506
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Those close to Donald Trump fear the former president “may have legit PTSD” from the assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally last month. 

That’s according to a Vanity Fair report published Wednesday that claimed those in Trump’s inner circle have noticed that he’s become fixated on a seven-second clip that shows the moment he nearly lost his life. 

“He’s been watching that seven-second clip of how close he was to getting shot right in the head—over and over and over again,” said a Republican close to the campaign, reported Vanity Fair.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 months ago

I promise you there are lefties that would get pissed off if they were told they were a bad shot. Stop assuming everyone on the left is your perfect model of person. They aren't. We can have issues too.

I addressed point 5 multiple times at this point I think. Pretending like we have information we don't have leaves us in danger, and lying about information we don't have makes our standing fragile. We have no need to lie because we're on the right side.

Just be honest. The kid had conservative parents, supposedly expressed some conservative views to other students, wanted to join the gun club but was dangerous whole shooting so was denied, donated a small amount to a progressive fund, and searched for both Biden and Trump events. That's what we know (I think, unless more has come out). He obviously wasn't a leftist, but he was a dumb teenager. I don't know if he knew what he believed.

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

pissed? sure. 'murder someone about it'? unlikely. the things we get THAT upset about are entirely different.

okay but we do have information. I addressed that in points one and two. we do have information. I told you what information we have. so I return to point five, and wonder if you need a hug.

he searched for both biden and trump (and I think some others?) events because he didn't care WHO he shot, just that it was important. the kid was a right winger, in specifically the way that children can be, and that motivated that he did a shooting, but not who he shot. correct. this is what I said originally.

I dont know if he knew what he believed

that is what I meant by 'in the way that kids are'

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

You keep implying I'm being emotional because you're arguing with me and have no grounding, so it makes you feel like your argument is stronger. Please, go away if that's all you're going to keep doing. I have not been emotional. Your insults seem to imply you potentially are though, so reconsider why you're doing this.

pissed? sure. 'murder someone about it'? unlikely. the things we get THAT upset about are entirely different.

It seems pretty clear to me it was suicide. That was the goal, and leaving a mark was a bonus. He searched for both Biden and Trump events. It seems he would have taken either opportunity to go out while killing a (former) president and presidential candidate. It was not politically motivated and I don't know how you can assume he's right wing?

I dont know if he knew what he believed

that is what I meant by 'in the way that kids are'

Yet you still say he's right wing. Based on what evidence? His parent's Trump signs, or the fact he said some "conservative" things to classmates at some point in time (and assume they can correctly identify conservative from anarchist or anything else being dumb teenagers)?

Look. I don't really care. I just don't appreciate dishonesty. Saying we have more information than we do is dishonest. I'm not replying to this anymore unless you actually add information. All you added this time is that "I'm being emotional" and even that wasn't the first time you did so. If you have more information, go ahead and include it. If not, you don't actually know his political ideology and you don't care about honesty.

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

i keep imply an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge, because we pretty-much know, and that's the only good-faith assumption I can think of that explains the uncertainty here.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

How do we pretty much know? What more information do you have? You hope, and that's it. You have faith, which isn't useful.

Also, this isn't existential. It happened for sure, and the reasons exist. We may never know them though, but that isn't an existential crisis. If you're going to use terms like that, at least learn what they mean.

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I said all this.

and I ask again: are you currently having an existential crisis about the limits of knowledge and the fundamental contradictions of knowledge? are you courting chapel perilous? are you balancing on the knifes edge of zen and madness? because that's the only way I can explain this level of skepticism.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
506 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4231 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