I urge everyone to watch this video up to the point that he actually leaves the stage. I think this video is the end of our country as we know it. Hope to God I'm wrong. But the photo of him with...
I urge everyone to watch this video up to the point that he actually leaves the stage.
I think this video is the end of our country as we know it. Hope to God I'm wrong. But the photo of him with his fist in the air versus Biden's bumbling debates? It's everything that the right-wing Christian fascists could have ever hoped for.
Wait until the "Biden ordered it" conspiracies.
Edit: Pretty disappointed in the rhetoric being shared in a lot of leftwing spaces. Unfortunately, a lot of folks are just going full Q Anon and posting baseless conspiracies that Trump staged this as a false flag. I really hope Democrats aren't going to stoop to the level of Q Anon.
As an aside, I'm very concerned for our futures. We are already struggling and this event will be divisive and hurtful for us as a people. I worry it opens the door to more violence at worst and more hardcore nationalism at best. I'm so afraid for my little 9-month-old son and his future. I'm afraid he will be gay or trans in this country. I'm afraid he will never know the optimism I knew as a kid. I'm afraid he will know war.
That photo may have just won him the presidency. It's so iconic it makes me feel ill. An incredibly powerful photo of one of the worst people I could possibly imagine. I really hope no one else...
That photo may have just won him the presidency. It's so iconic it makes me feel ill. An incredibly powerful photo of one of the worst people I could possibly imagine.
I really hope no one else was hurt. But in a lot of ways, I have a strong suspicion this is going to hurt America.
This is really the end. Presidents who triumphantly survive an assassination — I think of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR — enjoy a big boost of popularity. It makes them appear bold, defiant,...
This is really the end.
Presidents who triumphantly survive an assassination — I think of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR — enjoy a big boost of popularity. It makes them appear bold, defiant, masculine...
The average dumb voter loves it.
The Trump-Biden gap will probably widen by another point or two because of this.
I've read comments (elsewhere) that suggest that this will make undecided voters really go for Trump now, and that completely mystifies me. He's still the same person he was before,...
I've read comments (elsewhere) that suggest that this will make undecided voters really go for Trump now, and that completely mystifies me. He's still the same person he was before, accomplishments have not changed, still has the same felonies, is not made instantly smarter or saner or less demented/dementia'd by an attempted assassination.
I suppose anyone who is still undecided is an average dumb voter, so maybe?
I personally don't think this convinces many people who were undecided to vote for Trump, but this does massively increase Trump voter enthusiasm, and also changes the dynamic and rhetoric that...
I personally don't think this convinces many people who were undecided to vote for Trump, but this does massively increase Trump voter enthusiasm, and also changes the dynamic and rhetoric that will be viewed as acceptable for the rest of the campaign. Trump and Republicans now have an easy out against claims that Trump is authoritarian or a threat to democracy, which is to say that such rhetoric incites violence like we saw today. Democrats, being "respectable", are likely to shy away from such rhetoric even though it is true. It changes the campaign, but I don't think in the direct sense of winning Trump many voters.
Undecided voters are the ones that don’t pay attention and don’t care about politics and pr works wonders on them cause they aren’t paying close attention. Also in general they seem to lean right.
Undecided voters are the ones that don’t pay attention and don’t care about politics and pr works wonders on them cause they aren’t paying close attention. Also in general they seem to lean right.
Nobody even thinks about any of this except terminally online leftists like us. The Nazis will vote for him because they're Nazis, the libs will clutch their pearls and vote for him because they...
He's still the same person he was before
Nobody even thinks about any of this except terminally online leftists like us. The Nazis will vote for him because they're Nazis, the libs will clutch their pearls and vote for him because they feel sorry for him. The rest of us will get ready to go back to 1932.
Extremely worried, this really is the only "benefit" we have since the speed the news cycle moves at means this could easily be forgotten about in 2 months......or it could not since trump loves...
Extremely worried, this really is the only "benefit" we have since the speed the news cycle moves at means this could easily be forgotten about in 2 months......or it could not since trump loves to harp on things over and over.
Or it could be an opening to remind everyone of when Trump endorsed "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat", praised Gianforte for attacking a reporter, or lied about his mass of connections...
Or it could be an opening to remind everyone of when Trump endorsed "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat", praised Gianforte for attacking a reporter, or lied about his mass of connections to the Heritage Foundation with their president's recent comment on a revolution that will "remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
Some Americans might wake up to the possibility that this sort of violence and potential Balkanization is what Trump represents.
We're a bit off script. We can make educated guesses--and this ain't great-- but I don't think anyone can really forecast the next few months.
I hate, hate, HATE Trump but honestly even I have to admit that was kind of bad ass. I thought you were exaggerating before I watched the video, but this is really was all he needed to pull ahead...
I hate, hate, HATE Trump but honestly even I have to admit that was kind of bad ass. I thought you were exaggerating before I watched the video, but this is really was all he needed to pull ahead of Biden. Jesus Christ.
To share a tiny bit of optimism: It looks like the shooter was a registered republican - source e.g. CNN. I'll not link it as it shares the name of the shooter as well (Is that even relevant in...
To share a tiny bit of optimism: It looks like the shooter was a registered republican - source e.g. CNN. I'll not link it as it shares the name of the shooter as well (Is that even relevant in cases of political violence re: copycats?) but it should be easy enough to find.
Why is that good news? Because hopefully this means the assassination attempt is harder to weaponize against Biden, and it's more difficult to use it as a vehicle to pass authoritarian legislation.
Maybe but it is not exactly like the truth has ever mattered much for them. They could easily make up whatever narrative on the shooter as they see fit.
Maybe but it is not exactly like the truth has ever mattered much for them. They could easily make up whatever narrative on the shooter as they see fit.
Remember how quickly they defaulted to "antifa agents provocateur" to explain away any culpability they felt about Jan 6. You're absolutely correct that it won't much matter how douchebag registered.
Remember how quickly they defaulted to "antifa agents provocateur" to explain away any culpability they felt about Jan 6.
You're absolutely correct that it won't much matter how douchebag registered.
That is true, at least for Trump's core voters. However, that works less well for those not already in Trump's corner, and those are the people the fight for public opinion is really about. A...
That is true, at least for Trump's core voters. However, that works less well for those not already in Trump's corner, and those are the people the fight for public opinion is really about. A fence-sitter with pro-trump tendencies who at least somewhat listens to centrist news outlets will be much less swayed if Trump's narrative has obvious holes that are being pointed out.
He also donated to a progressive PAC. The best theory at the moment is that he was registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
He also donated to a progressive PAC.
The best theory at the moment is that he was registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
He donated $15 to voter turnout PAC on January 20, 2021. He also wore a shirt of Demolition Ranch. Occam razor tells me he was a libertarian fed up with what trump did few days earlier on January...
He donated $15 to voter turnout PAC on January 20, 2021.
He also wore a shirt of Demolition Ranch.
Occam razor tells me he was a libertarian fed up with what trump did few days earlier on January 6 and that donation was symbolic to show dissatisfaction.
It is so weird to donate to such PAC when an election is already over.
So I have two general hypotheses: The shooter was right-leaning The shooter was left-leaning I have three pieces of evidence: A. He registered to vote as a republican in a closed-primary state B....
Occam razor tells me he was a libertarian fed up with what trump did few days earlier on January 6 and that donation was symbolic to show dissatisfaction.
So I have two general hypotheses:
The shooter was right-leaning
The shooter was left-leaning
I have three pieces of evidence:
A. He registered to vote as a republican in a closed-primary state
B. He donated $15 to a progressive cause
C. He literally shot Donald Trump
There are other possible hypotheses, and other possible evidence, but these seem to be the most compelling in my opinion. I could write this out in Bayesian form, but this evidence just seems far more expected under hypothesis 2 than hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 is still possible, but it just seems less likely given what we currently know. This would still be true even if we assigned a higher prior probability to him being right-wing given the background of right-wing gun violence in recent years.
Hypothesis 3: It was apolitical. He was a lonely young male who just like so many mass shooters before him picked a high profile target in order to cause the most noise and cement his name in...
Hypothesis 3: It was apolitical. He was a lonely young male who just like so many mass shooters before him picked a high profile target in order to cause the most noise and cement his name in history before bowing out. And it just so happened that Donald Trump was visiting his hometown.
That to me fits everything. Interviews with his classmates confirm he was lonely and was obsessed with guns/camo. The flimsiness of both pieces of evidence linking him to either political party do as well.
There are other possible hypotheses, and other possible evidence, but these seem to be the most compelling in my opinion.
What makes you believe this is this less compelling than your top two hypotheses?
I guess I assign a much higher prior to these two beliefs because someone who dies attempting to carry out the assassination of a polarizing political figure seems like the kind of person who's...
What makes you believe this is this less compelling than your top two hypotheses?
I guess I assign a much higher prior to these two beliefs because someone who dies attempting to carry out the assassination of a polarizing political figure seems like the kind of person who's more likely to have strong political beliefs. Considering that most people have a strong feelings about Trump, it'd be surprising to find that the guy who tried to assassinate Trump doesn't have strong feelings about him one way or the other.
It's possible that it's some other motivation. Merely wanting to be famous, or another ideology that doesn't fit cleanly in the US left-right spectrum such as Islamic extremism, but I find him being politically motivated more likely.
I don't have strong convictions on this; we don't have much evidence yet, and I may be disproven within the hour lol
Depending on who you think actually assassinated Alexander the Great's father, this is one of the theories as to why Phillip II of Makedonia was murdered. He also could've be bumped for the usual...
picked a high profile target in order to cause the most noise and cement his name in history before bowing out
Depending on who you think actually assassinated Alexander the Great's father, this is one of the theories as to why Phillip II of Makedonia was murdered. He also could've be bumped for the usual political reasons, as the dude made many enemies. Either way, it's truly bronze age thinking that remains relevant to the modern era.
I think trying to fit everything into one of two categories (left/right) really reduces the universe of all possibilities so far that an analysis starts to become a useless exercise.
I think trying to fit everything into one of two categories (left/right) really reduces the universe of all possibilities so far that an analysis starts to become a useless exercise.
You are assuming all conservatives support trump. As for the donation, as this is the only evidence that is used that he was liberal. First of all ActBlue is being used as the organization...
You are assuming all conservatives support trump.
As for the donation, as this is the only evidence that is used that he was liberal.
First of all ActBlue is being used as the organization receiving money. In reality they are a payment processor, they are not an organization that is actually receiving the donations.
He donated to an organization that encourages people to vote, he did it on January 20, 2021, so after election and a few days after January 6, which upset a lot of people including Republicans. He also unsubscribed from it a year later.
Second, we now know that his family was libertarian, and he was mentioned by his classmate that he was clearly right leaning. His fascination with guns, Demolition Ranch T-shirt which he wore, also reinforces it.
BTW: He also did this assassination attempt a week before the GOP is officially supposed to choose their candidate, so likely the goal was to influence that.
To be clear his father is libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat. This is sort of the problem with all of this, it's back and forth and nuances are being lost. And none of it clearly...
To be clear his father is libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.
This is sort of the problem with all of this, it's back and forth and nuances are being lost. And none of it clearly speaks to motive at this time.
I'm curious what kind of probabilities you're using if you end up favouring hypothesis 1 (right leaning shooter) here. I can't wrap my head around your analysis at all.
I'm curious what kind of probabilities you're using if you end up favouring hypothesis 1 (right leaning shooter) here. I can't wrap my head around your analysis at all.
There's info floating around saying that B might be wrong, and that it might be a case of another person with the same name. I don't really care enough to confirm one way or another but I do...
There's info floating around saying that B might be wrong, and that it might be a case of another person with the same name. I don't really care enough to confirm one way or another but I do wonder how that changes the equation.
Honestly the dude is 20 years old. I don’t know why people are expecting him to have a coherent, well-thought out political agenda. Most people don’t, and extremist nutters are even less likely...
Honestly the dude is 20 years old. I don’t know why people are expecting him to have a coherent, well-thought out political agenda. Most people don’t, and extremist nutters are even less likely to. The Unabomber was a very very rare exception and he was, notably, in his 30s when he settled on being a terrorist. For most politically extreme lone wolves their ideological moorings would have tended to look like this. They sort of float all around the fringes of the political compass until some organized movement in need of cannon fodder, like ISIS, scoops them up. America doesn’t have ISIS, we just have these militia sovereigns citizen weirdos.
Is this the forum to discuss unconfirmed theories posted on X/twitter, followed up by saying we don't care enough to actually confirm? I thought we had slightly higher standards here.
Is this the forum to discuss unconfirmed theories posted on X/twitter, followed up by saying we don't care enough to actually confirm? I thought we had slightly higher standards here.
This thread is full of unconfirmed theories, so I thought I'd join the discussion. I don't see many people doing their own research here, but god forbid I'm upfront about being guilty of that myself?
This thread is full of unconfirmed theories, so I thought I'd join the discussion. I don't see many people doing their own research here, but god forbid I'm upfront about being guilty of that myself?
The point about extremist violence in the US is sensible, but I don't think "gun owner" is a particularly noteworthy feature when it comes to a wannabe assassin. Unless you're a rare exception and...
The point about extremist violence in the US is sensible, but I don't think "gun owner" is a particularly noteworthy feature when it comes to a wannabe assassin. Unless you're a rare exception and live in a country that's so locked down you have to build a contraption, possessing a gun is kinda a pre-req to trying to shoot a presidential candidate.
We probably need better language to describe it, because in this context I read “gun owner” less as a person who happens to own a gun and more like a person who makes owning the gun part of his...
We probably need better language to describe it, because in this context I read “gun owner” less as a person who happens to own a gun and more like a person who makes owning the gun part of his identity. Like I’m in a group chat with two guys who both have guns. One of them posts pictures of his armory constantly and is repeatedly talking about new doodads and attachments and him disassembling and cleaning his shit.
The other one just has a rifle and a couple of historic pieces that he keeps in a safe and takes to the range every now and then. The latter guy I would only call a “gun owner” if we’re literally talking about the practical realities of owning a gun. The former guy is something else, and I’d bring it up if I’m talking about his politics because it actually IS core to his politics.
I'm definitely aware of left-wing gun owners who are between those two extremes that would definitely get the label "gun owner" in a latter sense. There is a contingent of left-wing people who...
I'm definitely aware of left-wing gun owners who are between those two extremes that would definitely get the label "gun owner" in a latter sense. There is a contingent of left-wing people who make thorough use of their second amendment rights. But to be fair, they're not the types to do assassinations either, so the original point is valid.
Oh I don't dispute that. It's just not so unique to the right that you can eliminate the idea of a shooter being left-wing based on that alone, especially since a shooting does require a gun in...
Oh I don't dispute that. It's just not so unique to the right that you can eliminate the idea of a shooter being left-wing based on that alone, especially since a shooting does require a gun in the first place. I think there are plenty of other things that lead me to believe this guy is more likely right wing, but just "owns a gun" on its own isn't super dispositive for me.
There are other possible hypotheses, and other possible evidence, but these seem to be the most compelling in my opinion.
This would still be true even if we assigned a higher prior probability to him being right-wing given the background of right-wing gun violence in recent years.
Even without him raising his fist to the air, an assassination attempt will really probably boost him in the polls. I dislike him and Biden, and even I feel sorry for the guy right now.
Even without him raising his fist to the air, an assassination attempt will really probably boost him in the polls. I dislike him and Biden, and even I feel sorry for the guy right now.
A reminder to anyone who needs it: get the heck off any social media if you have any sort of anxiety or other mental health issues. Just disconnect from everything, don't turn on the news or check...
Exemplary
A reminder to anyone who needs it: get the heck off any social media if you have any sort of anxiety or other mental health issues.
Just disconnect from everything, don't turn on the news or check sites like reddit. Binge watch a TV show, get a bunch of books from the library, deep dive into a video game. Go camping, take a nice hike. Just stay away from the news and take care of your mental health.
I have a friend who has severe election anxiety and I am so thankful they finally deleted Twitter this year, because Twitter helped wreck their mental health in 2020. I'm talking full-blown expecting the end of the world, bad enough that I thought their comment about "there's a coup right now" on January 6 was just them overreacting to some BS in the hearing or whatever was scheduled that day.
That's good advise but I should have been more clear that I was referring on how surreal it is with people like Musk, taking their mask off and endorsing the orange, and how he is clearly boosting...
That's good advise but I should have been more clear that I was referring on how surreal it is with people like Musk, taking their mask off and endorsing the orange, and how he is clearly boosting a lot of right wing comments and people to the top.
I figured as much, didn't mean to target you specifically. Your comment just reminded me how vital it is for some people to get offline ASAP. Right now it's everywhere, and all we can really do is...
I figured as much, didn't mean to target you specifically. Your comment just reminded me how vital it is for some people to get offline ASAP. Right now it's everywhere, and all we can really do is feel dread for the future. It's easy to fall into the pits of dread and despair right now since it's so fresh, we have no idea what will happen and everyone is already predicting the absolute worst case scenario. This is pretty bleak.
I think there is no way to tell right now what this means. There are plenty of examples, even in American history, of attempted assassinations which do not carry the candidate to victory. We just...
I think there is no way to tell right now what this means. There are plenty of examples, even in American history, of attempted assassinations which do not carry the candidate to victory. We just don't know what longlasting public perception of this is going to be. Maybe it is Trump the martyr, maybe it's that for MAGA but the rest of the country sees it as a reminder that Trump = chaos. We know next to nothing about the shooter other than that he was 20, donated to a progressive PAC, but then registered as a Republican, was into gun culture. Maybe the narrative becomes about right wing radicalization.
But maybe it's over and Trump has sealed the election now, you're right. I'm just saying that there is extreme uncertainty about the implications of this and we can't even begin to see where this must lead, only where it can.
It seems reasonable to me that he could have registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
We know next to nothing about the shooter other than that he was 20, donated to a progressive PAC, but then registered as a Republican, was into gun culture.
It seems reasonable to me that he could have registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
They would win if they could convince every law abiding, justice upholding, democracy loving citizen to give up hope. They won't win until then. Trump has always represented chaos. Who knows,...
They would win if they could convince every law abiding, justice upholding, democracy loving citizen to give up hope. They won't win until then.
Trump has always represented chaos. Who knows, maybe he'd go full crazy and start advocating for super strict gun control all over the country. He's done crazier things
Stage shooting your own team's political primary just not quite in the head? For the love of god, let's not spill all our braincells on the floor in a panic.
If Trump's team could have staged it.
Stage shooting your own team's political primary just not quite in the head?
For the love of god, let's not spill all our braincells on the floor in a panic.
I wouldn't put it past Trump to stage something like this, I can't imagine him caring about collateral damage to the 'extras' in his reality TV show. I do however think that with half the US...
I wouldn't put it past Trump to stage something like this, I can't imagine him caring about collateral damage to the 'extras' in his reality TV show. I do however think that with half the US justice system riding his ass it would be pretty damn difficult to set something like this up without their catching wind of it. It seems much more likely to me that all of his bile and brimstone rhetoric came back to haunt him. The shooter can't speak for himself because the SS returned fire with better aim than the assassin, so we'll only know what they choose to share with us after the investigation.
We're just going to have to wait until more information is available, and hope that all of the various psyched-out tribes crowing over this don't take it as license to escalate. If you think this is bad, imagine what would have happened if that bullet had been just one half inch closer. Making martyrs is dangerous business, and that also could have been someone's intent.
I kinda hate the guy but I am glad he's not dead. That would have been far, far worse.
My understanding is that the shooter is dead per the local DA. So it's not a manhunt. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania
My understanding is that the shooter is dead per the local DA. So it's not a manhunt.
The issue with this (besides how dangerous it is and how close it was to killing Trump) is that Trump simply does not NEED the boost in the polls. Ever since the debate, AP News and CNN have been...
The issue with this (besides how dangerous it is and how close it was to killing Trump) is that Trump simply does not NEED the boost in the polls. Ever since the debate, AP News and CNN have been talking nonstop about Democrats panicking over Biden's age and the insiders who want him replaced. Biden has been doing piss poor while Trump simply relaxed for a week or two and let the disaster regarding Biden's ability to serve continue damaging him in the press.
Again, this hit Trump in the ear. One inch to the right direction could've started a civil war in this country. That's a dangerous risk to take for a false flag/staged assassination attempt.
It's as insane to suppose Trump & co false flagged this as it has been in the past when that suspicion was voiced by the far-right nutjobs for Sandy Hook and God only knows how many other...
It's as insane to suppose Trump & co false flagged this as it has been in the past when that suspicion was voiced by the far-right nutjobs for Sandy Hook and God only knows how many other tragedies.
Having said that, I don't think the threat of civil war worries Trump in the slightest. I think he believes it would only help him if the nation did descend into mindless violence. No, the reason it's insane to think this is a Trumpian ploy is the idea that Trump would risk his own greasy skin for anything.
This was likely some shithead who thought he was doing a favor for the country, but was too stupid to realize what a fucking monumentally idiotic thing it was to do.
I don't know his name yet, but I suspect that when I learn it, I'll be cursing it until my dying breath.
I hold no hopes that Trump would refrain from using this incident in a similar manner. Not sure how bad things are going to get in the near-term. I don't like the potential volatility for the...
I hold no hopes that Trump would refrain from using this incident in a similar manner.
Not sure how bad things are going to get in the near-term. I don't like the potential volatility for the security situation around the US right now. Things might hold, or this might mark the start of a major increase of political violence.
I hate this timeline. I would like to re-start from the late 90's please.
His allies are already using the photo of his blood-stained face and fist in the air in social media posts. Expect to see it on tee shirts in hours and in commercials in a day or two. The 90s were...
His allies are already using the photo of his blood-stained face and fist in the air in social media posts. Expect to see it on tee shirts in hours and in commercials in a day or two.
The 90s were amazing. I was in my 20s and had such a bright outlook on the world. Now I'm just wishing I could take my retirement funds and head to Canada and live off the grid until I get hit by the celestial bus.
Imagine they hadn’t stolen Al Gore the election win, a single state deciding for the right thing, and we would’ve stood a chance at fighting climate change, preventing middle eastern wars and so...
I hate this timeline. I would like to re-start from the late 90's please.
Imagine they hadn’t stolen Al Gore the election win, a single state deciding for the right thing, and we would’ve stood a chance at fighting climate change, preventing middle eastern wars and so much more…
It might have changed those things, but 9/11 was almost certainly an inevitability by that point. And as I mentioned in a sibling post, most of what led up to that will still be in place. We might...
It might have changed those things, but 9/11 was almost certainly an inevitability by that point.
And as I mentioned in a sibling post, most of what led up to that will still be in place. We might have had Trump-equivalent 2004 instead of Obama.
That's assuming Gore would respond the same way. So now we know Iraq was just an excuse riding on 9/11, so likely wouldn't happen. Afghanistan maybe would, but remember that Osama was found in...
That's assuming Gore would respond the same way.
So now we know Iraq was just an excuse riding on 9/11, so likely wouldn't happen.
Afghanistan maybe would, but remember that Osama was found in Pakistan so Afghanistan also looks more like a reactionary war.
I think the 90's are already too set. All the major setpieces were in play that led (somewhat inevitably) to this place. Democrats have been trampling towards right-wing neoliberal stooges since...
I think the 90's are already too set. All the major setpieces were in play that led (somewhat inevitably) to this place. Democrats have been trampling towards right-wing neoliberal stooges since Reagan won, gobbling up bullshit economics and fearing any suggestion of serious progressive reform. Newt Gingrich weaponized the government shutdown in the 90s, and the right-wing "news" media was already in full swing. Trump is just Reagan 2.0, the playbooks are remarkably similiar.
I'd like to take it back to avoiding Kennedy's assasination. Avoiding that national trauma might have been enough to avoid the next several wars and maybe de-escalate the cold war sooner.
Let me start by saying that this is a horrible thing. Regardless of the degree to which someone would willingly throw the USA into autocracy, assassination is wrong. But honestly, I'm kind of...
Let me start by saying that this is a horrible thing. Regardless of the degree to which someone would willingly throw the USA into autocracy, assassination is wrong. But honestly, I'm kind of amazed that it's taken this long for someone to take a shot at him. There hasn't been anything that's come to light since that Australian student in 2016, and that guy didn't get a shot off.
I want to be very careful not to start slinging mud and turning this into a Reddit thread so I'll just say this: Not all right wingers are violent shooters. But almost all violent shooters are...
I want to be very careful not to start slinging mud and turning this into a Reddit thread so I'll just say this:
Not all right wingers are violent shooters. But almost all violent shooters are right wingers. At least in the present day. It was different in times past depending on what you consider to be right wing beliefs.
Sure, Here is a NY Times article about it. Plenty more sources on this. The ADL has a pretty in-depth analysis too. Seems that many studies count Islamic extremism as being separate from...
Plenty more sources on this. The ADL has a pretty in-depth analysis too.
Seems that many studies count Islamic extremism as being separate from right-wing ideology, which I disagree with since hardcore Muslims are incredibly conservative.
Including Islamic extremists, right wingers make up 95% of mass shootings. Excluding them, right wingers make up 75% of mass shootings.
The CSIS report is one I've seen come up. They separate out religious extremism with the groups: From 1994 to 2020 left-wing attacks were more common from ~2000-2005, but it mentions: In terms of...
The CSIS report is one I've seen come up. They separate out religious extremism with the groups:
...right-wing terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women, including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement; and outrage against certain policies, such as abortion.6 This analysis uses the term “right-wing terrorism” rather than “racially- and ethnically-motivated violent extremism,
...left-wing terrorism involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism
...religious terrorism includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism
From 1994 to 2020 left-wing attacks were more common from ~2000-2005, but it mentions:
Most of these left-wing attacks targeted property associated with animal research, farming, or construction
In terms of fatilities, if you remove the very large outlier of 9/11:
In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths, left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths
Here's the ADL article that the NYT article summarizes, if anyone else wants to go into the weeds. What I was looking for was clarification whether the numbers in the NYT graph were based on...
For anyone who doesn't want to click links, the graph reads
Ideology
Percent
White Supremacy
55
Anti-government
14
Other right-wing
6
Islamist
20
Left-wing
4
Other
1
The two other questions that immediately jumped out (beyond whether this is based on victim count or incident count) were
The total is 100%, meaning it does not account for perps who may fall into multiple categories (such as an anarchist who is also into white nationalism)
Do they [in the NYT summary, at least] consider incels to be non-political? I'm surprised by their absence on that list.
My best guess as to why the NYT chose not to highlight jihadis in red is that they believe that there's less crosstalk between radical Islam and the red-highlighted ideologies as the red bars have with one another.
But it's OK to shoot a fascist once they are in the office and doing their thing, though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Reinhard_Heydrich Always keep in mind that Hitler = bad...
But it's OK to shoot a fascist once they are in the office and doing their thing, though.
All of the prior calculus for this election just flew straight out the window, never to be seen again. I can honestly say I've never seen heat in comment sections like this is generating. Just...
All of the prior calculus for this election just flew straight out the window, never to be seen again. I can honestly say I've never seen heat in comment sections like this is generating. Just about every live news stream that had comments or chat had them vaporized (I suspect by Youtube directly, they all disappeared at about the same time on every network, every channel, even Fox). I'd say it was for damn good reason. It's reaching new peaks of ugly even I've never seen before. This thread might be the only one on the net that hasn't got 'deleted' all over it.
Condemnation is the only appropriate response in my view. It's unacceptable, there are no exceptions. It's discouraging, disheartening, to see it happen. My own feelings are simply irrelevant,...
Condemnation is the only appropriate response in my view. It's unacceptable, there are no exceptions. It's discouraging, disheartening, to see it happen. My own feelings are simply irrelevant, it's about not wanting to live in a place where shit like this is how folks try to resolve anything.
The guy who was shot at has attempted to forcefully overthrow the democratically elected government and was just exempted from prosecution from his crime based on corrupt, legally indefensible...
The guy who was shot at has attempted to forcefully overthrow the democratically elected government and was just exempted from prosecution from his crime based on corrupt, legally indefensible ruling. This system isn't democratic, and if it was then nobody would be shooting him because he'd be in jail.
The only realistic argument against assassinating him is that it would be politically ineffective or problematic. We all know that if he's elected he'll do his best to end democracy, and it's okay to be intolerant of and inflict political violence upon fascists.
EDIT: Also he has repeatedly stated that he won't accept the results of the election if he loses (and in 2021 he has previously demonstrated this, so it's not just talk). The core premise of democracy is accepting the results of a legitimate election.
I believe you are conflating democracy and possibly fairness or justice. They are not the same thing. Democracy is just a way to achieve fairness for majority by mandating more or less just laws....
Exemplary
I believe you are conflating democracy and possibly fairness or justice. They are not the same thing. Democracy is just a way to achieve fairness for majority by mandating more or less just laws. It, by itself, does not guarantee equality between majority and minorities and tends to give preferential treatment to the political class.
The guy who was shot at has attempted to forcefully overthrow the democratically elected government
More like the guy was surprised that some of his stupid followers might actually be willing to overthrow the government and install him as president, but did not hesitate to encourage them because he felt it wouldn't hurt to enjoy the office for a bit longer. In fact, he was probably flattered for a second before he realized that he, in fact, truly deserves such a position, because he is actually the perfect person for the job and those pesky minions can't even pull off a simple coup. Ugh, why must his minions be always this incompetent. Better convince them to send him more money and hire someone more competent next time or something.
The core issues is that we shouldn't elect malignant narcissists to any office, because they tend to either end up in jail, build a cult or both. And it's not like they are 100% responsible for their behavior either, because they have almost certainly been brought up to be like that by a manipulative parent and cannot function otherwise.
The obvious problem here is that since those who successfully develop their cult-building skills through their life end up being pretty good at it and significant portion of people around them (who do not understand how they operate) join the cult and then "defend" the sick guy.
if he's elected he'll do his best to end democracy
He would be exploited by actual sociopaths that would prefer to dismantle the democracy. It's not that hard to manipulate a narcissist if you know what you are doing and can control your own emotions effectively. He is being used as a battering ram by those who do not dare to risk in such a way themselves. Because he just YOLOs everything, they keep using him like that.
I believe we will see more brazenly arrogant politicians like him pop up more often in the upcoming years.
A lot of what you wrote sums up my primary concern with the whole thing, past this event and the election itself. The democratic form got fundamentally changed long ago, and what exists today is...
A lot of what you wrote sums up my primary concern with the whole thing, past this event and the election itself. The democratic form got fundamentally changed long ago, and what exists today is competing forms of a different thing. The power rests elsewhere, in the myriad interests who will persist regardless who wins this election. Trump is beholden; he is not the leader, as you wrote. The lie of who he is extends to every facet of what he projects, including the idea of him being a leader at all. It's what calling him something like a "post truth populist" drives at. After him come only stronger opponents, more difficult obstacles. The best case scenario of this election is still an inverted totalitarian form. The chance was on a late 20th century liberal acting very much out of character. Whether the odds were ever good didn't matter, it was about taking the chance in the face of the system hardening itself.
I wanted to point at your perspective because in my opinion it's where folks needed to be with it for a very long time. Time remains for the situation to change, but there's a reason I don't join in on talking up democracy and hammering on what Trump is doing. That's all spectacle in my view, The Spectacle even for folks who read that book. My original sentiment here is literal, practical - whether within democracy, inverted totalitarianism, whatever, it simply should not be.
That may be true, however Trump has other character flaws that make him bad for the country. Someone stupid enough to rewrite hurricane path with a sharpie on public television won't make prudent...
That may be true, however Trump has other character flaws that make him bad for the country. Someone stupid enough to rewrite hurricane path with a sharpie on public television won't make prudent choices. He foments violence and encouraged racism sexisme and bigotry. His history in business was of making deals and consistently breaking them. His former allies say he is unfit to serve.
He isn't curious and doesn't learn.
I'm not denying the asymmetry nor the threat being posed. I appreciated a more nuanced view because the spectacle survives on obfuscating where power lies and squishing away nuance. If folks want...
I'm not denying the asymmetry nor the threat being posed. I appreciated a more nuanced view because the spectacle survives on obfuscating where power lies and squishing away nuance. If folks want to go over how each candidate will continue the form I wrote about I think I can deliver that, but no one asked, and folks already went through the list of qualities like the ones you've pointed out. I'm not going to write as though there's some group of undecided voters hanging on my words.
Appreciate you, I'll give it a shot. I think it's important to start with some basics about what it means to be an inverted totalitarian form, and then I'll try to lay out (in a broad and...
Exemplary
Appreciate you, I'll give it a shot. I think it's important to start with some basics about what it means to be an inverted totalitarian form, and then I'll try to lay out (in a broad and oversimplified way) what each candidate represents, the paths their respective political lineages seem likely to take us down. I'm not really trying to predict things, but it will sound like that a bit because I don't think I can get my point across without sounding like I'm doing that. The period of time we are in and heading toward has different fundamentals, is I guess how I've been trying to look at it.
The gist of calling this place an inverted totalitarian form is that it is a democratic system which has been compromised by Economy, where "Economy" refers in the broadest sort of way to the collection of corporate entities that drive our economic activity. For the US, the story has been of a transformation in two stages, I think. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the democratic form was weakened and Economy was allowed to encroach upon it. In the first quarter of the 21st century Economy overtook democracy as the source of governance, it had enough of a role to play in the formation of policy and international affairs that it rather than us was calling the shots, so to speak. Some landmark moments would include things like the war in Iraq and later Citizens United. The will of the people became secondary to the interests of economic groups, and economic groups eventually came to dictate most of the choices voters were able to make. The parties became pathways, the means by which the transition was accomplished by being the things voters interfaced with after Economy interfaced with the parties, if that makes sense. It is way more complex and multifaceted than this but enough for making the point I wish to about our current predicament.
By now, we've reached a critical juncture, where there's a real threat of civil conflict on top of the effects of degrading institutions just sort of piling on top of each other plus ecological catastrophe. Economy sucks at governing, because "profit" sucks as a central operating principle, again to oversimplify. It's shortsighted, amoral, without principle and without direction. Wherever interest lies is where it goes. The inverted totalitarian form is not a straightforward form of governance, because it's more concerned with maintaining conditions and eliminating rules than it is with human advancement. It has to capitulate to the latter on some level to avoid destruction and facilitate accumulation, but the priority means life has little value and its quality almost none.
What the candidates represent are the two ways by which this system is attempting to keep itself from coming apart.
The republican lineage has been one of embracing Economy overtly, and so in this moment represent the system becoming more overt in its operation. There's some complicating factors in there, but the basic point is that they represent the system hardening itself. Hardening, in that it means to restrict the availability of power, eliminate the possibility of interference with governance by the people, their own as much as anyone else. It doesn't mean we stop voting or stop having elections, rather it means those actions being reduced to something almost totally perfunctory. A game Economy plays with itself, to determine which people in it get to call some shots. The complicating factors revolve around the sort of folk they had to rope in to get to this point. It won't be straightforward corporate control, so to speak, because they had to use religious zealots and the lineage of the Confederacy among others. Multiple groups, each of whom is deeply interested in being the source of governance, makes for conflict and actual threats to Economy itself. Conflict is practically guaranteed, because competing interests like these can't coexist with each other.
The Democratic lineage represents the system attempting to mend itself in a way it's done before, by providing for what prevents civil conflict while still attempting to allow Economy its position as the source of governance. It does that because its had its practice pretty much fully understood and exploited along with the humanity of the participants. Both parties are intensely corrupt but this is why that criticism sticks more to this party - it is the remnant of the democratic form, reduced to maintaining an image because Economy already won, so to speak. I don't mean to discount the things they do accomplish (real things matter), but the problem is that fundamental changes to the system are simply off the table because of the loss Economy can inflict upon them. That means in the end the inverted totalitarian form continues, more peacefully but with little shot at preventing further crisis - they have yet to adapt. So what they represent in this moment is a kind of "business as usual" that is fundamentally incompatible with the present circumstance. Incremental change works in a functioning democracy, it does not function when corporations are people and money is speech, where compromises are made with entities which cause global problems. Hence saying it's like maintaining an image - the image is being maintained even as the canvas comes apart. Similar to republicans, their approach practically guarantees conflict, but unlike republicans there is still a weird shot at doing different because the competing systemic approaches within them don't exist in nearly the same ways. There is always the possibility of using the power that remains to accomplish things, but the vestiges of the form mean a reluctance to do that.
In other words, the choice is between the system hardening itself, and it attempting to mend itself. Neither works because the world around us is shifting rapidly and the effects of our journey through the inverted totalitarian form has meant a sort of comprehensive degradation. The phrase "comprehensive degradation" might evoke some real nasty shit I don't mean to veer toward, but I don't think there's a better way to describe the effect the withering of our democratic institutions has had upon us, alongside the massive impact of the Internet on socialization, on top of the culture of being a place governed by business.
Hopefully that made some sense. It's hard to put it succinctly, so I tried to think about it like a working model and present that. I don't think folks should be discouraged thinking about so many different things. It doesn't really change what there is to do. I wanted to alleviate a feeling of both, being overwhelmed and thoroughly weirded out, and that was where I landed with it.
Echoes of documentation Adam Curtis right here; I can practically hear his dramatic backing music. Fantastic stuff. Interesting, and presented in a thought provoking manner. I like this lens!
Echoes of documentation Adam Curtis right here; I can practically hear his dramatic backing music. Fantastic stuff. Interesting, and presented in a thought provoking manner. I like this lens!
If you have one, I would sign up for your newsletter. Cash is king is something intuitive as well as corporate interest being the new apex predator and intended beneficiary of government, but...
If you have one, I would sign up for your newsletter. Cash is king is something intuitive as well as corporate interest being the new apex predator and intended beneficiary of government, but economy being the symbiotic link between the parties is interesting and snaps interesting views into place.
I don't have one, but it's worth thinking about. I'll take a day or two to think on it, and I really appreciate your feedback as well as folks giving me attention. I'm not really sure how to...
I don't have one, but it's worth thinking about. I'll take a day or two to think on it, and I really appreciate your feedback as well as folks giving me attention. I'm not really sure how to describe the sort of angle I have, other than to say I want to be good at looking at stuff. I think I could expand on a lot of what I was putting together, but also want to be sure I'm staying relatable and open to adjustment. I have personal opinions, things I wish were so and stuff I think is right and good, but try to keep that separate and distinct from "what is there" and "what happens". And in the end I'm fairly simple - I want things to work out. For you, for me, for everybody. Whether or not that's possible, likely, etc., is just a separate matter, with its own attendant concerns and details. Maybe a way to put it is to say I'm attempting an empathic, psychological political philosophy in trying to weave everything together. I shy away from descriptions like that so I don't end up constraining myself. Anyway, I'll see what I can do, and I'll let ya'll know if I've got something to check out more regularly.
Edit: I tried. See what you think, and if folks are cool with it, I'll keep it up
Fascists, almost universally, are perfectly OK with killing or enslaving anyone in their outgroups. Historically, this means minorities, especially gays, blacks, Jews, atheists, and socialists....
Fascists, almost universally, are perfectly OK with killing or enslaving anyone in their outgroups. Historically, this means minorities, especially gays, blacks, Jews, atheists, and socialists.
Importantly, this means that facists are not innocents. They are not random civilians going about their day. They are civilians advocating for the death of civilians whom are not like them.
It is perfectly just to inflict violence on those whom are advocating for your extermination, regardless of the legal frameworks that protect them.
Trump is the enemy of the democratic state, and just because the beuracratic mechanism is having trouble reconciling that publicly-stated-by-himself fact, doesn't mean that a would-be assassin is morally wrong.
I can’t agree that violence, and particularly murder, is a justifiable response to speech of any kind, no matter how reprehensible. Edit: I replied to quite different comment so if my reply...
It is perfectly just to inflict violence on those whom are advocating for your extermination.
I can’t agree that violence, and particularly murder, is a justifiable response to speech of any kind, no matter how reprehensible.
Edit: I replied to quite different comment so if my reply doesn’t seem to address all of the argument, it’s because that material didn’t exist yet when I wrote it.
Because it hasn't been "just speech" for quite some time. In case you forgot, he tried to overthrow an election by force. He is a fugitive of justice, courtesy of a heavily corrupted system. And...
Because it hasn't been "just speech" for quite some time.
In case you forgot, he tried to overthrow an election by force. He is a fugitive of justice, courtesy of a heavily corrupted system.
And violent speech is also violence. If somebody was standing on my streetcorner shouting "kill the gays," I'd be there with a baseball bat inside the hour. I'll accept my assault charges knowing that piece of shit got a busted jaw for their hate.
Fascists win because they exploit the liberal system, and everyone waits too damn long for the system to do the right thing because they feel only the state should be permitted to inflict moral violence.
He’s being prosecuted for that crime right now. To be honest, when I was younger, I might have done the same. If someone was right up in my face yelling at me today, maybe I’d feel the same — I’m...
In case you forgot, he tried to overthrow an election by force.
He’s being prosecuted for that crime right now.
If somebody was standing on my streetcorner shouting "kill the gays," I'd be there with a baseball bat inside the hour. I'll accept my assault charges knowing that piece of shit got a busted jaw for their hate.
To be honest, when I was younger, I might have done the same. If someone was right up in my face yelling at me today, maybe I’d feel the same — I’m still a human being. But still, I’m more of the opinion that counterprotesting (more speech) is a better response than suppression of speech.
Edit to respond to an edit in the above comment:
Fascists win because they exploit the liberal system, and everyone waits too damn long for the system to do the right thing because they feel only the state should be permitted to inflict moral violence.
I’m not really convinced that vigilantism in any existing modern western society is justified. Also, I’m not really convinced that “fascists win” — so far their track record is not great.
edit: man, that comment is a real living document
And violent speech is also violence.
I totally disagree with this. Violence is physical force, and conflating it with speech is a dangerous thing to do.
Violence is the use of physical force to cause harm to people, or non-human life, such as pain, injury, death, damage, or destruction. Some definitions are somewhat broader, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." -- Wikipedia
"I am going to murder your entire family unless you send me a trillion dollars tomorrow." Is this violence? Well, we have to talk about The Implication (the rest of this comment will assume you...
I totally disagree with this. Violence is physical force, and conflating it with speech is a dangerous thing to do.
"I am going to murder your entire family unless you send me a trillion dollars tomorrow."
Is this violence? Well, we have to talk about The Implication (the rest of this comment will assume you have watched the link).
The Implication is violence because it's playing Schrodinger's Douchebag - what's worse is that if you comply, then there's no evidence that there would have been violence. So that basically means you 1) can't call the cops on them before they commit violence, but 2) can't call the cops on them after they commit violence (because they're dead), while 3) lets them profit off said violence. Which effectively removes the law's ability to protect you from violence.
Also, there's a damn good reason there exists the cliched mobster line "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to <valuable thing>". They're conveying the threat without explicitly stating it, which is just an attempt to exploit legal requirements of unambiguity.
Yeah, that's a threat. That's not violence. I'm not saying threatening people is good, I'm saying it's not violence. And also, we probably shouldn't murder people for issuing threats.
Yeah, that's a threat. That's not violence. I'm not saying threatening people is good, I'm saying it's not violence. And also, we probably shouldn't murder people for issuing threats.
It's not speech, though, it's action. It's installing Supreme Court justices who make rulings based on the profits of who owns them, rather than any judicial precedent or even the best interests...
It's not speech, though, it's action. It's installing Supreme Court justices who make rulings based on the profits of who owns them, rather than any judicial precedent or even the best interests of the people they will impact, which will cause deaths. Overturning Cheveron Deference and Roe v. Wade are deadly decisions and Trump made that happen. It's enacting policies that kill people. That's not speech, that's using power to cause physical harm and death, which is violence any way you slice it. Reacting to that with violence is self-defense.
I think violence is wrong. I think war its wrong. I even have some hot takes on war, like that the American Revolutionary War might not have been justified. I can’t really trust the history I was...
I think violence is wrong. I think war its wrong. I even have some hot takes on war, like that the American Revolutionary War might not have been justified. I can’t really trust the history I was taught. And the overwhelming narrative, from the winning team, is that they didn’t like being taxed so much so they decided to start killing people over that. Not justified.
Even though I live by rules-based ethics on most things, I have to acknowledge that when things get extreme enough the rules stop making sense. At some point utilitarianism kicks in. Killing will still always be wrong, it just might be the least wrong option under certain edge cases.
In the case of Trump I think him getting assassinated could lead to more assassinations of other politicians. From a narrow perspective him dying might save lots of lives and suffering. But we aren’t in a political climate where an assassination will be viewed as a rogue action and condemned by all. This could easily become the new normal. And I don’t want to see what the next step is in the American downfall when politicians get regularly murdered.
Wasn’t that instigated by colonists throwing rocks at British soldiers? Not that shooting in return was necessary or even tit for tat. I don’t think war is a necessary response to that.
Wasn’t that instigated by colonists throwing rocks at British soldiers? Not that shooting in return was necessary or even tit for tat.
I don’t think war is a necessary response to that.
Yeah, one of my "history hot takes" is that the United States would be better off today if its path to independence had been more Australian or New Zealand-esque, and the Revolutionary War never...
I even have some hot takes on war, like that the American Revolutionary War might not have been justified
Yeah, one of my "history hot takes" is that the United States would be better off today if its path to independence had been more Australian or New Zealand-esque, and the Revolutionary War never happened.
The idea of a United States with a parliamentary system of government is also just such a fun idea to think about.
Of course, there does loom the specter of slavery and the Civil War, but those are the kind of "what ifs" that make "parliamentary America" such an interesting alt-history timeline.
Great Britain did abolish slavery 30 years before the Civil War, so there may have been an "American Rebellion" of the slaveholders that went very differently. Whether that would have been a...
Great Britain did abolish slavery 30 years before the Civil War, so there may have been an "American Rebellion" of the slaveholders that went very differently. Whether that would have been a wholesale USA rebellion against GB, or the North being backed up by the British, either one would make for interesting stories on a different timeline.
A revolution where the loyalists and revolutionaries had the opposite geographic alignment from the one we actually had, interesting.
Whether that would have been a wholesale USA rebellion against GB, or the North being backed up by the British, either one would make for interesting stories on a different timeline.
A revolution where the loyalists and revolutionaries had the opposite geographic alignment from the one we actually had, interesting.
After digesting these news for the past day and trying to think how this will impact the election I think a lot of us were a bit premature in assuming this would benefit Trump's chances. Up until...
After digesting these news for the past day and trying to think how this will impact the election I think a lot of us were a bit premature in assuming this would benefit Trump's chances. Up until now Trump's modus operandi has been to fan the flames of polarization at every opportunity. Always trying to appeal to the fears and hatred of his base. Often alluding to violence against his political enemies, if not outright calling for it. He has never campaigned as a candidate trying to promote peace, compromise, and unity. And it's why he has been successful. His base crave hate and violent rhetoric.
Now his campaign has a big decision to make. They could change course and try to paint him as the candidate for unity and de-escalation in an attempt to secure the votes of everyone that is outraged that this happened in our democracy . But this runs the risk of dampening dampening enthusiasm in his rabid base who are craving revenge.
Or they could continue campaigning as usual and alienate those who think polarization and instigation has gone too far. It will be interesting to see what happens at the convention.
Judging by how the States handle gun violence and health care, I wouldn't place much bet on a logically sound strategy. In America, ideas of two opposing extremely can be held simultaneously...
Judging by how the States handle gun violence and health care, I wouldn't place much bet on a logically sound strategy.
In America, ideas of two opposing extremely can be held simultaneously without issue.
Eg, both (a) our children are precious and (b) now/never is the time to talk about gun violence.
Eg, both (a) Americans have the best of everything, and (b) consistently bottom of the list for maternal health outcomes and health in general
They're probably going to do both (a) condemn Liberal divisive rhetoric and (b) bring their own polarization and demonization to a new fever pitch.
Beat me to the punch. It hasn't been outright confirmed it was a gunshot yet, but it seems very likely based on the video. At the very least he ducked while reaching for his ear, and photos show...
Beat me to the punch. It hasn't been outright confirmed it was a gunshot yet, but it seems very likely based on the video. At the very least he ducked while reaching for his ear, and photos show him with blood on his ear and face. If he was shot, it seems like it was a graze. The news literally just mentioned a statement from him thanking law enforcement while writing this comment, and that he's getting checked out at a local hospital.
The news is going to be crazy for the next few days/weeks.
Apparently social media is starting to circulate the supposed shooter's photo and name. No clue if it's the actual shooter but I hope it is, because if not, that guy and his family are in for a...
Apparently social media is starting to circulate the supposed shooter's photo and name. No clue if it's the actual shooter but I hope it is, because if not, that guy and his family are in for a hellish time right now.
There are many suspected shooter identities being floated around: one is a supposed Antifa member, another is a supposed transgender person, etc. I count dozens. These accounts have 100–1000...
There are many suspected shooter identities being floated around: one is a supposed Antifa member, another is a supposed transgender person, etc. I count dozens.
These accounts have 100–1000 followers. I suspect that foreign state actors are spinning up their Twitter bot networks to pollute the information space.
A US representative (Collins) has claimed Biden ordered the shooting on X. So, we're all doing great. It'd be nice if everyone could shut up and let the Secret Service/FBI/etc. investigate.
A US representative (Collins) has claimed Biden ordered the shooting on X. So, we're all doing great.
It'd be nice if everyone could shut up and let the Secret Service/FBI/etc. investigate.
I’ve seen another image of his tweet circulating that is what I believe they’re referring to. It literally says “Joe Biden sent the orders”. I can’t find it on Twitter so I don’t know if it’s fake...
I’ve seen another image of his tweet circulating that is what I believe they’re referring to. It literally says “Joe Biden sent the orders”.
I can’t find it on Twitter so I don’t know if it’s fake or out of context or removed
Edit: someone else has linked the tweet and coverage so yeah
Yeah it's from several hours earlier and cites a comment from Biden about putting Trump in a bullseye in a completely and obviously rhetorical way. In the live NYT or WaPo coverage, idk which, a...
Yeah it's from several hours earlier and cites a comment from Biden about putting Trump in a bullseye in a completely and obviously rhetorical way. In the live NYT or WaPo coverage, idk which, a reporter said some members of the crowd turned on the pressbox immediately and tried to get at the reporters in retaliation. People are going to get hurt or killed out of displaced rage at this. As someone who remembers Sikhs and Muslims being targeted after 9/11 with clarity and has spent many of the years since hoping for the people who commit major acts of violence to not fall into marginalized communities for community safety reasons.... This feels very bad.
It's also a good reminder that nothing I do on the internet tonight will change a thing so I'm gonna try to limit that for my mental health and read a book.
I really hope the shooter wasn't an immigrant. The US will become a very scary place for us if they were. Update: phew. Apparently it was a white libertarian incel.
I really hope the shooter wasn't an immigrant. The US will become a very scary place for us if they were.
Update: phew. Apparently it was a white libertarian incel.
It's unclear. The shooter was a registered Republican (right wing, for those outside the US) who also donated $15 to ActBlue, a left wing political organization. He was wearing a tee shirt related...
It's unclear. The shooter was a registered Republican (right wing, for those outside the US) who also donated $15 to ActBlue, a left wing political organization. He was wearing a tee shirt related to the Second Amendment, a right wing thing. He had zero social media presence and no manifesto has been found yet.
ActBlue is just a payment processor that happens to be used by progressive platforms. They just process payments. And you aren't directly donating to them. He donated $15 to PAC working on...
ActBlue is just a payment processor that happens to be used by progressive platforms. They just process payments. And you aren't directly donating to them.
He donated $15 to PAC working on increasing voter turnout. He did this on January 20, 2021 which was the day Biden was inaugurated after the election just ended, which is a strange time to send such a donation. Strange, until we remembered that a few days earlier, on January 6th we had trump try to overthrow the government.
This looks more like a symbolic donation to show that he was not happy about J6.
About what? What ActBlue is or when he donated, how much and to what organization? Those things are available everywhere. Now we also know he had libertarian views. His family were libertarian,...
About what? What ActBlue is or when he donated, how much and to what organization?
Those things are available everywhere.
Now we also know he had libertarian views. His family were libertarian, his classmates describe him as leaving right, his fascination with weapons and T-shirt also reinforces that.
Not everyone who identified themselves as Republicans want trump.
Oh, did I say this event happened a week before the GOP will be choosing their nominee. Trump technically is not a candidate yet.
When I wrote my comment above, I had seen many claims that the shooter had made a donation. However, I had yet to see anyone actually post a source for that information (like many had done...
When I wrote my comment above, I had seen many claims that the shooter had made a donation. However, I had yet to see anyone actually post a source for that information (like many had done concerning his voter registration), nor had that information yet been reported by a reliable news source.
I should have been more clear about what information I was asking for a source on, and have edited my comment so that it makes more sense.
But now, a day later, it's a moot point. The donation has been reported on, and sources provided, by major news sites. Wikipedia cites several entries:
All of this is as yet unconfirmed afaik. It’s just internet sleuthing for entries with the name that match the age and race, which is all we do know. Edit: it seems his conservative leanings are...
All of this is as yet unconfirmed afaik. It’s just internet sleuthing for entries with the name that match the age and race, which is all we do know.
Edit: it seems his conservative leanings are being verified by his classmates. Seems like a weird trollish loner with reactionary politics. Why he took the shot in light of that is a mystery but folks’ brains are so cooked with conspiracist insanity now it could be any kind of batshit nonsense.
Too late; it's already a scary place. If the shooter was an immigrant, Trump just unlocked a new level in this mad game. EDIT: Trump unlocked a new level regardless. His allies are already blaming...
Too late; it's already a scary place. If the shooter was an immigrant, Trump just unlocked a new level in this mad game.
EDIT: Trump unlocked a new level regardless. His allies are already blaming Democrats and Biden for the assassination attempt.
My confirmation bias supports that, the only people there were right wing nutjobs. Makes a lot more sense that one of them would crack and try to off trump to get famous or resolve some emotional...
My confirmation bias supports that, the only people there were right wing nutjobs. Makes a lot more sense that one of them would crack and try to off trump to get famous or resolve some emotional issues
More likely than a secret leftist infiltrator, or even more absurd, a Biden assassin
Normally I would refrain from posting a rumor like this, but the mods of /r/demolitionranch made a sticky post about it, so I will go ahead and share it here:...
Normally I would refrain from posting a rumor like this, but the mods of /r/demolitionranch made a sticky post about it, so I will go ahead and share it here:
All, the moderation team has been made aware that the suspected Pennsylvania shooter was wearing a Demo ranch t-shirt. We would like to acknowledge this and remind you all that it is an article of clothing that anyone can buy and in no way reflects the beliefs of Matt or the brand. We here are all deeply sorry for those affected by the tragedy, but we believe it is best that any further posts on this subject be removed. I will be removing the current posts on this topic as well as they only serve as inflammatory. I would also like to reiterate that this is an unofficial subreddit, and this statement does not speak for Demo Ranch or Bunker Branding. Please keep it civil folks.
I checked out photos of the shooter's body and yeah, it could be one of their t-shirts. Nothing definitive, obviously still just a rumor.
EDIT: Looks like (reputable) news sites are starting to report the identity of the shooter, so I removed my earlier comments talking about that.
Yeah, it's a YouTube channel. Matt Carriker, the Demolition Ranch creator, is a vet (as in veterinarian, not veteran) and also runs another channel related to his homeless animal rescue efforts...
Yeah, it's a YouTube channel. Matt Carriker, the Demolition Ranch creator, is a vet (as in veterinarian, not veteran) and also runs another channel related to his homeless animal rescue efforts (Vet Ranch). None of his channels are overtly political, but as with most gun related channels Demo Ranch tends to have a very politically vocal fan base.
Letting things settle a bit, and and the risk of jinxing things, I have three connected comments on this I’ve heard a number of republican supporters claim this is the result of liberal...
Letting things settle a bit, and and the risk of jinxing things, I have three connected comments on this
I’ve heard a number of republican supporters claim this is the result of liberal demonization of Trump. By branding him a fascist who will bring the end of democracy, they make violence a legitimate response. But they’re the ones claiming Biden stole the election (i.e. fascism ending democracy)
leading to
but when republicans tell me Biden stole the election, I just roll my eyes. Not because they believe something false, but because they clearly don’t believe what they’re saying. If they did think he stole the election, they’d be firing bullets his way like the shooter
leading to
at least according to current betting markets, the shooter didn’t do this for some coherent left wing ideological reason. Yet even liberals were inclined to think that would be case. Maybe we’re being too hard on ourselves, far from being so divisive in our rhetoric that violence emerges, everyone is in on the joke.
Yeah, both parties talk as though they’re convinced the other party is an apocalyptic death cult that will destroy the country the next time they're given the opportunity, but it's becoming pretty...
Exemplary
Yeah, both parties talk as though they’re convinced the other party is an apocalyptic death cult that will destroy the country the next time they're given the opportunity, but it's becoming pretty clear that neither side is sincere, and in any case neither side displays any urgency to do anything about it besides vote. The parties themselves (in which I am including not only the party leadership and politicians but their associated media encampments) obviously don’t believe it; they’re just cynically using it for votes. Meanwhile, the majority of voters don’t really seem to believe it, either; polls-wise, they're acting like this is a normal election.
I don’t think we can disregard the potential impact of exposure to these types of deranged media narratives on individuals who are already mentally unstable, and deranged media narratives are ubiquitous now on both sides of mainstream American politics. But at the same time, we don’t currently have any facts to suggest that stuff was relevant. Maybe it’ll come out one day that he shot Trump because he got really into Rachel Maddow or John Oliver in 2022. But, even then, maybe it could drive a discussion about responsibility in the media, but it's hard to ascribe blame. Like, we know shooting people isn't the typical audience reaction to those guys, right? Even if it’s the reaction of one disturbed mind, that one disturbed mind could just as easily have decided to shoot the president over a parasocial relationship with Jodie Foster. That’s how that works! It's not a reasonable thought process! There's nothing that you can legally air on American television that could cause someone to reasonably, foreseeably respond by shooting a president.
I would love nothing more than to be able to blame a presidential assassination attempt on Mueller She Wrote or whoever. That would be the funniest shit ever to me. But we don’t have any reason to even draw a connection to any coherent political project right now, much less trace causation, muuuuch less ascribe blame. It's very possible we never will. I think it's this last point that pisses people off and drives a lot of this, because it really does feel like this is a monumental event that should either confirm or upend all of your priors, wherever you are politically, but instead it's just incoherent and bizarre and confusing. That's no fun! Where's the manifesto?
Agreed. I'm always mystified by the premise of "investigation," as though it takes more than one day to flip every mattress and skim thru every laptop and diary. These inspections go on for days,...
Agreed. I'm always mystified by the premise of "investigation," as though it takes more than one day to flip every mattress and skim thru every laptop and diary. These inspections go on for days, then weeks? And I'm always wondering, what else is there to look at? A twenty-year-old hasn't got two ideas to rub together! No matter how they'd been groomed, their motivation cannot possibly interest us. I get the hiccups as often as I do the things that this kid did on his way to shoot the president!
Think about how many people are on Tildes talking about politics. How many of them have you exchanged comments with? Have any of them had suspicious patterns of commentary encouraging, suggesting,...
Think about how many people are on Tildes talking about politics. How many of them have you exchanged comments with? Have any of them had suspicious patterns of commentary encouraging, suggesting, or implying the idea that Trump was a danger to the country? Maybe, yeah. Who are those people? Are they associated with any groups that are coordinating communications to that effect? Is there any clue of foreign influence?
What about in person? Where did he go, who did he talk to? How many interviews are there going to be? How many people are going to work on this?
Now repeat that for every interaction for the last few years. The amount of time it takes to wrangle all that information and all those people adds up.
A thorough inspection may be underway, but I mean that it simply won't be necessary to get into the nitty-gritty of this person's records to discern more-or-less why they brought a gun to the...
A thorough inspection may be underway, but I mean that it simply won't be necessary to get into the nitty-gritty of this person's records to discern more-or-less why they brought a gun to the rally. I think whatever can be found below the surface level of his public presentation is going to be meaningless, and in a month's time we'll have no more insight into his motivation than we did this week, mark my words.
You don't just flip through someone's phone, a forensic examination is a lot more of an involved process. You don't want someone accidentally wiping a Snapchat message by viewing it and looking...
You don't just flip through someone's phone, a forensic examination is a lot more of an involved process. You don't want someone accidentally wiping a Snapchat message by viewing it and looking away for a few seconds so it's gone forever.
And you have to get it unlocked first.
I'm only tangentially familiar with that process, but I assume that computers and such are similar. Make copies first then review and then follow up on the leads from that review.
There's also the very long and legally slow process of requesting potentially private records from places like phone companies, google, meta, insta, etc. A lot of info is tracked that isn't...
There's also the very long and legally slow process of requesting potentially private records from places like phone companies, google, meta, insta, etc.
A lot of info is tracked that isn't readily available without the right i's dotted and t's crossed. I have little doubt that an attempted presidential assassination greases the hell out of those rails, but it still takes time.
Maybe it changed shortly after that article was posted, but I saw this link earlier that says they did access his phone. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o
Maybe it changed shortly after that article was posted, but I saw this link earlier that says they did access his phone.
On 15 July, the FBI said its forensic experts have successfully accessed Crooks' phone, and they are examining it and other digital evidence for clues.
Well, this certainly appears a lot more dramatic than the last time the Secret Service had a scare with Trump, namely the incident in 2016 where someone rushed the stage. However, that incident...
Well, this certainly appears a lot more dramatic than the last time the Secret Service had a scare with Trump, namely the incident in 2016 where someone rushed the stage.
However, that incident has largely been forgotten about, almost 8 years later.
That being said, today's was a lot more dramatic than a single maroon bum-rushing a stage. I guess the big takeaway for right now is: we've seen something tangent to this before, with Trump. We can take a deep breath and find some comfort in that, somehow.
Another article with more updates: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/13/us/biden-trump-election?unlocked_article_code=1.600.xUgb.vf0T54Qm5Ao1&smid=url-share
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897?t=7Noul1TF0uNyBTbnPK6DxA Just going to throw this out into the conversation here. Sounds like the guy who left the $15 donation shares the same...
Just going to throw this out into the conversation here. Sounds like the guy who left the $15 donation shares the same name as the shooter, but seems to be a 69 year old vs. the 20 year old as the shooter.
Don't really know why other news outlets are reporting as if the shooter and the 69 year old donor are the same. Maybe this tweeter is wrong, maybe other reporters are wrong, maybe there's some third thing, but to me this seems like something to keep an eye on to see if other outlets pick up on this. Seems like a thing to keep an eye on, to see if further reporting reports the shooter as the donor or not.
To be honest, whether the shooter was or wasn't actually a donor doesn't really change much on this for me. I think republicans will probably still successfully be able to spin this into more galvanized support from their voter base anyways.
UPDATE: so sometime after I left this comment, someone updated the context to the tweet to seemingly confirm that the donation record's address matches that of the shooter's main address, so OP of the tweet might just be wrong.
If we'd all stop spreading tweets and posts that are just complete speculation and wait for the actual facts, there would a lot less of the very difficult clean up work afterwards. "A lie travels...
If we'd all stop spreading tweets and posts that are just complete speculation and wait for the actual facts, there would a lot less of the very difficult clean up work afterwards. "A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".
Yeah, the claims that they were two different people had already been widely debunked before this tweet was even posted. Even had they not been, the pictures posted in this tweet pretty...
Yeah, the claims that they were two different people had already been widely debunked before this tweet was even posted. Even had they not been, the pictures posted in this tweet pretty conclusively prove they're the same guy, anyway -- it's just that the person making the tweet was very clearly motivated to not look into it.
The left pic says the person who made the donation lives in "Pittsburgh, PA 15102", and the tweet suggests this means it's the old guy on the right located in Pittsburgh, rather than the shooter, who lived in Bethel Park. The only problem is that Pittsburgh, PA 15102... is Bethel Park. That's the Bethel Park zip code. Yet another reminder to everyone to please stop believing (and certainly stop repeating) weird social media conspiracy shit.
It's worth just leaving this for a while and coming back later to see how it plays out. Like the tweet there has respondents pointing out that the address for the donation matches the alleged...
It's worth just leaving this for a while and coming back later to see how it plays out. Like the tweet there has respondents pointing out that the address for the donation matches the alleged shooter. There are too many people making assumptions at the moment to take anything at face value off social media.
As it happens, I was listening to Mavis Staples live in concert, performing "If You're Ready (Come Go With Me)" (lyrics) when the news hit my phone. The irony is not lost on me - she's now 85...
As it happens, I was listening to Mavis Staples live in concert, performing "If You're Ready (Come Go With Me)" (lyrics) when the news hit my phone. The irony is not lost on me - she's now 85 years old and still bringing the house down.
The dark, sick humor part of my brain which helps me survive immediately jumped to this and this. No, it's not "too soon".
As usual, A.R. Moxon has relevant things to say about this event.
There is photographic proof, and my brain still refuses to believe it. The odds of a bullet grazing an ear tip vs flying shrapnel or something more serious have to be astronomical. Trumps head was...
There is photographic proof, and my brain still refuses to believe it.
The odds of a bullet grazing an ear tip vs flying shrapnel or something more serious have to be astronomical.
Trumps head was swiveling constantly. A split second sooner or later and the bullet would have grazed more than the tip of his ear.
A centimeter to the right, and the wound would have left a more serious scar, a centimeter to the left or up or down and it would have been a complete miss.
It's also the best rationale for why this wasn't staged. It is physically impossible to make a 'safe' shot at that distance - moving the gun itself left or right by the width of a hair would have...
It's also the best rationale for why this wasn't staged. It is physically impossible to make a 'safe' shot at that distance - moving the gun itself left or right by the width of a hair would have killed or missed, and the wind is absolutely a factor at that distance.
That shot did require breath control. The shooter wasn't a total amateur, but he wasn't a professional marksman either. A pro wouldn't have tried for the head shot in the first place, they'd have put five shots at center mass.
I think the guy was aiming at Trump's head, for him to hit the ear. This is why armies train their troops to aim for centre mass - it's far more reliable without much difference in lethality.
I think the guy was aiming at Trump's head, for him to hit the ear. This is why armies train their troops to aim for centre mass - it's far more reliable without much difference in lethality.
There's definitely a difference in lethality. It's pretty routine to survive a gunshot to the torso. It's not nearly as common to survive a gunshot to the head. The reason why militaries aim for...
There's definitely a difference in lethality. It's pretty routine to survive a gunshot to the torso. It's not nearly as common to survive a gunshot to the head. The reason why militaries aim for center mass is because most engagements are at a distance where hitting someone in the head is very difficult, and in a battle it doesn't functionally matter if you kill or injured someone. They're a casualty either way, and are no longer going to be an active combatant. In the case of someone injured, they're actually more of an advantage to the army that injured them since they have to be protected and medivacced. The goal of a battle isn't primarily to kill, it's to achieve your objectives.
An assassin has a way different set of objectives to take into account.
There’s also the fact that the torso can be shielded with a bulletproof vest. While I doubt that POTUS or a candidate would have plate or ceramic armor underneath their suit, it’s still a higher...
There’s also the fact that the torso can be shielded with a bulletproof vest. While I doubt that POTUS or a candidate would have plate or ceramic armor underneath their suit, it’s still a higher Pk with the head versus the torso.
Well a shocking event like this will certainly get people across the political spectrum to seriously consider their prior beliefs and maybe dial back their vitriol as the see others as human once...
Well a shocking event like this will certainly get people across the political spectrum to seriously consider their prior beliefs and maybe dial back their vitriol as the see others as human once again. I look forward to political debates being rational and in good faith. /s
I advise everyone to hold off on overreacting to this until we have more information on this. I want to see actual evidence that the bullet grazed him before I fully believe these events or condem...
I advise everyone to hold off on overreacting to this until we have more information on this. I want to see actual evidence that the bullet grazed him before I fully believe these events or condem them as staged. Some of this is not adding up and it will become more apparent what is real and not after more information is released.
If all you need is dead people to not see this as suspicious of certain aspects that is fine by me. I on the other hand am willing to wait more then 5 hours to get the full information. Still...
If all you need is dead people to not see this as suspicious of certain aspects that is fine by me. I on the other hand am willing to wait more then 5 hours to get the full information. Still waiting for video evidence of trump being grazed, that is all. The fist pump and everything surrounding it feels very contrived, that is what I take issue with.
I will not say what happened because I do not know. That's the point.
None showing the damage as far as I have seen, just blood. Same with the video, he is shot in the ear not facing the camera. Why are you so concerned with someone waiting for further information?...
None showing the damage as far as I have seen, just blood. Same with the video, he is shot in the ear not facing the camera. Why are you so concerned with someone waiting for further information? I am not someone calling false flags or shit like that.
If you've read anything about Donald Trump, he believes so much of what we see to be absolutely ludicrous. When he talks about feeling persecuted, he really feels unjustly persecuted, because he's...
If you've read anything about Donald Trump, he believes so much of what we see to be absolutely ludicrous. When he talks about feeling persecuted, he really feels unjustly persecuted, because he's so detached from reality and has such a unique set of trauma based cognitive abnormalities. This right here, this was a visceral vindication for himself that he's always been right.
Anyone in Trump's shoes should be dead, in prison, penniless, and/or banished from society. It's incredible how someone can fail upwards in life, getting the highest dice roll for every ability...
Anyone in Trump's shoes should be dead, in prison, penniless, and/or banished from society. It's incredible how someone can fail upwards in life, getting the highest dice roll for every ability check over and over and over again.
I feel like Frank Grimes going crazy in The Simpsons world. Normal people have their lives ruined for doing 1/100th of the things he's done.
Reportedly used the N-word, thought a Black contestant shouldn't win your show, and had once put out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the execution of three Black boys? Somehow nonzero and growing Black support, combined with waning Black support for his opponent.
Denigrated Latin Americans? Rapidly growing Latino support.
Grabbed em by the pussy, finds his daughter sexually attractive, fucked a pornstar and paid her off, perved on little girls at pageant shows? Still get 40%+ of the female vote, somehow.
Claimed the Bible is his favorite book and can't recall a single verse, hawked a branded Bible? Got the Christian vote.
Having a business strategy where he stiffs contractors and vendors after they render services and goods and tell them to try suing you? Get the small business owner vote.
Try to overthrow the government through incitement? Zero consequences.
Target of an assassination? Just an ear graze.
What's next, a piano and an anvil land two feet next to him?
I think it'd be unwise to look at this as him 'failing' upwards. Don't let him fool you for one second - if you think he's stupid, he's in your blind spot. He is a master manipulator, confidence...
I think it'd be unwise to look at this as him 'failing' upwards.
Don't let him fool you for one second - if you think he's stupid, he's in your blind spot. He is a master manipulator, confidence man, and troll. Who knows what he actually believes about race, he just says those things because the media is an easy target, effortlessly baited fifty times a day into putting him on the screen every time he uses racial slurs or does something controversial, because they can't help themselves and he knows it. Outrage sells better than anything else. That's what he does all day, every day. He wants to be noticed, and doesn't care about the context.
He reacted instantly to being hit, frankly faster than I think I would have and I'm almost half his age. He turned that assassination attempt into an iconic photo in less than a minute on pure instinct. Look at his career defrauding businesses, he got away with that for decades (and still has) while running a reality TV show whose sole purpose was to make him look like a captain of business.
Genuine morons would not be able to make it last this long. That's his mask, and it is what makes him dangerous. People underestimate him and that makes them vulnerable to him even, and especially, when they hate him. It keeps them from thinking. I've observed the man for years and I've no idea at all what he really thinks about anything.
As for what's next, I'm going to wager he plays into the 'wake up call' moment and dials back his rhetoric for a while. Now we will see the smiling, humbled, 'presidential' Trump emerge (or at least, as much of that as he can manage - but now that things are going his way, it's easier for him, he's less desperate). It's predictable because it is what a smart confidence man would do when presented with this opportunity. Here comes the 'reinventing himself' card. His base will fall for it, and it'll play great with the evangelical community. They can forgive Jerry Falwell, they can forgive Trump, especially after God saved him from a bullet in plain daylight for all to see.
His base is on fire right now, more than ever. They think he just survived a 'deep state' assassination attempt and was anointed by God to save America from a global conspiracy. But that's not enough for him - he has to get more undecided voters on his side and he knows that. He also knows he's already gotten as much mileage out of the controversial approach as he is likely to get, so he has to pivot to something else. I'd bet he's been worrying on how to manage that pivot for a long time and this solution just fell into his lap like magic. He is more lucky, and cagey, than people realize.
That's why I don't want him anywhere near the white house again.
I urge everyone to watch this video up to the point that he actually leaves the stage.
I think this video is the end of our country as we know it. Hope to God I'm wrong. But the photo of him with his fist in the air versus Biden's bumbling debates? It's everything that the right-wing Christian fascists could have ever hoped for.
Wait until the "Biden ordered it" conspiracies.
Edit: Pretty disappointed in the rhetoric being shared in a lot of leftwing spaces. Unfortunately, a lot of folks are just going full Q Anon and posting baseless conspiracies that Trump staged this as a false flag. I really hope Democrats aren't going to stoop to the level of Q Anon.
As an aside, I'm very concerned for our futures. We are already struggling and this event will be divisive and hurtful for us as a people. I worry it opens the door to more violence at worst and more hardcore nationalism at best. I'm so afraid for my little 9-month-old son and his future. I'm afraid he will be gay or trans in this country. I'm afraid he will never know the optimism I knew as a kid. I'm afraid he will know war.
That photo may have just won him the presidency. It's so iconic it makes me feel ill. An incredibly powerful photo of one of the worst people I could possibly imagine.
I really hope no one else was hurt. But in a lot of ways, I have a strong suspicion this is going to hurt America.
Yeah, the picture genuinely makes him look like a hero. Life is about to get a whole lot worse for anyone that isn't a cishet christian white man.
Link to photo
Trump appears triumphant, strong, energetic, virile
This is the nail in the PR coffin for Biden who appears old, feeble, forgetful
Weird. All I see in that photo is a traitor.
This is really the end.
Presidents who triumphantly survive an assassination — I think of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR — enjoy a big boost of popularity. It makes them appear bold, defiant, masculine...
The average dumb voter loves it.
The Trump-Biden gap will probably widen by another point or two because of this.
I've read comments (elsewhere) that suggest that this will make undecided voters really go for Trump now, and that completely mystifies me. He's still the same person he was before, accomplishments have not changed, still has the same felonies, is not made instantly smarter or saner or less demented/dementia'd by an attempted assassination.
I suppose anyone who is still undecided is an average dumb voter, so maybe?
Sympathy voting is a very well known phenomenon.
I personally don't think this convinces many people who were undecided to vote for Trump, but this does massively increase Trump voter enthusiasm, and also changes the dynamic and rhetoric that will be viewed as acceptable for the rest of the campaign. Trump and Republicans now have an easy out against claims that Trump is authoritarian or a threat to democracy, which is to say that such rhetoric incites violence like we saw today. Democrats, being "respectable", are likely to shy away from such rhetoric even though it is true. It changes the campaign, but I don't think in the direct sense of winning Trump many voters.
Undecided voters are the ones that don’t pay attention and don’t care about politics and pr works wonders on them cause they aren’t paying close attention. Also in general they seem to lean right.
Nobody even thinks about any of this except terminally online leftists like us. The Nazis will vote for him because they're Nazis, the libs will clutch their pearls and vote for him because they feel sorry for him. The rest of us will get ready to go back to 1932.
The only "benefit" is we have several months for this news to become boring... I'm definitely worried.
Extremely worried, this really is the only "benefit" we have since the speed the news cycle moves at means this could easily be forgotten about in 2 months......or it could not since trump loves to harp on things over and over.
Or it could be an opening to remind everyone of when Trump endorsed "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat", praised Gianforte for attacking a reporter, or lied about his mass of connections to the Heritage Foundation with their president's recent comment on a revolution that will "remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
Some Americans might wake up to the possibility that this sort of violence and potential Balkanization is what Trump represents.
We're a bit off script. We can make educated guesses--and this ain't great-- but I don't think anyone can really forecast the next few months.
Shaming Republicans for their hypocrisy generally doesn't work, though. There's been no shortage of hypocrisy from Trump.
I hate, hate, HATE Trump but honestly even I have to admit that was kind of bad ass. I thought you were exaggerating before I watched the video, but this is really was all he needed to pull ahead of Biden. Jesus Christ.
The badassery for me was kind of precluded when they stood Trump up and he asked them to let him get his shoes.
To share a tiny bit of optimism: It looks like the shooter was a registered republican - source e.g. CNN. I'll not link it as it shares the name of the shooter as well (Is that even relevant in cases of political violence re: copycats?) but it should be easy enough to find.
Why is that good news? Because hopefully this means the assassination attempt is harder to weaponize against Biden, and it's more difficult to use it as a vehicle to pass authoritarian legislation.
Maybe but it is not exactly like the truth has ever mattered much for them. They could easily make up whatever narrative on the shooter as they see fit.
Remember how quickly they defaulted to "antifa agents provocateur" to explain away any culpability they felt about Jan 6.
You're absolutely correct that it won't much matter how douchebag registered.
That is true, at least for Trump's core voters. However, that works less well for those not already in Trump's corner, and those are the people the fight for public opinion is really about. A fence-sitter with pro-trump tendencies who at least somewhat listens to centrist news outlets will be much less swayed if Trump's narrative has obvious holes that are being pointed out.
He also donated to a progressive PAC.
The best theory at the moment is that he was registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
He donated $15 to voter turnout PAC on January 20, 2021.
He also wore a shirt of Demolition Ranch.
Occam razor tells me he was a libertarian fed up with what trump did few days earlier on January 6 and that donation was symbolic to show dissatisfaction.
It is so weird to donate to such PAC when an election is already over.
So I have two general hypotheses:
I have three pieces of evidence:
There are other possible hypotheses, and other possible evidence, but these seem to be the most compelling in my opinion. I could write this out in Bayesian form, but this evidence just seems far more expected under hypothesis 2 than hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 is still possible, but it just seems less likely given what we currently know. This would still be true even if we assigned a higher prior probability to him being right-wing given the background of right-wing gun violence in recent years.
Edit: initially swapped 1 and 2, fixed now
Hypothesis 3: It was apolitical. He was a lonely young male who just like so many mass shooters before him picked a high profile target in order to cause the most noise and cement his name in history before bowing out. And it just so happened that Donald Trump was visiting his hometown.
That to me fits everything. Interviews with his classmates confirm he was lonely and was obsessed with guns/camo. The flimsiness of both pieces of evidence linking him to either political party do as well.
What makes you believe this is this less compelling than your top two hypotheses?
I guess I assign a much higher prior to these two beliefs because someone who dies attempting to carry out the assassination of a polarizing political figure seems like the kind of person who's more likely to have strong political beliefs. Considering that most people have a strong feelings about Trump, it'd be surprising to find that the guy who tried to assassinate Trump doesn't have strong feelings about him one way or the other.
It's possible that it's some other motivation. Merely wanting to be famous, or another ideology that doesn't fit cleanly in the US left-right spectrum such as Islamic extremism, but I find him being politically motivated more likely.
I don't have strong convictions on this; we don't have much evidence yet, and I may be disproven within the hour lol
There's precedent for such a thing though. Hinkley shot Reagan not for any political reasons, but to impress Jodie Foster.
Mmm that's a good point. And a concerning one as well, since Reagan got a lot of sympathy despite the attempt not being perpetrated by the left.
Depending on who you think actually assassinated Alexander the Great's father, this is one of the theories as to why Phillip II of Makedonia was murdered. He also could've be bumped for the usual political reasons, as the dude made many enemies. Either way, it's truly bronze age thinking that remains relevant to the modern era.
I think trying to fit everything into one of two categories (left/right) really reduces the universe of all possibilities so far that an analysis starts to become a useless exercise.
You are assuming all conservatives support trump.
As for the donation, as this is the only evidence that is used that he was liberal.
First of all ActBlue is being used as the organization receiving money. In reality they are a payment processor, they are not an organization that is actually receiving the donations.
He donated to an organization that encourages people to vote, he did it on January 20, 2021, so after election and a few days after January 6, which upset a lot of people including Republicans. He also unsubscribed from it a year later.
Second, we now know that his family was libertarian, and he was mentioned by his classmate that he was clearly right leaning. His fascination with guns, Demolition Ranch T-shirt which he wore, also reinforces it.
BTW: He also did this assassination attempt a week before the GOP is officially supposed to choose their candidate, so likely the goal was to influence that.
To be clear his father is libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.
This is sort of the problem with all of this, it's back and forth and nuances are being lost. And none of it clearly speaks to motive at this time.
I'm not assuming that at all. It'd be rather strange to believe this guy supported Trump, given that he died trying to assassinate him.
I'm curious what kind of probabilities you're using if you end up favouring hypothesis 1 (right leaning shooter) here. I can't wrap my head around your analysis at all.
Oh my god I flip-flopped the numbers of the hypotheses. I'll fix the comment. I feel silly lol
There's info floating around saying that B might be wrong, and that it might be a case of another person with the same name. I don't really care enough to confirm one way or another but I do wonder how that changes the equation.
Honestly the dude is 20 years old. I don’t know why people are expecting him to have a coherent, well-thought out political agenda. Most people don’t, and extremist nutters are even less likely to. The Unabomber was a very very rare exception and he was, notably, in his 30s when he settled on being a terrorist. For most politically extreme lone wolves their ideological moorings would have tended to look like this. They sort of float all around the fringes of the political compass until some organized movement in need of cannon fodder, like ISIS, scoops them up. America doesn’t have ISIS, we just have these militia sovereigns citizen weirdos.
✨💖✨Remember this whenever someone tells you you'll peak in your 20s ✨💖✨
The book Range by David Epstein tells many true stories of people who found their path at forty or later.
I'll confess I was mostly just memeing, but legit thanks for the book rec! I'll check it out.
Is this the forum to discuss unconfirmed theories posted on X/twitter, followed up by saying we don't care enough to actually confirm? I thought we had slightly higher standards here.
This thread is full of unconfirmed theories, so I thought I'd join the discussion. I don't see many people doing their own research here, but god forbid I'm upfront about being guilty of that myself?
You’re missing the evidence that he was a violent gun owner. Most extremest violence in the United States comes from the far right.
The point about extremist violence in the US is sensible, but I don't think "gun owner" is a particularly noteworthy feature when it comes to a wannabe assassin. Unless you're a rare exception and live in a country that's so locked down you have to build a contraption, possessing a gun is kinda a pre-req to trying to shoot a presidential candidate.
We probably need better language to describe it, because in this context I read “gun owner” less as a person who happens to own a gun and more like a person who makes owning the gun part of his identity. Like I’m in a group chat with two guys who both have guns. One of them posts pictures of his armory constantly and is repeatedly talking about new doodads and attachments and him disassembling and cleaning his shit.
The other one just has a rifle and a couple of historic pieces that he keeps in a safe and takes to the range every now and then. The latter guy I would only call a “gun owner” if we’re literally talking about the practical realities of owning a gun. The former guy is something else, and I’d bring it up if I’m talking about his politics because it actually IS core to his politics.
I'm definitely aware of left-wing gun owners who are between those two extremes that would definitely get the label "gun owner" in a latter sense. There is a contingent of left-wing people who make thorough use of their second amendment rights. But to be fair, they're not the types to do assassinations either, so the original point is valid.
Gun owners are far more likely to lean right in the US. About twice as likely.
Oh I don't dispute that. It's just not so unique to the right that you can eliminate the idea of a shooter being left-wing based on that alone, especially since a shooting does require a gun in the first place. I think there are plenty of other things that lead me to believe this guy is more likely right wing, but just "owns a gun" on its own isn't super dispositive for me.
I've heard "confirmed XYZ" of all types, whatever confirms someone's biases.
Whatever's claimed needs to be scrutinized and double-checked.
Even without him raising his fist to the air, an assassination attempt will really probably boost him in the polls. I dislike him and Biden, and even I feel sorry for the guy right now.
Twitter is fucking scary right now.
A reminder to anyone who needs it: get the heck off any social media if you have any sort of anxiety or other mental health issues.
Just disconnect from everything, don't turn on the news or check sites like reddit. Binge watch a TV show, get a bunch of books from the library, deep dive into a video game. Go camping, take a nice hike. Just stay away from the news and take care of your mental health.
I have a friend who has severe election anxiety and I am so thankful they finally deleted Twitter this year, because Twitter helped wreck their mental health in 2020. I'm talking full-blown expecting the end of the world, bad enough that I thought their comment about "there's a coup right now" on January 6 was just them overreacting to some BS in the hearing or whatever was scheduled that day.
And this? This is going to be so much worse.
That's good advise but I should have been more clear that I was referring on how surreal it is with people like Musk, taking their mask off and endorsing the orange, and how he is clearly boosting a lot of right wing comments and people to the top.
I figured as much, didn't mean to target you specifically. Your comment just reminded me how vital it is for some people to get offline ASAP. Right now it's everywhere, and all we can really do is feel dread for the future. It's easy to fall into the pits of dread and despair right now since it's so fresh, we have no idea what will happen and everyone is already predicting the absolute worst case scenario. This is pretty bleak.
I think there is no way to tell right now what this means. There are plenty of examples, even in American history, of attempted assassinations which do not carry the candidate to victory. We just don't know what longlasting public perception of this is going to be. Maybe it is Trump the martyr, maybe it's that for MAGA but the rest of the country sees it as a reminder that Trump = chaos. We know next to nothing about the shooter other than that he was 20, donated to a progressive PAC, but then registered as a Republican, was into gun culture. Maybe the narrative becomes about right wing radicalization.
But maybe it's over and Trump has sealed the election now, you're right. I'm just saying that there is extreme uncertainty about the implications of this and we can't even begin to see where this must lead, only where it can.
It seems reasonable to me that he could have registered GOP to vote in the GOP primary since Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
He registered 9/28/21 so it could be the case, but it wouldn’t have been the presidential primaries.
They would win if they could convince every law abiding, justice upholding, democracy loving citizen to give up hope. They won't win until then.
Trump has always represented chaos. Who knows, maybe he'd go full crazy and start advocating for super strict gun control all over the country. He's done crazier things
[edit] shooter and one attendee reported dead at scene. I'm removing the original questions in my comment out of respect for the situation.
Stage shooting your own team's political primary just not quite in the head?
For the love of god, let's not spill all our braincells on the floor in a panic.
When I posted my comment there was no coherent report of an actual gunshot.
I wouldn't put it past Trump to stage something like this, I can't imagine him caring about collateral damage to the 'extras' in his reality TV show. I do however think that with half the US justice system riding his ass it would be pretty damn difficult to set something like this up without their catching wind of it. It seems much more likely to me that all of his bile and brimstone rhetoric came back to haunt him. The shooter can't speak for himself because the SS returned fire with better aim than the assassin, so we'll only know what they choose to share with us after the investigation.
We're just going to have to wait until more information is available, and hope that all of the various psyched-out tribes crowing over this don't take it as license to escalate. If you think this is bad, imagine what would have happened if that bullet had been just one half inch closer. Making martyrs is dangerous business, and that also could have been someone's intent.
I kinda hate the guy but I am glad he's not dead. That would have been far, far worse.
My understanding is that the shooter is dead per the local DA. So it's not a manhunt.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania
I just saw this report now. I edited my comment accordingly. Thank you.
Is there anyone in the world that you would trust to put a bullet through your earlobe at 50+ yards?
Penn & Teller.
The issue with this (besides how dangerous it is and how close it was to killing Trump) is that Trump simply does not NEED the boost in the polls. Ever since the debate, AP News and CNN have been talking nonstop about Democrats panicking over Biden's age and the insiders who want him replaced. Biden has been doing piss poor while Trump simply relaxed for a week or two and let the disaster regarding Biden's ability to serve continue damaging him in the press.
Again, this hit Trump in the ear. One inch to the right direction could've started a civil war in this country. That's a dangerous risk to take for a false flag/staged assassination attempt.
It's as insane to suppose Trump & co false flagged this as it has been in the past when that suspicion was voiced by the far-right nutjobs for Sandy Hook and God only knows how many other tragedies.
Having said that, I don't think the threat of civil war worries Trump in the slightest. I think he believes it would only help him if the nation did descend into mindless violence. No, the reason it's insane to think this is a Trumpian ploy is the idea that Trump would risk his own greasy skin for anything.
This was likely some shithead who thought he was doing a favor for the country, but was too stupid to realize what a fucking monumentally idiotic thing it was to do.
I don't know his name yet, but I suspect that when I learn it, I'll be cursing it until my dying breath.
Definitely not. The secret service wouldn't allow it and Trump's people are too dumb to pull something like that off.
Time to re-familiarize yourself with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
I hold no hopes that Trump would refrain from using this incident in a similar manner.
Not sure how bad things are going to get in the near-term. I don't like the potential volatility for the security situation around the US right now. Things might hold, or this might mark the start of a major increase of political violence.
I hate this timeline. I would like to re-start from the late 90's please.
His allies are already using the photo of his blood-stained face and fist in the air in social media posts. Expect to see it on tee shirts in hours and in commercials in a day or two.
The 90s were amazing. I was in my 20s and had such a bright outlook on the world. Now I'm just wishing I could take my retirement funds and head to Canada and live off the grid until I get hit by the celestial bus.
Imagine they hadn’t stolen Al Gore the election win, a single state deciding for the right thing, and we would’ve stood a chance at fighting climate change, preventing middle eastern wars and so much more…
It might have changed those things, but 9/11 was almost certainly an inevitability by that point.
And as I mentioned in a sibling post, most of what led up to that will still be in place. We might have had Trump-equivalent 2004 instead of Obama.
That's assuming Gore would respond the same way.
So now we know Iraq was just an excuse riding on 9/11, so likely wouldn't happen.
Afghanistan maybe would, but remember that Osama was found in Pakistan so Afghanistan also looks more like a reactionary war.
Yeah, invading Iraq was already a goal of neocons, like those in the Project for the New American Century.
I think the 90's are already too set. All the major setpieces were in play that led (somewhat inevitably) to this place. Democrats have been trampling towards right-wing neoliberal stooges since Reagan won, gobbling up bullshit economics and fearing any suggestion of serious progressive reform. Newt Gingrich weaponized the government shutdown in the 90s, and the right-wing "news" media was already in full swing. Trump is just Reagan 2.0, the playbooks are remarkably similiar.
I'd like to take it back to avoiding Kennedy's assasination. Avoiding that national trauma might have been enough to avoid the next several wars and maybe de-escalate the cold war sooner.
If you want to fix the timeline you better start in 1991 and put the 90s to good use.
Let me start by saying that this is a horrible thing. Regardless of the degree to which someone would willingly throw the USA into autocracy, assassination is wrong. But honestly, I'm kind of amazed that it's taken this long for someone to take a shot at him. There hasn't been anything that's come to light since that Australian student in 2016, and that guy didn't get a shot off.
Whoever's stupid enough to take a shot at a political candidate wants nothing more than an autocracy.
I want to be very careful not to start slinging mud and turning this into a Reddit thread so I'll just say this:
Not all right wingers are violent shooters. But almost all violent shooters are right wingers. At least in the present day. It was different in times past depending on what you consider to be right wing beliefs.
Do you have an actual source of that, or is it just common knowledge?
Sure, Here is a NY Times article about it.
Plenty more sources on this. The ADL has a pretty in-depth analysis too.
Seems that many studies count Islamic extremism as being separate from right-wing ideology, which I disagree with since hardcore Muslims are incredibly conservative.
Including Islamic extremists, right wingers make up 95% of mass shootings. Excluding them, right wingers make up 75% of mass shootings.
The CSIS report is one I've seen come up. They separate out religious extremism with the groups:
From 1994 to 2020 left-wing attacks were more common from ~2000-2005, but it mentions:
In terms of fatilities, if you remove the very large outlier of 9/11:
Here's the ADL article that the NYT article summarizes, if anyone else wants to go into the weeds. What I was looking for was clarification whether the numbers in the NYT graph were based on incidents or victim count. I didn't see anything immediate in the ADL dive clarifying that, but I also didn't read the whole thing closely.
For anyone who doesn't want to click links, the graph reads
The two other questions that immediately jumped out (beyond whether this is based on victim count or incident count) were
My best guess as to why the NYT chose not to highlight jihadis in red is that they believe that there's less crosstalk between radical Islam and the red-highlighted ideologies as the red bars have with one another.
But it's OK to shoot a fascist once they are in the office and doing their thing, though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Reinhard_Heydrich
Always keep in mind that Hitler = bad and never compromise on that.
All of the prior calculus for this election just flew straight out the window, never to be seen again. I can honestly say I've never seen heat in comment sections like this is generating. Just about every live news stream that had comments or chat had them vaporized (I suspect by Youtube directly, they all disappeared at about the same time on every network, every channel, even Fox). I'd say it was for damn good reason. It's reaching new peaks of ugly even I've never seen before. This thread might be the only one on the net that hasn't got 'deleted' all over it.
Condemnation is the only appropriate response in my view. It's unacceptable, there are no exceptions. It's discouraging, disheartening, to see it happen. My own feelings are simply irrelevant, it's about not wanting to live in a place where shit like this is how folks try to resolve anything.
Yeah, there is zero room for political violence in a democratic system.
No worries, US is getting less democratic day by day.
The guy who was shot at has attempted to forcefully overthrow the democratically elected government and was just exempted from prosecution from his crime based on corrupt, legally indefensible ruling. This system isn't democratic, and if it was then nobody would be shooting him because he'd be in jail.
The only realistic argument against assassinating him is that it would be politically ineffective or problematic. We all know that if he's elected he'll do his best to end democracy, and it's okay to be intolerant of and inflict political violence upon fascists.
EDIT: Also he has repeatedly stated that he won't accept the results of the election if he loses (and in 2021 he has previously demonstrated this, so it's not just talk). The core premise of democracy is accepting the results of a legitimate election.
I believe you are conflating democracy and possibly fairness or justice. They are not the same thing. Democracy is just a way to achieve fairness for majority by mandating more or less just laws. It, by itself, does not guarantee equality between majority and minorities and tends to give preferential treatment to the political class.
More like the guy was surprised that some of his stupid followers might actually be willing to overthrow the government and install him as president, but did not hesitate to encourage them because he felt it wouldn't hurt to enjoy the office for a bit longer. In fact, he was probably flattered for a second before he realized that he, in fact, truly deserves such a position, because he is actually the perfect person for the job and those pesky minions can't even pull off a simple coup. Ugh, why must his minions be always this incompetent. Better convince them to send him more money and hire someone more competent next time or something.
The core issues is that we shouldn't elect malignant narcissists to any office, because they tend to either end up in jail, build a cult or both. And it's not like they are 100% responsible for their behavior either, because they have almost certainly been brought up to be like that by a manipulative parent and cannot function otherwise.
The obvious problem here is that since those who successfully develop their cult-building skills through their life end up being pretty good at it and significant portion of people around them (who do not understand how they operate) join the cult and then "defend" the sick guy.
He would be exploited by actual sociopaths that would prefer to dismantle the democracy. It's not that hard to manipulate a narcissist if you know what you are doing and can control your own emotions effectively. He is being used as a battering ram by those who do not dare to risk in such a way themselves. Because he just YOLOs everything, they keep using him like that.
I believe we will see more brazenly arrogant politicians like him pop up more often in the upcoming years.
A lot of what you wrote sums up my primary concern with the whole thing, past this event and the election itself. The democratic form got fundamentally changed long ago, and what exists today is competing forms of a different thing. The power rests elsewhere, in the myriad interests who will persist regardless who wins this election. Trump is beholden; he is not the leader, as you wrote. The lie of who he is extends to every facet of what he projects, including the idea of him being a leader at all. It's what calling him something like a "post truth populist" drives at. After him come only stronger opponents, more difficult obstacles. The best case scenario of this election is still an inverted totalitarian form. The chance was on a late 20th century liberal acting very much out of character. Whether the odds were ever good didn't matter, it was about taking the chance in the face of the system hardening itself.
I wanted to point at your perspective because in my opinion it's where folks needed to be with it for a very long time. Time remains for the situation to change, but there's a reason I don't join in on talking up democracy and hammering on what Trump is doing. That's all spectacle in my view, The Spectacle even for folks who read that book. My original sentiment here is literal, practical - whether within democracy, inverted totalitarianism, whatever, it simply should not be.
I am not agreeing with you, though. Violence in self defense is justified. And violence is not only direct physical damage.
I still think your perspective matters
That may be true, however Trump has other character flaws that make him bad for the country. Someone stupid enough to rewrite hurricane path with a sharpie on public television won't make prudent choices. He foments violence and encouraged racism sexisme and bigotry. His history in business was of making deals and consistently breaking them. His former allies say he is unfit to serve.
He isn't curious and doesn't learn.
I'm not denying the asymmetry nor the threat being posed. I appreciated a more nuanced view because the spectacle survives on obfuscating where power lies and squishing away nuance. If folks want to go over how each candidate will continue the form I wrote about I think I can deliver that, but no one asked, and folks already went through the list of qualities like the ones you've pointed out. I'm not going to write as though there's some group of undecided voters hanging on my words.
Honestly, I'm not an undecided voter, but I still would read what you have to say about that.
Appreciate you, I'll give it a shot. I think it's important to start with some basics about what it means to be an inverted totalitarian form, and then I'll try to lay out (in a broad and oversimplified way) what each candidate represents, the paths their respective political lineages seem likely to take us down. I'm not really trying to predict things, but it will sound like that a bit because I don't think I can get my point across without sounding like I'm doing that. The period of time we are in and heading toward has different fundamentals, is I guess how I've been trying to look at it.
The gist of calling this place an inverted totalitarian form is that it is a democratic system which has been compromised by Economy, where "Economy" refers in the broadest sort of way to the collection of corporate entities that drive our economic activity. For the US, the story has been of a transformation in two stages, I think. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the democratic form was weakened and Economy was allowed to encroach upon it. In the first quarter of the 21st century Economy overtook democracy as the source of governance, it had enough of a role to play in the formation of policy and international affairs that it rather than us was calling the shots, so to speak. Some landmark moments would include things like the war in Iraq and later Citizens United. The will of the people became secondary to the interests of economic groups, and economic groups eventually came to dictate most of the choices voters were able to make. The parties became pathways, the means by which the transition was accomplished by being the things voters interfaced with after Economy interfaced with the parties, if that makes sense. It is way more complex and multifaceted than this but enough for making the point I wish to about our current predicament.
By now, we've reached a critical juncture, where there's a real threat of civil conflict on top of the effects of degrading institutions just sort of piling on top of each other plus ecological catastrophe. Economy sucks at governing, because "profit" sucks as a central operating principle, again to oversimplify. It's shortsighted, amoral, without principle and without direction. Wherever interest lies is where it goes. The inverted totalitarian form is not a straightforward form of governance, because it's more concerned with maintaining conditions and eliminating rules than it is with human advancement. It has to capitulate to the latter on some level to avoid destruction and facilitate accumulation, but the priority means life has little value and its quality almost none.
What the candidates represent are the two ways by which this system is attempting to keep itself from coming apart.
The republican lineage has been one of embracing Economy overtly, and so in this moment represent the system becoming more overt in its operation. There's some complicating factors in there, but the basic point is that they represent the system hardening itself. Hardening, in that it means to restrict the availability of power, eliminate the possibility of interference with governance by the people, their own as much as anyone else. It doesn't mean we stop voting or stop having elections, rather it means those actions being reduced to something almost totally perfunctory. A game Economy plays with itself, to determine which people in it get to call some shots. The complicating factors revolve around the sort of folk they had to rope in to get to this point. It won't be straightforward corporate control, so to speak, because they had to use religious zealots and the lineage of the Confederacy among others. Multiple groups, each of whom is deeply interested in being the source of governance, makes for conflict and actual threats to Economy itself. Conflict is practically guaranteed, because competing interests like these can't coexist with each other.
The Democratic lineage represents the system attempting to mend itself in a way it's done before, by providing for what prevents civil conflict while still attempting to allow Economy its position as the source of governance. It does that because its had its practice pretty much fully understood and exploited along with the humanity of the participants. Both parties are intensely corrupt but this is why that criticism sticks more to this party - it is the remnant of the democratic form, reduced to maintaining an image because Economy already won, so to speak. I don't mean to discount the things they do accomplish (real things matter), but the problem is that fundamental changes to the system are simply off the table because of the loss Economy can inflict upon them. That means in the end the inverted totalitarian form continues, more peacefully but with little shot at preventing further crisis - they have yet to adapt. So what they represent in this moment is a kind of "business as usual" that is fundamentally incompatible with the present circumstance. Incremental change works in a functioning democracy, it does not function when corporations are people and money is speech, where compromises are made with entities which cause global problems. Hence saying it's like maintaining an image - the image is being maintained even as the canvas comes apart. Similar to republicans, their approach practically guarantees conflict, but unlike republicans there is still a weird shot at doing different because the competing systemic approaches within them don't exist in nearly the same ways. There is always the possibility of using the power that remains to accomplish things, but the vestiges of the form mean a reluctance to do that.
In other words, the choice is between the system hardening itself, and it attempting to mend itself. Neither works because the world around us is shifting rapidly and the effects of our journey through the inverted totalitarian form has meant a sort of comprehensive degradation. The phrase "comprehensive degradation" might evoke some real nasty shit I don't mean to veer toward, but I don't think there's a better way to describe the effect the withering of our democratic institutions has had upon us, alongside the massive impact of the Internet on socialization, on top of the culture of being a place governed by business.
Hopefully that made some sense. It's hard to put it succinctly, so I tried to think about it like a working model and present that. I don't think folks should be discouraged thinking about so many different things. It doesn't really change what there is to do. I wanted to alleviate a feeling of both, being overwhelmed and thoroughly weirded out, and that was where I landed with it.
Echoes of documentation Adam Curtis right here; I can practically hear his dramatic backing music. Fantastic stuff. Interesting, and presented in a thought provoking manner. I like this lens!
If you have one, I would sign up for your newsletter. Cash is king is something intuitive as well as corporate interest being the new apex predator and intended beneficiary of government, but economy being the symbiotic link between the parties is interesting and snaps interesting views into place.
I don't have one, but it's worth thinking about. I'll take a day or two to think on it, and I really appreciate your feedback as well as folks giving me attention. I'm not really sure how to describe the sort of angle I have, other than to say I want to be good at looking at stuff. I think I could expand on a lot of what I was putting together, but also want to be sure I'm staying relatable and open to adjustment. I have personal opinions, things I wish were so and stuff I think is right and good, but try to keep that separate and distinct from "what is there" and "what happens". And in the end I'm fairly simple - I want things to work out. For you, for me, for everybody. Whether or not that's possible, likely, etc., is just a separate matter, with its own attendant concerns and details. Maybe a way to put it is to say I'm attempting an empathic, psychological political philosophy in trying to weave everything together. I shy away from descriptions like that so I don't end up constraining myself. Anyway, I'll see what I can do, and I'll let ya'll know if I've got something to check out more regularly.
Edit: I tried. See what you think, and if folks are cool with it, I'll keep it up
That’s… explicit endorsement of terrorism.
To me, there is a general argument against murder of anyone that seems to apply here.
Fascists, almost universally, are perfectly OK with killing or enslaving anyone in their outgroups. Historically, this means minorities, especially gays, blacks, Jews, atheists, and socialists.
Importantly, this means that facists are not innocents. They are not random civilians going about their day. They are civilians advocating for the death of civilians whom are not like them.
It is perfectly just to inflict violence on those whom are advocating for your extermination, regardless of the legal frameworks that protect them.
Trump is the enemy of the democratic state, and just because the beuracratic mechanism is having trouble reconciling that publicly-stated-by-himself fact, doesn't mean that a would-be assassin is morally wrong.
I can’t agree that violence, and particularly murder, is a justifiable response to speech of any kind, no matter how reprehensible.
Edit: I replied to quite different comment so if my reply doesn’t seem to address all of the argument, it’s because that material didn’t exist yet when I wrote it.
Because it hasn't been "just speech" for quite some time.
In case you forgot, he tried to overthrow an election by force. He is a fugitive of justice, courtesy of a heavily corrupted system.
And violent speech is also violence. If somebody was standing on my streetcorner shouting "kill the gays," I'd be there with a baseball bat inside the hour. I'll accept my assault charges knowing that piece of shit got a busted jaw for their hate.
Fascists win because they exploit the liberal system, and everyone waits too damn long for the system to do the right thing because they feel only the state should be permitted to inflict moral violence.
He’s being prosecuted for that crime right now.
To be honest, when I was younger, I might have done the same. If someone was right up in my face yelling at me today, maybe I’d feel the same — I’m still a human being. But still, I’m more of the opinion that counterprotesting (more speech) is a better response than suppression of speech.
Edit to respond to an edit in the above comment:
I’m not really convinced that vigilantism in any existing modern western society is justified. Also, I’m not really convinced that “fascists win” — so far their track record is not great.
edit: man, that comment is a real living document
I totally disagree with this. Violence is physical force, and conflating it with speech is a dangerous thing to do.
Except he's not; SCOTUS declared that presidents are above the law. A SCOTUS largely chosen by Trump. The system has clearly, blatantly, failed.
Well...
I, for one, am with WHO on this.
"I am going to murder your entire family unless you send me a trillion dollars tomorrow."
Is this violence? Well, we have to talk about The Implication (the rest of this comment will assume you have watched the link).
The Implication is violence because it's playing Schrodinger's Douchebag - what's worse is that if you comply, then there's no evidence that there would have been violence. So that basically means you 1) can't call the cops on them before they commit violence, but 2) can't call the cops on them after they commit violence (because they're dead), while 3) lets them profit off said violence. Which effectively removes the law's ability to protect you from violence.
Also, there's a damn good reason there exists the cliched mobster line "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to <valuable thing>". They're conveying the threat without explicitly stating it, which is just an attempt to exploit legal requirements of unambiguity.
Yeah, that's a threat. That's not violence. I'm not saying threatening people is good, I'm saying it's not violence. And also, we probably shouldn't murder people for issuing threats.
It's not speech, though, it's action. It's installing Supreme Court justices who make rulings based on the profits of who owns them, rather than any judicial precedent or even the best interests of the people they will impact, which will cause deaths. Overturning Cheveron Deference and Roe v. Wade are deadly decisions and Trump made that happen. It's enacting policies that kill people. That's not speech, that's using power to cause physical harm and death, which is violence any way you slice it. Reacting to that with violence is self-defense.
I think violence is wrong. I think war its wrong. I even have some hot takes on war, like that the American Revolutionary War might not have been justified. I can’t really trust the history I was taught. And the overwhelming narrative, from the winning team, is that they didn’t like being taxed so much so they decided to start killing people over that. Not justified.
Even though I live by rules-based ethics on most things, I have to acknowledge that when things get extreme enough the rules stop making sense. At some point utilitarianism kicks in. Killing will still always be wrong, it just might be the least wrong option under certain edge cases.
In the case of Trump I think him getting assassinated could lead to more assassinations of other politicians. From a narrow perspective him dying might save lots of lives and suffering. But we aren’t in a political climate where an assassination will be viewed as a rogue action and condemned by all. This could easily become the new normal. And I don’t want to see what the next step is in the American downfall when politicians get regularly murdered.
Taxation without representation. There is a difference.
Also…you know… the Boston massacre.
Wasn’t that instigated by colonists throwing rocks at British soldiers? Not that shooting in return was necessary or even tit for tat.
I don’t think war is a necessary response to that.
Yeah, one of my "history hot takes" is that the United States would be better off today if its path to independence had been more Australian or New Zealand-esque, and the Revolutionary War never happened.
The idea of a United States with a parliamentary system of government is also just such a fun idea to think about.
Of course, there does loom the specter of slavery and the Civil War, but those are the kind of "what ifs" that make "parliamentary America" such an interesting alt-history timeline.
Great Britain did abolish slavery 30 years before the Civil War, so there may have been an "American Rebellion" of the slaveholders that went very differently. Whether that would have been a wholesale USA rebellion against GB, or the North being backed up by the British, either one would make for interesting stories on a different timeline.
A revolution where the loyalists and revolutionaries had the opposite geographic alignment from the one we actually had, interesting.
Statement just came out from the local police. Shooter and one member of the crowd are dead. One member of the crowd is in critical condition.
I am terrified for what this means for the country.
After digesting these news for the past day and trying to think how this will impact the election I think a lot of us were a bit premature in assuming this would benefit Trump's chances. Up until now Trump's modus operandi has been to fan the flames of polarization at every opportunity. Always trying to appeal to the fears and hatred of his base. Often alluding to violence against his political enemies, if not outright calling for it. He has never campaigned as a candidate trying to promote peace, compromise, and unity. And it's why he has been successful. His base crave hate and violent rhetoric.
Now his campaign has a big decision to make. They could change course and try to paint him as the candidate for unity and de-escalation in an attempt to secure the votes of everyone that is outraged that this happened in our democracy . But this runs the risk of dampening dampening enthusiasm in his rabid base who are craving revenge.
Or they could continue campaigning as usual and alienate those who think polarization and instigation has gone too far. It will be interesting to see what happens at the convention.
My money is on a very brief period where he condemns political violence and asks for people to cool down. Then back to business as usual.
Judging by how the States handle gun violence and health care, I wouldn't place much bet on a logically sound strategy.
In America, ideas of two opposing extremely can be held simultaneously without issue.
Eg, both (a) our children are precious and (b) now/never is the time to talk about gun violence.
Eg, both (a) Americans have the best of everything, and (b) consistently bottom of the list for maternal health outcomes and health in general
They're probably going to do both (a) condemn Liberal divisive rhetoric and (b) bring their own polarization and demonization to a new fever pitch.
USA looks scary at the moment. I hope tensions calm there.
It is lucky no one was seriously injured.One audience member was killed actually, but ironically I am glad Trump wasn't seriously injured.
Oh shit! The stuff I'd read didn't mention that.
Beat me to the punch. It hasn't been outright confirmed it was a gunshot yet, but it seems very likely based on the video. At the very least he ducked while reaching for his ear, and photos show him with blood on his ear and face. If he was shot, it seems like it was a graze. The news literally just mentioned a statement from him thanking law enforcement while writing this comment, and that he's getting checked out at a local hospital.
The news is going to be crazy for the next few days/weeks.
Also: in the video clip, there are people behind him. If the bullet only grazed him, I worry it may have hit someone else.
Yes, one rally attender was killed.
Just saw that on the news. One killed, one severely injured.
Apparently social media is starting to circulate the supposed shooter's photo and name. No clue if it's the actual shooter but I hope it is, because if not, that guy and his family are in for a hellish time right now.
There are many suspected shooter identities being floated around: one is a supposed Antifa member, another is a supposed transgender person, etc. I count dozens.
These accounts have 100–1000 followers. I suspect that foreign state actors are spinning up their Twitter bot networks to pollute the information space.
I remember when Reddit found the Boston marathon bomber after it happened.
We did it guys!
A US representative (Collins) has claimed Biden ordered the shooting on X. So, we're all doing great.
It'd be nice if everyone could shut up and let the Secret Service/FBI/etc. investigate.
I mean, if he did it, it's official and no big deal.
Are you talking about Maine representative Susan Collins? Do you have a source for this?
See my reply below. Also she's a Senator.
I'm guessing it's this tweet from Mike Collins which doesn't read to me like what was characterized above.Nope, I stand corrected below.
No it was this one
"Joe Biden sent the orders"
Rolling Stone coverage if the tweet is deleted
I’ve seen another image of his tweet circulating that is what I believe they’re referring to. It literally says “Joe Biden sent the orders”.
I can’t find it on Twitter so I don’t know if it’s fake or out of context or removed
Edit: someone else has linked the tweet and coverage so yeah
Yeah it's from several hours earlier and cites a comment from Biden about putting Trump in a bullseye in a completely and obviously rhetorical way. In the live NYT or WaPo coverage, idk which, a reporter said some members of the crowd turned on the pressbox immediately and tried to get at the reporters in retaliation. People are going to get hurt or killed out of displaced rage at this. As someone who remembers Sikhs and Muslims being targeted after 9/11 with clarity and has spent many of the years since hoping for the people who commit major acts of violence to not fall into marginalized communities for community safety reasons.... This feels very bad.
It's also a good reminder that nothing I do on the internet tonight will change a thing so I'm gonna try to limit that for my mental health and read a book.
I really hope the shooter wasn't an immigrant. The US will become a very scary place for us if they were.
Update: phew. Apparently it was a white libertarian incel.
Do you have any source for that?
It's unclear. The shooter was a registered Republican (right wing, for those outside the US) who also donated $15 to ActBlue, a left wing political organization. He was wearing a tee shirt related to the Second Amendment, a right wing thing. He had zero social media presence and no manifesto has been found yet.
ActBlue is just a payment processor that happens to be used by progressive platforms. They just process payments. And you aren't directly donating to them.
He donated $15 to PAC working on increasing voter turnout. He did this on January 20, 2021 which was the day Biden was inaugurated after the election just ended, which is a strange time to send such a donation. Strange, until we remembered that a few days earlier, on January 6th we had trump try to overthrow the government.
This looks more like a symbolic donation to show that he was not happy about J6.
Post your source please
About what? What ActBlue is or when he donated, how much and to what organization?
Those things are available everywhere.
Now we also know he had libertarian views. His family were libertarian, his classmates describe him as leaving right, his fascination with weapons and T-shirt also reinforces that.
Not everyone who identified themselves as Republicans want trump.
Oh, did I say this event happened a week before the GOP will be choosing their nominee. Trump technically is not a candidate yet.
When I wrote my comment above, I had seen many claims that the shooter had made a donation. However, I had yet to see anyone actually post a source for that information (like many had done concerning his voter registration), nor had that information yet been reported by a reliable news source.
I should have been more clear about what information I was asking for a source on, and have edited my comment so that it makes more sense.
But now, a day later, it's a moot point. The donation has been reported on, and sources provided, by major news sites. Wikipedia cites several entries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Political_activities
All of this is as yet unconfirmed afaik. It’s just internet sleuthing for entries with the name that match the age and race, which is all we do know.
Edit: it seems his conservative leanings are being verified by his classmates. Seems like a weird trollish loner with reactionary politics. Why he took the shot in light of that is a mystery but folks’ brains are so cooked with conspiracist insanity now it could be any kind of batshit nonsense.
Too late; it's already a scary place. If the shooter was an immigrant, Trump just unlocked a new level in this mad game.
EDIT: Trump unlocked a new level regardless. His allies are already blaming Democrats and Biden for the assassination attempt.
My confirmation bias supports that, the only people there were right wing nutjobs. Makes a lot more sense that one of them would crack and try to off trump to get famous or resolve some emotional issues
More likely than a secret leftist infiltrator, or even more absurd, a Biden assassin
Normally I would refrain from posting a rumor like this, but the mods of /r/demolitionranch made a sticky post about it, so I will go ahead and share it here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/demolitionranch/comments/1e2rtet/pennsylvania/
I checked out photos of the shooter's body and yeah, it could be one of their t-shirts. Nothing definitive, obviously still just a rumor.
EDIT: Looks like (reputable) news sites are starting to report the identity of the shooter, so I removed my earlier comments talking about that.
What's is demolition ranch? A YouTube channel about guns with an unofficial meme subreddit? Doesn't seem to be particularly political at first glance?
Yeah, it's a YouTube channel. Matt Carriker, the Demolition Ranch creator, is a vet (as in veterinarian, not veteran) and also runs another channel related to his homeless animal rescue efforts (Vet Ranch). None of his channels are overtly political, but as with most gun related channels Demo Ranch tends to have a very politically vocal fan base.
Letting things settle a bit, and and the risk of jinxing things, I have three connected comments on this
leading to
leading to
Yeah, both parties talk as though they’re convinced the other party is an apocalyptic death cult that will destroy the country the next time they're given the opportunity, but it's becoming pretty clear that neither side is sincere, and in any case neither side displays any urgency to do anything about it besides vote. The parties themselves (in which I am including not only the party leadership and politicians but their associated media encampments) obviously don’t believe it; they’re just cynically using it for votes. Meanwhile, the majority of voters don’t really seem to believe it, either; polls-wise, they're acting like this is a normal election.
I don’t think we can disregard the potential impact of exposure to these types of deranged media narratives on individuals who are already mentally unstable, and deranged media narratives are ubiquitous now on both sides of mainstream American politics. But at the same time, we don’t currently have any facts to suggest that stuff was relevant. Maybe it’ll come out one day that he shot Trump because he got really into Rachel Maddow or John Oliver in 2022. But, even then, maybe it could drive a discussion about responsibility in the media, but it's hard to ascribe blame. Like, we know shooting people isn't the typical audience reaction to those guys, right? Even if it’s the reaction of one disturbed mind, that one disturbed mind could just as easily have decided to shoot the president over a parasocial relationship with Jodie Foster. That’s how that works! It's not a reasonable thought process! There's nothing that you can legally air on American television that could cause someone to reasonably, foreseeably respond by shooting a president.
I would love nothing more than to be able to blame a presidential assassination attempt on Mueller She Wrote or whoever. That would be the funniest shit ever to me. But we don’t have any reason to even draw a connection to any coherent political project right now, much less trace causation, muuuuch less ascribe blame. It's very possible we never will. I think it's this last point that pisses people off and drives a lot of this, because it really does feel like this is a monumental event that should either confirm or upend all of your priors, wherever you are politically, but instead it's just incoherent and bizarre and confusing. That's no fun! Where's the manifesto?
Agreed. I'm always mystified by the premise of "investigation," as though it takes more than one day to flip every mattress and skim thru every laptop and diary. These inspections go on for days, then weeks? And I'm always wondering, what else is there to look at? A twenty-year-old hasn't got two ideas to rub together! No matter how they'd been groomed, their motivation cannot possibly interest us. I get the hiccups as often as I do the things that this kid did on his way to shoot the president!
Think about how many people are on Tildes talking about politics. How many of them have you exchanged comments with? Have any of them had suspicious patterns of commentary encouraging, suggesting, or implying the idea that Trump was a danger to the country? Maybe, yeah. Who are those people? Are they associated with any groups that are coordinating communications to that effect? Is there any clue of foreign influence?
What about in person? Where did he go, who did he talk to? How many interviews are there going to be? How many people are going to work on this?
Now repeat that for every interaction for the last few years. The amount of time it takes to wrangle all that information and all those people adds up.
A thorough inspection may be underway, but I mean that it simply won't be necessary to get into the nitty-gritty of this person's records to discern more-or-less why they brought a gun to the rally. I think whatever can be found below the surface level of his public presentation is going to be meaningless, and in a month's time we'll have no more insight into his motivation than we did this week, mark my words.
You don't just flip through someone's phone, a forensic examination is a lot more of an involved process. You don't want someone accidentally wiping a Snapchat message by viewing it and looking away for a few seconds so it's gone forever.
And you have to get it unlocked first.
I'm only tangentially familiar with that process, but I assume that computers and such are similar. Make copies first then review and then follow up on the leads from that review.
There's also the very long and legally slow process of requesting potentially private records from places like phone companies, google, meta, insta, etc.
A lot of info is tracked that isn't readily available without the right i's dotted and t's crossed. I have little doubt that an attempted presidential assassination greases the hell out of those rails, but it still takes time.
Here you go: Even now, the FBI is still working to get into his phone. They haven't even started to flip through it here 2 days after the incident.
Maybe it changed shortly after that article was posted, but I saw this link earlier that says they did access his phone.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o
Hah, that was quick.
Well, this certainly appears a lot more dramatic than the last time the Secret Service had a scare with Trump, namely the incident in 2016 where someone rushed the stage.
However, that incident has largely been forgotten about, almost 8 years later.
That being said, today's was a lot more dramatic than a single maroon bum-rushing a stage. I guess the big takeaway for right now is: we've seen something tangent to this before, with Trump. We can take a deep breath and find some comfort in that, somehow.
This is familiar ground. Somewhat.
Another article with more updates: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/13/us/biden-trump-election?unlocked_article_code=1.600.xUgb.vf0T54Qm5Ao1&smid=url-share
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897?t=7Noul1TF0uNyBTbnPK6DxA
Just going to throw this out into the conversation here. Sounds like the guy who left the $15 donation shares the same name as the shooter, but seems to be a 69 year old vs. the 20 year old as the shooter.
Don't really know why other news outlets are reporting as if the shooter and the 69 year old donor are the same. Maybe this tweeter is wrong, maybe other reporters are wrong, maybe there's some third thing, but to me this seems like something to keep an eye on to see if other outlets pick up on this. Seems like a thing to keep an eye on, to see if further reporting reports the shooter as the donor or not.
To be honest, whether the shooter was or wasn't actually a donor doesn't really change much on this for me. I think republicans will probably still successfully be able to spin this into more galvanized support from their voter base anyways.
UPDATE: so sometime after I left this comment, someone updated the context to the tweet to seemingly confirm that the donation record's address matches that of the shooter's main address, so OP of the tweet might just be wrong.
If we'd all stop spreading tweets and posts that are just complete speculation and wait for the actual facts, there would a lot less of the very difficult clean up work afterwards. "A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".
Yeah, the claims that they were two different people had already been widely debunked before this tweet was even posted. Even had they not been, the pictures posted in this tweet pretty conclusively prove they're the same guy, anyway -- it's just that the person making the tweet was very clearly motivated to not look into it.
The left pic says the person who made the donation lives in "Pittsburgh, PA 15102", and the tweet suggests this means it's the old guy on the right located in Pittsburgh, rather than the shooter, who lived in Bethel Park. The only problem is that Pittsburgh, PA 15102... is Bethel Park. That's the Bethel Park zip code. Yet another reminder to everyone to please stop believing (and certainly stop repeating) weird social media conspiracy shit.
It's worth just leaving this for a while and coming back later to see how it plays out. Like the tweet there has respondents pointing out that the address for the donation matches the alleged shooter. There are too many people making assumptions at the moment to take anything at face value off social media.
Reminds me of Fico.
As it happens, I was listening to Mavis Staples live in concert, performing "If You're Ready (Come Go With Me)" (lyrics) when the news hit my phone. The irony is not lost on me - she's now 85 years old and still bringing the house down.
The dark, sick humor part of my brain which helps me survive immediately jumped to this and this. No, it's not "too soon".
As usual, A.R. Moxon has relevant things to say about this event.
My gut reaction is to post a sign outside my house.
Or
If any living person has plot armor it's this guy. An ear-grazing shot? Jesus.
There is photographic proof, and my brain still refuses to believe it.
The odds of a bullet grazing an ear tip vs flying shrapnel or something more serious have to be astronomical.
Trumps head was swiveling constantly. A split second sooner or later and the bullet would have grazed more than the tip of his ear.
A centimeter to the right, and the wound would have left a more serious scar, a centimeter to the left or up or down and it would have been a complete miss.
It's also the best rationale for why this wasn't staged. It is physically impossible to make a 'safe' shot at that distance - moving the gun itself left or right by the width of a hair would have killed or missed, and the wind is absolutely a factor at that distance.
That shot did require breath control. The shooter wasn't a total amateur, but he wasn't a professional marksman either. A pro wouldn't have tried for the head shot in the first place, they'd have put five shots at center mass.
I think the guy was aiming at Trump's head, for him to hit the ear. This is why armies train their troops to aim for centre mass - it's far more reliable without much difference in lethality.
Every would-be political assassin wants to be John Wilkes Booth even if it's less effective when you aren't sneaking up behind them in the dark.
There's definitely a difference in lethality. It's pretty routine to survive a gunshot to the torso. It's not nearly as common to survive a gunshot to the head. The reason why militaries aim for center mass is because most engagements are at a distance where hitting someone in the head is very difficult, and in a battle it doesn't functionally matter if you kill or injured someone. They're a casualty either way, and are no longer going to be an active combatant. In the case of someone injured, they're actually more of an advantage to the army that injured them since they have to be protected and medivacced. The goal of a battle isn't primarily to kill, it's to achieve your objectives.
An assassin has a way different set of objectives to take into account.
There’s also the fact that the torso can be shielded with a bulletproof vest. While I doubt that POTUS or a candidate would have plate or ceramic armor underneath their suit, it’s still a higher Pk with the head versus the torso.
Perhaps the nickname Teflon Don isn't as unwarranted as we hoped.
The Teflon Don was John Gotti and he died in prison.
Well a shocking event like this will certainly get people across the political spectrum to seriously consider their prior beliefs and maybe dial back their vitriol as the see others as human once again. I look forward to political debates being rational and in good faith. /s
I advise everyone to hold off on overreacting to this until we have more information on this. I want to see actual evidence that the bullet grazed him before I fully believe these events or condem them as staged. Some of this is not adding up and it will become more apparent what is real and not after more information is released.
A person is dead. Another is in the hospital. They have the shooters body. What do you possibly think could have happened.
If all you need is dead people to not see this as suspicious of certain aspects that is fine by me. I on the other hand am willing to wait more then 5 hours to get the full information. Still waiting for video evidence of trump being grazed, that is all. The fist pump and everything surrounding it feels very contrived, that is what I take issue with.
I will not say what happened because I do not know. That's the point.
There’s literally footage of him getting shot and bleeding? Plenty of photos as well.
None showing the damage as far as I have seen, just blood. Same with the video, he is shot in the ear not facing the camera. Why are you so concerned with someone waiting for further information? I am not someone calling false flags or shit like that.
Edit:
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-was-hit-by-glass-fragments-not-a-bullet-report/
This is the kind of information I was waiting for. He was hit by glass and not a bullet, which makes the video make a lot more sense.
I dunno, it seems like major outlets are all still saying he was shot in the ear, and this is pretty convincing? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7E0.fQVx.0sjHzw01X38z&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
This wasn't true. You seem to have overreacted without having the information.
If you've read anything about Donald Trump, he believes so much of what we see to be absolutely ludicrous. When he talks about feeling persecuted, he really feels unjustly persecuted, because he's so detached from reality and has such a unique set of trauma based cognitive abnormalities. This right here, this was a visceral vindication for himself that he's always been right.
Trump is literally the luckiest person alive today.
Frequently is, dodges bullets, dodges lawsuits, and dodges consequences.
I can't believe it, it's unreal
Anyone in Trump's shoes should be dead, in prison, penniless, and/or banished from society. It's incredible how someone can fail upwards in life, getting the highest dice roll for every ability check over and over and over again.
I feel like Frank Grimes going crazy in The Simpsons world. Normal people have their lives ruined for doing 1/100th of the things he's done.
Reportedly used the N-word, thought a Black contestant shouldn't win your show, and had once put out a full-page newspaper ad calling for the execution of three Black boys? Somehow nonzero and growing Black support, combined with waning Black support for his opponent.
Denigrated Latin Americans? Rapidly growing Latino support.
Grabbed em by the pussy, finds his daughter sexually attractive, fucked a pornstar and paid her off, perved on little girls at pageant shows? Still get 40%+ of the female vote, somehow.
Claimed the Bible is his favorite book and can't recall a single verse, hawked a branded Bible? Got the Christian vote.
Having a business strategy where he stiffs contractors and vendors after they render services and goods and tell them to try suing you? Get the small business owner vote.
Try to overthrow the government through incitement? Zero consequences.
Target of an assassination? Just an ear graze.
What's next, a piano and an anvil land two feet next to him?
I think it'd be unwise to look at this as him 'failing' upwards.
Don't let him fool you for one second - if you think he's stupid, he's in your blind spot. He is a master manipulator, confidence man, and troll. Who knows what he actually believes about race, he just says those things because the media is an easy target, effortlessly baited fifty times a day into putting him on the screen every time he uses racial slurs or does something controversial, because they can't help themselves and he knows it. Outrage sells better than anything else. That's what he does all day, every day. He wants to be noticed, and doesn't care about the context.
He reacted instantly to being hit, frankly faster than I think I would have and I'm almost half his age. He turned that assassination attempt into an iconic photo in less than a minute on pure instinct. Look at his career defrauding businesses, he got away with that for decades (and still has) while running a reality TV show whose sole purpose was to make him look like a captain of business.
Genuine morons would not be able to make it last this long. That's his mask, and it is what makes him dangerous. People underestimate him and that makes them vulnerable to him even, and especially, when they hate him. It keeps them from thinking. I've observed the man for years and I've no idea at all what he really thinks about anything.
As for what's next, I'm going to wager he plays into the 'wake up call' moment and dials back his rhetoric for a while. Now we will see the smiling, humbled, 'presidential' Trump emerge (or at least, as much of that as he can manage - but now that things are going his way, it's easier for him, he's less desperate). It's predictable because it is what a smart confidence man would do when presented with this opportunity. Here comes the 'reinventing himself' card. His base will fall for it, and it'll play great with the evangelical community. They can forgive Jerry Falwell, they can forgive Trump, especially after God saved him from a bullet in plain daylight for all to see.
His base is on fire right now, more than ever. They think he just survived a 'deep state' assassination attempt and was anointed by God to save America from a global conspiracy. But that's not enough for him - he has to get more undecided voters on his side and he knows that. He also knows he's already gotten as much mileage out of the controversial approach as he is likely to get, so he has to pivot to something else. I'd bet he's been worrying on how to manage that pivot for a long time and this solution just fell into his lap like magic. He is more lucky, and cagey, than people realize.
That's why I don't want him anywhere near the white house again.
There’s a reason his supporters love to call him Teflon Don.