politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
except if the shooter was just shooting into the crowd and hit like a railing or something then it wasn't an "assassination attempt" it was a mass shooting.
Frankly, it could be a mass-shooting anyway, simply one that had a high-profile figure as one of the targets. Apparently he had explosives in his car and some sort of remote detonation mechanism, so it was clearly about more than just Trump alone.
Not necessarily. To my knowledge, we don't know where any explosives would have been planted. He was seen wandering around the rally area a few hours before the rally. It's possible at one point he thought he could plant some explosives near Trump's podium or something so he gets taken out in the blast, and maybe abandoned that plan when he walked around and realized it wasn't viable.
IMO, there's nothing indicating he had any intents other than taking out Trump by any means available to him. Anyone else was probably either collateral damage in his mind, or "deserved it" for being Trump supporters in the first place. He may have decided that trying to snipe him from that rooftop was his most viable option, but it looks like he woke up that morning with at least two separate plans on how to go about it.
Fair. None of that speculation is inherently any better than the mass shooting speculation though, there's similarly zero indication he had anything personal against Trump. He even had potential dem targets in his search history. There's no sound evidence for anything so far, that I've heard at any rate.
Though I do think it's a little far-fetched that what appears to be an intelligent engineering student is going to think sneaking over and planting explosives is going to be a viable plan. That's a little video gamey.
It's a lot video-gamey. Let's be realistic.....the United States Secret Service just got owned by a 20 year old kid camping in one of the windows from Nuketown. The kid looks like he got beat up for his lunch money last week. Whatever plans were gong through his head, the plan he ultimately settled on involved him climbing to the one rooftop that the Secret Service somehow missed and was somehow able to not get caught until he fired off half a dozen or so shots. Everything he did that we know of so far looks like something a newbie would do the first time they played COD.
We'll of course never really know his true motives. Remember that despite all the speculation over political motives, Ronald Reagan's would-be-assassin did it because he was trying to impress a teenage Jodie Foster. For all we know, this kid could have woke up that morning and believed that Trump was Gargamel and it was his responsibility to kill him in order to save Smurf Village. Why he suddenly wanted Trump dead remains a mystery especially since he was supposedly a long-time Trump supporter, but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that his target was anything other than Trump himself, and maybe anyone who was just unlucky enough to be in the way.
Again, there is also no evidence he specifically wanted Trump dead and was not simply committing a blaze-of-glory act of terrorism for some misguided chance at fame. Having no evidence does not mean we default to one preferred interpretation.
Regarding the rooftop, from all indications he carefully scouted his method. The drone, the rangefinder, the ladder, etc. The building was local police's responsibility, as well, they actually even had a cop inside that very building. Regardless though, it certainly was embarrassing for the SS anyway, hence the director resigning.
No, but you at least go where what evidence you do have leads you. The kid fired off half a dozen shots, at least one of which came within an inch of killing him. If his plan were a mass shooting, bullets would have been sprayed everywhere. If his plan were to go for some blaze-of-glory shot at fame (or the most convoluted suicide-by-cop of all time) but didn't want to kill Trump, he could have just shot well above everybody's heads.
When you get that close with that many shots, it's more reasonable to assume that Trump was the target and he missed than it would be to assume that Trump wasn't the target because he missed.
Right. Which is why I think we both can agree the whole situation is video-gamey. The kid came up with an elaborate plan that was 100% reliant on the United States Secret Service somehow forgetting to cover that specific rooftop, and him being able to get all that equipment over there without a single bit of interference. If that isn't the stealth mission of virtually every first person shooter in the past 30 years, I don't know what is.
Oh absolutely. A lone 20 year old kid essentially playing out the plot of Call of Duty made the entire Secret Service look like a laughing stock live and in real time. There should have been a lot more than that director resigning.
Successfully shooting Trump would garner more fame than any of the other things you described. He unquestionably wanted to shoot Trump, I think. After Trump dropped down and got piled on by the SS, though, he seems to have begun shooting other people.
Trump stuck his head up once or twice after the Secret Service piled on. It's possible he was still trying to get Trump, but I will concede that it's also very likely he started firing randomly or at others to cause chaos and cover a potential escape.
I'll give them credit for piling on him though. They are very lucky that he didn't decide to just start shooting into the pile.