Donald Trump has told a rally in Michigan that he “took a bullet for democracy” when an attempt was made on his life last week.
Attended by thousands, it was Trump’s first rally with new running mate JD Vance - and first since he survived the assassination attempt.
He told a packed arena in Grand Rapids that Democrats have accused him of being “a threat to democracy” and, to huge applause, said he was ready to “take back the White House”.
Many of those at the event, in the battleground state of Michigan, told the BBC that the assassination attempt - which killed an audience member and wounded two others - would not stop them from showing support for the Republican presidential nominee.
Some said they came precisely because of the shooting.
This man lies like he breathes.
One of the few things that he understands is to accuse other people of exactly what he’s being accused of. If Trump gets called a threat to democracy, he’s going to accuse Biden of being “the real threat to democracy”.
It’s from Steve Bannon’s playbook called “cover the field in shit”, and it stops low-informed voters from easily determining what’s going on, as it plays into a prevailing narrative that all politicians lie. It’s brilliant, it’s wicked, and it’s quickly pushing us towards fascism.
deleted by creator
No, John F. Kennedy took a bullet for democracy. You don’t even want democracy.
You don’t even want democracy.
Trump’s intent is easy to judge because we’ve an adequate and reasonably consistent history of his actions.
The shooter’s intent is tougher because it’s clouded with judgement of his means. But, if Trump so obviously fights against democracy, it would seem a reasonable assumption that the shooter’s intent was the preservation of democracy. And, they didn’t just formulate, but carried out a plan that certainly would end in death in defense of democracy.
Regardless of judgement of the shooter’s means, what do you think of his intent?
I think if you kill Hitler, you get Chancellor Göring.
I agree that the means are misguided and in the example of why.
But, I asked a question about intent.
I’m not sure why their intent matters at this point. They didn’t manage to kill Trump like they apparently wanted to and they’re dead.
I’m also not sure why my personal speculation on their intent matters. I’m no one special.
I’m not sure why their intent matters at this point.
I think many people’s choices don’t seem to represent their best interests or the best interests of society. And, I can’t and won’t force them to choose differently. Anything I can do begins with asking myself why they may be choosing as they are.
I’m also not sure why my personal speculation on their intent matters. I’m no one special.
We engaged yesterday about propaganda. You’re a solid communicator in good faith. Browsing, I ran across your post today. I thought I’d throw something a little controversial at you to see what you make of it.
No need to be slippery if that’s what’s up. Just don’t engage. No biggie. The historians will sort it out later.
Ok. People have looked into the intent of presidential assassins before and there’s just no pattern. Some of them did it for political reasons (Booth, Czolgosz, Sirhan Sirhan). Some for personal reasons (John Hinckley Jr., Squeaky Fromme) and some were just completely batshit (Charles Guiteau). You could also put Hinckley and Fromme in the ‘completely batshit’ categories, but Guiteau was a level unto himself.
And then there’s Sam Byck, the guy who tried and failed to assassinate Nixon twice. He fits all those categories.
The point is, there’s just nothing to conclude here based on history and we will, barring the discovery of some sort of manifesto, likely never know what the intent was.
The point is, there’s just nothing to conclude here based on history and we will, barring the discovery of some sort of manifesto, likely never know what the intent was.
I agree with all of this.
But, what I’m thematically understanding is that you don’t believe there’s context to form perspective of merit. I’d agree with that, too.
You’ve better alternative uses of your time than guessing with very little information? I’ve value for this one. But, I could see how perfectly reasonable and good faith others would not.
No, the dead man behind Trump took the bullet, Trump only stood in democracy’s line of fire. And still stands.
Trump got his ear grazed by a bullet for dictatorship.
“I took a bullet for the thing I’m trying to destroy.”
Sure buddy.
You’re missing the part where “democracy” means what he wants it to mean and he hopes that everyone else thinks he means what they want it to mean, regardless of whether those meanings intersect.
For example, Russia, China, and at least two of the countries with “Democratic” in their official name are democracies. Technically.
Ankh-Morporkian democracy. He’s the man and he has the vote
This act that the Republicans are putting on right now, to make themselves seem more moderate than they really are, to appeal to centrists, is so unbelievably transparent. It’s obviously bullshit, but what’s terrifying is that it might actually work. Democrats appear unsettled, Republicans are unified. Trump’s assassination attempt makes him seem sympathetic to many. The only thing left for the Republicans to do is convince voters that they’ve totally changed and that things are going to be different this time, and that it’s not going to be like before, they promise. Unfortunately, like an abused spouse, many American voters might give Trump and Republicans that second chance. God help us all.
All they have to do is convince everyone they will be opposite of their recent actions. Yeah sounds easy.
No, that’s not true. They don’t have to convince everyone, they only have to convince enough people. They know very well that many millions of Americans would never vote for them no matter what, but they also know that many millions of Americans will vote for them and millions more might, if properly persuaded.
The voting population has a collective memory of only a few months.
Where I live, we had some of the strictest and stupidest pandemic lockdowns in the western world. People protested the lockdowns, blamed the wrong level of government for implementing them, and then re-elected the party that DID implement the lockdowns with a very low voter turnout.
The restrictions had been lifted maybe months before the election, so the lockdowns were a distant memory for the fraction of the population that showed up to vote.
But what you are talking about here is quite a lot different. People who have an opinion on trump aren’t going to forget it. But if you really want to cling to that’s doom don’t let me stop you, I just take issue with pointlessly spreading it
They don’t need to change many people’s minds on Trump. They just need to get the ones that like Trump to go out and vote, and the ones that don’t like Trump to stay home or not vote for Biden.
Pretty sure that retired firefighter that Biden had to shame you into acknowledging took that bullet, Don.
You mean the one who took his children to a convention filled with hate fueled maniacs? That retired firefighter?
Called it.
I said to my co-workers as soon as I heard he got shot at, he was going to claim that he took a bullet for America and Democracy.
But it wasn’t exactly hard to call it…the guy is a major narcissist.
He let that bullet slide right past him and into that young family man he fooled.
He fooled him into wanting an king, and then his king passed a bullet onto him.
Isn’t it true that trump didn’t even call his widow and biden did!? And she refused the call…
And then his king immediately stood triumphant with a fist in the air.
Incorrect actually. He lay on the ground for around 30/40 seconds under a secret service shield… And then, when told to leave by secret service he screamed about his shoes… not wanting to be seen without his shoes. He whined n screamed at them for what… 10 seconds.
And then he got his photo op.
Yeah, this is what seems the most sus about it all. Not, “What the fuck just happened?” Instead, “Where’s my shoes?”
Took a bullet implies he intentionally got shot…
No it doesn’t. The saying is usually meant to signify that you intentions put yourself in danger and ended up getting shot.
Most soldiers that take a bullet for our country would much rather have not been shot but accepted that risk as reasonable.
Took a bullet usually not means “zipped past my ear and took a tiny bit of ear off”.
I’m semantically torn here. He did (narrowly) take a bullet and shooting on politicians is an attack on Democracy. On the other hand he’s not exactly on friendly terms with this whole Democracy concept… In case of friendly fire, can you say you took a bullet for your enemy?
*from democracy
Easy mistake for a senile old man to make
Clearly he didn’t take enough of it.
Watch it! Jack Black will disown you.
Unfortunately he didn’t.
That’s it we are breaking up.
Jack Black? Is that you?!
deleted by creator
I thought Republicans HATED Democracy and were Actively calling to Eradicate it like it was a Trans Child?
deleted by creator
