1039
Biden urges "every American" to read Project 2025's "blueprint for the second Trump term”
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
1039 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3356 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I highly doubt that, staging something like this would be an insanely dangerous move, a slight miss from the shooter in such a scenario would be lethal, and given other people at the event seem to have been killed, it seems clear that lethal rounds were used. Trump may be a fan of ridiculous stunts, but he's also pretty self interested; I do not think he would risk his own life for such a stunt.
I understand the impulse to not want someone one agrees with politically to have done something like try a political assassination, and then immediately leap to the idea that the notion that the event might help the intended victim's political chances is just a bit too convenient and therefore must mean they orchestrated it, but it must be remembered that, whatever views one has, or groups one is in, or identities one holds, as long as they are not so obscure as to be shared by only a handful of people, it is statistically likely that there will be people who are on your team or side of group who are willing to do something like this given the chance, just by virtue of such people making up a fraction of the population.
Trump is hated by a lot of people, myself included and a large fraction of the people likely to be reading this too I'm sure. It is not at all unrealistic to imagine that someone hates him enough to try to kill him.
The only reason I want this to be staged is because I want it to be exposed as a stunt. He fucking deserves this and I'm only sad he missed. Fuck. Donald. Trump.
I'd be celebrating if he hadn't.
The case, in my mind, for the false flag hypothesis is simple: he's a blithering coward. If a serious attempt was made on his life, nothing about his prior behavior suggests he would be fist-pumping. His confidence betrays comfort. Further, he idolizes those who have used similar false flags. Maintaining composure in such an event is so remote a possibility, that the probability of an orchestrated scenario with foreknowledge, a common blood capsule, and collateral damage seems comparatively likely.
Not certain, of course, but probable enough for consideration. Certainly it's far too early to draw concrete conclusions one way or another. However, if it were a false flag, how would it look differently?
Indeed he is a known coward, which is why getting someone to shoot at him and miss is absolutely off brand for him. The risk is way too high.
I hunt and shoot long range and I would trust myself to hit the head at that range, but not a chance on the ear. Even wind is too great a factor and the potential for an accidental fatality is just way too high.
I don't consider myself a coward and there's no way I'd set up this shot. It's Russian roulette.
This assumes he was shot at directly. A stage blood pack in the midst of anticipated gunfire sounds more likely to me than a triumphant, exposed rise after actually being hit.
Still, far from a certainty. But the rhetorical power of such an event, the uncharacteristically brave behavior, and the similarity to known false flags in ahem historical regimes prevent me from discarding the hypothesis.
He's mentally impaired from neurosyphilis by now. How can people believe he's the only person making decisions there?
If someone else planned this, then him not dying means his popularity rising, him dying means him becoming a martyr and his side's popularity rising.
I'm not claiming it happened this way or any specific way.
Just a very rare event to say something certainly, but this definitely changes the situation for a lot of money, if we express power in money. That means somebody could have made an effort of the same magnitude.
Has Trump ever made you think "that guy makes good choices"?
No, but he also does not look suicidal enough to have someone shoot live ammunition right next to his head and trust they make the shot perfectly.
Who said it was live ammo?
The reporting I've seen was that someone in the crowd was killed by this, just not Trump himself, that implies that whatever was fired at least was deadly.
Not that I agree with the arguments here either way but... Devil's advocate.
Blanks are not a "safe" round and are deadly. They still fire a regular powder charge and an explosion still leaves the barrel, they just aren't pushing a bullet ahead of them. They will kill just like a regular round at closer ranges. An attendee dying doesn't inherently mean that blanks weren't used. Actual bullets are evidence, but we don't have concrete info of that sort yet.
Blanks won't kill from the distance the shooter was positioned
At the time that was posted, publicly, we had no idea where the shooter was.
My b
I do not know whether the bystander who was killed was shot by the assassin or by the Secret Service. Do you?