Shooting at Trump rally: One spectator killed and two critically wounded

[TIC]

So no medical reports released no statement from hospital physicians or staff of any sort. No official campaign statement of any type regarding medical treatment and degree of injury...about the presidential candidate. Literally 1 post from Trump. Make us all say "hmmm " without really telling us to say hmmm. Now I'm not doubting he was injured, but this whole .223 bullet piercing his ear as he did some matrix spin seems like it would actually be um trumped up more with well, actual documentation, medical experts and visuals. Just...interesting. But he's got a bandage on. So there's that.

I normally laugh at conspiracy theorists, and here I am sounding just like one.

Truth is basically a lot of things seem odd about the whole thing. Tough to say it was staged, as there WAS one dead person and the ear wound seemed real enough. But damn... I've gotten a glimpse of how life is on the "other side." LOL...

Good point on the lack of medical reports or official statements. Usually they oversaturate us with every insignificant detail of something as important as an assassination attempt. This time it was like, "Ho hum... so on to the sports news..."

I will say that the incident represents the final straw that broke the camel's back of Biden's chances at being reelected.

Those went from a snowball's chance in hell to man walking on the surface of the sun.

Zip. Zero. Nada. Cero. Zilch.

labelling someone a conspiracy theorist for asking questions is just a lazy way for someone to get out of thinking for themselves & just believing what has been presented to them. there is so much bullshit in this one

Often people like yourself are not actually asking the right questions. You are simply believing what has been presented to you by contrarian edge lords who assume other people are even less able to reason than themselves. That is why you parrot Alex Jones on Sandy Hook and other mass shootings pretending they were all staged with actors against all the overwhelming evidence.I mean if you don't even accept there is such a thing as an immune system you can hardly boast about having superior reasoning skills.

Spicoli is right politics has been a circus for years but Titofan is also right in pointing out there is something odd about the whole incident and maxipad thing.

what questions did i not ask correctly about what event? you won't provide anything specific as usual just your usual vague nonsense. who am i believing larry? i've never watched anything alex jones has said about sandy hook but there are many questions to be asked about many of these events. you are mis-representing me, i've never pretended they were all staged with actors. our bodies are either at ease or they are at dis ease. if at dis ease the body will use processes to help it. the immune system isn't a thing, it's just your interpretation of processes the body utilizes

[TitoFan]

There's a fundamental difference between some of us here.

I see a news item, such as Sandy Hook... and as long as the sources are reliable and credible (and I'm perfectly capable of making that judgment for myself)... I begin from the starting point of belief. If ANYTHING in the story seems fishy, I proceed to dig and analyze (as again I'm perfectly capable of doing) in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the story is real or not.

You (TIC), on the other hand, begin each news story from the viewpoint of disbelief and mistrust. You assume everything is false and staged (with some obscure purpose)... and it must be "proven" to you otherwise. The problem is that most of the time no amount of proof or evidence is good enough. Most of us can't be bothered to prove anything to those who choose to live in a world of constant disbelief.

When you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you've already made up your mind about the story's veracity. When you begin from the viewpoint of belief, most of us are open to (real) holes in the story that might cast some doubt on it.
REAL holes... not imagined or constructed ones.

It's all a matter of personal choice, really. I've lived a full and fruitful life going to school at all levels... learning things that are both verifiable and unverifiable. Such is the nature of life and learning. Trust is a huge factor here. I trust people and news sources until they lose my trust. Then it's difficult or damn near impossible to win if back. Others choose to mistrust everybody. It's a life choice, so to each his own.

What most of us object to is the insistence of the "unbelievers" to label everyone else with words like "sheep" or whatever. This can be EASILY turned around toward the unbelievers, who can be accused of the same thing.

[ykdadamaja]

There's a fundamental difference between some of us here.

I see a news item, such as Sandy Hook... and as long as the sources are reliable and credible (and I'm perfectly capable of making that judgment for myself)... I begin from the starting point of belief. If ANYTHING in the story seems fishy, I proceed to dig and analyze (as again I'm perfectly capable of doing) in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the story is real or not.

You (TIC), on the other hand, begin each news story from the viewpoint of disbelief and mistrust. You assume everything is false and staged (with some obscure purpose)... and it must be "proven" to you otherwise. The problem is that most of the time no amount of proof or evidence is good enough. Most of us can't be bothered to prove anything to those who choose to live in a world of constant disbelief.

When you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you've already made up your mind about the story's veracity. When you begin from the viewpoint of belief, most of us are open to (real) holes in the story that might cast some doubt on it.
REAL holes... not imagined or constructed ones.

It's all a matter of personal choice, really. I've lived a full and fruitful life going to school at all levels... learning things that are both verifiable and unverifiable. Such is the nature of life and learning. Trust is a huge factor here. I trust people and news sources until they lose my trust. Then it's difficult or damn near impossible to win if back. Others choose to mistrust everybody. It's a life choice, so to each his own.

What most of us object to is the insistence of the "unbelievers" to label everyone else with words like "sheep" or whatever. This can be EASILY turned around toward the unbelievers, who can be accused of the same thing.

You have to give the media the benefit of the doubt. No matter what and as you rightly said, start from there and when things don't add up then we start to call BS. But, and this may surprise you, but people in the media are not infallible.

Do you know how many times I get lied to in a month? How many people come to you with false narratives and you have to make a judgement call as to whether to run the story or not?

[TIC]

There's a fundamental difference between some of us here.

I see a news item, such as Sandy Hook... and as long as the sources are reliable and credible (and I'm perfectly capable of making that judgment for myself)... I begin from the starting point of belief. If ANYTHING in the story seems fishy, I proceed to dig and analyze (as again I'm perfectly capable of doing) in order to reach a conclusion as to whether the story is real or not.

You (TIC), on the other hand, begin each news story from the viewpoint of disbelief and mistrust. You assume everything is false and staged (with some obscure purpose)... and it must be "proven" to you otherwise. The problem is that most of the time no amount of proof or evidence is good enough. Most of us can't be bothered to prove anything to those who choose to live in a world of constant disbelief.

When you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you've already made up your mind about the story's veracity. When you begin from the viewpoint of belief, most of us are open to (real) holes in the story that might cast some doubt on it.
REAL holes... not imagined or constructed ones.

It's all a matter of personal choice, really. I've lived a full and fruitful life going to school at all levels... learning things that are both verifiable and unverifiable. Such is the nature of life and learning. Trust is a huge factor here. I trust people and news sources until they lose my trust. Then it's difficult or damn near impossible to win if back. Others choose to mistrust everybody. It's a life choice, so to each his own.

What most of us object to is the insistence of the "unbelievers" to label everyone else with words like "sheep" or whatever. This can be EASILY turned around toward the unbelievers, who can be accused of the same thing.

you say as long as the sources are reliable & credible you are happy to believe. as ykdadamaja has said the media is easily or willing manipulated. most main stream media has been caught lying. from my own experince in the military (some believe i was in the military some don't, larry called me a murderer, it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant), i have seen how stories are feed to the media that aren't true. you may choose to reach a conclusion but that doesn't prove it to be real

you are correct that i start from the viewpoint of mistrust. you are wrong that i assume everything is false & staged. things claimed to be real must be proven to be so. evidence roves ideas, proof proves facts. how many times have you heard of people being falsly convicted based on evidence? i don't live in a world of constant disbelief, i live in a world where claims must be proven to be true

again i don't begin from a viewpoint of didbelief, my viewpoint is claims must be proven to be true. when you begin from the viewpoint of belief you open yourself up to believing something that is not true. what imagined or constructed ones holes from myself are you referring to titofan?

you say trust is a huge factor. you must have a very short memory or not know your history. your government & media has llied to you countless times. there is no need to mistrust when claims are able to be proven true

you are the one that constantly uses lables, although you claim to dislike doing so. i just ask that claims be proven to be true. you choose to believe something & act like you know it's true. i choose to say i don't know because i wasn't there but i'll highlight inconsistencies in narratives when i see them

[TitoFan]

you say as long as the sources are reliable & credible you are happy to believe.

And I added that I'm perfectly capable of making that judgement for myself. Don't forget to include that part.

you may choose to reach a conclusion but that doesn't prove it to be real

Just like you might choose to not believe something but that doesn't prove that it's not real. The door swings both ways.

when you begin from the viewpoint of belief you open yourself up to believing something that is not true.

And when you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief you close your mind, and open yourself to not believing something that is actually true. There's that swinging door again.

what imagined or constructed ones holes from myself are you referring to titofan?

I didn't mention you in my argument, did I. Let's not fabricate other people's arguments. My exact statement was this:
"When you begin from the viewpoint of belief, most of us are open to (real) holes in the story that might cast some doubt on it.
REAL holes... not imagined or constructed ones."

That just means that those of us who don't begin from the viewpoint of disbelief are still open minded enough to recognize where there might be holes in a story. But they have to be REAL holes. Not imagined or constructed ones. Meaning that there are plenty of people out there who just for the sake of being contrary, will fabricate "holes" that don't really exist.

you say trust is a huge factor. you must have a very short memory or not know your history.

How did you jump from my saying that trust is a huge factor (true statement, by the way), to saying I have a short memory or not knowing my history? Did I say I trust people and news media regardless? No. I said I trust people and news media until they lose my trust. For us to have a civil argument, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I'm pretty clear in what I say, but I'll make it clearer if you are having comprehension problems.

your government & media has llied to you countless times.

For you that means that everything that the government and media have ever said is a lie. You can live in that fantasy world with blinders on if you wish. The rest of us choose to use a word you have NO familiarization with: It's called DISCERNMENT.

you are the one that constantly uses lables, although you claim to dislike doing so.

Yes. I've labeled you a conspiracy theorist. You fit the description, so I use the label. Does it bother you? It's not an insult. It's an observation. Own it.
Everyone here has used labels. Yes... even you.

you choose to believe something & act like you know it's true. i choose to say i don't know because i wasn't there but i'll highlight inconsistencies in narratives when i see them

You saved your biggest crock of bullshit for last. "Act like I know it's true?" Give us all a break, will ya? And you just innocently "choose to say you don't know because you weren't there?" Another crock of bullshit.

You choose to start from disbelief and mistrust. On everything. The "inconsistencies in narratives" you see are usually not inconsistencies at all. But the glee with which you seek them out makes you a very biased individual when reading any news item.

Those of us who start from belief until proven otherwise don't try to drag you to our way of thinking. Most of us couldn't give less of a shit whether you believe something or not. Unfortunately the opposite isn't true. You seem to have a pathological need to drag people over to your cynical, conspiracy-theorist way of thinking.

[TIC]

yes you can judge for yourself if you want to believe something or not

if i am unable to verify something for myself I say i don’t know but it could be a possibility, you are happy to believe without verifying

i don’t begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you keep misrepresenting me. i start from the viewpoint of not knowing, i don’t close my mind, i look at what is being presented & see what is verifiable & what can potential be true. there is no need for me to believe anything. i either know something is true or i don’t. without being able to verify something for myself I will never really know if it’s true, i can only think it is possible true

you replied to my post, you used my username in your second paragraph & then started your third paragraph with “when you begin from the viewpoint of disbelief, you've already made up your mind about the story's veracity” so that wasn’t related to me? then why mention it in a discussion between the two of us? if there are no imagined or constructed ones holes you can provide from myself then it seems irrelevant to mention. Unless you are trying to create strawman arguments to attack. there is no need to mention what plenty of other people might do in a discussion between you & i. i am capable of speaking for myself & you should just speak for yourself

it seems you are the one struggling with comprehension. you must have a short memory or not know your history because your government & media has lied to you before. do you deny that your government & media has lied to you before?

again you are struggling with comprehension, i did not say “everything that the government and media have ever said is a lie” please don’t fabricate my arguments. decerning something to be true is not the same as knowing something to be true

you can label me what you want, words don’t bother me at all. i’m just highlighting how you contradict yourself when you say you hate using labels & then proceeding to do so

again you misrepresent me, i don’t choose to start from disbelief, mistrust yes but not on everything. I start from not knowing but not on everything, somethings are verifiable. please list the "inconsistencies in narratives" that i see that you claim are usually not inconsistencies at all. i get no glee from pointing out inconsistencies & don’t pay much attention to many news stories. i have no bias because i start from the viewpoint of not knowing

you don’t start from belief, you start from not knowing & choose to believe. why are you speaking for others again? i don’t care if you believe something or not, i’ve told you many times that i’m not interested in your beliefs but i will ask someone to prove something they claim to be real

[TitoFan]

I would stick around... but arguing with someone who always has to have the last word... and refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong... is pretty fruitless, and you showed yourself to be both a long, long time ago.

But let me leave you with some useful life lessons:

1. It is impossible to verify everything you're taught or told in life. Anyone who thinks differently is a deluded fool.

2. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it should be respected. Your approach is to be cynical and doubt everything? That's fine. No one here cares, nor wants to change you.

3. Always having to have the last word is a kid's game. Right along with holding your breath until you get what you want, and other playground habits. Adults don't give a shit, and will leave you to your last word.

4. When one person argues against 100, it's usually the one person who's got the personality problem. Not the other 100. You've gotten pretty much on everyone's nerves here. Only that some of us don't stay quiet.

5. You can be an ex-military... have 9 children... 20... no one cares. Maturity is not achieved by the experiences or the number of kids you have. Sometimes maturity is not achieved at all.

6. When someone honestly tries to have a civil, passive argument with you... and you claim mental superiority by saying they believe things that are false... you've already started the hostilities, and the argument becomes pointless.

7. Believe it or not, there are MANY people in here with a hell of a lot more knowledge than you, more life experiences than you, and a hell of a lot more maturity than you. Your aggressive style of posting doesn't win you any brownie points.

8. That's it. I was trying to get to 10... but fuck it.

[TitoFan]

BTW, I expect a full, point-by-point retort.

But you'll have to prove every point of your retort to my satisfaction. Otherwise you're just winging it... and your responses will not be acceptable.

[TIC]

I would stick around... but arguing with someone who always has to have the last word... and refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong... is pretty fruitless, and you showed yourself to be both a long, long time ago.

But let me leave you with some useful life lessons:

1. It is impossible to verify everything you're taught or told in life. Anyone who thinks differently is a deluded fool.

2. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it should be respected. Your approach is to be cynical and doubt everything? That's fine. No one here cares, nor wants to change you.

3. Always having to have the last word is a kid's game. Right along with holding your breath until you get what you want, and other playground habits. Adults don't give a shit, and will leave you to your last word.

4. When one person argues against 100, it's usually the one person who's got the personality problem. Not the other 100. You've gotten pretty much on everyone's nerves here. Only that some of us don't stay quiet.

5. You can be an ex-military... have 9 children... 20... no one cares. Maturity is not achieved by the experiences or the number of kids you have. Sometimes maturity is not achieved at all.

6. When someone honestly tries to have a civil, passive argument with you... and you claim mental superiority by saying they believe things that are false... you've already started the hostilities, and the argument becomes pointless.

7. Believe it or not, there are MANY people in here with a hell of a lot more knowledge than you, more life experiences than you, and a hell of a lot more maturity than you. Your aggressive style of posting doesn't win you any brownie points.

8. That's it. I was trying to get to 10... but fuck it.

i am not arguing with you, i am having a discussion with you. i don’t always have to have the last word but it is a forum & i am free to reply. i have admitted on this forum times i have been wrong or misunderstood something & apologised. unlike yourself who is unable to admit when you are wrong, like when I highlighted the fact that you had created your own fact & then contradicted that very made-up fact. you are projecting your own behaviour onto me

1, where have i ever said it’s possible to verify everything that you are taught or told in life (a misrepresentation from you)? i’ve said if I can’t verify something for myself then i don’t know. i can come to logical conclusions but that isn’t knowing it to be true

2, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i disagree that all opinions should be respected. i may be cynical in some regards but i don’t doubt everything (another misrepresentation from you). i don’t won’t to change anyone but i will challenge people’s beliefs if they claim them to be true

3, i don’t always have to have the last word but it is a forum & i will reply when i disagree or am misrepresented

4, i ask people to prove their claims are true & people don’t like their beliefs being challenged. if someone feels uncomfortable because they are unable to prove their belief is real maybe they should look internally & find out why they are feeling that way, maybe they should try to find out their reasons for holding a belief they are unable to verify to be true for themselves. you sure love to speak for others

5, maturity can be subjective

6, where have I ever claimed mental superiority (another misrepresentation from you)? i ask people to prove things they claim are real. if they are unable to then they only hold a belief. there are no hostilities, you can either prove what you claim is real & others can verify that claim or you can’t. just like ex can verify that woman can get pregnant & have babies & i can verify that fire can be extinguished. now he can choose to believe i am a father or not just like I can choose to believe that he is a fireman or not, it’s irrelevant because the topics of discussion (pregnancy & fire) are verifiable. now when you claim that something is the cause of an illness you should be able to prove it. If you can’t then you only hold a belief, you don’t know it to be true

7, i don’t doubt that there are people on here with more knowledge in certain areas & experiences in certain things than me, just as i have more knowledge in certain areas & experiences in certain things than some of them. as i said maturity is subjective. what’s your point? if you take my posting as aggressive that is on you. you can always block me or scroll past. they are just words on a screen after all. worrying about brownie points & words typed on a boxing forum seems immature to me

8, don’t claim to try & have a civil discussion with someone when you continue to misrepresent them

9, you should try just speaking on your own behalf

10, i stopped at 10, still waiting on that list of the "inconsistencies in narratives" that i see that you claim are usually not inconsistencies at all