The Trump downfall thread

[Astro What]

I wonder if someone put him up to it and it's therefore terribly convenient that he's dead. I have no evidence, just a suspicion given what's been reported about him.

And this is the type of conspiracy thinking that I reference above.
Why did someone have to "put him up to it"? Is it not entirely feasible that as a bullied teen-ager, he decided to lash out and make a name for himself on his own? We have seen that time and time and time again already. Just because it targeted Trump doesn't make it any different than if he targeted a school, a mall, or any other area that people are at.
Of course, you have those conspiracy driven that thinks shootings like Columbine and such were driven by a hidden group of people.

 

[Tiffany]

It should have been done as well as all medical "waste" (bandages, cleaning materials, etc) should have been preserved... but I seriously doubt that the Secret Service protective agents did that, as investigations are not a primary duty of theirs and many of them cold not investigate themselves out of a paper sack from my few interactions with them. Now, the other departments in the SS have better investigatory skills, but protective agents are not really that worried about that.
Then you have the issue with Trump probably trying to run the show and getting into it trying to be Inspector Gadget.


Darwinism in action. If you don't have a way to project force back at an attacker, all the idiots think now is "can I get that special shot that will give me my 5 minutes of fame", not thinking (maybe until later) about how stupid that was.

That's really disappointing to hear that there is not a forensic/investigative layer in between the SS protective agents and the overall SS management. There should be. It's a no brainer and it wouldn't have to even be a big department just a forensic liaison in between that would gather, seal and document very specific forensic bio-data for the FBI forensic department to evaluate. Of course, on the flip side, if there was such a thing, then the conspiracy realm would have a hard time driving their theories.

Social media has gravely created these people looking for their instant fame on line

What's the alternative A stampede? That will result in mass panic, injuries by both fall and crush damage, and possibly death.

No, of course not, however, the lack of reaction/instinct of a "drop and cover" was what surprised me. I do think most people are not experienced enough with the sound of gun shots, which may be part of the dilemma in their reaction. Discerning the difference between a gun shot and a fire cracker takes experience.

*I started this post early this morning and there are other previous posts and new great posts, but I'll post this for now and catch up when I can.

 

[Astro What]

That's really disappointing to hear that there is not a forensic/investigative layer in between the SS protective agents and the overall SS management.

There is.. it is the FBI. The Secret Service is mainly charged with protecting political figures and investigating financial crimes (something they are very good at). The FBI is the overall investigative agency responsible for investigations.
You would ASS-u-me that the protective agents have been trained in evidence retention, but that does not mean that is going to be what they are concerned with at a time like that. Their primary job is protection.

Discerning the difference between a gun shot and a fire cracker takes experience.

And there is not always a large difference. Both use a form of gunpowder for the charge to make the "bang". What you usually hear with a firearm is a sonic "crack" that goes along with the projectile exiting. One of the best known examples of this type of noise is listening to a 30.06 round go off. From a distance you hear a bang-crack usually.

 

[Retro]

Hehehehe... what do you think a bullet fragment is? It is also shrapnel!
The issue is that saying shrapnel makes it seem less dangerous (to the layman) that what it was. Shrapnel, depending on the size and velocity, can be as deadly as the round.
But it sounds better for Trump to say he got hit by a bullet. It's all optics.

I did wonder why they phrased it like that. I think they're simply saying that nothing hit Trump other than the bullet, either intact or broken up. Thing is, if the bullet was broken up, it must have hit something first, right? I highly doubt that they're trying to do Trump favours here though.

And this is the type of conspiracy thinking that I reference above.
Why did someone have to "put him up to it"? Is it not entirely feasible that as a bullied teen-ager, he decided to lash out and make a name for himself on his own? We have seen that time and time and time again already. Just because it targeted Trump doesn't make it any different than if he targeted a school, a mall, or any other area that people are at.
Of course, you have those conspiracy driven that thinks shootings like Columbine and such were driven by a hidden group of people.

I've been pretty clear in explaining my reasoning here. It's just a suspicion, a hunch of a remote possibility perhaps, based on what I've seen reported, that's all.

This is the kind of hunch that police and detectives kick off investigations all the time, so I don't see what you don't understand. If I'd stated that as some sort of fact, then it would be conspiracy theory. See the difference?

 

[Astro What]

This is the kind of hunch that police and detectives kick off investigations all the time, so I don't see what you don't understand. If I'd stated that as some sort of fact, then it would be conspiracy theory. See the difference?

There is no difference... it's just phraseology that gives an "out", but has a tendency to be picked up by others and "enhanced".
We are all guilty of it at some time or another (even I). It is the inference that is added... hey, I have no evidence, but couldn't it have been this or that or something else is what takes it into the conspiracy realm.

A statement like "We have no evidence that the actor was a part of a group, but we also have no evidence that they were not" is more concise than "Nobody said he was part of a group, but he may have been" give entirely different meanings to statements. One is reciting fact, one adds a personal opinion into the statement. It opens the door to others expanding on the statement.
And it's those "hey, I wonder" or "hey, I heard" type comments that start a lot of the conspiracy theories down that road to being spread.

 

[Retro]

Oh, there's a difference alright as I explained. If others decide to create their own conspiracies out of my hunch, my musing, then that's on them, not me. In other words, anything one says can be twisted by someone else, no matter how absurd. For example:

Me: 2 + 2 = 4
Conspiracy theorist: No it isn't! It's actually 5. You've been brainwashed by the Illuminati, think outside the box, man!


See what I mean? Totally batshit crazy, but such a simple, obvious and true statement as 2 + 2 = 4 can still be twisted by the unhinged into some irrational conspiracy theory. A great real life example are flat earthers. I mean, come on!

I think you'll like this thead that I created some time ago, especially the awesome photographs:

Earth's curvature: Lake Pontchartrain Causeway (flat earthers look away now)

I like bridges and I especially like the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana, USA. Such a great feat of engineering and the first bit was actually built in the 1950s. The lake it crosses - in a dead straight line - is so big, that the far shore, at around 23.875 miles, is actually over the...

nerdzone.uk

 

[Astro What]

Me: 2 + 2 = 4
Conspiracy theorist: No it isn't! It's actually 5. You've been brainwashed by the Illuminati, think outside the box, man!

Actually it is
Me: 2+2=4?
When you put a personal opinion after it, you are basically introducing a question. And those "questions" can become the gateway into the conspiracy theories.
It is like saying "We landed on the moon. But technology i have seen allows us to fake that".

But that also gets back to my report writing process as an LEO. You did NOT introduce your personal opinions into something related to fact.

 

[Retro]

No, you've changed the meaning of my example you dummy!

 

[Astro What]

No, you've changed the meaning of my example you dummy!

Not really... when you introduce a personal opinion on the same line as a fact, you introduce questioning to that fact. Now, if you had done something like introducing your opinion in a new paragraph, that puts a different weight on the it. When you put it part & parcel with the fact, you question the fact. Report Writing 101.

 

[Retro]

No, you're still not getting it and I know what you're like when you don't let go, so I'm not gonna go round in circles with you over a simple point that I've explained really clearly now.

But seriously, have a look at that Lake Pontchartrain thread I linked to. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

 

[Astro What]

No, you're still not getting it and I know what you're like when you don't let go, so I'm not gonna go round in circles with you over a simple point that I've explained really clearly now.

Well, it is rather hard when one says "but no, i don't mean to introduce questions" and yet they do on the very same line!

When it comes to flat Earthers.. I don't even go there as that is a losing battle. To bastardize a revered SciFi saying ' The stupidity is strong with this one" when dealing with them.

 

[Retro]

When it comes to flat Earthers.. I don't even go there as that is a losing battle. To bastardize a revered SciFi saying ' The stupidity is strong with this one" when dealing with them.

I know what you mean, but I mean that I think you'll appreciate what I've written there and those awesome pictures showing the earth's curvature over that lake. Alas, there's no mad flat earthers on NZ, only Trump supporters, sigh.

 

[Astro What]

You would be surprised where the flat-earthers can be found.
And there is WAY too much photographic factual evidence that is present to prove that the earth isn't flat... but it's like dealing with a MAGA cult member. You can show them the evidence, but they won't believe it.

 

[Retro]

None have 'fessed up here though, that I know for sure lol.

And there is WAY too much photographic factual evidence that is present to prove that the earth isn't flat... but it's like dealing with a MAGA cult member. You can show them the evidence, but they won't believe it.

I know, mindnumbing, isn't it?

 

[Retro]

The threat against democracy from Trump couldn't be more real than his blatant admission while at a rally and telling people that they'll have to vote this time, but then never again because it will be "fixed". Say, whut?! If this happens it will literally turn America into a dictatorship overnight and destroy the Constitution, a Very Bad Thing for anyone who's unsure.

The clip is right at the start of the video, no waiting. Also, check out the Trump ad about a minute in where he literally advertises Trump forever. Seriously, this isn't a joke, he's really done it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

@Mars you'll want to see this.

@Geffers as an avid Trump supporter does this promise from Trump worry you at all, or are you perfectly happy with it?

 

[live627]

This video is missing context, just like every report on this Ive seen. Trump was clearly saying to Christians that the problems would be fixed by him and they won't have to bother voting again in 4 years. Meaning there will be voting but Christians , whom he said don't vote, won't have to bother.

I personally feel that he's overly confident and that in four years we'll be voting on largely the same issues.

 

[Retro]

Nah, there's no "missing context", he literally means a dictatorship, there's no other way to spin it. How can one not have to vote again in 4 years? It would just let the other side in, unless he's fixed it so one can't vote anymore, right? He's being really blatant now and still the faithful can't see it and continue to make excuses for him. A cult indeed.

---

Everyone: here's a news article covering the same news as in that Brian Tyler Cohen video, above:

Democrats have expressed outrage after Donald Trump told a group of Christian supporters on Friday that if he wins the presidency in November, they would never need to vote again.

“Christians, get out and vote, just this time,” the former president and current presidential nominee told the crowd at at Turning Point Action’s Believers’ Summit on Friday. “You won’t have to do it any more. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians.”

“You got to get out and vote,” Trump continued. “In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign told the Washington Post that Trump “was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American, as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt”.

‘Terrifying’: Democrats react to Trump saying people won’t have to vote again

Former president told Christian supporters on Friday ‘it’ll be fixed’ in four years if he wins 2024 election

www.theguardian.com

 

[Astro What]

How can one not have to vote again in 4 years? It would just let the other side in, unless he's fixed it so one can't vote anymore, right?

In his bombastic way he's saying that once they vote for him, the fix is in and he will get it set up so "bigly perfect" for the Christians that they would never have to vote again as they would be in paradise. But he's saying they have to get him in there first.

 

[Retro]

But, if the Dems get in after that, then it's all undone, isn't it? Also, check out the Trump promo video in the BTC video above where he literally says Trump forever.

I can't see any other way to interpret this, no matter how hard I squint.

 

[Retro]

Well, this is an interesting turn. Will be interesting to see how Trump spins this.

Donald Trump has agreed to be interviewed by the FBI as part of its investigation into the assassination attempt at his rally in Pennsylvania earlier this month.

In a call with reporters on Monday, the FBI did not give a date for the interview, but said it would be "a standard victim interview we do for any other victim of crime".

"We want to get his perspective on what he observed," FBI Special Agent Kevin Rojek said.

FBI to interview Donald Trump as Butler shooting probe continues

New messages suggest the 20-year-old gunman was on the radar of law enforcement earlier than thought.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Astro What]

Honestly... that should have been done at the very beginning.

 

[Retro]

Here's a video where Trump explains that what he meant was that christians and gun owners specifically will only have to vote once and then never again, because they only ever vote in low numbers according to him and the country will be "fixed up", after that.

I don't buy that, do you? Firstly, how can you "fix" a country, especially one as large as America in just 4 years? Secondly, an incoming Democratic government can just unravel all those supposed "fixes", requiring the christians and gun owners to vote again. Watch the video and see what you think.

Trump Explains Why He Told Crowd They Won’t Have To Vote, And Makes It Sound Worse

The former president also expanded on his plans to dodge the next debate: “Everybody knows who I am.”

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[Astro What]

I don't buy that, do you? Firstly, how can you "fix" a country, especially one as large as America in just 4 years? Secondly, an incoming Democratic government can just unravel all those supposed "fixes", requiring the christians and gun owners to vote again. Watch the video and see what you think.

When the "fixes" are done by executive order, most (not all) are easy to reverse by the next administration.
His "out" will be... well, I fixed it, they screwed it up for you. The secret sauce is if he worked with Congress to get it passed, it's MUCH harder to reverse. But he knows that Congress won't play ball with a lot of what he wants to do so he's left with the only alternative, which is ruling by executive order.

 

[Astro What]

BTC hits the nail on the head regularly... and this is from a long time Republican.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tiffany]

Executive orders are abused by both parties.