Trump Shooting

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't disagree with you, Jon, but putting it more simply, if Trump is right to believe that the majority of people in America are uneducated enough to fall for whatever crap he claims to stand for, then he will have the majority eating out of his hand.

I'm not sure if Trump ever claimed to represent a majority, or anyone claiming that a majority followed him.
It's pretty well accepted that anything over 30% is significant enough to be persuasive. Polls have suggested his following was considerably higher in subsequent years.
Trump is dangerous, my concern is more about what damage he can do to Canada, and what damage he can do to Europe by withdrawing from NATO. I see he doesn't like Starmer, so that doesn't bode well for the UK.
You can tell I'm assuming he will win the election......

At the risk of being called sexist, I would like to think that the women remaining in his fan club over the coming months will be vastly outnumbered by the men.

Why any woman will justify the removal of their human rights - the right to choose - just boggles the mind.

Over a century ago southern men fought a war over the right to choose, today, descendants of those same men have removed a woman's right to choose.
And, many women have agreed to it.

[Lewis C]

At the risk of being called sexist, I would like to think that the women remaining in his fan club over the coming months will be vastly outnumbered by the men.

I agree. Trump has always appealed more to men than to women.

[caz]

I'm not sure if Trump ever claimed to represent a majority, or anyone claiming that a majority followed him.

Glad to hear it, Jon. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Maybe he knows he has a chance if he appeals to all the uneducated knuckle-draggers, but a cat in hell's chance of appealing to anyone with more than ten brain cells, be they male or female.

Trump is dangerous, my concern is more about what damage he can do to Canada, and what damage he can do to Europe by withdrawing from NATO. I see he doesn't like Starmer, so that doesn't bode well for the UK.
You can tell I'm assuming he will win the election......

Trump is dangerous if he wins due to the votes of misguided people.

Trump is dangerous if he loses, because the most misguided and dangerous people out there will claim he did win. And they probably all own firearms.

God bless America?

God help America - and all those who are next in line.

[Svensson]

what really irks me is that Europe have basically squandered the last 4 years. Instead, we should have used that time to setup a military cooperative without the US, ready to go. Basically Farage's Euroepan Army is what we need. Let's face it, we will still vastly outspend Russia on our own we have military production capabilities in Airbus, Rheinmetall, MBDA, BAE, Bofors and whatever the French have. There are even 500 nukes if needed. What else is needed? The political will to and acceptance that the US is now inhabiting thier own rabbit-hole. Another thing that might need to be revisited is for countries like Germany, Italy, Spain etc. to re-asses the non-proliferation treaty. The US like to say "we are protecting you with our nukes" but they like to leave our that part that much of Europe was arm-twisted into signing the non-proliferation treaty.

[GBinOz]

Maybe he knows he has a chance if he appeals to all the uneducated knuckle-draggers, but a cat in hell's chance of appealing to anyone with more than ten brain cells, be they male or female.

Trump is dangerous if he wins due to the votes of misguided people.

Trump is dangerous if he loses, because the most misguided and dangerous people out there will claim he did win. And they probably all own firearms.

Don't water it down Caz, give it to us straight. Of course, I have a 50 year record of firearms ownership, so I might be considered for nomination to a villainous role.

We seem to have strayed a little off topic to assessing the character of Trump and his chances of re-election. In an attempt to get back on topic I'll offer this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHjdLQ2s_AM&ab_channel=OccupyDemocrats

Whatever witnesses or the press may contend, ballistics (a mathematical based discipline) will tell the truth. The shooter was using a basic cheap AR15 with a zero magnification red dot holographic sight. If this rifle were secured to a vicelike mount and fired at a target around 135 yards distant, the expected group would measure around 3 inches. Add to that the errors in holding on target by the shooter and you have a scenario that no one would agree to in a staged event. However, the reports by the four police officers being hit by shrapnel show that there was shrapnel in the vicinity of Trump at the time, despite claims that the teleprompters were uninjured.

At this time I am unconvinced that even Trump would be stupid enough to countenance a staging involving live ammunition deployed by an acknowledged poor shot with an inferior rifle. Looking at the current knowledge of the ballistic lines of the shots fired, I am unconvinced that there were any additional shooters involved. I am, at this time, also unconvinced that Trump was hit with anything other that the spray of shrapnel that also hit the four police officers in his vicinity.

Finally, I wonder what, or whom, could have persuaded this young man to have embarked on a course that could only result in his death at the hands of a sniper, or life imprisonment.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Trump:
"In four years, you don't have to vote again."

https://youtu.be/yWD9gBlwC8c

Couldn't be much clearer, he intends to be the first Dictator of the U.S.A.

[Svensson]

Wicker, let me super clear on this:

I 100% agree with you.

[Wickerman]

You may be happy to hear Harris is slightly ahead of Trump in a number of swing states - according to Fox News (not the most reliable of sources).

[Svensson]

If Harris wins in November, Trump will just instigate another bloody uprising. Buckle up and brace for impact everyone...

[Svensson]

Trump:
"In four years, you don't have to vote again."

https://youtu.be/yWD9gBlwC8c

Couldn't be much clearer, he intends to be the first Dictator of the U.S.A.

Actually, he just "clarified" on Fox that he meant that Christians never vote (what?) and also gun-wners never vote (stat pull out of backside). And that if Christians vote for him just now, then the country will be fixed in 4 years and they can go back to "not-voting".

Fruitcake.

Complete logical incapacity.

cheers.

[Geddy2112]

Did Trump not mean they did not have to vote for him again in fours years as he won't be able to run for another term?

[Pcdunn]

Has it been verified that this does indeed show one of the bullets? Could be a visual artefact of some sort, or maybe someone doctored it in. But if this shows the bullet, then it certainly can't have been the bullet what clipped his ear.

A lot of people dispute that Trump, despite the story he and at least one of his sons tell, was grazed by a bullet. Part of the reason is that some security people on the stage received minor wounds described as being from small fragments of a teleprompter. Was a shard of glass or plastic responsible for scratching the top of his ear? From the very day of the shooting, people were shouting "staged" and "fake" on social media. I suspected Trump's own campaigin was behind this.

We don't actually know what kind of a wound Trump received, because while we saw blood covering the ear and streaking across his face, this is explained by likely blood thinners he takes for a heart condition diagnosed in 2018. His ear seemed quite intact in later photos. Then during the Republican National Convention, the candidate covered up the entire ear with a fairly thick white bandage, only to appear on the last day *without* the bandage and no sign of anything, but a very small scratch at the top of the ear lobe.

The bullet seen behind Trump is likely another one, headed to kill the retired fireman as he shielded his wife and daughter, or perhaps injure one of the two other spectators who were shot.

I'm furious that Trump didn't bother to call the fireman's widow, *but* got a faked fireman's turnout coat and helmet and used them as props at his convention to stir up the crowd. The poor man's name was misspelled on the coat's back, sure sign of a fake.

Jokes about the guy missing are fine with me right now.

[Pcdunn]

Did Trump not mean they did not have to vote for him again in fours years as he won't be able to run for another term?

No, not when taken with his comment about "being a dictator on day one", and that there will be no more voting after this year because "by 2028 it'll be all fixed." Also, not when taken with the insididious "Project 2025" about dismantling the Federal government and installing Trump loyalists into top positions.

We think the GOP plans to "steal the election" as they tried in 2020, but with a friendlier Supreme Court now.

[Lewis C]

Actually, he just "clarified" on Fox that he meant that Christians never vote (what?) and also gun-wners never vote (stat pull out of backside). And that if Christians vote for him just now, then the country will be fixed in 4 years and they can go back to "not-voting".

Fruitcake.

Complete logical incapacity.

cheers.

Yes, I would think that if anything, evangelicals and gun owners vote in higher percentages than the population as a whole. I say evangelicals because I think that's what Trump really means. Christians who aren't evangelical aren't necessarily Trump supporters.

Even if I thought a presidential candidate could "fix everything" if elected, that wouldn't mean that it makes no difference who follows him in the White House. The next president could think that reversing some of what the previous president did would constitute "fixing" things.

[Lewis C]

No, not when taken with his comment about "being a dictator on day one", and that there will be no more voting after this year because "by 2028 it'll be all fixed." Also, not when taken with the insididious "Project 2025" about dismantling the Federal government and installing Trump loyalists into top positions.

We think the GOP plans to "steal the election" as they tried in 2020, but with a friendlier Supreme Court now.

Is the Supreme Court any friendlier to Trump's interests now than it was in Jan 2021? The only difference in its membership between now and then is that Biden has made an appointment. I think the most important difference between now and then is that now, Trump can't use the Office of the President to do what he intends.