It’s the first and only hot day here this summer. I’d genuinely love to.
Just to make this very clear, because there’s a bit of a confusion of terms above: I’m saying the truther part would be to say that he either staged the whole thing, or that he emerged unscathed and then deliberately injured himself. It’s just not very likely. I don’t think anyone here doubts that he is overplaying the extent of his injuries, or that they might be from shrapnel or a ricochet.
It’s far from the first here, and I not only would but did jump in a lake a few days ago!
Just as there is no definitive evidence for any of the above, there really isn’t definitive evidence against. So it all lies on an continuum of probability, from vanishingly unlikely (fully staged, with participation from the shooter and secret service) to close to even odds (was his injury sustained by a bullet or debris?) to pretty damn likely (the assassination attempt was very real, unplanned and he’s just doing the most to milk it after the fact).
What shocks me, frankly, is that there are people on this thread trying to deny the last one? Really? Is this the first time they’ve heard of T****?
I haven’t seen anyone here doing that. And I suspect our different perceptions of that issue are the reason this thread is unusually heated
That response may have been flagged and hidden, since it disparaged the whole commentariat along the way, but there are also plenty of examples of “everything is just as it appears to be and whoever thinks differently is a conspiracy-spouting nut job.”
That would explain some things
i’d see it as: a single bullet can generate many pieces of shrapnel.
( and note, i’m not at all discounting the very real possibility he was struck by a bullet. though it’s not something we may ever know. because, even if he were honest, he might be mistaken. and medical records might not be informative for a small wound.
and it doesn’t really matter. because it was an assassination attempt, and he was injured in some way )
I keep seeing it said that this was an assassination attempt.
Why is it being called that?
I’ve never heard school shooting victims described as assassinated.
Wasn’t he just the victim of a common everyday shooting?
It’s called that of course because he’s a political figure, but yeah, since the shooter’s motives were so muddled, or more like he just wanted to shoot someone famous, then I think you raise a good point.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/mass-shooter-school-shooter-theory-gets-some-new-proponents
Given the facts, this seems highly likely (as I’ve already said)… 
But what do I know… apparently not enough to get any respect around here.
I would imagine the oversized dressing is because there is swelling and discolouration* which is not great for the image (and to protect from infection).
*speculating the medical team would have to remove the pancake orange.
Looks like there is failure to respond to the detail protecting Trump that is also at play here… I know this won’t get any support, but hey… we should tell the truth, even if it’s unpopular, right?
Wrong. It got support from me.
I refer back to Mark Thomas and his Acts of Minor Dissent.
ACT 3 is a variant on a popular Act of Dissent, namely this: the epitome
of good manners in all decent homes is, upon receipt of junk mail
containing a Freepost pre-addressed envelope, to a) insert the contents of
the junk mail into the prepaid envelope, and b) post it back to the fuckers
that sent it. This is based on the sound logic that if someone sends you
their rubbish you are entitled to send it back, at their expense.
My variation on the practised etiquette on receipt of unwanted missives
is based on the idea that if someone sends me rubbish I am entitled to
send it back AND some of my own.Foxtons estate agent sent me a glossy card inviting me to sell my home;
I sent back Weetabix. This was accompanied with a note that the company
should regard this as a request to be removed from their mailing list.
A motor company sent me half a tree’s worth of promotional cack;
I sent back an out-of-date tin of sardines.
Things took a turn for the weird when I received a note from the
postman explaining a letter addressed to me did not have the correct
postage on it and if I wished to receive the letter I should go to the post
office, pay a small fine and the value of the postage. Which I did. The
letter was a leaflet from Will’s Art Warehouse.
Enraged at paying for a promotional leaflet, I inserted a large unwanted
hardback book into a Jiffy bag and posted it to Will’s Art Warehouse.
Without a stamp. I have not heard from Will since.
On discussing this Act with some old anarcho-squatters from the ’70s,
they revealed that they would post breeze blocks to people they disliked,
who, on receipt of the stampless package, had to pay for the delivery at
the other end.
One day later I approach the counter staff at my local post office, who
know me well, with a trial breeze block wrapped in brown paper.
‘No, Mark,’ they say as I offer them the package. ‘If you want to send
this to Mr Gove, you will need a stamp.’
Times have changed and it appears one can no longer send breeze
blocks in the post. But you can …ACT 4 … send roof tiles.
The tile slips snugly into a Jiffy bag, weighs quite a bit AND fits into a
postbox.
That would be Karma, indeed!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
