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

iluvatar5150 · Jul 16, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
Erosion of trust in institutions?

To clarify: I do not think, and did not intend to imply (though I concede it could've been read that way), that the erosion of trust in institutions is exclusively a right-wing thing in this country. It probably happens more on the right than on the left, but not so much more that I'd point fingers the way I do about some other things.

Ana the Ist said:
Much politicized furor over sex trafficking?

Did you watch the HHS whistleblower testimony?

I didn't say that sex trafficking doesn't happen. But there's real concern over it, and then there's politicized concern over it, which often seems to have some Q influence (at least lately).

If a person only get hyped up about trafficking when it's tied to illegal immigration or when Jim Caveziel makes a movie - and not about, say, strengthening ethical sourcing requirements of foreign products or stronger CPS investigations at home, then their motivations are probably at least partly political.

Ana the Ist said:
I'm not sure populism is a regression. When you have a disappearing middle class, a near impossibility of home ownership for those under 30, and 90 billion being shipped to a war we aren't fighting (supposedly) you should expect some populist sentiments.

Also, every time a politician on the left complains about billionaire's and multimillionaires not paying their fair share....you're hearing a blatantly populist message.

"Low brow" was doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment. Maybe "demogogue" would've been a better choice of words. The Left has been subject to at least as much demagoguery as the Right, and yet we don't have anything on our side resembling a MAGA movement.

ThatRobGuy · Jul 16, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Where do you come up with "1/3 of the opposing team"? I read the Politico piece and it never presents that group as being anything other than small.

Seven out of 10 Americans Accept Bush as Legitimate President

A recent New York Times story, analyzing the post-election count of overseas absentee ballots in Florida, has stirred up another controversy over the 2000 presidential election. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, however, finds most Americans satisfied that George W. Bush is the "legitimate"...

news.gallup.com

In polls conducted since December, a little more than one-third of all Democrats have said that Bush stole the election, while roughly half have said that Bush won the presidency on a technicality, and just 15% said he won fair and square.

iluvatar5150 said:
I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Does it allege that 9/11 was an inside job? I remember that claim going around, but wikipedia doesn't say anything about the movie making it.

It basically implies that Bush knew the attack was being planned, but intentionally allowed it to happen and didn't prevent it so that he'd have an excuse to go into Iraq and as a means to start mass surveillance programs.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" distorts the truth

ThatRobGuy · Jul 16, 2024

durangodawood said:
If correct, this is an absurdly puerile way of deciding who to vote for - and not a particularly flattering portrait of Trump voters.

It wasn't intended to be flattering...it is what it is.

It's just explaining the what the catalyst was.

iluvatar5150 · Jul 16, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Seven out of 10 Americans Accept Bush as Legitimate President

A recent New York Times story, analyzing the post-election count of overseas absentee ballots in Florida, has stirred up another controversy over the 2000 presidential election. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, however, finds most Americans satisfied that George W. Bush is the "legitimate"...

news.gallup.com

In polls conducted since December, a little more than one-third of all Democrats have said that Bush stole the election, while roughly half have said that Bush won the presidency on a technicality, and just 15% said he won fair and square.

That poll is for the 2000 election, whereas your other article was for the 2004 election.

Remember, the baseline for polling crazy is that 8% of people think they can beat up an elephant or a lion.

Given that W lost the popular vote and that Florida was only decided in his favor after SCOTUS stepped in to stop a recount that could have conceivably given Gore the victory, I don't think the notion that he won on a technicality is unreasonable. Saying he "stole" it is a bit extreme, but saying it was "handed to him by a politically favorable court" isn't.

RDKirk · Jul 16, 2024

BPPLEE said:
That shot that Oswald made was not easy

The direction of fire was in line with the progression of the vehicle. It wasn't that hard, and it's been duplicated since to prove it.

BPPLEE · Jul 16, 2024

RDKirk said:
The direction of fire was in line with the progression of the vehicle. It wasn't that hard, and it's been duplicated since to prove it.

Duplicated by expert marksmen with higher quality rifles than Oswald had.

RDKirk · Jul 16, 2024

BPPLEE said:
Duplicated by expert marksmen with higher quality rifles than Oswald had.

Who testified that it was an easy shot (a Formula One race driver can identify "easy drive" from "difficult drive"). They did not say the shot took them to the limit of their expertise. It takes speculation beyond the evidence to conclude anything more.

BPPLEE · Jul 16, 2024

RDKirk said:
Who testified that it was an easy shot (a Formula One race driver can identify "easy drive" from "difficult drive"). They did not say the shot took them to the limit of their expertise. It takes speculation beyond the evidence to conclude anything more.

It wasn’t just that Oswald hit Kennedy in the head. It was that he hit him in the head on the third shot. And he hit him in the head on the third shot with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a misaligned scope. It was arguably the worst infantry rifle of its era and was used by arguably the worst army in Europe.

RDKirk · Jul 16, 2024

BPPLEE said:
It wasn’t just that Oswald hit Kennedy in the head. It was that he hit him in the head on the third shot. And he hit him in the head on the third shot with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a misaligned scope. It was arguably the worst infantry rifle of its era and was used by arguably the worst army in Europe.

One out of three. That's not incredible.

BPPLEE · Jul 16, 2024

RDKirk said:
One out of three. That's not incredible.

Two out of three

rjs330 · Jul 16, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
There was local police in that building. There was local police in the area that were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building,” [SS Director Cheatle] said.

Mayorkas said it’s not unusual for the Secret Service to rely on other law enforcement agencies during a presidential campaign to fill out tasks, noting that is especially true for the Trump campaign.

This was a complete failure of the SS. It is their responsibility to make sure all the obvious areas of threat are covered. Yes they depend on local LE for some duties, but they know good a well LE is not trained for personal protective details. It's their job to know all the threat areas and get them covered. I've listened to some protective detail experts talk about this. Including one that was in charge of protective details for politicians in Canada. That rooftop was a perfect spot for a sniper. The secret service should have mandated someone up there or had something blocking the view from the rooftop which is another method.

The SS director should be fired along with whomever was in charge of Trumps detail that day.

essentialsaltes said:
The state police said securing the property and building where Crooks was perched on the roof was not part of the officers’ duties [they were within the perimeter]. It remains unclear which agency was responsible for securing that building.

Troy Douthett with the Butler City Council dismissed as “hogwash” the Secret Service’s claim that the shooter was outside its security perimeter.

“Local law enforcement is not equipped for protecting a president. That’s just insanity to me. We would have full expectation that the professionals would be professional,” he added.

Obviously there was some confusion as to who was responsible for that building. But again that's rhe SS fault. They should have been absolutely clear on who was responsible and ensured that it was handled. That's their job.

LE is not equipped or trained for personal protection details. They depend on the experts to tell them.what to do and specifically what to cover. Where are the hot spots? Where do they need to have people posted etc.

Now this does not absolve rhe LE completely. The LE leader should have recognized on his own that the roof top is a good place for a shooter and made sure that there was an officer there to cover it. IF that was their assigned area. The fact that there was confusion as to who was responsible for that lies upon the SS.

rjs330 · Jul 16, 2024

Landon Caeli said:
And I want to know exactly who that ladder belongs to that multiple sources cite as being used at that location.

I heard something that the ladder was part of the building. It sounds like it wasn't just a ladder you buy at the hardware store.

rjs330 · Jul 16, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
So if we're looking at what led up to or fostered the things that threaten democratic norms (IE: questioning or rejecting election results, eventually in ways that lead to violent altercations)

What's more likely to have set the framework for normalizing election denial
Was it religious media calling people "baby killers"? Or Rush Limbaugh floating conspiracy theories about Vince Foster?

Or was it the events I outlined before that happened surrounding the 2000 and 2004 elections?

Whatever the rhetoric was surrounding Bill Clinton, I don't recall over a dozen house reps trying to stop the election from being certified during his first election, and I don't recall 1/3 of the opposing team suggesting that his 2nd election was "rigged via voting machines" after his subsequent re-election.

And while some goofy conspiracy theories may have been floated around, they were always just that, fringe conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories didn't start getting "mainstream status" (as in, a substantial amount of a party, and party leaders willing to embrace them) until the Bush 9/11 stuff.

Terry McAuliffe (then DNC chair) along with some Senators and House Reps attending the premier of "Fahrenheit 911" (and subsequently promoting it) represents a "normalization of conspiracy theories" that hadn't existed up until then.

And I also feel that those events were the precursor to them voting for someone like Trump in the first place. After 3 times in a row of getting labelled as "fascist/racist/etc..." after voting for the respectable (yet, increasingly watered-down) candidates, eventually that causes a "gloves are coming off, we want a counter-puncher" mentality for some people I would imagine.

"Well, they called us names for voting for Bush...okay, well we'll back John McCain, he's a little more tame, and gets along well with their team...hmmm, they still called us racists, let's go with Romney, a New England governor who accomplished healthcare reform and got high approvals ratings in a blue state...what's that, they're still calling us fascists?...ok, that's it, no more playing nice"

Man you are more correct than you know. Trump would never have been elected in the 90s or the early 2000s. It wasn't until people got fed up with the lefts rhetoric and name calling and accusations whenever we spoke up about their agenda. People wanted someone who would actually fight back and Trump became their man. We had a lot of moderate candidates who we liked, but it made no difference. We were still called racists, racists, and every phobe you can imagine. People were sick of it.

And it's just gotten worse to the point where we can't seem to break the cycle now.

But on a positive note Trump said something about changing his speech at the RNC to be more about unity than the speech he had originally prepared. We'll see how that goes. I'm sure no matter what he says the left won't acknowledge any of it as good. The hate will go on.

ozso · Jul 16, 2024

rjs330 said:
I heard something that the ladder was part of the building. It sounds like it wasn't just a ladder you buy at the hardware store.

The Wikipedia account says Crooks purchased a five foot ladder.

RDKirk · Jul 16, 2024

rjs330 said:
I heard something that the ladder was part of the building. It sounds like it wasn't just a ladder you buy at the hardware store.

And then I've heard a report that Crooks bought the ladder at a local store and brought it with him.

Lot's of reports...few actual facts.

rjs330 · Jul 16, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
mean, now that Epstein is dead and they aren't really in political circles anymore...it seems unlikely another body will happen, but regardless, how many dead people have to know, work for/with, or make claims about a politician and die before anything comes of it before you regard it as suspicious?

I'm going to guess it would take at least 100.

rjs330 · Jul 16, 2024

RDKirk said:
And then I've heard a report that Crooks bought the ladder at a local store and brought it with him.

Lot's of reports...few actual facts.

Im.going to put money on the fact they have photos of this ladder, whatever it was. Whether or not we'll ever see them, is doubtful to say the least.

durangodawood · Jul 16, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
You think he supported gay marriage and denied it?

Just wanted to be clear on what you said.

He said he didnt support gay marriage early on. During that time I didnt believe him. I thought he was lying because public support for gay marriage felt just a little too daring at that moment.

So basically, yes to your question.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · Jul 16, 2024

The whole thing was a fake staged PsyOp :

.

durangodawood · Jul 16, 2024

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
The whole thing was a fake staged PsyOp :

.

I can see the motive for the Trump people to do it.

But for facts I'll wait for more than random youtube content. The track record there is poor.

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

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

✦

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency