It's interesting that they avoid saying shot, while describing the consequences of being shot near the ear. Are they thinking he might've scratched the ear when his security jumped on him?
It might just be a bias from me, but it feels like a double standard that the media that are known for irresponsibly rushing stories out and issuing retractions after the fact might be trying to wait and see for the facts to come out this time.
It’s the sort of thing you really want to verify first. We know he was bleeding. That was all. But yes, there was the possibility he could have cut himself when the Secret Service grabbed him. Or he very well could have been grazed, which seems more likely by now. We’ll learn more as the chaos subsides and news organizations get more verified information.
I’ll note that the current WSJ story doesn’t state he was shot, just that he stood up with blood on his ear. Hell, even Fox News isn’t claiming he was shot when I wrote this comment. They’re all handling the chaos and lack of information the same way: report what little you know, point out that it’s a breaking news story, and that there’s a great deal of uncertainty. They know he was bleeding from photos and video.
Political violence is horrific and unacceptable, and assassinations are even worse. News organizations are, so far, seemingly handling this dark moment well and will hopefully avoid making it worse for Americans.
That would still qualify as “being shot” to use the technical term. You can hear the secret service talking about the shots being fired on the literal hot mic on a YouTube stream minutes after you can clearly hear a discharging firearm. And then Trump released a statement saying he was shot.
Despite this it still took several hours for some prominent media outlets to report what happened.
FYI, I'm not who flagged you. You can look at my profile; the vast majority of my posts up until this post have never been about my politics; but seeing political arguments being made on a political post, I'm not going to hide what I believe.
> Blame the guy calling out the gloves coming off. Yall are good at hyperfocusing on the melodramatic banalities.
You're the one who was sounding vaguely threatening without being specific about anything. Regarding politics, the gloves have been off, for a long time, since before Trump was President. But the violent rhetoric definitely escalated since then. It's pretty rich to criticize the liberals and the left for violent rhetoric when there was non-stop violent rhetoric from Trump and Republican politicians while he was president, and frequent right-wing political terrorism echoing Trump's rhetoric. One good example being how the El Paso shooter defending his country from replacement and invasion. I remember when those bombs were mailed to the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Maxine Waters.
I remember Trump mocking Pelosi family after Pelosi's husband was beaten with a hammer. Even a ton of non-explicitly violent rhetoric, like calling immigrants an infestation, or when he called the media the enemy of the American people, or when he called liberals vermin, or him calling for Biden's day of reckoning, or how "Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country". I have heard Republicans, Fox news hosts and former Trump advistors, call for violence like when he was impeached, or when they lost the 2020 election. The 2020 election: all the threats against the election workers and elected officials, and then the actual January 6th insurrection.
It pisses me off to hear people equivocate that with calling Trump a threat to democracy, which is the truth; he tried to overturn the 2020 election. The right has been stoking violence; frankly, I have little sympathy. Like I said, the gloves have been off; I don't think one could do much worse than what's already been done.
> The tech articles are great. But the topics of cloak & dagger politics where the guidelines enable some sort of barely plausible disingenuous cosplay. Not so great.
> Since this whole article is flagged & only a select few of us are here. It's a good opportunity to have a frank discussion.
I kind of agree; there should be a clearer policy regarding the posts allowed here. Either political posts are fine or they're not, but it seems like some have been flagged and others not.
> I kind of agree; there should be a clearer policy regarding the posts allowed here. Either political posts are fine or they're not, but it seems like some have been flagged and others not.
Dang has to override popular opinion to keep articles like this alive. Per my observation, he's willing to contingent on good behavior, which does not characterize the comments here.
And I disagree that we need a black and white policy that all of politics is in or out -- if nothing else we'd spend all of our time quibbling about what is and isn't politics.
If he isn't careful, people will begin to accuse him of bias, just like the owners of Reddit or Twitter.
> Dang has to override popular opinion to keep articles like this alive. Per my observation, he's willing to contingent on good behavior, which does not characterize the comments here.
Are you saying it's because of dang that the post is alive and not flagged anymore? I had assumed they unflagged it because the comments haven't stopping.
> And I disagree that we need a black and white policy that all of politics is in or out
A rule with lots of room for interpretation and gray areas will be hard to understand and easy to accuse of bias and/or corruption. I think having a policy that isn't black-and-white is riskier, at least.
> if nothing else we'd spend all of our time quibbling about what is and isn't politics.
If they picked a clear rule and consistently enforced it, no one would need to quibble, because everyone would know what the site moderation considers politics, at least. Off-topic comments would get removed, and, until they stopped appearing, so would comments complaining about enforcement.
Anyone watching the video of the shooting can see it for themselves: Trump is talking, suddenly puts his right hand to his right ear, apparently hears and feels something very unusual, and gets down rapidly, to be covered by his secret service detail just a couple seconds later. By then he's already bleeding as seen in another photo taken of his head, on the ground under all those agents. I may be wrong but it seems plainly obvious that the bullet really did graze his ear, considering that 1. he was being shot at, 2. that and other bullets went into the spectators behind him and 3. he was bleeding from the ear just a second or two after multiple bullets were fired in his direction.
People claiming he was cut by his secret service detail or by glass (from where the fuck?) are spinning an odd little story despite excellent visual evidence to the contrary. Possibly to play down how close he came to being shot dead right there and then.
I am not saying in anyway that foul play has happend, but why is there no blood on Donald Trump hand after he has touched his ear? On the TV picture you can clearly see his hand the moment after he touched his ear and there is not visbible blood on it.
Watch the video. Unless you think he actually squeezed a fake blood bag or ketchup pack against his ear for some unfathomably bad reason, it's very real. You're sort of beating a dead horse here. Multiple reports, photos, video etc have confirmed that he did indeed get shot and that the injury to his ear was the result of that incredibly (for him) lucky near miss grazing his ear.
Either all the visual evidence (including live video and photos by seasoned, respected third party photojournalists) was somehow amazingly falsified, or Trump literally used fake blood to make it seem like he got injured by the bullet (an incredible assertion even by Trump standards) or he really was shot just as has now been widely reported.
Also, that he would grab that specific ear just as the shot went by, and moments later suffer an injury completely unrelated to a bullet in that exact ear, would be an extraordinary coincidence. Caused by what else?
I only found out 1-2 hours after it happened and there was still confusion regarding how and if Trump was hurt or not. Maybe some outlet was quick with their conclusions but I read the glass story or that he hurt his ear falling after a loud noise and several others.
Happy to hear that you have better sources than I do, that doesn't make my claims false though.
After the popping noises and before anyone jumped to protect him, Trump raised a hand and put it on the ear that is the site of most of the blood that we can see in this photo:
It might just be a bias from me, but it feels like a double standard that the media that are known for irresponsibly rushing stories out and issuing retractions after the fact might be trying to wait and see for the facts to come out this time.