aaaand there we go. BINGO. Quoting this for posterity's sake. Pardon the pun, but you might be bang on with this.
I disagree. He had logic and reasoning. What was it based on? The truly crazy don't have reality sewn together tight enough to pull this off, remember? He might have held delusions on what the outcome would be, how he'd be viewed, or what would happen to him personally. Those delusions might have also been related to why he wanted to do this in the first place (ie, Q-anon style nonsense.). But I think we cannot wholly dismiss the shooter's motives as irrational and crazy until we learn what they are. If the shooter says "Trump's the king of the lizard people, and I don't want no dragon dick stirring my coffee", yup, ok, fair enough. Crazy in an illogical way. If the shooter says "Trump's a pedophile, and here's why I believed as much...." not so illogical, and certainly a narrative that isn't easily dismissed. I say "ease up on the crazy talk" because if the shooter's motive was "lizard King", then chances are someone at that rally or in the weeks building up to it hears that and goes...not so fast, where you going? That sort of mental illness gets attention, if nothing else, and it keeps him from slipping into that facility unnoticed, and it increases the likelihood that he literally can't pull this off. If he believed in Lizard King logic, then he might have thought he could kill Trump with a laser pointer, not a rifle, or that he needed to wear a tin foil hat to avoid mind control rays, and he gets stopped en route. Fuck, the things the paranoid schizophrenic may believe about a Presidential security detail are astoundingly absurd and the idea that someone acts on those absurd beliefs and pull this kind of shooting off is just unrealistic to me. This kid believed something very compelling and very powerful. He might not have been completely crazy to believe it. His grip on sanity was solid enough to pull this off, which shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
I understand that to an extent it looks like I'm debating myself here, but it's more about two things can be true. In this case, the illogical act meaning shooting someone. "Normal" people don't do that. "Normal logic" dictates that shooting someone is illegal, outside social and moral norms, and thus you just don't engage in it. Though I agree with you, that there are plenty of, I guess you could say twisted logic reasons, such as your example of killing pedos when the courts won't do it for them. It's an extension of what I saw when michael jackson died and everyone was happy because "one less pedo." The dude had his reasons for sure. You don't just wake up one morning and decide to do something like this.... I don't think? Regardless, I do find the discussions about this to be fascinating. Right or wrong or somewhere in between, it's interesting for sure to hear the different perspectives.
Also, to any weirdo-nuts out there who actually want him dead…. Can’t you just be patient? Assassination is one thing, but by letting him do him I’m sure that Cookie Crisp will give you the same result within five years from now—— if that.
For sure, his reason got twisted somewhere. I'm wagering that his logic and reasoning was twisted based on how he thought he'd be perceived, or what would happen after this shooting. I don't think anyone looks at either candidate and is like...'well, I can't fathom how anyone would wish them harm'. No, that much is easily understood. Also, the point at which the shooter's logic got twisted is different based on the side of the political spectrum you're on. The right is just more comfortable with guns, violence as a means to redress harm, and justifiable or understandable acts of violence in general. Hell, even the logic of carrying a gun to a political rally is different based on which side of the aisle you're on. The thing you're talking about is the failure of a deterrent, right? Ie, the shooter did this because he believed a deterrent would fail, or that his actions would be judged differently. "Normal" people don't shoot others for thousands of reasons, this kid did, and the points to why can't just all indicate "too crazy to contemplate", especially given the media and psychological bias.
I'm sort of expecting to find that the shooter dumped their inheritance into some tRump related scam, like the tRump Coin crap Barron was and then wasn't endorsing, and then were looking to get even when they realized that they were broke and it had to be someone else's fault.
You have been really really been projecting that pedophile story here a lot. Outside of your post, a handful of the typical pink hairs melting down on twitter about it I’ve seen, I’ve not heard peep one out of any msm or leftist news source about it. Testimony from a case dismissed years ago I’d still have to believe if there were any meat on the bone it’d have been dredged up and plastered non stop for the past 6-7 years it has been out there. You are really reading it into the assassination attempt? That’s wishlist fantasy land stuff coming from one of the most pragmatic voices on this board.
Just to clarify some of this stuff further: A screenshot of an affadavit from 2016 (that had already been released back in 2016) began making the rounds recently, and people online seemed to think it was part of the recent Epstein info dump.
If you believe the shooter held conservative beliefs, and given the status of a registered Republican, 2A swag and his classmates' attesting to those political leanings, I'm inclined to say he was one of Trump's base. Then what could make you turn on Trump? What would motivate you to take a shot at Trump, if you were part of the base? Any number of theories, from losing $ on shit coins peddled by him (there'd be a financial trail, and the likelihood that this person had any significant holdings at all is slim to none) are all worth considering. It's really difficult to understand what kind of information (and I'd argue more importantly, mis-information) the shooter was acting on or influenced by. For me, the only one that makes sense thus far, in a vacuum, is the pedophilia angle. I'm happy to be wrong here, but so far it's the only narrative that has all the ingredients for plausibility based on what we currently know. The Epstein files being newly released, thanks to a law signed by DeSantis, and the emphasis on Trump's sexual history as part of standard campaign smearing make it timely. It needs to be timely, because there wouldn't be much of a post history for something so recent. There wouldn't be tons and tons of posts/videos/etc. for the kid to have listened to, and certainly the counter-points to "Trump isn't a pedophile" aren't forthcoming right now. The oddities and testimony from that case being debated in various circles make the "meat on the bone" subjective to what you read/listen to. The media not running with it, due to Trump's litigious nature and the likelihood of a lawsuit, not to mention, the potential ire of a sitting US president, make a bit more sense as to why the "mean on the bone" is subjective and fodder for a lot of conspiracy theorists. At minimum, it was under-reported then, and there's been a reluctance to dig into the Epstein flight logs and information by the media now. Even the circumstances of his suicide are as questionable as it gets. So, the grounds for compelling yet unsubstantiated information are pretty ripe. He could have been motivated by any number of things from Russia to economics to J6 to whatever, but all of that has been going on for years now and the idea that there would be no indicator of what the shooter thought of these controversies, or that one of these scandals would compel him to this sort of action with no post history, no paper trail, and no indication as to why now puts it at a disadvantage. What else would this kid have learned that would inspire him to take that shot? What is the biggest thing that would coerce a member of Trump's base to commit this kind of act? Assuming some degree of rational calculus, what made him think he'd be right for shooting Trump? It'd have to be something recent, because if he had a long and storied history of some stance against Trump, yet shows up at a rally, the SS and FBI would have had SOMETHING. A profile. An indicator. A "hey probably nothing but just in case". At this stage, we're out of the first 48 pretty soon. The social media accounts this kid held are going to leak, and they have to contain some indication. The FBI and Secret Service can't hold back the tide much longer, and I can't imagine they didn't get the kid's phone unlocked by now. Acknowledging my own bias here: I believe Trump likely raped underage women at some point in his life, and successfully avoided prosecution for it. The evidence for this seems persuasive to me, and I believe it would be persuasive to others.
Trump definitely raped underage girls, but if I were a betting man, my money would be on some "Trump has been coopted by the Jews" conspiracy. It's more in line with what the super right wing influencers have been peddling of late.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised by that. Conversely, my tin-foil-hat buddy posted something saying Trump is chosen by God to eradicate the Jewish stranglehold on our government… …yeah.
Trump to announce VP pick today. Reports indicate that his running mate will be a mannequin made of quarter inch steel and covered with a kevlar vest
If Trump is truly Hitler incarnate as the left makes him out fear of a lawsuit seems like a ridiculously arbitrary reason not to push the single biggest story that could sink his entire public life from a whole industry that has worked with stated fervency to do just that. MSNBC has deep enough pockets and surely there would be any number of billionaire backers that would happily help fund a defense. Just don’t buy what you are selling here.
Shrug. He's already avoided prosecution for it, going back decades. Why push a dead narrative? The entire mainstream media has kept out of Epstein's shit, despite Trumps name being in it dozens of times. The E. Jean Carroll ruling means that he was a rapist de facto, if not outright and it got no traction. The question isn't what's true or not, the question is what would compel a 20 year old man to shoot Trump if he believed it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html Most comprehensive set of information I've seen yet
Integrity non-existent. Doesn't help the ticket much (he doesn't appeal to any of the demographics Trump is weak with). Pure base play.