Want to talk about the 2024 election? Possible candidates? Platforms? Predictions? Showing 1,551-1,600 of 1,997

[J.J.]

AP is reporting a rally goer was killed.

https://apnews.com/live/election-bide...

[Graeme]

Apparently, it was an Antifa member who shot at Trump.

[J.]

It's still early. Give them some time to sort it out.

[Graeme]

Indeed.

[J.J.]

Hard to say because we don't know much. Does seem like the shooter was on the roof of a building on the edge of the field. The images of the body being removed from the crowd appears to be one of the rally goers and not the shooter as has been going around.

Newsmax just reported that Trump wasn't hit by one of the bullets, but glass from the teleprompter which was hit.

[J.]

Uncle Joe weighed in.
https://youtu.be/_EOD5bXEvyE?si=gJjAQ...

I do love how he said we have to unite the country when him, the Dems, and their allies have been tearing it apart.

[J.J.]

Newsmax is now questioning the glass story. This might be coming from one of the leftwing media sources trying to downplay the incident. There are images of CNN and MSNBC headlines referring to it as a "fall"

But this just cemented the election for Trump. You have the images of Trump getting up after taking a bullet, stopping the Secret Service from taking him out of there so he can give the audience a fist bump, and the public keeps seeing images of Biden who can't even handle a press conference.

[J.J.]

If you zoom in on the first picture, you can see the bullet coming at him.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachment...

[J.]

Do you mean the greyish line above his left shoulder?

[J.J.]

Yeah.

[J.]

It is incredibly rare to accidentally capture a bullet in flight on camera. It might be a bullet. Or it might be some other fast moving object.

I'm reticent to accept it as the bullet which grazed Trump because it appears to be over his left shoulder and seems to track back towards his collar. It was the top his right ear which was grazed. So if it were the same bullet, I would expect the track to be higher.

We'll have to wait and see what the ballistic analysis shows.

[Nik]

Not the finest day for democracy. Good that an attempt was unsuccessful.
In this sense, Graeme's (I think it was his, correct me if I'm wrong) prediction that Trump might get shot, materialized, as well as Scout's fears

[Ian]

Fortunately, Trump was lucky. Irrespective of what you think of them, it is terrible that a politician cannot campaign without that happening. What I fear is that now the shooter is dead, soon some sort of conspiracy theory will emerge. I hope I am wrong, but I don't hold out much hope.

[Graeme]

Nik wrote: "Not the finest day for democracy. Good that an attempt was unsuccessful.
In this sense, Graeme's (I think it was his, correct me if I'm wrong) prediction that Trump might get shot, materialized, as..."

Thanks, Nik.

Yes I made that prediction a while back, along with a shotgun's worth of predictions.

Some were bound to hit the target.

[[deleted user]]

President Trump deserves huge credit for his dignity and bravery.

If an attendee of the rally was killed, and 2 or 3 others are in a critical condition, then logically more than one shot was fired. Let's see how the story unfolds.

Nik, although it gives me no pleasure to be right about something like this, you'll find both Graeme and I have been predicting this for some time - in my case, at least since early spring. I stand by my opinion that Haley is not yet out of the race.

A word of warning to JJ. The presidency is not in the bag yet. There are powerful (and not so powerful) people who are desperate for Trump not to win. As I've been saying for some time, they will attempt to stop him by hook or by crook. Hopefully, the Secret Service and people around Trump will do their jobs and keep him safe.

Ian, like with any other topic, 'conspiracy theories' will stand or fall on their own merit. Don't forget, many of them eventually become conventional wisdom, when new evidence emerges, changing them from theory to fact.

[Nik]

You can take credit too for providing early warning, that’s what 5 eyes 👀 alliance was created for 😎

[[deleted user]]

Indeed, but with support for Trump likely to increase further, and Elon Musk now fully endorsing him, we're in for a very interesting, and potentially even more dangerous, few months.

As Trump is on the cusp of becoming president for a 2nd time, both the Biden Deep State regime and unofficial, unconnected nutjobs are going to resort to increasingly desperate measures to stop him.

Group members, keep your eyes peeled, both at home and abroad, for their next move.

[Graeme]

Nik wrote: "You can take credit too for providing early warning, that’s what 5 eyes 👀 alliance was created for 😎"

Indeed.

Assuming the NSA are scrapping these threads for info...

[[deleted user]]

The definitive account of what happened, a soon-to-be iconic image and some interesting history, all from the highest quality journal on the market:

https://www.hungarianconservative.com...

[Papaphilly]

Graeme wrote: "Nik wrote: "You can take credit too for providing early warning, that’s what 5 eyes 👀 alliance was created for 😎"

Indeed.

Assuming the NSA are scrapping these threads for info..."

They are definetly looking.

[Ian]

And probably chuckling

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "And probably chuckling"

I seriously doubt it. They will track this kid and everything he has done and who he talked to. If I did not know better, this may be a truly bolt of lightning on a clear blue sky.

More importantly, how did he get to within 150 yards of the President? Someone is going to be guarding chicken coops in Alaska when this is all said and done.

There is also going to be a serious problem for the Democrats if they turned down the extra request for resources for Trump. Not sure if that happened, but what did happen some Democrats tried to pass a bill to remove Trump's Secret Service protection.

This is also going to give Trump and the Republicans a very big stick to hit both Biden and Harris because of both the failure to protect Trump (could happen to either side) and the fact Secret Service reports to the Director of Homeland Security (Mayorkas).

[J.]

I don't understand how he made the shot unopposed.

He wasn't in a hide. He didn't spend a week belly crawling into position neath a custom ghillie. He wasn't at extreme range.

He climbed up onto a roof 150 yds away. Then, without camouflage, set up and took his shot within full view of Secret Service counter snipers.

Simply put, if this has been a competent shooter; we would be staring at a civil war.

[J.J.]

Beau wrote: "A word of warning to JJ. The presidency is not in the bag yet...."

By no means. Surviving a similar attempt didn't boost Teddy Roosevelt's 3rd attempt at the presidency.

But I think the differences are that Roosevelt didn't have it plastered on everyone' TV screens to give it the same impact, and with voters having serious doubts about Biden's strength and ability to lead for the next 4 years, seeing Trump get up after the attempt makes that worse. However, how Biden handles it could turn things around for him. Like you said, you never know.

[J.J.]

And if you want an idea of how lucky he really was, watch the scene again. When he turned his head to the right, the shooter had time to line up the shot for the new position. But Trump cocked his head toward the camera at the last second, right before the bullet hit. If it wasn't for that little movement, the bullet would have gone in above his right eye.

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Nik wrote: "You can take credit too for providing early warning, that’s what 5 eyes 👀 alliance was created for 😎"

Indeed.

Assuming the NSA are scrapping these threads for info..."
..."

Ιt was the "Assuming the NSA are scrapping these threads for info.." with the emphasis on THESE threads that referred to chuckling.

I agree - someone in the Secret Service is going to get a really shocking job unless he strategically quits.

[J.]

Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dona...

[Ian]

Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trump did not break the law.

This was the one crime that Trump clearly had committed. He had the documents, he had no lawful right to them. Trump gets let off by a Trump appointed judge. So much for blind justice. That looks as if the US justice system does not apply to those with appropriate connections.

[J.]

And when Uncle Joe was caught doing the exact same thing, his DOJ declined to prosecute because his brain is melting. But somehow said cognitive impairment doesn't disqualify him to be president.

[Ian]

I think you will find that after mid January Joe will not be President, and the cognitive impairment will be the primary reason.

[J.]

Similar sentiments were voiced about January of 2021.

[[deleted user]]

Our news showed footage of people at the rally pointing at the gunman and shouting warnings well before he fired. Papaphilly and J are right - gross incompetence from the Secret Service. Well, let's hope that's all it was.

JJ is right too - President Trump was incredibly lucky. I mean, INCREDIBLY lucky. Makes one wonder if it was divine intervention. Perhaps the hardcore MAGA crowd are right and he's been touched by God? Saint Donald J Trump lol.

[[deleted user]]

Btw, what's the verdict on JD Vance as running mate? Seems like an odd choice.

[J.]

The real question is, "What does Trump know about Boeing?"

[[deleted user]]

Btw, retired fireman who died shielding his family is a hero. Deserves a posthumous honour and family should receive financial support.

OMG, Truss has just popped up on the news. She's in the US supporting Trump. Sorry guys. Sorry Saint Donald.

[[deleted user]]

While watching the news, Mrs Beau has just disrespectfully referred to the US's 2 main presidential candidates as 'muppets'. She said they remind her of these 2 guys:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statl...

[[deleted user]]

Biden has just granted RFK Jr Secret Service protection. Considering their performance guarding Saint Donald, this could be a double-edged sword. Is Biden trying to bump RFK Jr off?

Should've stuck with the private security team, Robert.

[J.]

You may come across some social media posts talking about how the Pennsylvania Dipstick was wearing a T-shirt from a GunTube channel called Demolition Ranch. For quick reference, this is Demolition Ranch's reaction to the news.
https://youtu.be/GAnvLjavON0?si=lNoT5...

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trump did not break the law.

This ..."
Not illegally, unconstitutionally. And she cited Thomas's opinion on it. In it, he pointed out the Constitution requires Congress to establish an office before they can establish officers for it. Currently, there are laws establishing the officer of special counsel, but the only law that established the office of Special Counsel for that officer to inhabit lapsed long ago.

All that aside, the judge noted that when asked for possible remedies other than dismissal, the prosecutor punted the question and only wanted to answer after her decision was reached.

But her reasoning aside, the government can appeal the decision just like Trump has been filling appeals throughout the case. And even if that holds, nothing stops Garland from following the Constitution and appointing someone else to take over the investigation. Of course in that scenario, every piece of evidence and testimony Smith collected has to be tossed and collected again.

[J.J.]

J. wrote: "And when Uncle Joe was caught doing the exact same thing, his DOJ declined to prosecute because his brain is melting. But somehow said cognitive impairment doesn't disqualify him to be president."

I disagree. Biden did not do the exact same thing. Biden's documents were taken from his time as senator and vice president. The discretion was not his to make unlike a president who may declassify documents.

But fundamentally, the problem isn't that Trump had the documents. The problem is that the government must have copies in its possession. Every president takes documents for possible inclusion in their future presidential libraries. And they have the right to decide what they may take as long they leave copies behind for the archives.

And there's a hint the government may have had copies of everything Trump had. During Obama's term there was a large hack. In response, he established a protocol to have everything autosaved going forward and sent to another location in the event of another hack. If that was still in place, copies of everything Trump had would have been saved and sent to that location. That would render this whole thing moot.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trump did not break the law.

This ..."

This will be appealed. If what I have read is correct, this may not be overturned. The Constitutionality of this case is interesting because unlike other Special Prosecutors who were cleared by Congress, Jack Smith was not. He was working for the Hague at the time. I don't think this is about Special Prosecutors, but how he was appointed. What is interesting was when he was asked by the Judge if his appointment was legal, he dodged the question.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trump did not break the law...."

Actually it does mean he did not break the law. In the American system, one is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He must be proven guilty, until then he is not.

[Papaphilly]

Beau wrote: "Btw, what's the verdict on JD Vance as running mate? Seems like an odd choice."

I knew he was a contender, but thought it would go to the North Dakota Governor. It looks like Vance can truly help Trump in the rust belt states and win three big ones. He is very politically aligned with Trump which may provide a MAGA candidate after he leaves office. It is also a politically tough call because losing a Senator from a battle ground state although the Governor is a Republican.

I think it is a good call for Trump, but not the safe call I was expecting. J.D. Vance wrote his story in Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis and it is a great read.

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trump did not break the..."

Strictly speaking, it does not mean he did not break the law. It had nothing to do with what Trump did, and seemingly relied on the fact that the Special Prosecutor was not appointed properly. What it means is the whole trial was a farce and had nothing to do with Trump. Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt but this decision should not be a verdict. All the judge has done is to have managed to delay the issue until after the election, when Trump, assuming he wins, can declassify everything retrospectively. It shouldn't be a matter for appeal, except procedurally that judge, instead of finding whether Smith was properly appointed and dismissing Smith if not, simply continued to give Trump the maximum chance of getting away with it.

I don't know what the US law says, but here anyone with the proper credentials to be a lawyer can act as a prosecutor provided the Attorney-General allows the person to stand. If Smith did not have the proper credentials, why did not someone point that out at the beginning?

[[deleted user]]

Thanks for the info, Papaphilly. Book looks good.

Interesting to see that Vance has opposed sending arms to Ukraine. Another step closer to peace, perhaps?

Also, in light of Labour's election victory over here, he allegedly questioned whether the UK could become the 'first Islamist country' with nuclear weapons. Lol.

[[deleted user]]

When looking at the paintings/ photographs of the past and reading about our ancestors' great deeds, there's a temptation to think that the modern internet age is far less exciting, noble and manly.

However, last weekend's events must surely have put paid to this idea. In 100 years' time, people will still be awed by this photograph, as they celebrate Saint Donald's Day:

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/18...

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Well well, a Trump appointed judge dismisses the case based on an assertion that the special counsel was appointed illegally. Even if so, that does not mean that Trum..."

Strictly speaking, here you are innocent. It is presumed. THEY have to prove guilt. If you are innocent you have not broken the law. THEY have to prove you broke the law.

It is different here with the Special Prosecutors. As for what the judge ruled on: All Federal prosecutors have to be put in front of Congress and be approved. Jack Smith is not approved by Congress and did not follow the normal channels. That is a big difference between him and other Special Prosecutors. Merrick chose Garland this guy for a reason. Maybe he needs to be put in front of Congress and have to answer why he chose this guy instead of people already approved. He should know better because he was a high ranking Federal Judge. Now maybe this is all hooey and it gets overturned, but I am. not so sure in this particular case.

[Ian]

Yes, but it is a little different to be presumed innocent before the trial, and assumed innocent because the trial did not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt because the trial ignored the evidence. If the status of the special prosecutor was in doubt, that should have been ruled on before the trial even began.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Yes, but it is a little different to be presumed innocent before the trial, and assumed innocent because the trial did not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt because the trial ignored the evid..."

It has happened before the trial began. You just made my point for me.

BTW, it is not a little different.. Presumed innocent is innocent until proven otherwise.

[Ian]

Hmmm, our news was a little substandard. It implied there had been a trial, but that is seemingly wrong, and so was I.