FBI identifies Trump rally shooter as Thomas Matthew Crooks <--- Thread is about the perpetrator, the crime, and the motivation, not Trump

[ThatRobGuy]

Questioning is one thing. Building a whole conspiracy theory based on nothing but out of context videos and outright fraud is another. In 2000, Florida had a bunch of garbage ballots that left a lot of votes in a state of ambiguity. Gore wanted a recount, and when the SCOTUS saw that each county was applying different standards to their recounts, they said no. To the proposal that each county use a uniform standard, they said no to that, too, because there wouldn't be enough time. Lots of analysts, then and since, have said the decision was questionable-at-best, but the facts underlying it weren't in dispute.

In 2020, yes, you had changes to the process, but no evidence of wrongdoing. It was all Trump & Co running a con.

Right,, but what I've been elaborating on are "patterns of escalation"

Party A pushing the line to one point, makes it a little easier for Party B to push the line a little it further.

At the end of the day, during the 2000 election, Maxine waters (and 12 colleagues) thought it was acceptable to to try to prevent an election certification (even when Al Gore himself was trying to certify it), and in 2004, people were willing to blame "rigged voting machines" for John Kerry losing. They didn't storm the capitol, but it represents a degree of election denial none the less.

Then we saw people glom on to conspiracy theories about Obama being a Kenyan Marxist

Then we saw people acting like babies and screaming "Not my president!" in the streets when Trump beat Hillary.


When you push the "crazy" line gradually, what once was crazy starts to seem a little more "normal", meaning the other side and push it a step further with each iteration of the pattern.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yet it happened. We all know it.

Jan 6th definitely happened.

DC is about as heavily democratic as it gets. If they could charge Trump with insurrection or starting a riot, they would have.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about his own actions for starters?

Sure...such as?

Too much to ask?

Is it too much to ask you to explain what you mean?

 

[Belk]

The hypocrisy of the left condemning Trumps "fight" words saying he's inciting things while at the same time defending or failing to condemn the "Hitler" or "Fscist", or "eliminate," type comments from the left that are equal to or worse than anything Trump might have said.

Believing that his word incited people to attack the capitol but reject that those words incited someone to try and take out this very dangerous and deadly man.
It's hypocritical and unhinged.

Only matched by the hypocrisy of the right who has used abrasive and condemning language for decades but suddenly it is an issue when Trump gets shot at. So which is it rjs330? Is it bad when both sides do it or is it excusable? Is is OK to call democrats "baby murders" or is it not? Was it OK to accuse Obama of being a Kenya born atheist Muslim traitor or was that not OK?

And while you personally may have not accused Trump continually. You sure said it was an appropriate or accurate assessment. Which is paramount to the same thing.

No, I said no such thing. I said Trump lied about the election being stolen and so set the whole sequence in motion and so he did. I never have accused him of inciting the riot. I have accused him of not acting quickly enough to control the damage once it was started.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not a great set of initials is it?

That Hitler guy ruined everything.

Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody.

Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000) - S08E10 Larry vs. Michael J. Fox clip with quote Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or...

getyarn.io

I would agree that there's no evidence of "impactful" voter fraud in 2020, in that, any irregularities that did occur, didn't change the outcome. I've said before and I'll say now, Biden was the winner.

But the same is true for 2000 and 2004. The only reason people think that Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry is any different, is for partisan reasons...

No, there are substantive reasons to thing that 2000 and 2020 are quite different. Again, 2000 was about SCOTUS stepping in and guiding process in a way the benefited someone from their political party. 2020 was a deliberate con.

If you want to make your argument from the perspective of the voter who only knows what the media feeds him, okay, maybe I could see that. We don't necessarily blame the cultists for being duped by their cult leader. But that still leaves the cult leader running a con.

 

[rjs330]

Is is OK to call democrats "baby murders"

It's okay to say that if you are murdering babies.

Was it OK to accuse Obama of being a Kenya born atheist Muslim traitor or was that not OK?

No I don't believe it was right to call Obama a Muslim traitor if someone did that.

No, I said no such thing. I said Trump lied about the election being stolen and so set the whole sequence in motion and so he did. I never have accused him of inciting the riot. I have accused him of not acting quickly enough to control the damage once it was started.

Thats incorrect. You forget qe have a search function and I found it. You did exactly what I said. You sure said it was an appropriate or accurate assessment.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's okay to say that if you are murdering babies.

Well, then it's okay to say that you're a threat to democracy when you try to steal an election and have a very friendly set of judges hand you a bunch of questionable legal decisions including immunity from a lot of prosecution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only matched by the hypocrisy of the right who has used abrasive and condemning language for decades but suddenly it is an issue when Trump gets shot at.

Well when someone is actually getting shot at....it indicates that the language has gone a bit far.

So which is it rjs330? Is it bad when both sides do it or is it excusable? Is is OK to call democrats "baby murders" or is it not?

I don't recall anyone calling all Democrats "baby murderers"...that was generally reserved for abortion doctors and patients.

I'd also point out there's a rather wide and significant difference between someone on the news, for example, or in the office of president....calling someone a "threat to democracy" or a "wannabe dictator"....and some street preacher with a sign.

Was it OK to accuse Obama of being a Kenya born atheist Muslim traitor or was that not OK?

Nope....and the right actually pushed back against a lot of that.

You had McCain pushing back against it.

Well, then it's okay to say that you're a threat to democracy when you try to steal an election

Hillary Clinton rigged her own nomination.

As for crimes Trump's been accused of but not convicted of....it's probably in bad taste to say he's a threat to democracy. Even if he did attempt to steal an election, he certainly isn't the first politician to do so and democracy is still here.

and have a very friendly set of judges hand you a bunch of questionable legal decisions including immunity from a lot of prosecution.

You can't possibly be blaming him for the decisions of judges. It's not as if every decision of every judge has gone in his favor. He doesn't even currently hold office.

If you think he's a threat to democracy because of the actions of judges....then what about the actions of politicians who passed laws just to see Trump sued? What about Governors who have to reassure every other real estate investor they won't be tried for the same bogus crimes as Trump even though they clearly operate the same way? What about DAs that run on convicting Trump of anything they can dig up?

It's not as if Trump is magically able to twist the arms of judges and the DOJ. He's a former president....not current one. If legal manipulation makes someone a threat to Democracy....is it fair to say that about the entire Democratic Party?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's weird to even ask at this point....but is it such a stretch to say it's in bad taste to call a valid presidential candidate a threat to democracy?

I understand things are going really really poorly....but if all you have left is the accusation that Trump is a threat to democracy....then perhaps the problem isn't Trump at all.

Perhaps Trump Derangement Syndrome is a valid diagnosis if you think Trump is an existential threat to democracy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That Hitler guy ruined everything.

Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody.

Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000) - S08E10 Larry vs. Michael J. Fox clip with quote Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or...

getyarn.io

Fun fact...I joked with my father that Trump would have to appoint Hitler's grandson as VP to avoid assassination about a month ago. He said I was being ridiculous. We had a fun talk about it yesterday.

No, there are substantive reasons to thing that 2000 and 2020 are quite different. Again, 2000 was about SCOTUS stepping in and guiding process in a way the benefited someone from their political party. 2020 was a deliberate con.

If you want to make your argument from the perspective of the voter who only knows what the media feeds him, okay, maybe I could see that. We don't necessarily blame the cultists for being duped by their cult leader. But that still leaves the cult leader running a con.

A bill passed the house requiring a valid ID

That Hitler guy ruined everything.

Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody.

Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000) - S08E10 Larry vs. Michael J. Fox clip with quote Hitler really ruined that mustache for everybody. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or...

getyarn.io

No, there are substantive reasons to thing that 2000 and 2020 are quite different. Again, 2000 was about SCOTUS stepping in and guiding process in a way the benefited someone from their political party. 2020 was a deliberate con.

If you want to make your argument from the perspective of the voter who only knows what the media feeds him, okay, maybe I could see that. We don't necessarily blame the cultists for being duped by their cult leader. But that still leaves the cult leader running a con.

Campaigns seize on House-passed bill to require proof of citizenship to vote - Roll Call

A bill to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections — which is already illegal — passed the House on a largely party-line vote.

rollcall.com

4 Democrats voted for this. If delusional thinking about the Democratic Party committing voter fraud is rampant on the right...the left certainly hasn't done anything to quell those concerns. In fact, they've done the opposite....

NYC law that would have allowed 800K noncitizens to vote struck as unconstitutional by appeals court: ‘Enacted in violation’

A controversial New York City law that would allow 800,000 non-citizens to vote in municipal elections was struck down as unconstitutional by a state appeals court Wednesday.

nypost.com

New York specifically tried to let noncitizens vote. When it was struck down....it was appealed.

Then in 2022, you had a pile of clowns suggest some basic election laws were created to deny minorities the right to vote.

Stories like this...

Voting rights under attack in Georgia as state turns purple

Hours-long lines at polling places, baseless allegations of fraud and a law that makes voting more difficult have drawn international attention to Georgia elections. In a state with a long history of voter suppression, changes in advance of the 2020 election made casting a ballot easier for...

publicintegrity.org

And this...

https://www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publications/ldf-blog/important-facts-about-ldfs-lawsuit-challenging-georgias-voter-suppression-bill/

Promoted the left wing conspiracy theory that voter suppression was happening in Georgia. Subsequent lawsuits filed by Stacy Abrams and the election results themselves showed that not only was Abrams unable to find a single voter unable to vote... but voter turnout increased in Georgia.

To say that these election result lies are only a widespread conspiracy on the right is complete nonsense. The left yells that racist voter suppression is happening even when zero evidence of this exists.

 

[BPPLEE]

The "this was staged" idea is a left wing conspiracy theory that started out pretty early in the first hours after the shooting.

A man died and two were hospitalized. That news wasn't shared widely before the "it was staged conspiracy theory" broke. It largely hinged on the idea of the gunshots being fake since no one was hurt besides Trump's ear.

I also think conspiracy theories about the secret service are pretty much bonkers as well. Everyone keeps talking about their "failures" and what should have been done....Monday morning quarterbacking the event. They covered him, killed the shooter, then got him out of there....alive. It hardly matters if someone believes they didn't do their job perfectly....they did it successfully.

I've seen cops on hectic scenes make perfect shots that were 100% justified and they still get criticized.

The reason I’m critical of the Secret Service is that only luck or divine intervention saved Trump.
There’s no way someone should have been able to climb a building with a direct line of sight to Trump that close without being seen and stopped. It’s a massive failure on behalf of the Secret Service and heads should be rolling but they won’t be in this administration.

 

[Belk]

It's okay to say that if you are murdering babies.

No I don't believe it was right to call Obama a Muslim traitor if someone did that.

Thats incorrect. You forget qe have a search function and I found it. You did exactly what I said. You sure said it was an appropriate or accurate assessment.

In other words its justified when you guys do it. Enough said.

 

[durangodawood]

I would agree that there's no evidence of "impactful" voter fraud in 2020, in that, any irregularities that did occur, didn't change the outcome. I've said before and I'll say now, Biden was the winner.

But the same is true for 2000 and 2004. The only reason people think that Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry is any different, is for partisan reasons...or for reasons that I would consider "hack" reasons, like the complaints about the popular votes not lining up with the electoral votes (people knew we weren't a direct democracy in terms of presidential elections going into it)


I would also argue that "utterly exhaustive examination" is misleading within the context of what people were concerned about.

How do you give a quality examination under a system where people can mail in something without having to provide any proof that it's them? Simple answer, you can't. That's like saying that "the honor system" is a reliable system...clearly it's not lol.


It's like saying "The Cleveland Police only arrested 6 people for DUI last weekend, those are the only documented DUIs, there's no concrete evidence that there were any other people drunk driving beyond those 6 people"

Sure, the only hard evidence would be limited to those six hypothetical incidents so the statement is semantically true, but one would have to be naive to believe that nobody else in the entire city was driving drunk that weekend.

You can "utterly examine those six cases to the point of exhaustion", it doesn't lend any credibility to the idea that those were the only 6 drunk drivers in Cleveland that weekend.

Democrats shot themselves in the foot by thinking that at the only way to counter a GOP argument that something is a "huge issue!" is by pretending it's a "non-issue".

If they wanted to highlight a vast left wing conspiracy to hijack millions of ballots and fake signatures, they could have done so. Tons of people who had their ballot stolen would have come forward. Nah, the system is solid. Thats why "stolen election" relied on (now) known fabrications.

The reason Bush / Gore is different is because the process was halted by the Supreme Court. Nothing fabricated about that fact and the underlying facts.

As I said before, if there are facts underlying your election dispute case, go for it! In Bush / Gore, there were facts to talk about. In 2020 there were lies to debunk.

 

[ranunculus]

In other words its justified when you guys do it. Enough said.

It's the same thing with accusing entire people groups of being groomers and worse. As seen repeatedly on this very board. Rhetoric which permeates conservative circles. The non subtle subtext of using that type of language is that these people shouldn't be allowed to exist in society. Along with throwing words like genocide and murder around when talking about people's private health care decisions. What a surprise when someone's actions follow the message that is sent

 

[Landon Caeli]

Just saw this on a financial channel. The link has the ad.

BlackRock yanks 2022 ad featuring Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks

View attachment 351706

If Blackrock is Trump-sympathetic, then that really says a lot. Blackrock is a really big deal.

"BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, with US$10 trillion in assets."

BlackRock - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Landon Caeli]

Still nothing more on the shooter. Interesting.

Suspicious to me... Like someone picked a really good tool for the job.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/fbi-shooter-phone/index.html

 

[bèlla]

If Blackrock is Trump-sympathetic, then that really says a lot. Blackrock is a really big deal.

They pulled it because of the shooting but the irony is surprising. Fink works directly with the government and rarely makes those kinds of statements. Trump is looking at Jamie Diamond for the treasury. It's going to be a wild ride but memorable.

~bella

 

[RDKirk]

Just saw this on a financial channel. The link has the ad.

BlackRock yanks 2022 ad featuring Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks

View attachment 351706

Coincidences happen, rather more often than people would think. The classroom was chosen for the ad because of the teacher, not because Crooks was in it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Coincidences happen, rather more often than people would think.

How often does corruption and deception happen? More than one would think, or less often?

 

[RDKirk]

How often does corruption and deception happen? More than one would think, or less often?

Data, evidence, information. (Oh, gosh, I won't make that an acronym.)

What is the actual data, evidence, and information?

What is the source?

Have we gotten valid information from that source before?

Have we gotten invalid information from that source before?

Is there corroborating information from proven valid sources?

What is the motivation for this source to provide the information?