapon!!!!
* Wewease
It's been a while since I saw that movie, lol
Cheers 👊😎
2 first downs is not exactly close.
No mention of it being "a training grenade [which] could not fire." Source?
??
In case you missed the rest of that very sentence:
Dont be in such a rush to rule this out lol. Ad hoc false flag should be Trump's middle names
He's always been a real ad war hoc
I think there's essentially no limit to what the shooter's motives could be. What was the Las Vegas shooter's motive? What was the motive at Columbine? There's a million possibilities. Narcissism, delusions, non-specific rage.
Sure, there's one conclusion that seems simplest, which is that he shot at Trump but missed. And if he grazed Trump's ear, that's almost certainly true. But what if it comes out that the FBI finds that the closest shot was over 10 feet away from Trump? If that happens, I think we'd be fools to continue to assume it was an assassination attempt.
The smartest thing anyone could say at this point is "I don't know".
That's still not very relevant. Either way he was shot at and his ear was hit. Whether or not it was a whole bullet, part of a bullet after the bullet hit something, or something that the bullet busted off that hit his ear is of minimal importance.