496
Trump watches himself get shot ‘over and over’ and campaign staff fear he has PTSD: report
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
496 points (95.4% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4637 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
shot at
Agreed. That bullet never touched him. The real victim's blood spatter is what we saw on his cheek. The man who was actually shot was just feet behind Trump, within range of that small spatter from a high velocity projectile.
Guys... the picture is right there.
If it was splatter from the man in the crowd, there would have been a wider distribution of smaller globules.
I've seen enough pink mist on the internet, man...
I think he was absolutely grazed by the bullet, but it is still hilarious to me that the FBI put out a whole statement saying they won't confirm it was a real hit. I think the dude is absolutely headstrong enough to keep campaigning after something like that. It can't have had no effect at all.
Someone on lemmy said that it was probably the shockwave from the bullet rather than the bullet itself which hit him. Pretty sure I also saw something about an FBI statement which seemed to later corroborate that. Ultimately, its not super important. He was shot at, lightly injured, and now he's spiraling for one reason or another
look at the pics!! that is not a 223 bullet wound.
funny how this left the top of the news so fast. almost suspiciously fast like they didn't want us to think too hard about it
They might have done that to prevent copycats. If they talked about it non-stop people would think it's a way to gain infamy. It's the same reason coverage of mass shootings doesn't focus on the killer's name anymore.
Finally a good reasoning, that does make sense.
So you are saying we should keep talking about it? 😂