politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Given how pivotal it was to his campaign, I think it's worth considering how such a thing could be pulled off if it was planned:
People that want to tell stories to drive history need the right characters. Modern information technology makes that easier than ever.
Find a kid with firearm access who's into something embarrassing online. Preferably someone who wouldn't shoot the president, so a supporter. Tell him you know what he does in secret and you'll tell everyone, including police, if they don't co-operate.
Tell them to go to the chosen firing position and to shoot into the crowd behind the candidate. Tell them you'll provide protection and a getaway. Tell them there will be a magazine loaded with blanks for them to use at the firing position (they're live rounds).
When the shots are fired, secret service ties off the loose end without any interaction from the planners, and the kid never even has a name for who put him up to it.
Or tell a crazy person you think there'll be someone who is going to try to assinate the president and no one believes you on a forum. Drip feed it so you get him to go exactly where you want. .
For your consideration: It's somewhat well known the reason Trump eats so much fast food hamburger is because he has a fear of being assassinated by poison (due to a lifetime of screwing people over and socializing with the wrong sort). Do you really think that kind of paranoia would agree to allow a mentally unstable kid with a rifle anywhere near him? That doesn't make sense to me.
It makes sense to me if he trusts the people planning. It's possible the bullet that killed the person in the crowd didn't come from the kid, that the kid did actually fire blanks for the narrative while the shooter was someone more skilled and trusted by the campaign. Just spit balling.
Keep in mind, it was either winning or jail for Trump, and this really did turn things around for his run, so there were likely risks he was willing to take, especially if the people planning assured him there'd be no real risk to him.
"if he trusts the people planning" LOL nah.
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-20/president-trump-thinks-hes-the-smartest-person-in-the-room
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/25/trump-staff-incompetent-sycophants
You are ascribing a level of logistical forethought to his team that just, isn't possible. What is consistent with his every action, is that a media obsessed opportunist looked at the "man, woman, and camera" and decided to strike a pose from Breakfast Club or whatever thing he last remembered. Biff Tannen, Home Alone, The Apprentice, yadda yadda.
You think he won through incompetence? Interesting take.
The machine that got him elected was not incompetent. Roger Stone, for example, is a helluva schemer and has been in the game a loooooong time.
I'm not much for introspection, but when you put it like that ... yes actually.
I will tell you that I grew up a bit conservative and one of the things that "The American media apparatus and conservative think tanks and their unholy amounts of billionaire funding Koch et al." did was build up the idea of politics as a sleazeball game to disenfranchise people. I still believe it a bit. Biff had by and large built up a cult following based in no small part that he was at one point an outsider and "tells it like it is", unapologetically petty, stupid, but also affable and a joker, racist and greedy.
He (was?), genuinely bonafide stupid and watches TV all day and enough people thought that that was their best reflection. "Authentic" but also... really bleak.
Cambridge Analytica etc was incredibly sophisticated and right-wing think tanks have done far more to shape people's habits and opinions than you seem to realize.
reminds me of that one Black Mirror episode
I wish it was s01e01.
Definitely came to mind while thinking about this. Seems entirely plausible to me. Trump's campaign had the resources, considering his connections to people like Erik Prince and the devil knows who else. An extremely simple and hard to trace operation once they've honey-potted the "right person".
We should learn more about him for those exact reasons.
Agreed. Kid "tries to assassinate" the now president and we still know so little about him.
The reason is because he was rightwing, same as the kid who took out Charlie Kirk. It destroys the narrative that liberals are violent when everyone who takes shots at your leadership are from the home team. If it was true, we'd know everything about these people. But it's not, so the info gets suppressed instead.
Sigh. Exhale. Look down. “Yeah, true Dat.”
That's certainly a plausible reason, and at least part of the story.
Agree with this scenario, with the exception that there's no need to give him live rounds, you can have someone else do that when there's a "response".
Is there any evidence to indicate the shooter was blackmailed?
Of course not. Why would there be? If there was that would be the story instead of a hypothesis.
Then why do you believe that's what happened?
I believe it's a plausible alternative explanation.
So purely baseless speculation with no ulterior motive, sure. You're trying to insinuate conspiracy while maintaining plausible deniability.
Your "plausible alternative explanation" isn't much different then saying the assassination attempt was conducted by space aliens. We can say all kinds of things if we disregard the need for evidence.
Indeed patsies real and fake certainly aren't a new concept. JFK and the Unspeakable, and sepately Point of Impact were well written and entirely plausible.