this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
677 points (96.1% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4179 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Updates:

Might be best for mods to lock this post at this point (is that a thing on Lemmy?) because this story is basically wrapped. The FBI says a bullet caused some ear damage. Maybe it was bullet shrapnel from a ricochet or something like that, but later photos show the teleprompters in-tact so it wasn't shards of glass from those. Trump's usage of the bandage (and the assassination attempt) as symbols and political tools has been discussed at length and I don't think conspiratorial thinking beyond that is very productive. Pete Souza took his own account down after getting a lot of harassment, so no further conspiracies are needed regarding X-formerly-known-as-Twitter at this time.

A photo of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump taken on Saturday without his ear bandage has sparked a wave of speculation.

The image, taken by Alex Brandon of the Associated Press on July 27 and shared by photojournalist Pete Souza on X, formerly Twitter, shows Trump walking up an airplane staircase with an apparently fully healed ear wound just weeks after he was shot with a high-powered rifle.

Souza, known for his tenure as the chief official White House photographer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, posted Brandon's photo on his now-deactivated X account on Saturday, writing, "AP photo this morning. Look closely at his ear that was 'hit' by a bullet from an AR-15 assault rifle."

Souza's profile, @PeteSouza, which had over 200,000 followers, now reads, "This account doesn't exist, try searching for another," implying that he has deleted or deactivated it. If he had been banned, it would read, "Account suspended. X suspends accounts which violate the X rules."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Okay got it, newsweek is trash bait.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

It must have barely nicked him. A hit where the entire cross sectional area of the bullet passed through the cartilage would have removed substantial material as well as possibly torn the ear completely. It’s not a bullet with a lot of mass, but it has a crapload of kinetic energy from velocity. Thin pieces of flesh are going to come apart with a direct hit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Look. Newsweek. People.

Here’s your headline: “Photo shows Trump lied about ear injury.” Just say what it is.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anyone else just kind of forget about the assassination attempt? I guess that goes in line with Trump always doing new bullshit that nothing sticks, it's become so common that even the assassination attempt doesn't really feel notable already.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

It was very anti cliamactic.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think old, pea brained, waddling trump could fake being hit by a bullet and then apply fake blood (or have it applied) while on camera?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

While I seriously don't think there is a chance in hell it was a false flag (why would they pick a known conservative instead of someone pretending to be leftist?) it technically could have been applied by SS without Trumps knowledge, which would have been very funny

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

Donald Trump photo without eyebrow bandage raises ears.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hopefully this means mods start issuing apologies to people and restoring all the posts that questioned this to begin with, that they decried as baseless conspiracy theories.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

What the fuck? "One person, known to be a prolific liar, might be lying about one particular currently unverifiable fact" literally can't be a conspiracy theory, because it doesn't involve a conspiracy; conspiracies, by definition, involve multiple people. Trump doesn't need to tell his doctor to lie, because the doctor isn't allowed to talk about it. Furthermore, Trump doesn't need to tell his bodyguards anything either, because they are also not allowed to talk about it. Where's the conspiracy? It's not even particularly unlikely!

load more comments
view more: next ›