Why did Crooks shoot Trump?

The FBI is going over his computer files.
Websites he visits, social media posts
They are interviewing friends and family

My guess is he is apolitical and is not obsessed with either side.

Looks like he worships guns more than politics
Who do you think is financing a guy who has hardly any money in his bank account, yet can hop the pond to go recruit for the Ukes, fly coast to coast, etc?

Something smells here.
 
I haven't heard the GOP calling out to kill Biden and others in media.

There has been an excess of violent rhetoric from the left since 2015/6
This is because, I am willing to bet, you ONLY view and read media with a right bias.

Everything depends on story selection.

If you only had watched MSLSD? You would have only seen or been informed of the violent rhetoric of the right.

 
This is because, I am willing to bet, you ONLY view and read media with a right bias.

Everything depends on story selection.

If you only had watched MSLSD? You would have only seen or been informed of the violent rhetoric of the right.

Feel free to point to a single person calling for bidim, or Harris, to be eliminated.
 


1728250842609.png


108034624-1726496151925-screenshot_2024-09-15_at_55540___pm.png
 
Initial reaction seemed to be a radical leftist who was persuaded by liberal propaganda that Trump was a threat to the country who needed to be stopped.

So far there is no link of Crooks to annt-Trump websites, no political social media presence.

What we are seeing is the typical shooter profile.
Young, white male, social outcast, picked on in High School, obsessed with firearms.

Was Trump shot for political reasons or because he was a high profile target for a gun fetishist looking to go out in a blast of glory?
Crooks was a disillusioned Trumper.
 
Oh yeah? What is the substantive difference between GOP violent rhetoric and DNC violent rhetoric. You need to clarify please.

Why?

Because the evidence is that this is the same for both.

View attachment 1022854

". . CQ Roll Call asked every member of Congress whether they had received a death threat since 2020. Of the 147 who responded, 110 — or about 75 percent — said yes. While more Democrats replied to our inquiry than Republicans, 95 to 52, death threats were pervasive among both parties: 74 percent of Democrats said they had received one, compared with 77 percent of GOP respondents. . . "

False Equivalence​

What Is False Equivalence Fallacy?​

"The false equivalence fallacy is one where the speaker or writer compares one thing to another to try to draw a logical conclusion, when in fact no such similarity exists meaning that no such conclusion can be drawn. To look at it in even more simple terms, you might say that ‘that is not equal to this’ in essence disproving a claim containing a false equivalence fallacy. In many cases, upon first hearing a false equivalence fallacy, one might automatically assume that the opposing arguments are in fact, logically equal but upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that they are not.

This type of fallacy shows a cognitive bias in which ideas, situations, objects or events are compared to one another by the writer or speaker who claims that they are the same as each other when in reality there are many differences between the two. The differences within a false equivalence fallacy can be made up of anything such as quantity, appearance, and many others. It is very easy for this type of fallacy to make its way into the conversation and it quite often makes an appearance in the media. . . "
It all started with the trump organized J6.
 
Yeah, fight for election security. I don’t see anyone inciting murder.

Try again.
Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric.

Most folks know it is against the law to threaten the POTUS or senior staff, so you won't find it.

Either folks are too smart to do it, or it has been removed from public view when it happens.

18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency​

 
Screen-Shot-2021-02-16-at-2.28.03-PM.png




 
Violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric.

Most folks know it is against the law to threaten the POTUS or senior staff, so you won't find it.

Either folks are too smart to do it, or it has been removed from public view when it happens.

18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency​

No, that's a cop out, and you know it. "Fight for your rights", isn't a call for violence, it is a call to use any and all LEGAL means to keep your Rights.
 
and you know it.

You know? When leftists use straw-men fallacies against me, to tell me what, I think, feel or know?

It is at that point I know they are desperate and have lost the argument. Thanks! :113:

It is a type of "mind-reading," fallacy. Not legit at all.



I'm always on the look out for argumentative fallacies to confirm to me, that person I am engaged with is out of arguments and suffering from cognitive biases.

One again, thanks for ending this discussion!
 
I can't tell you how many times folks have told me I am wrong b/c they, "KNOW," I am either MAGA or a socialist.

What a lark.

:auiqs.jpg:
 

Forum List

Back
Top