194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3471 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, I do have to say it is interesting. I'm no expert on gun shot wounds of any kind, but I'm not sure how much visible damage should remain at this point. His doctor, Ronny Jackson said that the bullet track “produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear."
This image is from this article and is dated Aug-24, 2023, obviously before he was injured.
This is from the post mentioned in the article dated July-27, 2024, nearly 2 weeks after the injury.
I can't see any marks from a bullet wound. Am I blind? It has only been 1.5 to 2 weeks since the injury. Shouldn't there still be some visible scarring if it was an actual hit and left a 2 cm (that's about 3/4" for my fellow Americans) wide track down to the cartilage?
Sure, but that's not been seen in pictures. In order to do cartilage damage, it would have had to tear the upper ear lobe. What we have in pictures is blood (ears bleed like crazy due to thin membane and high blood pressure) after the shooting, and then Trump without bandages playing golf.
I'm not pushing any conspiracy theories here, but if I may just say, that the whole bandage thing at the convention was absolutely bullshit. It's clear he dodged a bullet, literally, because a person in the crowd was killed. What I'm saying is that Ronny Jackson's take, and Trump's photos and behavior after the fact don't match up.
Exactly. As usual, Jackson is lying through his teeth. It was a slight graze. He didn't get part of his ear blown off.
I'm glad you're pushing back. That person didn't address any of the valid points you've raised and I can't stand when people respond and do that.
I'm 30 and don't heal from a blister in 2 weeks.
This dude is 80 and had a piece of his ear ripped off, totally healed 2 weeks later, no deformity.
Yah I slightly burned my hand like two weeks ago and there is still a red mark there.
If that's that the same doctor that keeps trying to claim Trump isn't obese, then in not believing a word he says
Prosthetics and make-up can explain this. Leonard Nimoy's ears were pointy when he was on camera on Star Trek, but not the rest of the time. It is all stuff they can control for.
I don't understand what Souza is saying. That Trump was struck by broken glass rather than a bullet? Ok fine, there was considerable uncertainty about that for a while, so maybe there still is. That Trump was not hit by anything at all and that the whole thing is a fake? That is far fetched.
Why would he or his make up artist try to downplay the only real way he'll ever gain a modicum of mass sympathy? He's not someone trying to hide the fact that he barely missed catching a bullet, so playing with make up to hide something he's going to talk about until he dies doesn't make any sense to me.
The wildest one I read was that Trump razored his own ear, a skill he learned from WWE wrestlers, and the kid was a CIA plant that they knew couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.
Tiny explosives were placed in the mounting brackets of the teleprompters.
No aliens, though. I did feel let down.