No matter how you spin this, it was a bad day and could have been a lot worse. You might hate the man but going out like that would not have been a good day for the US. It would go down like Bobby Kennedy as a dark milestone in our shared history. Happy it was a near miss instead of the reason for a state funeral.
I don’t envy the Secret Service at all. Thousands of events and interactions that all have to be choreographed to protect politicians who by definition are not universally liked, in a country with more guns than people. Thankfully most people are not homicidal lunatics.
The Secret Service boot camp instructor's introduction is a very humbling introduction.
"You don't get 'a bad day' in the Secret Service. There's plenty of other pursuits out there. Noble pursuits - lawyers, plumbers, firemen, doctors. If one of those folks has a rough night the night before - stays out late - they have to deal with their boss, some kind of disciplinary action.
If YOU 'have a bad day' and YOU don't do your job, you're going to change the world."
The problem with that mindset is that the Republicans also have their own looneys who swear that Obama or Biden or whoever else will kill freedom and enact an autocracy. Saying so doesn't make it more true.
Not sure Trump could write a 900 pages document about anything but sure? Unless Trump endorsed whatever that document is then sure.
And yeah, shooting a presidential candidate because of some conspiracy theories that involve a president dismantling 'modern life' is unhinged. Unless modern life is a 4 year American political cycle. I remember the same doom posting back in 2016 so it really doesn't have much bite anymore, especially since I'm not American and not knee deep in the batshit rhetoric that permeate american politics
I genuinely don't believe anyone that came up with such a cringy plan is competent, at least not politically so. When even Trump denounces your ramblings, when you specifically made the plan to pander to trump... That's incompetence, especially since he's very very easy to please with enough brown nosing.
I suggest you read more on the Heritage Foundation, they are very capable, know the law inside and out, and have many billionaire backers that would love to set up a christian nationalist plutocracy, with or without Trump.
"Project 2025" is just a wishlist from a coalition of conservative thinktanks led by the Heritage Foundation. When Trump claims he hasn't even read it, I don't think he's lying (do you actually think Trump has the attention span to read over 900 pages of thinktank waffle?). It is just a list of things they hope they'll be able to talk Trump (and his appointees) into doing if he is elected. And no doubt he'll probably do some of them. But others he'll only agree to in a watered down form, and yet others he'll reject entirely. Because he doesn't personally agree with a proposal. Or because he worries about negative political blowback (2026 midterms). Or because competing advisors/lobbyists/etc are telling him not to. And nobody really knows for sure what Trump will or won't agree to do, not even Trump himself – although we can guess (the most extreme proposals in the document are arguably the least likely to actually be implemented, its more moderate proposals have a greater chance of actually happening)
Project 2025 is a manifesto of American ideological conservatism; Trump is not an ideological conservative. He's happy to use them to get ahead, but he has no qualms about throwing them under the metaphorical bus whenever he thinks it is in his political self-interest to do so. And they know they'll do this to him – he's done it to them before and he'll do it to them again – but they don't really have anywhere else to go.
Case in point: the recent GOP platform, where Trump single-handedly ripped out a big chunk of the anti-abortion language and anti-marriage equality language – because he is convinced (not without good reason) that stuff is going to cost him with the swing voters he needs to win. And many religious/social conservatives aren't happy [0] – but is anybody listening to them?
> When Trump claims he hasn't even read it, I don't think he's lying
Sure, not Trump's strong point at all. He didn't even take part in the decades long slow campaign to stack the Supreme Court and overthrow Roe V. Wade.
Point is, he took part by taking advice from the very people that laid out Project 2025 and he will again - it's a prepacked hit the ground running scheme to solve many of the gripes Trump had last time around.
Lousy public servants stopping Trump from doing his thing? No longer a problem, that's an early recommended fix from Project 2025 to redefine how firing and hiring works.
Trump isn't ideologically opposed to abortion rights. He just gave the conservative base what they wanted, it appears without fully thinking through the consequences. And then when he was hit with those consequences, he discovered he didn't like them.
> Point is, he took part by taking advice from the very people that laid out Project 2025 and he will again - it's a prepacked hit the ground running scheme to solve many of the gripes Trump had last time around.
I agree he's probably going to do some of the things they are asking. Something like making it easier to fire federal bureaucrats who are trying to oppose his agenda from within – I can see why that would appeal to him. But other stuff in Project 2025 probably doesn't.
Also, having very briefly skim-read Project 2025, much it just sounds like a return to the policies of the Trump I or Bush Jr administrations on various issues (e.g. reinstating various abortion-related funding bans which the Biden administration reversed). Which is the typical yo-yo of American public policy – a lot of stuff gets reversed continuously depending on which party is in power.
Agreed. I guess there's still a chance that the shooter is just an unhinged, mentally ill person with no political affiliations (like with Reagan) but there's probably a "why" otherwise.
That's clearly not what they mean, regardless if you agree or not. Seems fairly disingenuous to pretend like you don't understand why political assassinations of extremely contentious politicians happen.
Biden is also contentious for half of the US population, yet I'm not sure I'd understand if someone shot him.
Even if you want a politician dead, surely you'd realize that missing your shot or anything else going wrong will just make said politician much, much stronger.
Completely agree. That's basically what I wanted to say, that this isn't some person who's trying to save the US from an actual threat, because that's not really productive in the context of a US election. It's just a deranged shooter.
Do you mean physically too far to the left for the shot? If you’re trying to frame this as a political comment it’s an odd comment. Additionally, the shooter has so far been identified as a registered Republican.
He’s a Democrat donor that registered Republican likely to pick someone else during the primaries. Possibly because the Democratic establishment decided to (by some degree) “skip Democracy” by not holding a primary election to potentially replace Biden. Hence people that wanted to participate in the political process had to be Republican to participate in a primary election.
It was my understanding at the time of posting before much pictures came out that the bullet and the aim was too far to the left which was the perfect line up for a politics joke.
Similar jokes include [a person] is so far left or so far right that they can’t walk a straight line down a sidewalk without falling over.
You're hanging the idea that he was left-wing on a single $15 donation (made when he was 17 years old, over 3 years ago). He could have done that for any reason, including just trying to impress some girl he knew.
> likely to pick someone else during the primaries
The word "likely" is doing an awful lot of work here.
I'm finding it more "likely" that the $15 donation happened before he fell into a right wing rabbit hole on YouTube (based on the guntuber t-shirt, I suspect his YouTube recommendations were a lot more right-leaning than left).
Changing your political party is free. I do that all the time on nearly every election cycle before reverting back to Independent again. Putting your money where your mouth is isn’t free.
We’ll find out more as more information comes out.
I’m surprised that’s the part you’re hanging your hat on. With all of the layoffs happening by the day, and the increasing political divide on non ideological basis by the reporting media, the country is becoming more and more ripe for a civil war. The people want change as well as a complete reset on the country’s priority list. Just everyone disagrees on what the changes should be and how to rank the priority list. It’s hard to see for someone on the left or the right but it’s easy to see as someone caught in the middle of it all.
I just want to end with a message to bridge the growing divide in our country both ways. Why do you think half of our country votes the opposite way that you do? Could it be they have seen things in the world that you have missed? What has the other side seen that you haven’t?
> Putting your money where your mouth is isn’t free.
This is a 17-year-old kid making a $15 donation.
It isn't like he pulled together $250k to donate to some super PAC.
Meanwhile:
> Former student Max R. Smith remembered Crooks as an intelligent classmate with conservative political leanings. Smith recalled participating in a mock debate in a course they took together, where their teacher posed questions on government policy and had students stand on opposite sides of the classroom to signal their support or opposition.
> “The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other. ... It makes me wonder why he would carry out an assassination attempt on the conservative candidate.”
The $15 donation is contested. I'm waiting for the results of the official investigation if they even care about this detail. There are plenty of lone wolf's throughout history and what political party they belong to is not very interesting outside of a talking point.
The way he touches his ear actually looks perfectly normal for getting shot in the ear. He looks like he has no idea WTF just happened, which is more normal for getting shot IRL than what happens in the movies. It takes a while for the mind to catch up to reality and to process that the noise was gunshots and the pain is due to getting hit.
Trump immediately knew how good this was going to be for him in the upcoming election, His arm-pumping gesture is perfectly in line with his well known and highly egoic personality.
He was already reportedly telling friends that he has been receiving "gifts from the political gods". [0] If that's what he was thinking before this, what is he thinking now?
Ah and so begins the “it was all staged” conspiracy theories. Trump is repeatedly called the second coming of Hitler and news personalities and politicians are without irony claiming that if he wins the next election the US will become a dictatorship and elections will never occur again. But yeah, I agree, it’s a bit of a stretch to think someone might be convinced that he needs to be killed in order to “save democracy.”
Yet which side seems to be quick to violence, using recent events from the last several years? And which news media is constantly using hyperbolic rhetoric claiming it’s the end of the free world? this is what happens.
I imagine the silent majority on all sides wants a return to normalcy, without incidents like the attack on Paul Pelosi, Steve Scalise, or the attack on the Capitol. But yes, statements like "some folks need killing" from Mark Robinson certainly fan these flames.
I hoped against hope they would, but for some reason, the RNC let Mark Robinson speak.
> “Some folks need killing! It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!”
Is what he said a couple of weeks ago. It appears that nothing has changed. Oh well.
Have you looked at Foxnews lately, Or Newsmax, Daily Wire, or turned on talk radio? Almost all western media plays up fear and othering these days because it drives engagement.
"Biden is trying to "radically change the nature of the country", said conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. He warned listeners about a coming "dictatorship", one that could be orchestrated through his presidential orders."
That was from an article written 3 and a half years ago.
The quote you gave there is entirely accurate, Biden is changing the national landscape.
Foxnews et al doesn’t claim Biden is Hitler (as insensitive as this is), and that if he isn’t stopped the entire free world and democracy will end. The rhetoric from the left is driving a group of people who already believe their self worth is defined by how involved in politics they are to now be violently involved.
The left needs to quit pointing fingers and own up to what they’ve done, and learn the lesson to not speak this way again.
Or maybe we need to consider if news media should report on elections and candidates of elections, or if that should be a subject illegal for them to report on.
let’s see a fox news link not a left site saying some Trump supporters said Biden was hitler.
> You're literally responding to a quote by someone saying he will become a dictator.
ok and what of it? politicians are hyperbolic all the time. if you believe a politician can actually be a dictator in our country then you are the problem.
how about the marxist statement forcing a dictatorship so that socialism can be formed? was that said? is the left pushing for a dictatorship themselves? live in CA for some time before you answer that.
the left just twists and spins. i say this as an independent that wants both parties banned. stop twisting and spinning things so people stop trying to shoot presidents.
The typical left response, if it doesn’t align with their beliefs they must be republican. If Biden’s campaign is still curious why Trump is gaining in the polls, here one reason, people are tired of the bullshit from the left.
You don't get it, what about "make America great" implies that somebody thinks the country is in some "ideal" state? The answer to the guns problem is more guns.
And if your main guy gets shot, that's just an excuse to start the civil war you've been prepping for all these years.
or, and more than likely, people want guns to ensure they’re not the victim, given police only respond to crimes that have already happened and rarely prevent crimes.
Australia is an aberration (I can go into it in more detail if you'd like), but for the most part, the reason the US is (substantially) economically better off than most European countries (like the UK, where the GGP is from) is inextricably tied to the unique ethno-cultural characteristics (descended from a weird mish-mash of quakerism, scots-irish borderer culture, etc.) of the USA. Major relevant factors include a high degree of individualism, relatively high risk tolerance, relatively strong belief in property rights, etc. - all of which are coincident with a belief in and desire for public gun ownership.
I look at the US and I see one of the richest, most successful, and most impactful countries in the world (and not through any sort of low-liquidity arbitrage like being a tax haven).
Our crime rates are moderately higher than countries in similar wealth brackets, but this is entirely (and I mean, non-hyperbolically, entirely) attributable to factors besides our relatively high gun ownership rates.
> inextricably tied to the unique ethno-cultural characteristics
> scots-irish borderer culture
Hate to break it to you but the scots-irish centers of checks notes West Virginia and Bakersfield, CA are not the economic powerhouses of the USA like the Northeast or CA.
Gun ownership areas and GDP in the US are almost entirely negatively-correlated.
The scots-irish were one of the 4 largest ethnic groups at the time of the declaration of independence and are arguably the single biggest differentiating factor from other anglo colonies like aus and NZ. Not sure where you're getting your demography from
Rural areas have higher GDP, yes, but not relevant
Roughly a third of convicts sent to Australia were Irish, a good number political (Fennians), in the 1891 census the Irish made up about 27 percent of the immigrants from the British Isles. Scotland accounted for roughly 12 percent.
Together the Scots-Irish block in pre 1900 Australia was comparable to that in colonial America circa Indpendance - some US States had a greater weighting than others.
The whole country is in a constant state of fear because of guns. Almost every justification I've seen is about a right to protect yourselves from others with guns but you can't seem to understand that most people in western countries never have to worry about this. I don't ever leave my house worried about being shot or being in a position where a gun would help.
You keep adding more guns talking about how you need them to protect yourselves from the other guns and things just keep getting worse and worse. You're on a downward spiral of gun violence and fear.
You talk about wealth but it's not evenly distributed at all and there is a reason your richest live in walled off communities and your poorest die early due to lack of access to preventative medicine and quality nutrition.
Wealth means little when you live with a constant threat of violence, it's like being a billionaire in China or Russia.
>or, and more than likely, people want guns to ensure they’re not the victim, given police only respond to crimes that have already happened and rarely prevent crimes.
That is you in another comment in this post. You are literally describing living in fear. For most people in the west the worry about needing to protect themselves never factors into their life it just isn't something we need to worry about, this constant fear is a distinctly American issue.
So those that buy drills are constantly living in fear that they have to drill a hole in a wall? Maybe they buy because: 1- they want to prepared to an eventuality; 2- it's a cool tool to have.
If you say "I bought a drill because I'm afraid one day I'll need to make a hole in the wall" then yes it is fair to say that person is living in fear of needing to make a hole in the wall.
If you say I bought a gun because I'm afraid of being a victim of crime then you are spending your whole life in fear of crime. It is hard for people who grow up in cultures like that to understand but most people in rich western countries don't live in fear of crime like that. It just isn't something most of us think about at all.
how about if you buy a gun because a family member was murdered and lefties decided to put them in jail for life instead of ending theirs, leaving the chance for escape to kill more family members. Is it then ok to defend yourself or should that person still be a victim because 12 people are too scared to walk outside because of a mental illness?
Yes but not of guns. See that’s called hoplophobia and would be irrational considering they can be used for protection. It’s also a mental disorder caused by environmental effects, so there’s that.
So, I am scared of being a victim especially with criminals being released from jail at an alarming rate. But with a gun it’s less of a concern.
But again, the inflammatory rhetoric, your bigotry around guns, is what divided the nation enough to cause this today.
I didn't say in fear of guns. I said Americans live their whole lives in fear of being victims. They think guns will help but they don't they make it worse.
The sad part is you can repeatedly say you live in fear in these comments while still actively denying you live in fear. Most people in rich western countries don't live like that, I don't ever worry about being a victim of a violent crime, it isn't on my radar and it isn't for almost everyone in Australia, Canada, the UK, and Western Europe. It just isn't something we have to think or worry about so that it why it is so weird watching Americans constantly be afraid but think their situation is good.
With guns your fear isn't lessened because easy access to guns means you also worry that the person you're arguing with on the street has one too so it's constantly a concern. Criminals in Australia, Canada, the UK, etc can still get guns of course but they are hard to get and expensive so they are almost never used for random crimes. They are almost always used for criminal on criminal violence.
People like you who refuse to accept that the american system isn't working is the problem because you refuse to accept that things need to change to improve.
I’m not denying I live in fear. I’m denying I and most fear guns. And it’s irrational to tell someone fearing for their life to not protect theirselves.
The American system is working fine, you see you have nothing to worry about except your hoplophobia. If a scary person shows up with a gun just call the police right?
I honestly don't see how you can say both these things in the same comment. You do understand that basically no one in other developed western countries live in fear right? Living your whole life in fear is a uniquely american experience amongst that cohort and that is why we say the American system isn't working.
>If a scary person shows up with a gun just call the police right?
I literally have never worried about a scary person with a gun showing up at my house except when I lived in the US. It isn't on the list of things I'd even think about this year outside of conversations like this where Americans mention it as something they are genuinely afraid of.
ah so someone from outside the US trying to convince a native that their way of life is a problem. where have i heard this before?
look im scared of criminals, not inanimate objects. and if someone shows up with or without a gun to cause you harm what will you do? you’re asking everybody to be a victim to help resolve your mental health issue. see a professional!
If you consider South America to be America, I can say that Brazilians constantly live in fear despite strict gun control laws and criminals have no trouble obtaining whatever they want.
And you immediately think guns are the only thing that can make someone a victim? You’re uneducated on this subject and using a democratic attempt on a former republican presidents life to try yet again for more gun control.
Of course I don't think guns are the only thing that can make someone a victim, but I don't think gun culture is helping anyone from being a victim. If you live your whole life afraid of being a victim of violent crime you are a victim whether or not anyone ever attacks you. That is a sad existence and it exists purely because of your fear based culture.
No, it won't be successful because America has shown time and time again it would rather watch classrooms of children be murdered than give up their guns. You'd rather have to think about mass shootings every time you go to the mall or church than give up any freedoms around your guns. You don't get over that kind of fear in a generation or two.
how about the near 70k justifiable homicides per year from guns? there’s 70k victims per year disproving your point.
you don’t get it. you want to ban guns and save 15k lives a year, yet drinking takes 140k lives a year. why aren’t you scared of alcohol? you have a higher chance of dying from a drunk driver or drinking yourself than being shot. so why don’t you focus on saving more lives?
Why do you assume I'm not? Alcohol is horrible, it's the only drug that isn't just socially acceptable but often feels socially required despite its dangers.
>so why don’t you focus on saving more lives?
I'm a human, I'm able to focus on multiple things in my life.
you’ll find different numbers for justifiable homicides and depending on the source. Your source here is a .org so can’t be trusted due to potential bias
if you actually concerned with saving lives then again, focus on what will save the most.
you keep continuing this conversation like you’re going to suddenly convince me to stop wanting to protect myself. additionally on HN people are set in their beliefs. you won’t convince anybody of anything here.
> The whole country is in a constant state of fear because of guns.
No, we're not. Nor has it been during my entire life. This sounds like the kind of stereotype only someone that doesn't live here believes... the kind of stereotyping that allows you to say, "we're so much better than them!" Oh sure, there are some that are and there are some places, though relatively few, where you probably ought to be.
But if gun availability is the root of the problem as you seem to be suggesting, you simply aren't thinking very deeply about the reality in context with history. Guns are more regulated now in US than at any other time in its history (OK, given some modest ebb and flow in laws passed and litigation over the past few decades). But do you really think that during its entire 248 year history the entire country has been in a state of constant fear? If increased gun prohibitions are the answer to lawlessness certainly that fear must have been terrifically more pronounced in the past and we should already have a highly regulated gun ownership regime. I find it highly unlikely that my ancestor's ancestors were shaken to their core for fear of being shot (and some of my family goes back to the 1850s wild west in Utah!)
Gun availability in the US is simply not a recent phenomena. They use to teach shooting courses in some public high schools no less. Suggesting that after a hundred years of ever increasing gun regulation that somehow guns are the problem is just silly.
It is hard to see when you live in the culture but as someone who lives outside it but has spent a lot of time living in the US you really are constantly in fear of violence. You can even see it in the comments by people here when gun restrictions are suggested.
So yes, for the whole history of america you lot have been in a state of perpetual fear of things you believe your guns will protect you from which have only shown to be made worse by your dependence on guns.
Brazil and Latin America share culture, genes, language, history, religion, laws and much more with Europe. It's nonsensical to say that Brazil and Latin America aren't Western. What's your criteria? Income per capita? Your worldview is very much biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world I'm referring to the countries in dark blue. Until the 80s you were under a dictatorship with rebel guerrillas/paramilitary organisations which later became gangs/pseudo governments in large parts of your cities. You're not really comparable.
> Until the 80s you were under a dictatorship with rebel guerrillas/paramilitary organisations which later became gangs/pseudo governments in large parts of your cities. You're not really comparable.
You have a very superficial understanding of Brazilian history.
Countries in light blue are subgroups of the Western world and not groups apart. Just say rich/developed Western countries instead.
> You're not really comparable.
Of course not because you are cherry picking data. You want to compare a single ethnically diverse and large country (USA) with many ethnically homogeneous, small countries with much older population. You're an ignorant racist.
