677
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Updates:

Might be best for mods to lock this post at this point (is that a thing on Lemmy?) because this story is basically wrapped. The FBI says a bullet caused some ear damage. Maybe it was bullet shrapnel from a ricochet or something like that, but later photos show the teleprompters in-tact so it wasn't shards of glass from those. Trump's usage of the bandage (and the assassination attempt) as symbols and political tools has been discussed at length and I don't think conspiratorial thinking beyond that is very productive. Pete Souza took his own account down after getting a lot of harassment, so no further conspiracies are needed regarding X-formerly-known-as-Twitter at this time.

A photo of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump taken on Saturday without his ear bandage has sparked a wave of speculation.

The image, taken by Alex Brandon of the Associated Press on July 27 and shared by photojournalist Pete Souza on X, formerly Twitter, shows Trump walking up an airplane staircase with an apparently fully healed ear wound just weeks after he was shot with a high-powered rifle.

Souza, known for his tenure as the chief official White House photographer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, posted Brandon's photo on his now-deactivated X account on Saturday, writing, "AP photo this morning. Look closely at his ear that was 'hit' by a bullet from an AR-15 assault rifle."

Souza's profile, @PeteSouza, which had over 200,000 followers, now reads, "This account doesn't exist, try searching for another," implying that he has deleted or deactivated it. If he had been banned, it would read, "Account suspended. X suspends accounts which violate the X rules."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 149 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Speaking for myself, my eyebrows are not raised. I remember reading that day that it was a shattered teleprompter or other shrapnel that nicked or sliced his ear, not that a bullet had passed through it. In any case, I personally don't quite understand the importance of the distinction. He was shot at either way, no? If it were a nick by glass I imagine it would've healed by now.

Edit: I forgot to mention... Fuck Trump and his ilk, they deserve being two-time losers come November.

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago

Getting hit by a bullet makes it more dramatic and makes him more of a martyr for his rabid cult fans. If it didn’t hit him then there’s always the hint of the question - “was he the actual target?”. Which makes him less important to his fans.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

It was just a mass shooting: you know, the thing that keeps happening in America that no one cares about...

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Let's see how much they make of it when it's one of their self-selected elites injured by the gunman.

And let's remind them it's too early to speak about shootings. Let's get some clarity and distance from this vigilante shooting over a crowd of people with an AR before we weigh in.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Plus, although being shot at is pretty close to dying of course, a bullet grazing your head is exponentially closer to dying than it missing by several feet and some shrapnel or whatever gives you a little nick

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Good point, I guess that gives me some justification for my stance that it isn't important. I wouldn't want to stoop to the level of his fans.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

“was he the actual target?”

I mean he probably was, right?

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

FBI officially stated that it was a bullet, not shrapnel, after expressing initial uncertainty plus unhealthy 78 year olds heal slowly, hence the raised eyebrows.

Probably he was legit shot at - I think it's irrational to believe it was staged with the evidence we currently have - but fascists love false-flag and staged attacks. Hitler's Reichstag Fire, Putin's Russian Appartment Bombings are two recent examples. Even Pisastratus, the 5thC BCE tyrant of Athens staged a fake attack on himself to generate sympathy and justify an armed guard which he then used to seize the acropolis.

So I can definitely see why eyebrows raise quickly when a would be tyrant is suspiciously unscathed.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

“What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle,” the agency said in a statement.

They're saying it could have been a fragment of a bullet, which would qualify as shrapnel. They're not using that word.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Thank you! So the FBI is still saying it was shrapnel, they just stopped using the word shrapnel so trump can have his BS narrative. That's healthy for our democracy.

speculation from last week by FBI director Christopher Wray about whether Trump's ear was hit by a bullet or by shrapnel. The FBI later confirmed he was hit by a bullet.

But then you have to click 'hit by a bullet' to find out they're using bullet as a euphemism for shrapnel.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

they're not using the word cause they don't want to deal with the diaper baby having a tantrum at them, so they are caving to him.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Good point, interesting examples too, thanks.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

The fact that trump wont release his medical records to anyone, or even allow the FBI to question him or see his ear, is all the proof you need that he didnt get shot.

We know trumps personality. If his ear really got shot by an actual bullet, He'd be ripping the bandage off at every fucking opportunity and pointing to it and screaming about what biden/the liberals/etc did to him.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You might not understand the importance of the distinction, but Trump does in his messaging.

In an interview with The New York Post in the days after the shooting, Trump said that a bullet had hit him, taking a chunk out of his ear.

"The doctor at the hospital said he never saw anything like this, he called it a miracle," he said. "I'm not supposed to be here, I'm supposed to be dead."

He's touting this as an honest to God miracle that he survived. His followers have said God personally intervened to spare Trump, which strengthens their belief that he's some sort of holy figure destined to rule. If it turns out that he was scratched by some shrapnel and not shot, that doesn't sound nearly as divine-interventiony.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah that gives a lot of context. He's a pathological liar. Unfortunately, people attributing this to an act of God won't be persuaded by any images or video showing that his ear is fully intact for whatever reason. They'll assign it as another one of God's miracles.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

So he stood there in a hail of bullets so close he got hit by debris and you're telling me it wasn't an act of God?

Sorry, just giving you a preview of their answer. Having been shot at in my life, it doesn't really matter. They're going to call those bullets missing him a miracle. Especially because at 100 meters, he should be dead. He's alive for only one of two reasons, that shooter fucked up or divine intervention.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I love the idea that an all powerful God would be like "sure I could stop this whole thing from happening in a million different ways, but I'm just gonna wait until the last possible microsecond and deflect the bullets into this firefighter instead."

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sorry God was on her lunch break when the Secret Service did their pre game prayer circle.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

No one should be shot at, period. It's the act of taking a bad thing (where someone did die) and embellish it for use for his advantage. If he had any shame...but...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah this is pretty much the entire point.

Furthermore, denying it isn't good politics. We're not going to make his base disbelieve him and we're going to look like conspiracy theorists to moderate Republicans and centrists unless we have extremely solid evidence.

Until we get that, he was shot, he has recovered. The ear and head area is famous for producing a lot of blood from very little. He was extremely lucky to only be grazed and we all renounce this kind of violence.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

It matters because he was wearing a giant bandage. Stop helping him by diffusing this.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

"Helping him" is a bit hyperbolic, no? What an enraging take to read. I feel like arguing over this as if it matters gives weight to the idiocy of people who idolize him. I even said I assumed he was hit by a teleprompter. Fuck you. Vote.

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
677 points (96.1% liked)

politics

18881 readers
4041 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS