this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
459 points (92.0% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2227 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 165 points 5 months ago (2 children)

FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed during a marathon testimony on Wednesday that investigators still do not know if former President Donald Trump was grazed by a bullet or a piece of shrapnel during his attempted assassination.

But making this distinction doesn’t guarantee clicks, so let’s keep the headline from being too clear about it.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's a distinction without a difference. "Trump wasn't injured by a bullet, he was injured by shrapnel from the bullet" doesn't let the FBI or the SS off the hook for missing this kid before he started shooting.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it's a stupidly thin hair to split, to the point where it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the bullet hit him or the shrapnel caused by the bullet hit him. The fact is there was a guy with a rifle within pissing distance. The government really fucked up.

Not that I'm either surprised nor disappointed by that fact. I personally suspect that the secret service treats the Trump detail as the dump assignment for all of the shittiest, bottom 1% of their security personnel.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Idk a lot of law enforcement is pro trump, they might have wanted the detail.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah, and the ones that did are probably the bottom of the barrel.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago

I think the FBI is saying they know where each round ends up and it's not in a trajectory that could have injured Trump. But they can't just say that to the Republican Congressman asking the question.