Trump falls!! Hurt too

[Jimmy Higgins]

It’s also a matter of math to calculate the odds that someone intelligent enough to button a shirt could be stupid enough to think Trump “bladed himself.” Jesus fucking Christ, that’s idiotic.

Indeed! This reads a lot like how WTC 7 collapse was a demo... because collapsing the first two towers wasn't enough... that WTC 7 would send the people in to a frenzy. Trump didn't need to bleed at all. Someone shoots at him, and it is an attempt on his life and very serious. As superficial amount of blood isn't going to do much.

There is no need to blade! Much like how in professional wrestling, blading isn't necessary for a great match.

 

[Gospel]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

 

[TSwizzle]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

LOL, this obsession with the boogeyman Project 2025 is risible. Fearmongering nonsense.

 

[Gospel]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

LOL, this obsession with the boogeyman Project 2025 is risible. Fearmongering nonsense.

My point is not about the truthfulness of the statement. The point is I believe the president of the USA should provide the American people with useful information, rather than making a blanket statement like "MAGA supporters are horrible people."

 

[ZiprHead]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Was he wrong?

 

[TSwizzle]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

LOL, this obsession with the boogeyman Project 2025 is risible. Fearmongering nonsense.

My point is not about the truthfulness of the statement. The point is I believe the president of the USA should provide the American people with useful information, rather than making a blanket statement like "MAGA supporters are horrible people."

The Heritage/Project 2025 is fearmongering bullshit and now you are peddling it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

All this stuff about about ideological motivations is an assumption and on top of that, all the stuff about Biden being responsible is partisan mud-slinging in order to gain even more political advantage from this crisis.

In the first case, while Crooks donated $15 once to Biden's inauguration (maybe he wanted to go there to shoot Biden), he was also a registered Republican. Student(s) at his school said when he ever talked politics, he expressed conservative views. Authorities think they haven't found a manifesto or anything in social media or his electronics to point to an ideologically or partisan-driven assassination attempt. Now when I write that they "think they haven't found a manifesto," that's my interpretation because he actually was wearing a t-shirt for a pro-gun YouTube channel when he did this and he had explosives in his car but no identification. So, he planned to go out with a bang during his escape, if needed and his message would be his t-shirt, i.e. AFTER he assassinated Trump. Or at least that is now how it seems with no other message found.

So, to me, this could very well mean "hey look everyone, I'm an expert gun guy! You were all wrong not to accept me into the school rifle club and bully me every day!" It also means that if it were Biden who had the campaign rally there, he'd try to shoot Biden instead.

I am willing to change my informed opinion on this in light of any new data, but for now, the Party of Political Violence is the GOP, one of the problems of violence across the country is GUNS, Trump remains a narcissist, and his followers are still a cult.

 

[Gospel]

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

LOL, this obsession with the boogeyman Project 2025 is risible. Fearmongering nonsense.

My point is not about the truthfulness of the statement. The point is I believe the president of the USA should provide the American people with useful information, rather than making a blanket statement like "MAGA supporters are horrible people."

The Heritage/Project 2025 is fearmongering bullshit and now you are peddling it.

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate. Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

Maybe it's just me that thinks this way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[TSwizzle]

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate. Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

Good grief, what on earth are you blathering on about? Brandon and the dems have a long history of howling about "how Trump threatens our very democracy". The Project 2025 is just one of many crank think tanks that the conspiracy theorists and fearmongers have recently latched onto and you obsess about it. You're not the only one. And Brandon has been banging on about Project 2025 as if it is Trump's manifesto. It's not.

 

[Elixir]

Brandon and the dems have a long history of howling about "how Trump threatens our very democracy".

So what? There's a reason for that.
Trump DID threaten our democracy, and more than threaten, took action AGAINST our democracy and STILL threatens our democracy by his own expressed intent.
Your willful ignorance of those facts doesn't make them go away.

 

[Toni]

It appears that Trump’s ear was hit by glass from the teleprompter. I wonder if the teleprompter deflected the bullet and that’s why he missed.

Are you sure about that? I just saw a photo showing the bullet (actually more of a vague fuzzy line) whizzing toward his head. But maybe that was faked?

Anything can be faked, but the photographer was on NPR this morning and was discussing the bureau calling him after they noticed it in the image. He said he took the exposure at 1/8000 sec, which I'm impressed because that aperture must be 1.x or something (professional photographer after all).

Regardless, the bullet passing Trump in the image doesn't provide anything regarding deflection of its trajectory or its distance from Trump. I will say, I've got to think it needs to be close enough for it to be caught in the focus, but I've not done photography like that before. Ultimately, we do likely know the shooters position and where the bullet ended and where Trump was standing. So the math will be possible.

What would be the point of making an exposure of at 1/8000 sec for a run of the mill campaign event? Wouldn't you normally only use settings like that when you are knowingly recording high speed events? I think I'm starting to drift into vast conspiracy land here....

That’s f/2 at ISO 100. Basically, that’s Trump against a very blurry background. I have no idea why they would be shooting at those settings for a campaign rally.

Because Trump IS the campaign. The people don’t matter. They are just a blur.

 

[Gospel]

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate. Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

Good grief, what on earth are you blathering on about? Brandon and the dems have a long history of howling about "how Trump threatens our very democracy". The Project 2025 is just one of many crank think tanks that the conspiracy theorists and fearmongers have recently latched onto and you obsess about it. You're not the only one. And Brandon has been banging on about Project 2025 as if it is Trump's manifesto. It's not.

Where did I obsess about it? Could you please refrain from making false claims about me and my interests? Just because you've heard others mention the Heritage project doesn't mean I'm making the same argument as those others you heard it from. I'm not even arguing that Project 2025 is a threat and if you'd take the moment to fucking ask me, I'd agree that it is not.

 

[Toni]

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate. Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

Good grief, what on earth are you blathering on about? Brandon and the dems have a long history of howling about "how Trump threatens our very democracy". The Project 2025 is just one of many crank think tanks that the conspiracy theorists and fearmongers have recently latched onto and you obsess about it. You're not the only one. And Brandon has been banging on about Project 2025 as if it is Trump's manifesto. It's not.

Well there is Project 47 which is possibly worse that

For example: One can make the argument that "Thomas Matthew Crooks may have had mental health issues and misunderstood President Joe Biden's statement, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic."

Erm, I don't think there is any room to misunderstand Brandon's statement or message. This has been the theme for quite a while.

Great, I'm glad you've noticed the actual point I'm making.

Would it not have made more sense for Biden to say, "The Heritage Foundation, which many of former President Trump's cabinet members are either part of or support, aims to dismantle the administrative state, undermine federal agencies, and enforce a Christian nationalist ideology"?

LOL, this obsession with the boogeyman Project 2025 is risible. Fearmongering nonsense.

My point is not about the truthfulness of the statement. The point is I believe the president of the USA should provide the American people with useful information, rather than making a blanket statement like "MAGA supporters are horrible people."

The Heritage/Project 2025 is fearmongering bullshit and now you are peddling it.

really? I mean sure, it’s bulshit but it’s very much their plan. And if I were Trump, I’d be worried that they would find a way to ensure he’s removed from office if he deviates at all (he’s slipping cognitively would be the obvious because of the underlying truth but he has a lot of health problems)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My point is not about the truthfulness of the statement. The point is I believe the president of the USA should provide the American people with useful information, rather than making a blanket statement like "MAGA supporters are horrible people."

The Heritage/Project 2025 is fearmongering bullshit and now you are peddling it.

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate.

Ready for some pragmatic political depression? The second you bring up Heritage Foundation, you've lost the voter. Making sound and coherent messages doesn't mean you've madea compelling argument to win a vote.

*sigh*

Why do you think Fauci is viewed as a villain by some? It was in part because he used very deliberate language.

Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

They usually do. Trump is an exception. And Trump is also a viable threat to the US and our democracy. That isn't a false statement.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wonderful. Don't you think it would be less harmful to refute a well-argued statement made by a president, rather than trying to debunk broad generalizations that only serve to dehumanize people? Biases will prevent people from caring when someone simply says, "That's not true!" to such sweeping statements.

For instance, people might argue that Biden's remarks about Trump supporters are incorrect, but then the focus shifts to the negative aspects within that group. However, as you've demonstrated, focusing on the Heritage Foundation as the issue provides a specific (especially when citing their own documents), tangible point for people to investigate. Making it harder to twist into a general attack on a group of people. It would be up to the people to decide whether said Heritage/Project 2025 is the threat the president claims it to be.

You would think that presidents would choose their words responsibly and make actual arguments whether you agree with their arguments or not.

Good grief, what on earth are you blathering on about? Brandon and the dems have a long history of howling about "how Trump threatens our very democracy". The Project 2025 is just one of many crank think tanks that the conspiracy theorists and fearmongers have recently latched onto and you obsess about it. You're not the only one. And Brandon has been banging on about Project 2025 as if it is Trump's manifesto. It's not.

Well there is Project 47 which is possibly worse that

The Heritage/Project 2025 is fearmongering bullshit and now you are peddling it.

really? I mean sure, it’s bulshit but it’s very much their plan. And if I were Trump, I’d be worried that they would find a way to ensure he’s removed from office if he deviates at all (he’s slipping cognitively would be the obvious because of the underlying truth but he has a lot of health problems)

I'm worried about the people that will be given control of the nation if he wins. Trump will just do his own stupid bravado thing, while our nation is cut back to the 19th century... regardless the weather in So Cal.

 

[Gospel]

Ready for some pragmatic political depression? The second you bring up Heritage Foundation, you've lost the voter. Making sound and coherent messages doesn't mean you've madea compelling argument to win a vote.

So, you prefer a foolish and misguided America, fearing the loss of freedoms, over the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we stand strong against the foolish and misguided?

 

[Gospel]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't bought into the idea that Americans are stupid.

 

[Toni]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't bought into the idea that Americans are stupid.

Mostly with you but then I remember the 2016 election and the 1980&1984 elections…

 

[pood]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't bought into the idea that Americans are stupid.

About half of Americans, it would seem, are not just stupid, but a drooling mob of deranged idiots.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't bought into the idea that Americans are stupid.

Personally, I tend to agree with whoever 'said a person is smart, but people are an idiot'.
Or the reverse corollary, in the immortal words of Linus from Peanuts: "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand"