2024 US Presidential Election

[SGR]

I think realistically the lone wolf angle is most likely but it's not like you can't very easily spin that back onto the media lol. Anyone who watches MSNBC for long enough will eventually come to the same conclusion as the shooter did. If Trump is going to destroy democracy with project 2025 then why is this a bad move?

Yeah, who in the world could have seen this coming? And who could have foreseen liberals making excuses for it or justifying it? 







It's like, if the media paints someone as 'Hitler' long enough, someone will eventually go out and try to kill 'Hitler'. Truly shocking stuff!

To your last point, this is something I've considered recently: Liberals claim Trump and Project 2025 are going to be the end of democracy, and they hold up democracy as something sacred and valuable. If, in the event that Trump wins via democracy, how valuable is democracy really? If democracy results in Trump and all he entails, is democracy truly that sacred?

[degrassi.knoll]

The grass is greenest where you water it. If we weren't so obsessed with the theatrics it wouldn't all be so theatrical. If we didn't love the drama it wouldn't be so dramatic. If we wanted an actual democracy we would have to actually want democracy. We don't. We couldn't. We never will.

[SGR]

The grass is greenest where you water it. If we weren't so obsessed with the theatrics it wouldn't all be so theatrical. If we didn't love the drama it wouldn't be so dramatic. If we wanted an actual democracy we would have to actually want democracy. We don't. We couldn't. We never will.

The illusion of it is 'good enough' for most, and the illusion provides legitimacy to our elected leaders in the minds of the drooling public.

[DJChameleon]

Yeah, who in the world could have seen this coming? And who could have foreseen liberals making excuses for it or justifying it? 







It's like, if the media paints someone as 'Hitler' long enough, someone will eventually go out and try to kill 'Hitler'. Truly shocking stuff!

To your last point, this is something I've considered recently: Liberals claim Trump and Project 2025 are going to be the end of democracy, and they hold up democracy as something sacred and valuable. If, in the event that Trump wins via democracy, how valuable is democracy really? If democracy results in Trump and all he entails, is democracy truly that sacred?

It's funny how you can bring this up but when Trump gets accused of inciting on January 6th you do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend him because he didn't "technically" say a specific word.

[DJChameleon]

I don't get all the climbing on high horses to pretend like America isn't a violent country when it was founded on violence and we have so many mass shootings. Now we have to pretend like we are above political violence fuck outta here. We have gone into so many countries to fund coups and currently funding Israel having a field day on their enemies but we are big brain for condemning political violence. Shut up it is the height of being disingenuous.

[Trollheart]

Another point about how this will/won't result in a (sorry)  bump for Trump: DJRock is comparing apples to Kalashnikovs. Back in '84 America, while certainly still divided, was not the hotbed of conspiracy theory and self-diagnosing politics that it is now. We had no online talking heads, no blogs, no twitter (fuck X, I'll always know it as Twitter) and no real mass-media news delivery system. Most people who heard of the Reagan shooting probably did so via the six-o'clock news, or whatever variety America has. Now, within moments of something happening it's out there: people video and take pictures and upload streams to the internet, so it's all immediate. The news happens as the event happens. It's much different.

Also, back then, while Republicans hated Dems and so forth, you'd have to say there was a kind of general grudging respect, as in, if a Republican won the presidency it wasn't queried, or at least not called a fake election, and the same vice versa. Now, people are creating thier own truths and looking for any excuse to challenge the America they don't like, so the narrative around this (false flag or not) will be that the dems were behind it, the Deep State hate Trump and are so scared of him coming to power that they tried to kill him etc. You would not, I agree, have got this reaction in 1984: remember "Mister President, today we're all Republicans!"? Can you see that happening if Joe got taken down? But it's different today, which is why this will play directly into the hands of those who want to have Trump in the White House again.

[SGR]

It's funny how you can bring this up but when Trump gets accused of inciting on January 6th you do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend him because he didn't "technically" say a specific word.

It's not 'mental gymnastics' - it was providing direct quotes. You yourself initially claimed he intended his words to be a call for violence and claimed if he instead was saying he wanted legal challenges, investigations into the election results, and peaceful protesting, he 'would've said that'

There is no way in hell you actually believe that. He knows that his simple minded cult like followers would take fight like hell to be violence and not anything else that you are attempting to claim. If he meant any of those things then he would say it. He incited them to take action.

I then provided you the quotes of him saying just that, and calling for a peaceful protest. You then countered that it was all 'semantics' (which is exactly what the claim that Trump's 'fight like hell' quote meant 'violence' was based on) and you conceded there were no specific calls for violence from Trump, and then we ended up discussing the integrity and the ability to audit the election again:

This is all semantics. Sure there isn't any specific calls for violence but...

[degrassi.knoll]

It's not a high horse when your messaging is consistent. I have always been anti. Didn't tolerate it against Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden.

Condemning violent rhetoric in no way denies our violent reality. That's small brain shit.

Not my fault people speak in half truths. I mean what I say and say what I mean.

[degrassi.knoll]

.

[SGR]

Another point about how this will/won't result in a (sorry)  bump for Trump: DJRock is comparing apples to Kalashnikovs. Back in '84 America, while certainly still divided, was not the hotbed of conspiracy theory and self-diagnosing politics that it is now. We had no online talking heads, no blogs, no twitter (fuck X, I'll always know it as Twitter) and no real mass-media news delivery system. Most people who heard of the Reagan shooting probably did so via the six-o'clock news, or whatever variety America has. Now, within moments of something happening it's out there: people video and take pictures and upload streams to the internet, so it's all immediate. The news happens as the event happens. It's much different.

Totally agree, I pointed out something similar in my response to @Drjohnrock

Another thing you're overlooking is that in both Reagan, Ford, and Wallace's case, our access to information, the speed at which it travels, and the overall media landscape was much, much more primitive compared to today with the internet, which 95% of US adults have access to, and smartphones, which 90% of US adults have. By the time a couple hours had passed from this event, a large, large percentage of Americans probably read the news, and saw the photos/videos. The ones that haven't yet seen them will see them soon.

Also, back then, while Republicans hated Dems and so forth, you'd have to say there was a kind of general grudging respect, as in, if a Republican won the presidency it wasn't queried, or at least not called a fake election, and the same vice versa. Now, people are creating thier own truths and looking for any excuse to challenge the America they don't like, so the narrative around this (false flag or not) will be that the dems were behind it, the Deep State hate Trump and are so scared of him coming to power that they tried to kill him etc. You would not, I agree, have got this reaction in 1984: remember "Mister President, today we're all Republicans!"? Can you see that happening if Joe got taken down? But it's different today, which is why this will play directly into the hands of those who want to have Trump in the White House again.

Very true. And to complete this circle, I believe it's the mass-media, social media, and 'clicks for money' system we have that has completely accelerated and deepened the divide and polarization of our country. Fact-based reporting does not sell like highly-charged opinion pieces, fluff-pieces, and flat out lies do and that goes for both sides. And not even alternative, independent media is immune from it. A couple recent examples:

At the D-Day event recently, Biden went to go sit down just a little bit too early, and since he's on the older side, he held his position for a few seconds (knowing he was about to sit down), instead of immediately standing back up which resulted in an awkward image:



Some Republican-aligned outlets spread the image, and an edited version of the clip (which cuts off before they all sit down), claiming Biden pooped his pants. Is that true? Nope! But it gets clicks, and it gets money.

A few months prior, Trump was talking about the automanufacturing industry, and our policies surrounding it - and a possibility of a trade war with China, which he claimed, if we weren't aggressive enough, China would dominate us in the automanufacturing field and there'd be an economic 'bloodbath' if Biden's policies remained. Some Democrat-aligned media were quick to share edited clips (without context) to make it sound like Trump was referring to political violence, and they also dotted the headlines (without context) to mislead about what he meant:

Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election

[DJChameleon]

It's not 'mental gymnastics' - it was providing direct quotes. You yourself initially claimed he intended his words to be a call for violence and claimed if he instead was saying he wanted legal challenges, investigations into the election results, and peaceful protesting, he 'would've said that'

I then provided you the quotes of him saying just that, and calling for a peaceful protest. You then countered that it was all 'semantics' (which is exactly what the claim that Trump's 'fight like hell' quote meant 'violence' was based on) and you conceded there were no specific calls for violence from Trump, and then we ended up discussing the integrity and the ability to audit the election again:

So you don't see any parallels between the imagery you just posted and the consistent rhetoric that Trump speaks from his mouth on a daily basis. There you are with the mental gymnastics again.

[DJChameleon]

All the politicians coming out on X to condemn political violence in our society does in fact belittle and minimize all the violence that is occurring on behalf of the system that's currently in place.

[degrassi.knoll]

lol what else are they going to do?

[Paul Smeenus]

The shooter was just a screwed-up 20 year old punk kid

[SGR]

So you don't see any parallels between the imagery you just posted and the consistent rhetoric that Trump speaks from his mouth on a daily basis. There you are with the mental gymnastics again.

Okay, so we're moving the goalpost now from what he said on January 6th to just his rhetoric in general? Rather than accusing me of 'mental gymnastics', why don't you give me some specific examples of Trump's 'consistent rhetoric' that you believe to be analagous to imagery like this, insofar as imagery can be analagous to rhetoric, and we can discuss it: