It is relevant to history. You can either tell the Trump story that a bullet hit his ear, or you can say that he caught shrapnel.
The only way that would be relevant would be if there was a determination that the shooter was trying to do some kind of ad hoc false flag thing, as opposed to writing his own name into history. Everything we know at this point indicates that the latter is true, and the former is not.
Whether Trump’s injury was the result of a fired projectile or a piece of shrapnel, the injury was caused by an assassination attempt.
Whether Trump’s injury was the result of a fired projectile or a piece of shrapnel, the injury was caused by an assassination attempt.
We all know what really happened.
You know, it’s funny because the moment I saw the picture where you could see a little blood, I thought to myself “did anyone make sure he didn’t have a ketchup packet in his pockets?”
And sure enough, I’m never original…
Reddit 2.0… make fun of Biden… BANNED for LIFE! Make fun of Trump… LOL, He’s SO STUPID!!!
The truth is still the truth, even if there is no material difference in the implications.
It’s also relevant because one of Trump’s current campaign statements is that he “took a bullet for America” which may be another lie.
It would certainly neuter that (over)statement, but I honestly wouldn’t go as far as to call that one a “lie” without some indication that he knew that it wasn’t a bullet he was hit by. I don’t think that even a reasonable person wouldn’t come to the conclusion that “Shots were fired, at me, now my ear is bleeding all over my face” as “I was hit by a bullet.”
I disagree.
The sheer number of lies he tells, what difference is one more? Especially an inconsequential one?
We’re all fairly sure it wasn’t the bullet, but glass, or shrapnel or whatever, but that buries the lede.
The point here is whether it was an assassination attempt or a false flag attempt (personally I think assassination) and that trumps own hateful rhetoric has created such a ridiculous scenario where this shit happens.
except if the shooter was just shooting into the crowd and hit like a railing or something then it wasn’t an “assassination attempt” it was a mass shooting.
Frankly, it could be a mass-shooting anyway, simply one that had a high-profile figure as one of the targets. Apparently he had explosives in his car and some sort of remote detonation mechanism, so it was clearly about more than just Trump alone.
Not really. I’ll give you a “for instance”. Few people know this story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Arutyunian.
In this case, although in danger, Trump was being shot at by someone who couldn’t shoot.
The grenade landed 18.6 metres (61 ft) from the podium
Bush was thrown at by someone who couldn’t throw
The grenade failed to detonate. Although original reports indicated that the grenade was not live, it was later revealed that it was. After Arutyunian pulled the pin and threw the grenade, it hit a girl, cushioning its impact. The red handkerchief remained wrapped around the grenade, and it prevented the striker lever from releasing.
No mention of it being “a training grenade [which] could not fire.” Source?
I think there’s essentially no limit to what the shooter’s motives could be. What was the Las Vegas shooter’s motive? What was the motive at Columbine? There’s a million possibilities. Narcissism, delusions, non-specific rage.
Sure, there’s one conclusion that seems simplest, which is that he shot at Trump but missed. And if he grazed Trump’s ear, that’s almost certainly true. But what if it comes out that the FBI finds that the closest shot was over 10 feet away from Trump? If that happens, I think we’d be fools to continue to assume it was an assassination attempt.
The smartest thing anyone could say at this point is “I don’t know”.
