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

politics

19096 readers
3295 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

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 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (21 children)

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] 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

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 3 months ago (2 children)

“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 3 months 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 3 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)