It just keeps getting weirder
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (220)
sorted by:
So... three options I can think of.
Cabal infiltrated security and wanted Trump to be killed.
It was staged as part of the movie, and no one was actually hurt (like the Ashli Babbit thing).
There was an actual mistake or confusion and that building was left unattended.
Personally, I give #3 a -89% (yes, that is a minus).
The fact that the shooter's last name is Violet and Trump misspelled violence as violent the other day (yesterday?) leads me to hope that it was #2... otherwise, if the Cabal is able to infiltrate the current Secret Service detail around Trump, then the game has changed.
IMO, the best way to look at whether or not an event was organic, and/or who was in charge of an event is to look at the actual outcome of the event, i.e., who actually benefits.
In this case, there was an attempted "assassination" on Trump, where the shooter hit, but in the most visible, yet least harmful way possible.
Most visible, least harmful.
I mean, this "gunshot wound" won't even slow him down from shaving, yet the streak of blood that everyone in the world will see makes it very dramatic and "real".
Trump is now the "victim" of a violent attack. That is a position of incredible power politically. There was also all sorts of other suspicious stuff going on (no SS on the roof, etc.), and yet even people here are insisting their belief that "this wasn't staged." How will normies see it if there are even people here who don't get it?
I see only two possibilities here:
I suggest we will have to wait and see what actually happens in the coming days and weeks (who gets blamed, hidden evidence, who gets woken up by this, etc.) to determine the most likely scenario. But whatever happens, thinking that it is playing out organically is utterly foolish. All the world's a stage. Everything that makes it to "headline news" is wagging the dog to one extent or another. People must learn how unbelievably true that is before any real awakening can occur.
Or, you could go with Occam's Razor and say that the assassin was just a terrible shot.
Outcomes do not necessarily equate to intent.
EDIT -- just to be clear, I subscribe to the idea that it was a DeepState op but the guy just missed. The inexplicable lack of SS coverage on that rooftop is a giveaway.
First, Occam's Razor is almost never accurate in any complicated system. Things turn out to be always more complicated than the first accepted, "least complex" proposal (in the realm of science, where it is intended to be applied). Occam's Razor is a decision making concept (which path do I take on this decision tree?). It has nothing to do with the actual truth of anything.
Regardless, him being a "terrible shot" would not be according to Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor requires taking all of the evidence into account. The evidence that presents itself suggests that he was hit, but barely hit. That is just shy of impossible unless it is either intended or completely faked. I'm not saying "it's impossible," I'm speaking statistically. There is the whole of the area that isn't Trump (all the world but Trump), and there is all of Trump. Hitting him precisely on the boundary between those two spaces (on just the very surface of his skin) in a place that would seem extremely life threatening, but would turn out to actually be almost completely harmless, and yet also be where the camera would pick it up perfectly without trying (the side of his face that would face the camera as he was led away) is the hardest shot in the world.
Statistically speaking, it is the least likely outcome by about a hundred orders of magnitude. Thus if we were to apply Occam's Razor as you suggest, the most likely outcome is that something else happened than that the shooter was a "bad shot" as you suggest.
This is not an example of the principle of parsimony that underlies Occam's razor.