Trump Assassination Attempt

[We Never Know]

Did you see Melania at the Democratic convention?

She's not near as good as this woman who does Kamala. Some of her videos crack me up.

 

[Pogo]

Did you see Melania at the Democratic convention?

Mel Ditka.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you see Melania at the Democratic convention?

Yes, I already saw that one and I died laughing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A conspiracy theory, eh.
What evidence do you have for it?

The attempt to assassinate DJT!

 

[Pogo]

She's not near as good as this woman who does Kamala. Some of her videos crack me up.

I've seen worse long island 70's imitations, but not bad with a more modern twist

 

[Pogo]

The attempt to assassinate DJT!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The attempt to assassinate DJT!

How is that "evidence"? Just like in the sciences to even have evidence you first need to have an idea that explains the current observations. Your explanation is so vague as to be worthless. It needs to be ore precise. Evidence would be observations that support it or refute it. So what exactly are you trying to explain? What observations would support it? What observations would refute it? If nothing can refute it then you only have an ad hoc explanation at best. Those are of no value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know. Conspiracy theorists do not understand the concept of evidence. They can only make ad hoc arguments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How is that "evidence"? Just like in the sciences to even have evidence you first need to have an idea that explains the current observations. Your explanation is so vague as to be worthless. It needs to be ore precise. Evidence would be observations that support it or refute it. So what exactly are you trying to explain? What observations would support it? What observations would refute it? If nothing can refute it then you only have an ad hoc explanation at best. Those are of no value.

Oh, it never occurred to me that the would be assassin's motive was not political, are you for real?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is no 'mafia' running any of those departments now except possibly the House (and you might have added the Supreme Court) because Biden is a decent man who appoints qualified people with clean records. The odd corrupt person might be hired anyway, or someone turn corrupt once seated, but these people are not working together, and if discovered would be dealt with.

But when Trump was president, he did corrupt those agencies as best he could to serve his needs including even the post office. That was by design. His people were chosen because they were already corrupt. As a result of being selected for their corruption, they were present in much greater number, and they knew about one another and coordinated activities.

They weren't all in government. Bannon, Manafort, Stone, and Giuliani come to mind quickly. The number of people connected to Trump who have been indicted, convicted, and or incarcerated is staggering.

Trump corrupted the Supreme Court as well.

The current House wasn't his doing directly, but that ****-show is a MAGA production via Trump that is still his puppet for launching investigations (Biden impeachment) and scuttling legislation (bipartisan border bill).

That's what organized corruption looks like compared to the odd bad apple.

Yes, one can apply the term swamp to any morass he doesn't like such as red tape and bureaucracy, but that Trumpian kind of organized crime in and around government most deserves the term swamp - more than the inertia and inefficiency inherent in big government.

That term never got the scrutiny it deserves. Some might say that America was never great despite its size, wealth, and might because of it moral failings, and many more would say that it's great now, in fact, the greatest country in the world.

One might ask Trump when America was great and when and for what reason it's no longer great. The left understands that as a dog whistle for making America great again for white, male Christians, who are feeling threatened by egalitarianism.

Have you forgotten that he's up for sentencing on 34 felonies very soon and unless he can take the White House and corrupt the DOJ again, he's looking at two indictments from Jack Smith, and one from Fani Willis that is out of federal control. Assuming a Harris victory, Trump's future is courtrooms and prison.

And that's another illustration of the difference between the relative lack of corruption (no mafia) under Garland and corruption by design under Trump. Remember Sessions as AG? Like Pence, he wouldn't break the law for Trump, and so he was removed and eventually replaced by Barr. That's how Trump corrupted the DOJ by design. Those who wouldn't commit crimes for him had to go.

What does that word mean to you?

Trump is a pathological liar. He is a career conman and deadbeat regarding his bills. He's been accused and found liable for sexual predation. He paid hush money to a porn star and then committed 34 felonies trying to cover it up. He is a serial adulterer. He attempted to overthrow a demonstrably fair election and incited an insurrection. He stole government secrets and tried to hide them from the law but not from his friends.

I imagine you see none of that.

This has already been investigated and decided. Legal claims failed. Elections were audited and ballots recounted. There was only a little voting fraud, and it was mostly committed by Republicans, although the fake electors schemes were major election frauds with little chance of succeeding as was Trump's now infamous phone call to Georgia for more votes. Each of those has resulted in multiple indictments and pleas already. And Trump trying to corrupt Pence re not certifying the election results. That's what election fraud looks like. And organized crime, mafia, swamp - they're all apt.

That was your response to, "I am pretty sure that Trump will be convicted if she wins. He will then probably spend the rest of his life in jail."

You're not paying attention to the news. You need mainstream news sources. It seems that you've been sheltered from much about Trump. Here's your chance to get some news that whatever you're looking at now isn't discussing. All one needs do to know these things is watch network nightly news (NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS):

There are currently three major felony level cases against Trump pending.

Jack Smith filed two of them from the DOJ, and they involve election crimes and classified documents crimes. They have been delayed by a controversial Supreme Court ruling.

And there is a state level indictment from Georgia for attempted election fraud that has been sidetracked in part due to personal indiscretions on the part of Fulton County's DA Willis.

And there are several states (AZ, NV, MI) looking at indicting Trump for the fake electors he sent to their states.

But of course there is a swamp conspiracy against Trump, the assassination attempt merely indicates they are fearful that he will win despite all their efforts.

 

[Revoltingest]

The attempt to assassinate DJT!

Then it was a pretty **** poor conspiracy.
Why use an untrained kid instead of a
skilled assassin.

I was wondering if the censor would
allow "assassin".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then it was a pretty **** poor conspiracy.
Why use an untrained kid instead of a
skilled assassin.

I was wondering if the censor would
allow "assassin".

I'd say missing DJT's head by an inch or so over 150 yards as he turned his head, is a skilled would-be assassin, but that's just me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say missing DJT's head by an inch or so over 150 yards as he turned his head, is a skilled would-be assassin, but that's just me.

Are you saying that the plan was to have an untrained
kid shoot a moving target in the ear at that distance?
How could that go wrong, eh.
In my prime, I was that good with a target rifle. But the
risk of failure would be about 50/50. An ear is a very
small target for a rifle that isn't match grade. The typical
AR isn't all that accurate. And outdoors there's wind to
deflect what was likely the light 5.56 caliber bullet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you saying that the plan was to have an untrained
kid shoot a moving target in the ear at that distance?
How could that go wrong, eh.
In my prime, I was that good with a target rifle. But the
risk of failure would be about 50/50. An ear is a very
small target for a rifle that isn't match grade. And
outdoors there's wind to deflect what was likely a
5.56 caliber bullet.

Where is your proof that he was not trained?

 

[Revoltingest]

Where is your proof that he was not trained?

His being a doofus kid with no record of competitive shooting.
Are you claiming that he was highly trained?
And all those missed shots were intentional?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, it never occurred to me that the would be assassin's motive was not political.

So what? A lone kook tried to affect a political race. That is the main reason that we need the Secret Service to protect the President. That an unfortunately normal thing happened is not evidence of conspiracy.

Have you ever considered trying to reason rationally? It is not as much fun, but earns you a lot more respect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is your proof that he was not trained?

This is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Early on in the reports there was a quote by a member of the school's rifle team that the tried out but failed. It may have disappeared but I will see if I can find it. But even if I cannot find it that is no evidence for you. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

EDIT: My memory was right. This is a right wing source. It is not left wing at all and it says that he was rejected from his high school shooting team for being a very bad shot:

"“He tried out … and was such a comically bad shot, he was unable to make the team and left after the first day,” Murphy said."

Would-be Trump assassin tried to join high school shooting club, was rejected for being ‘comically bad’ shot

The Pennsylvania man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump during a rally on Saturday tried out for his high school’s rifle team, but he was rejected for being a “terrible&#822…

nypost.com

 

[Pogo]

I'd say missing DJT's head by an inch or so over 150 yards as he turned his head, is a skilled would-be assassin, but that's just me.

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone ignores differences in data, emphasizes similarities, and makes a false conclusion. The fallacy is often described using the metaphor of a gunman shooting at a barn, then drawing a target around the bullet holes to make it look like he hit the target.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone ignores differences in data, emphasizes similarities, and makes a false conclusion. The fallacy is often described using the metaphor of a gunman shooting at a barn, then drawing a target around the bullet holes to make it look like he hit the target.

I edited my post above after finding the article that I remember. He was a member of a shooting club according to a BBC article. But being a member of a club says nothing about one's proficiency. But it does appear that the tried to get on the school team and failed. That explains why he missed a shot that a skilled shooter would have made with ease.

I used to hunt and I remember both the best shot that I made and the worst. The worst shot that I ever made was after I got a rifle with a scope. The scope made it too up close and personal for me and I flinched a bit on a shot and only wounded my target. I then had to track it down and finish it off. That was not fun. Ideally one shot is what you need. Once an animal takes off it is going to be too late. He could have easily have flinched at the last second. I know that I could not kill a person the same way that I could shoot an animal. And even shooting an animal was too much for me at times.

 

[Pogo]

I edited my post above after finding the article that I remember. He was a member of a shooting club according to a BBC article. But being a member of a club says nothing about one's proficiency. But it does appear that the tried to get on the school team and failed. That explains why he missed a shot that a skilled shooter would have made with ease.

I used to hunt and I remember both the best shot that I made and the worst. The worst shot that I ever made was after I got a rifle with a scope. The scope made it too up close and personal for me and I flinched a bit on a shot and only wounded my target. I then had to track it down and finish it off. That was not fun. Ideally one shot is what you need. Once an animal takes off it is going to be too late. He could have easily have flinched at the last second. I know that I could not kill a person the same way that I could shoot an animal. And even shooting an animal was too much for me at times.

Yes it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory, I've never been a hunter, but also never understood automatics, my father and others when I took hunter safety besides talking safety advocated not shooting unless you were confident and if you even needed a second shot, you needed to learn to shoot better. One near miss doesn't even rise to the level of pathetic.