421
Donald Trump speech shooting: Gunshots heard at president’s rally – latest news
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
421 points (94.7% liked)
News
23387 readers
2466 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Half the comments here are proving that people on the right aren’t the only ones who can indulge in stupid conspiracy theories.
It’s depressing as fuck.
Q-Anon level thinking that somehow Trump is a mastermind of this. The dude who can't hide stolen files properly, can't lie on his taxes properly, and loses money on a casino, somehow has the ability to rig a false flag assassination attempt.
Are NeoLibs that so far into the Kool-Aid that Dipshit Trump is also a grandmaster 5D chess player of this, while not being able to string words together? It's not like he's even been a good actor.
Trump isn't even the mastermind of his own bowel movements. If this was staged it was all planned by his Russian handlers.
Roger Stone would be my guess.
Edit:
I am glad Russia has no experience whatsoever with this type of operations
It's fun to indulge in, and it doesn't change the fact that shit is about to hit the fan, regardless of whether the shooter was someone with a legitimate desire or a paid gunman. Trump was just given and used a golden ticket to both rally republicans to vote for him, and to incite his diehard followers into another insurrection.
Sure, but I don't think being an ironic conspiracy theorist on the levels of Q-Anon is going to make anyone seem better.
Trump was already going to do that. Trump would do it if someone sneezed on him. They already considered him a martyr. They already wanted/have an Enabling Act. The only thing this changes is a bit less blood in him, and 3 people died. Trump already had higher polling numbers.
Fascism is here. Get ready.
It won't make anyone here seem better, I agree. But at the same time, it's not like we're going to have the opportunity to joke around like this after the inevitable happens.
Enjoy life while you still can, you know?
I admit I saw a red fluid on his face.
Yeah there are some real idiots in this thread. Very depressing
It's representative of the current state of this country honestly.
I'd imagine that there are a lot of rather confused individuals in a number of countries, and when tempers run high around politics...shrugs
I don't know if the US would be particularly bad. Would need to have some kind of way to quantify that.
A "false flag assassination attempt" is not as hard to rig if you know it won't be properly investigated.
It doesn't take a mastermind. Dictators faking assassination attempts to garner support isn't new.
"All right ear me big sniper guy, it's going to be an attempted assassination, the biggest ever, you are going to shoot me close, like danger close but don't worry I'm the best president, really I'm the best and you are the best sniper, the best sniper in the whole country. So you shoot me near the ear, near enough that blood comes out, I know scary stuff, but we are tough guys, the toughest so you do it and I resist and together we make the best attempted staged assassination ever"
Neoliberals are pro-trump, plan 2025 calls for going after people with student loans
What I find sad is that either option is equally plausible. That's how low we have sunk.
It isn't though. There is maybe a 0.01% chance that this was a false flag.
I know what's happening is hard to swallow, and the ramifications are deeply troubling, but try not to succumb to baseless conspiracy theories.
There's plenty of motive. An attendee was killed. The shooter was killed by Secret Service. There's not really a reason to think this didn't actually happen, except for cognitive dissonance.
0.01% chance based on what?
I think being unsure either way makes perfect sense. You gotta admit it doesn't really line up with Trump's character to be posing for the cameras if he's actually being shot at. Though tou're not wrong to say, that that isn't proof of anything. It's subjective feeling.
But, I think saying it's entirely unlikely this was orchestrated isn't right either.
Well, a conspiracy requires evidence, and without evidence there's no reason to treat the conspiracy theory as credible.
Saying 0% would be unrealistic because there's always a chance, but if you actually believe that this is a 50/50 toss-up, you're just delusional and desperate to feel some sense of enlightenment like every other conspiracy theorist moron in the world.
Given that there is precisely zero evidence of what you are claiming, I'll estimate as close to zero as I can without pretending it's impossible.
But make no mistake, you are deliberately spreading disinformation.
I'm not claiming anything. It's just really, really early after the event.
My choice of words was not ideal, and I apologize for that.
I'm just saying being unsure of what happened isn't crazy so soon after the event.
You're out here saying what is and is not likely based on your own feelings about what you feel is true.
It's simply too early to say anything definitive about what level of conspiracy existed (in the traditional sense, of more than one person, conspiring).
I am not saying this was staged. I'm saying you're jumping the gun, to say so confidently it wasn't.
Very convenient.
I wonder what the chances are that Russia did this.
Zero unless you have some sort of evidence of that.
I don't disagree with you, but you completely missed my point.
Your point is that you think you're allowed to spread misinformation if that misinformation sounds like it maybe could be true. This is the rationale of every conspiracy theorist ever. You're not making an intellectually honest point here.
If your point is that you're a dishonest person who cares more about narrative than facts, point received.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah
On this topic as a whole, it's also proving people on the left are in favor of gun violence...
Not like it really needs proving. When Marx writes about "revolution," he means bloody, violent revolution.
Anyone advocating revolution needs guns to back it up or else they're just full of hot air.
Elections were meant to be bloodless revolutions. Unfortunately with First Past The Post voting, the right options were not available to vote for. But we can change how we vote. We can make peaceful revolution possible with a more representative electoral system.
Antifascists have a long history of shooting Natzi.
Not every time at all. Franco, Salazar, and Pinochet were not defeated via guns.
And how! I love the irony tho.
I was thinking the same thing
How do you know their political leanings?
What's worse is that the MAGA crowd has Trump and some other figures intentionally playing conspiracies up and adding weight to them. The guys on the left don't even have the excuse of Biden and company bullshitting.
Braindead comment.
But why would you even think that people on the left are different from people on the right? This is why I'm not into politics myself. Because it all builds on some fake idea that one side is right about everything, even good people, while the other is wrong about everything, and probably are bad people as well.
In reality, both sides are very similar and have much more incommon with eachother than they have with the politicians they are trying to support.
Just quid pro quo.
That's blue maga for ya.
"blue maga" implies that there is a cult of personality around Biden like there is around Trump. That is simple not what anyone opposed to Trump believes in or rallies around.
Funny, because people used that term to describe the "vote blue no matter who" people well before Biden was ever a serious contender in the primaries...
You mean the primarys for this election that Biden is the sitting president? Or primarys four years ago when he was the guy pushed immediately to the top before the primarys?
Four years ago. This isn't a new term of phrase.
So... When he was the top runner before the primarys.
What are you trying to say?
BlUe MaGa!!1!
Based on what? Neither of you know who they support or which way they lean.