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
The distinction here is hardly relevant.
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. 😂
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.
Not necessarily. To my knowledge, we don't know where any explosives would have been planted. He was seen wandering around the rally area a few hours before the rally. It's possible at one point he thought he could plant some explosives near Trump's podium or something so he gets taken out in the blast, and maybe abandoned that plan when he walked around and realized it wasn't viable.
IMO, there's nothing indicating he had any intents other than taking out Trump by any means available to him. Anyone else was probably either collateral damage in his mind, or "deserved it" for being Trump supporters in the first place. He may have decided that trying to snipe him from that rooftop was his most viable option, but it looks like he woke up that morning with at least two separate plans on how to go about it.
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.
It's a lot video-gamey. Let's be realistic.....the United States Secret Service just got owned by a 20 year old kid camping in one of the windows from Nuketown. The kid looks like he got beat up for his lunch money last week. Whatever plans were gong through his head, the plan he ultimately settled on involved him climbing to the one rooftop that the Secret Service somehow missed and was somehow able to not get caught until he fired off half a dozen or so shots. Everything he did that we know of so far looks like something a newbie would do the first time they played COD.
We'll of course never really know his true motives. Remember that despite all the speculation over political motives, Ronald Reagan's would-be-assassin did it because he was trying to impress a teenage Jodie Foster. For all we know, this kid could have woke up that morning and believed that Trump was Gargamel and it was his responsibility to kill him in order to save Smurf Village. Why he suddenly wanted Trump dead remains a mystery especially since he was supposedly a long-time Trump supporter, but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that his target was anything other than Trump himself, and maybe anyone who was just unlucky enough to be in the way.
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
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!!!!
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.
If it was shrapnel then it dispels the idea that if he'd turned his head just a few inches it would've been death.
And it makes the whole divine intervention thing seem less likely, but they are already reaching so hard anyways I'm sure they will just reach a bit further... it's a cult after all.
Lol yeah THAT'S what makes 'divine intervention less likely'
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle, too.
I am confused. Are you trying to say that your grandma gets ridden a lot?
Only by necrophiliacs now.
I have to admit, in all seriousness, that Fred Gwynne and my own father look very similar.
That man will forever live in my memory saying "What is a yoot?".
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a skank with wheels.
The only interesting thing about it might be that it once again points out the hypocrisy of the right.
They mocked John Kerry as undeserving of his purple hearts, and wore fake bandaids because he was hit with shrapnel.
We could climb that pile into orbit.
I think what you're trying to say is that "either way he still survived an assassination attempt", which I agree with, but the details still matter.
Yeah, this feels like a good headline more than useful information.
Clickbait?!? From The Daily Beast?!? Impossible!!!
It’s relevant to the folks who believe in divine intervention, isn’t it?
The folks who believe in divine intervention don't care about what actually happens in reality in any case, so no, it's not relevant to them, either.
People who believe in fantasy and fairytales aren’t going to be swayed by the nuance of fact.
It's relevant in that Trump is probably dishonest again.
The situation is shocking enough if he was hit by glass in an assassination attempt, but they couldn't resist lying and saying the bullet hit his ear.