Einar I A - X kan spise en bag

BRUKER IKKE LENGRE X, siden Musk har kastet seg på et nyfascistisk kappløp mot et stadig synkende bunnivå.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@lisamurkowski You are a traitor to the non-billionaires of USA.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@KaceyMusgraves Remember Jesus? He was very horny and was desperat to get nailed. And he died in the process. But lucky him, he was erected again 3 days later.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@elonmusk @60Minutes Sure, Mr Elon McSnowflake. How would Fox News do in a case like that?😜

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@atrupar But this dolt probably dit not pay for his school lunch with the money he earned as a paper boy. He just want poor kids in urban areas to not have ANY benefits.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@TiffanyATrump He personally already made lethal obstructions in womens reproductive health. Now you are lying on his behalf. For what? Money? Power?

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

Hvorfor er så mange av oss fremdeles på X? Musk og plattformens stadig tettere samarbeid med Trump og andre nyfascistiske krefter, burde være et nobrainer-insentiv for å løpe mot døren.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@IanLarg1 @HalfwayPost Nope. I am not a democrat. I never voted in any American election. But I value decency, etics and credibility, qualities which are not found in your orange idol.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@IanLarg1 @HalfwayPost There is no problem in him being there. But he does not have any respect for the very special place that it is, or the heroes who rest there. It is just another prop for him.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@Bataljonen_no Fantastisk initiativ fra St. Mirren, og nydelig "pay it forward" av Bataljonen ♥️

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@pee1_tee @utbytteprinsen Snarere tvert i mot. Våpen, partydop, h henging med kriminelle og seksualforbryter, og ikke minst grenseløs narsisisme er Donald Trump sitt spesialfelt.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

Elon Musk er en ufattelig urederlig person. John Iadarola og Francesca Fiorentini analyserer Musk sin spredning av deepfake Kamala Harris-video på The Damage Report.

https://t.co/6rEWanZQfX

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@espenteigen Nei, det er ikke det han snakker om når han sier at det ikke blir behov å stemme flere ganger. Det er en stretch å påstå det.

[M LeMont @MisterSalesman]

AR-15 Bullet: Analyzing the Plausibilities

What are the possibilities of an AR-15 rifle grazing a politician's ear during a violent incident, leaving him shedding very little blood and with only a minor scratch? This incident resulted in one person’s death and left two others in critical condition.

AR-15 rifles are known for their high velocity and destructive potential. They fire .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO rounds, which travel at speeds typically exceeding 2,700 feet per second. The kinetic energy of these bullets is significant enough to cause catastrophic damage upon impact with any part of the human body.

Given this context, the claim that a bullet from an AR-15 could hit someone’s ear and cause only a scratch is highly improbable. The ear, composed of soft tissue and cartilage, is fragile and would likely sustain severe damage even from a grazing shot. A direct hit would result in substantial tissue damage, bleeding, and possibly permanent hearing loss or disfigurement. Even a grazing bullet would cause more noticeable injuries than a simple scratch, likely tearing skin and damaging underlying tissues.

Furthermore, the notion that a bullet could travel through one ear and exit the other without causing severe injury is virtually impossible. The path a bullet would need to take to accomplish this would intersect critical structures of the head, including the skull and brain, leading to fatal or debilitating injuries.

Possible Scenarios

Grazing Shot: It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that the bullet grazed the politician’s ear at an extremely shallow angle, resulting in a minor wound. However, even in this scenario, the injury would typically involve more bleeding and tissue damage than reported.

Bullet Hitting an Object: A more plausible explanation could involve the bullet striking a nearby object, such as a teleprompter, causing fragments to deflect and graze the politician’s ear. This could produce a minor injury, but the story would need to be investigated thoroughly to confirm such details.

Motives for Fabrication
Given the improbability of the described events, it is important to consider the politician’s motives for making such a claim. Several potential reasons could explain this:

Long History of Lying or Exaggeration: If the politician has a known history of fabricating or exaggerating stories, this claim might be another instance.

To Show Invincibility: The politician might be attempting to portray himself as extraordinarily resilient or lucky, boosting his public image and reputation among supporters. This narrative could be used to demonstrate a form of invincibility or exceptional survival.

To Garner Sympathy and Media Attention: The dramatic nature of surviving a close encounter with an AR-15 bullet could attract significant media coverage and public sympathy. This attention could be leveraged for political gain, drawing focus to the politician's bravery and fortitude in the face of danger.

Distraction from Other Issues: In some cases, sensational claims can serve as a distraction from other political or personal issues. By focusing media and public attention on this dramatic incident, other less favorable topics might be overshadowed.

Should He Be Given Recognition?
Before considering any form of recognition, it is crucial to thoroughly investigate the politician's claims. Recognition based on an unverified and highly unlikely story could undermine the credibility of those who genuinely experience extraordinary or heroic events.

Beware and look at the underlying motives of why someone would lie and take credit when others tragically died in the same incident. Remember January 6 when nothing was done for 3 hours and the Commander-in-Chief watched it all on Fox News as it unfolded. Oh, you say, it was the same politician? Well, there you go.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@MeidasTouch Orange nepo boomers are the weakest humans ever born.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@A_tothe_Z_Amber Because he knows that hand is so small, no marksman will hit it

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@vanguze @jasonllevin Just to be safe, do it now.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@BurreBarsk Virker å være skrevet av en som drømmer om å bo i et samfunn som i praksis kunne vært landsbygden i Somalia 😀

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@Meade2022Meade @DougWahl1 Just another wimp in a hat.

[Einar I A - X kan spise en bag @irjan]

@hansson_84 Ungene er jo varme og gode, når de ligger inni varmesekkene budene har på ryggen. Vinn vinn!

[Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump]

Nate White, a British writer penned the best description of Donald Trump I’ve ever read:

“Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?”

A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.”