Giddierone
Senior Member.
The Trump assassination attempt is a monumental event in world history, and there's still so much we don't know about it.
I would assume that many people here went on a similar journey as I did. First hearing about it with the prior bias of knowing that Trump is a notorious liar, is in legal and financial jeopardy, and has incredible political theatre instincts, my initial impression at seeing first images was to disbelieve them. The images are so amazing that they just had to be fake. But, with the images of the dead shooter and others shot, that quickly turned to realisation that it was a real event, an event with an astronomically improbable stroke of luck for Trump, and simultaneous horrific bad luck for Corey Comperatore who must have been just out of the gaze of the American flag angel flying above them.
I think this event has scrambled the minds of otherwise (mostly) coherent commentators across the political spectrum. Believing it was "staged" requires Alex Jones-levels of conspiracy think - requiring crisis actors, props choreography, and witness protection programs - ad infinitum. Yet believing it was all real brings up almost the same degree of incredulity (e.g. see Joe Rogan claiming it's proof we live in a simulation and that some one/thing is messing with us).
With all this in mind I think compiling some of the political commentary about it might be of value. So I hope people will add to this thread with commentaries they've read and a short summary of the perspective they contain.
Two examples, one from the left and one from the right, which immediately come to mind are:
This brief article simply assumes the shooter was driven to try and kill Trump by "the media" and the Democrats, who have contaminated minds causing "Trump derangement syndrome". It's filled with redmeat phrasing and was written before anything was really known for certain about the shooter or his motives. It can't account for the subsequent reporting that the shooter seemed intent on being a chaos agent and killing any major target regardless of their politics, and seems hasty and opportunistic in the extreme.
The second is Keith Olberman's insistence on pursuing a "lie" that Trump was hit by a bullet.
Source: https://x.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1814124269535637858
Personally I just can't follow the reasoning here from this left-leaning firebrand. Even if it's true that Trump was actually hit by shrapnel, or bitten by a giant mosquito at that precise moment, the fact that a man in line with him and the shooter was fatally shot in the head removes all doubt that the assassination attempt was real and scary. Really, who cares, and what difference does it make if we don't have a doctor's report?
I would assume that many people here went on a similar journey as I did. First hearing about it with the prior bias of knowing that Trump is a notorious liar, is in legal and financial jeopardy, and has incredible political theatre instincts, my initial impression at seeing first images was to disbelieve them. The images are so amazing that they just had to be fake. But, with the images of the dead shooter and others shot, that quickly turned to realisation that it was a real event, an event with an astronomically improbable stroke of luck for Trump, and simultaneous horrific bad luck for Corey Comperatore who must have been just out of the gaze of the American flag angel flying above them.
I think this event has scrambled the minds of otherwise (mostly) coherent commentators across the political spectrum. Believing it was "staged" requires Alex Jones-levels of conspiracy think - requiring crisis actors, props choreography, and witness protection programs - ad infinitum. Yet believing it was all real brings up almost the same degree of incredulity (e.g. see Joe Rogan claiming it's proof we live in a simulation and that some one/thing is messing with us).
With all this in mind I think compiling some of the political commentary about it might be of value. So I hope people will add to this thread with commentaries they've read and a short summary of the perspective they contain.
Two examples, one from the left and one from the right, which immediately come to mind are:
1). Trump Derangement Syndrome Draws Blood - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/trump-derangement-syndrome-drawsThis brief article simply assumes the shooter was driven to try and kill Trump by "the media" and the Democrats, who have contaminated minds causing "Trump derangement syndrome". It's filled with redmeat phrasing and was written before anything was really known for certain about the shooter or his motives. It can't account for the subsequent reporting that the shooter seemed intent on being a chaos agent and killing any major target regardless of their politics, and seems hasty and opportunistic in the extreme.
The second is Keith Olberman's insistence on pursuing a "lie" that Trump was hit by a bullet.
2). WHY IS TRUMP LYING ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT? - Keith Olbermann
Source: https://x.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1814124269535637858
Personally I just can't follow the reasoning here from this left-leaning firebrand. Even if it's true that Trump was actually hit by shrapnel, or bitten by a giant mosquito at that precise moment, the fact that a man in line with him and the shooter was fatally shot in the head removes all doubt that the assassination attempt was real and scary. Really, who cares, and what difference does it make if we don't have a doctor's report?
