@J6Videos@SpeakerJohnson In full context, the statement wasn't really out of place or meant in a hostile way.
The conversation itself was loosely about him being the target, to drop out.
@V__4__V3ND3TTA@MarieIsabellaB@EndWokeness That idea is not one sided. It is present within the ranks of gop and libertarians too.
Seeing as the shooter was a republican, it is a bit too far of a stretch to presume biden had any influence here.
@MarieIsabellaB@EndWokeness I'm going to say this is highly implausible.
Just about anyone who trained with the weapon used for more than a day could have made at least one meaningful hit at that distance. Why hire someone who might miss and all but secure a trump victory?
@luciaaiart@Vikes_Dawgs@lucky_burglar@EndWokeness Without a doubt, yes he would.
Historically, he has no qualms with throwing people under the bus so that he can succeed. He has a lifetime of evidence to this singular fact.
@ChrisBrutus4@nickle_thoughts@lucky_burglar@EndWokeness Essentially, a leading theory is that this was quite literally a page out of Roger stone's playbook. (He has mentioned this to varying degrees over the years)
Fake an attack, blame opposition, win election.
@nickle_thoughts@lucky_burglar@EndWokeness If it were to be planned, I don't think it was intended to hit him. Which would make sense that the normal response to gunfire kicked in only after he was hit.
@kelvinkung7@lucky_burglar@EndWokeness Simply put, yes.
It leans heavily on the side of a campaign stunt, but to the crowd in question, that is something to applaud as a brave act, should it cone to light as such, not condemn.
It leans against the hit man side, because of the relative ease of shot that was missed.
@lucky_burglar@EndWokeness Or that all parties involved knew it was going to happen.
Look through old footage of Roger stone, he mentions something similar to this as a campaign tactic.
@beinlibertarian 10% chance over 10 years.
100% chance that the outcome will not be as extreme as expected, but there will still be a large loss of life.
@jeremykauffman This is a much bigger win than most think.
The broader reaching implication here is that agencies "should" no longer have the ability to do things that aren't outlined in their scope by congress. They will still do so. However, this leads to more cases being tried.
@Garthak_Kell @bmarll84 @jeremykauffman Yes, it is, but not from the purely sexual standpoint that most people think it's about. (Which is already lower than 18 in most)
It's a rights issue for >400k people under 18 who are basically owned/controlled by the state until 18.