Trump falls!! Hurt too

[Tigers!]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If Orange Hitler had just had his lips and his fingers shot off but was otherwise okay I think the country would be better today.

 

[thebeave]

Oh good lord!

I initially assumed this was mocking him, which would be awful. Are they supporters?! I think that'd be even worse!

Trump and the MAGA base have broken Poe.

Its pretty ridiculous, but you see this kind of thing all the time. Like when someone gets cancer and goes bald from the treatment, their friends or classmates will shave their heads in solidarity. BFD. Like that is supposed to make the cancer victim feel better about themselves?

 

[southernhybrid]

Trumps's survival of the assassination attempt was an act of God according to many of his nutty supporters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati on/2024/07/16/trump-religion-messiah/

Former president Donald Trump’s narrow escape from an assassin’s bullet has reinvigorated talk among some of his supporters that the thrice-married billionaire is a messiah figure, anointed by God to save a troubled nation.

.

Since the attack on Trump’s life during a campaign rally Saturday in Butler, Pa., left him bloodied but otherwise unharmed, some supporters in Congress and on social media have shared Bible scriptures and illustrations showing the Holy Ghost deflecting the bullet. Internet celebrities such as boxer Jake Paul have called the moment proof of “who God wants to win,” and posters on TheDonald, a far-right message board unaffiliated with Trump, have mentioned God seven times as often as they did in the week before the shooting, a Washington Post analysis found.

The idea of divine influence has surfaced at the Republican National Convention, where a bandaged and somber Trump was hailed before a raucous Milwaukee crowd Monday night. Some delegates and Trump aides already convinced that the former president would put the country on a righteous course said they saw that belief confirmed from on high on Saturday night.
“I told him that last night,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who was in Trump’s box at the convention, said at a Milwaukee town hall on Tuesday. “I said, Sir, the hand of God is on you.” Trump campaign spokeswoman Caroline Sunshine said Tuesday on Fox News that Trump survived thanks to “divine intervention” and, after calling the left “godless,” added, “It’s important to remember that good does defeat evil.”

If I were a Christian, this would make me nauseated, as it would have my late mother, who was an evangelical who despised Trump.

“The deep state wanted the world to see Trump’s death and God intervened. To me there’s no other possible explanation,” said one commenter on TheDonald. Said another: “God Protect Our GEOTUS” — the acronym for “God-Emperor of the United States.”
“Surviving an assassination attempt just confirms for these folks everything they say and believe — it confirms that he is God’s chosen to bring salvation to the United States and to the world,” said Matthew Sutton, a Washington State University historian of American religion who focuses on apocalyptic Christianity and politics.

There were a few who saw this in a more rational way.

For some, scripture went the other way. On X, some users noted that, in Revelation 13:3, a beast understood to be the Antichrist, or Satan, heals from a head wound and is then globally idolized. Others questioned the spiritual interpretation of the day’s violence, which left one rally attendee dead and two others critically injured.
“Oh but God didn’t care about the guy in the crowd that was actually killed?” one X poster said.

It reminds me of when we has a tornado here last year and some of my Christian friends were all praising god because only two people died including a little boy. I had to bite my tongue to avoid conflict but all I could think was why did your god allow the tornado to hit our town and kill a little boy and an innocent worker? Religion does so much harm, especially when it glorifies an immoral man like Trump.

I didn't quote him, but the horrible Franklin Graham also said it was a divine act that saved Trump. WTF! Why didn't god get some help for that young shooter who had been bullied in school and why did god allow the US to fetishize fucking AR-15s. Oh right. There is no god but some of those who believe there is, are more like mythological devils than mythological angels.

If Trump had died, would they be praising god for that? /s

I think that assigning god’s will to explain events can be useful to help explain what otherwise are just senseless tragedies or, depending on your philosophy, fate. Human beings seek explanation. We just do. And a part of us, or many of us, wants very much to believe in fairness, and even justice. Not knowing or understanding is uncomfortable, disconcerting.

I don’t think a belief in god is itself an evil but I do believe using god as a cudgel to impose belief —in anything—is very much an evil. And just as evil, to use it as a lever to manipulate people.

My late mother was an evangelical Christian, but not once did I ever hear her say that something happened because it was god's will, especially something that hurt other people. I never understood how she could be rational about so many things, but irrational in her beliefs. I don't care that people believe in gods, as long as they don't use it for harm, but I find it very annoying when people say that something happened because it was god's will.

A better explanation about the shooting is that a messed up young man, who had been bullied in high school, who had no close friends, but was a member of a shooting club and lived in a home that had many guns, and had studied the assassination of JFK in one of his advanced placement courses, decided that life wasn't worth living so he planned a mass shooting, including killing a former president, so he'd go down while being recognized. But, not only was the young man nervous, supposedly Trump turned his head just as the bullet was flying in his direction., but sadly the shooter killed one person and critically injured two others. That makes sense. Saying that god saved Trump and now he's the God-Emperor of the United States is not only nonsense, it's something that only cult members would say. I know there have been conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, but nothing quite as insane as this. Plus these people don't seem to care that other Trump supporters were shot. Do they ask why their god allowed that to happen?

Of course, many of the conspiracy nuts have made up all kinds of nonsense to try and blame the Democrats for the shooting, like god protected Trump from the Deep State that was trying to kill him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

Not remotely close on multiple fr9nts. Please reread.

 

[ZiprHead]

New Thomas Matthew Crooks reported detail sparks backlash

Authorities have identified Crooks as the attempted assassin of ex-President Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday.

www.newsweek.com

Authorities identified 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks as the gunman who opened fire from a nearby rooftop during a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. A bullet narrowly missed Trump's head, grazing the former president's ear instead, while and one audience member was killed and two others were injured before Crooks was killed Secret Service agents.

On Wednesday, the Secret Service briefed members of the U.S. Senate with new details on the shooting, reportedly revealing that agents had identified Crooks as suspicious a full hour before the incident took place. Republican senators reacted to the news with outrage, adding to the intense scrutiny that the Secret Service has been facing since Saturday.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump protected by God Almighty?

That reminds me of one of Isaac Asimov's history teachers who described how an assistant of General Edward Braddock survived the defeat in the  Braddock Expedition even though that general himself did not survive.

The French and their Native American allies fought from nearby forests, while General Braddock preferred open-field fighting, fighting like "gentlemen" with troops organized in well-defined lines of battle. That only made them vulnerable.

That assistant suffered bullets going through his hat and his coat, and two horses were shot from under him. But he survived, and he organized a rear guard, allowing the survivors to retreat.

That teacher said that it was the finger of God, that God was protecting him so that he would later lead the thirteen British North American colonies to victory in their rebellion against British rule.

IA responded that there might have been someone who died in that battle who could have made these colonies independent without a war. The teacher got emotional and asked if IA was saying that there could have been someone better than GW.

Also, as IA said, what seems like the finger of God to one person may seem like the Devil's hoofprint to another.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

If someone is deliberately shot at, it will be either a hit or a miss. The chance of a minor graze is phenomenally lucky if this was a genuine shot.

Statistics from wars suggest that this is nonsense. For every fatality, there are typically ten injuries requiring hospitalisation, and fifty minor injuries so trivial that the recipients barely even notice them at the time.

Guns are not magic, and don't work in reality the way they work in Hollywood.

The chance of a minor injury, either from the bullet, or from spalling off nearby objects hit by a round that missed its target, is far higher than you imagine.

You do realize that for an injury to occur, implies a hit? In war there are many reasons for shots not to be fatal. In fact the vast majority of shots are misses.
But an assassination attempt is different, it is not a statistical event but a single incident. This scenario of a mere graze IS a typical Hollywood result where the hero or main villain are safe with just a minor hit whilst others (NPCs) die.
I agree with it possibly being spalling, but Trump and the Republicans are pre-emptively all claiming it was a bullet hit, without any investigation result.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

Let's see if I have this correct- you're seriously questioning whether a leader's rheroric can have influence on their followers? This is just a ridiculous thing to doubt.

 

[Elixir]

I agree with it possibly being spalling, but Trump and the Republicans are pre-emptively all claiming it was a bullet hit, without any investigation result.

They’re claiming goddidit.
Such a gift to the fascists.

I’m starting to believe in the OT God.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They were considered very strong supporters of The Felon. We have Alex Jones saying an assassination would benefit MAGA. What if this was a suicide who decided to help The Felon by providing an "assassination" attempt--but never actually fired at him. We have a hit in the crowd, we have reportedly a hit on the teleprompter. Did he deliberately miss and The Felon was simply hit by flying debris from the shattered teleprompter?

My expectation is that the shot was fired wide on purpose, and Trump bladed his own ear, and that they all decided to murder an innocent in the crowd. All he would have to do is wait for the pops, and then nick a concealed razor blade through his own ear.

Disagree--if there was a plot he wasn't in on it.

I don't think it was the teleprompter at all, or debris. I think it was done by his own hand.

Conveniently, the catspaw was shot to death.

Of course he was. What else would you expect of the Secret Service.

I don't see him as a catspaw, he had to know he would die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question is how many times?

I heard “a single shot” took him out.
The “staged” claim only fails IMO at that point.

There were a couple of Secret Service snipers clearly visible. I would be surprised if they didn't both fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What we all saw happen simply isn't plausible enough; We need to invent more agency and more control, otherwise some parts of reality might turn out to be just be slightly unusual, but perfectly reasonable, shit that happens.

Planes aren't flown into buildings very often; Buildings don't often collapse as a result; Therefore what we all saw must be a fictional shield for the evil intent of unknown bad guys.

Presidential candidates aren't assassinated very often; Assassins don't often miss at moderate ranges; Therefore what we all saw must be a fictional shield for the evil intent of unknown bad guys.

Someone shot at Trump. Trump got away with a minor injury; A bystander died; The shooter was killed by Trump's bodyguards. We all saw it. It's what happened. None of it is sufficiently implausible as to demand or even sugggest some grand conspiracy. There was no grassy knoll, jet fuel didn't melt steel beams, and plesiosaurs didn't survive the Cretaceous by hiding in Loch Ness.

Apparently hardcore MAGA guy shoots at Trump? That doesn't seem very likely.

And I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy. I see two reasonable scenarios:

1) This guy listened to Alex Jones saying what MAGA needed was an assassination. And either missed or deliberately missed. No conspiracy at all.

2) The guy talked, a few people messed with his gun and let the plot proceed. A few people, not a grand conspiracy.

In either case I think the guy was acting on his own initiative.

 

[Elixir]

Or 3. He was rushed, having seen that he was being surveilled and guys were coming up on the roof...
#1 would have required a death wish. Intent would be difficult to discern, but given the history, the result he got may well have been it.

 

[Tigers!]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

Let's see if I have this correct- you're seriously questioning whether a leader's rheroric can have influence on their followers? This is just a ridiculous thing to doubt.

No I don't doubt that a leaders's rhetoric can influence their followers. That much is obvious and well known.
From the imformation we get it Aust. it seems that Trump is blamed fro all manner of things. He is accused of saying/being all manner of evil and is held to account for it. Yet Biden can describe Trump as being in the 'bullseye' and it barely rates a mention. I can imagine the uproar if Trump had said that about Biden. He would be accused of inciting his followers. The accusation of incitement only seems to go one way - towards Trump.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

Let's see if I have this correct- you're seriously questioning whether a leader's rheroric can have influence on their followers? This is just a ridiculous thing to doubt.

No I don't doubt that a leaders's rhetoric can influence their followers. That much is obvious and well known.
From the imformation we get it Aust. it seems that Trump is blamed fro all manner of things.

Poor Trump.

He is accused of saying/being all manner of evil and is held to account for it.

Trump lied about the Federal 2020 election, and when the lack of court cases to challenge any of those actual claims wasn't enough to overturn it, he and his gorup decided to hold a rally on January 6th, where they all again fanned the flames. Then the January 6th riot happened. As a direct result of Trump's rhetoric (and questionably outright command). This isn't in doubt.

Yet Biden can describe Trump as being in the 'bullseye' and it barely rates a mention.

Biden was speaking at a fundraiser that had a bunch of wealthy people. He hasn't been stumping on the term, he hasn't been posting it every hour on Twitter. Most importantly, the Trump's shooter doesn't seem to have cared about the politics involved in the shooting to begin with. The shooter was also a registered Republican. And finally you can hit a bullseye with darts and arrow. Biden didn't release a map with politician targets using a rifle site as per Sarah Palin.

I can imagine the uproar if Trump had said that about Biden.

He said about Hillary Clinton, wait, not it wasn't an innocuous term like bullseye, but it was "2nd Amendment solution".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What we all saw happen simply isn't plausible enough; We need to invent more agency and more control, otherwise some parts of reality might turn out to be just be slightly unusual, but perfectly reasonable, shit that happens.

Planes aren't flown into buildings very often; Buildings don't often collapse as a result; Therefore what we all saw must be a fictional shield for the evil intent of unknown bad guys.

Presidential candidates aren't assassinated very often; Assassins don't often miss at moderate ranges; Therefore what we all saw must be a fictional shield for the evil intent of unknown bad guys.

Someone shot at Trump. Trump got away with a minor injury; A bystander died; The shooter was killed by Trump's bodyguards. We all saw it. It's what happened. None of it is sufficiently implausible as to demand or even sugggest some grand conspiracy. There was no grassy knoll, jet fuel didn't melt steel beams, and plesiosaurs didn't survive the Cretaceous by hiding in Loch Ness.

Apparently hardcore MAGA guy shoots at Trump? That doesn't seem very likely.

And I'm not suggesting a grand conspiracy. I see two reasonable scenarios:

1) This guy listened to Alex Jones saying what MAGA needed was an assassination. And either missed or deliberately missed. No conspiracy at all.

2) The guy talked, a few people messed with his gun and let the plot proceed. A few people, not a grand conspiracy.

In either case I think the guy was acting on his own initiative.

I think it is much more likely that a loner who was rejected by even gun peers wanted to make a point. He got to a position to do as such because security was not as effective because of a ton of false negatives on security and candidate/President security.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Yet Biden can describe Trump as being in the 'bullseye' and it barely rates a mention. I can imagine the uproar if Trump had said that about Biden. He would be accused of inciting his followers. The accusation of incitement only seems to go one way - towards Trump.

There is more to speech than literal meaning. Character drives context.
Your grandma and a guy with prison tattoos both saying, “Oh I could kill him.” is often taken quite differently.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet Biden can describe Trump as being in the 'bullseye' and it barely rates a mention. I can imagine the uproar if Trump had said that about Biden. He would be accused of inciting his followers. The accusation of incitement only seems to go one way - towards Trump.

There is more to speech than literal meaning. Character drives context.
Your grandma and a guy with prison tattoos both saying, “Oh I could kill him.” is often taken quite differently.

You haven't met Tigers! grandma... she is Australian you know.

 

[thebeave]

Let's look at three examples. The shooting of the Republicans playing baseball and the Trump assassination attempt was not brought on by rhetoric of the left. Trump's rhetoric directly led to January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

You claim Trump's rhetoric has the magical ability to cause a storming of the Capitol and his own almost assassination i.e. his words have consequences, but the left's rhetoric has no magical ability at all and has no consequences>

Let's see if I have this correct
1. Trump speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trumps fault
2. Left speaks - something bad (sic) happens - Trump's fault

Do I have that correct?

Let's see if I have this correct- you're seriously questioning whether a leader's rheroric can have influence on their followers? This is just a ridiculous thing to doubt.

No I don't doubt that a leaders's rhetoric can influence their followers. That much is obvious and well known.
From the imformation we get it Aust. it seems that Trump is blamed fro all manner of things. He is accused of saying/being all manner of evil and is held to account for it. Yet Biden can describe Trump as being in the 'bullseye' and it barely rates a mention. I can imagine the uproar if Trump had said that about Biden. He would be accused of inciting his followers. The accusation of incitement only seems to go one way - towards Trump.

Yep. We have a name for that. Its called Trump Derangement Syndrome. TDS for short.