Meanwhile, as Biden and politicians around the word pile on the platitudes about 'unification' and 'coming together', and the abhorrence of violence in politics, guess which side is using the episode as ammunition in the culture war?

"J.D. Vance, a contender for Trump’s choice of running mate, said in a social media post on Saturday that the shooting was “not some isolated incident” and suggested President Biden’s campaign was, at least in part, at fault.

“The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs,” Vance said on the social platform X. “That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” ~ The Hill

"Mr. Trump’s eldest son, his campaign strategist and a running mate finalist all attacked the political left within hours of the shooting even before the gunman was identified or his motive determined. “Well of course they tried to keep him off the ballot, they tried to put him in jail and now you see this,” wrote Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser to the former president. (Later deleted.)

So you can bet that Trump is going to use this attempt as a weapon against Biden, to create further division and fan the flames. His people are already doing it. They'll lap up the condolences and good wishes, and turn them into fuel for the fire.

But there is an objective reason why Democrats are saying that Trump 'threatens democracy', beyond mere rhetoric. And what reason is that? It was a Trump-inspired mob that broke into the Capital Building on Jan 6th 2021, desecrated the offices and chanted Hang Mike Pence in an attempt to prevent the transition of power. The slates of false electors and Republican lawyers working behind the scenes to prevent it. Trump to this day insists that the 2020 election was rigged, despite having lost 60 lawsuits that attempted to prove that. So there's no 'moral equivalence' here - it can't be said that 'both sides are at fault' if the Republican Party refuses to acknowledge the culpability and potential criminality of its nominee. Trump is a proven threat to democracy, and that's not just a Democrat talking point.

If you think Iraq was such a bad idea (which it was), why are you voting for the political party that got us into it? A majority of House Dems voted against the Iraq war authorization. — RogueAI

I was a full-on liberal Democrat then, and I was fervently against that awful, misbegotten war. And I still resent Obame for not holding the Bush administration accountable (though I concede he did so for sound political reasons).

But if you recall, in the 2016 GOP debates, Trump ripped Jeb over his brother's war. Trump came out four square against the Iraq war and against Bush. And when the audience cheered, you knew there was a sea change in the Republican party. Trump in, Bush(es) out. Peace in, and war out.

That's exactly why I support Trump. He called out Jeb on his brother's war and the GOP audience cheered. Then as president he started no new wars.

I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. I oppose the bipartisan neocon wars. I support the cause of peace. Anyone for peace should take a look at the track record of Trump versus the Hillerys and Pelosis and Schumers and Bidens of this world. DiFi, my own Senator for so many years. Voted for the wars while her construction business husband profited from them. That's the system Trump is fighting.

Meanwhile, as Biden and politicians around the word pile on the platitudes about 'unification' and 'coming together', and the abhorrence of violence in politics, guess which side is using the episode as ammunition in the culture war? — Wayfarer

Can't you dial it back for five minutes?

Pathetic attempt at a humble brag and confession of historical illiteracy. The orange billionaire wish he had one hundreth of the culture and education that Mussolini had, and you can't paint a Hitler moustache on someone and then call them a "fascist", that's fucking stupid.

I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. — fishfry

So what small part of "Trumpism" don't you support?

Less talked about was when Trump rid the GOP of their anti-gay stance, their homophobia, which for me was a pivotal realignment of that party’s social conservatism and neocon agenda into the more libertarian spirit we see today.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/donald-trump-howard-stern-iraq-war/index.html

“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump said in the fall of 2002 when asked by Stern if he supported an invasion. “You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

He's singing a different tune now, of course. But if you're going to call out the NYTimes for what they were saying back then, what's good for the goose...

What was the worst thing Trump did while he was president, in your opinion?

Biden, even in his old age, is hugely more competent and suitable for the role than Trump. But the issue is his electoral appeal, or absence of it. — Wayfarer

No he isn't. He's a vegetable halve the time and therefore he has no appeal. Don't dumb other voters down just because you think he's still competent. The arrogance everytime of telling other voters how they should think is astounding and definitely a contributory factor to the appeal of Trump.

I oppose Bush-ism and support most of Trumpism. I oppose the bipartisan neocon wars. I support the cause of peace. Anyone for peace should take a look at the track record of Trump versus the Hillerys and Pelosis and Schumers and Bidens of this world. DiFi, my own Senator for so many years. Voted for the wars while her construction business husband profited from them. That's the system Trump is fighting. — fishfry

A provocative question: Why do you support the "cause of peace"? Not why were the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan wrong, but why is peace, generally, the most important consideration?

I mean, to be fair, he's saying that he's more competent than Trump, which is probably the case. Joe may be dead half the time but that's made up for by Trump's excessive "executive time" and in terms of knowledge Trump knows little to nothing about anything so Biden wins out there because at least he does know something about foreign policy.

does he? How are Ukraine and Israel going? Is China being handled properly?

Yeah his press conference even if it's rambling shows he's saying something, while Trump doesn't really say anything at all. I'm not saying he's been great on foreign policy, though Ukraine and China are fine as far as I can tell, with his policy on the middle east being more problematic.

I think Trump's stance on China and hitting it with tariffs is the only correct stance. It's ridiculous to give an autocratic country that oppresses its own people this much economic power and influence over our own economies, which it only reaches because it's not playing by the same rules as we expect of our own businesses.

I think the West's stance on Ukraine is cowardly. If Ukraine is to join NATO and Russia basically (predictably) attacks it because of those NATO statements, they should bear the consequences of those statements. Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. And if we're not prepared to stand up for our own security, we shouldn't antagonised Russia. Who knows what Trump would've done but it hardly could've been more callous than what happened now.

Not saying you have to agree with this assessment: but preferring Trump (or GOP) over Biden isn't the insanity people like to pretend it is.

I still think he should be in jail as well for J6.

Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them.

Former President Donald Trump is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. …

The reason, according to experts: Companies in the U.S. that import goods from abroad typically pass the cost of tariffs onto American consumers; relatedly, domestic manufacturers then often raise their own prices.

The biggest impact of higher import tariffs would likely fall on low- and middle-income consumers because they spend a larger share of their income on goods and services than wealthier Americans.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-tariffs-proposal-10-percent-1700-cost-per-us-household/

Letting Ukrainians die and not being prepared to actually risk our own people is horrible. — Benkei

Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ not be a consideration? Don’t you think that if Russia were not a nuclear power that NATO would have put boots on the ground in February 2022?

Trump still thinks if he levies tariffs on Chinese goods that the Chinese pay them. — Wayfarer

I didn't say he was smart. I said it's the right thing to do. Chinese goods shouldn't compete with US or EU products unless they meet our EH&S standards as well. Until then it's just unfair competition that we're rewarding.

Should the risk of triggering a nuclear war between the country with the most nuclear weapons on the planet vs ‘the rest’ be a consideration? — Wayfarer

Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons is clear: only in defense of the motherland. As long as they stay clear of Crimea, it shouldn't be an issue.

So you believe Putin is bound by doctrine? You think if a multinational force started to engage Russian troops that he would not resort to tactical nukes? You would take that risk, if you were in the position?

I would've never opted for the communication that Ukraine would join NATO but now, yes, I most definitely would put boots on the ground in Ukraine to end that war as soon as possible.

How is entering directly into full-scale war preferable over striking a deal with the Russians which they have been signaling is their intention since the March/April 2022?

So you can bet that Trump is going to use this attempt as a weapon against Biden, — Wayfarer

That's foregone, the moment the shot rang out:

Biden incited them to shoot Trump. Isn’t that how it works?

“We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."

- Joe Biden — NOS4A2

Because there's no way to resolve the territorial claims between Ukraine and Russia through diplomatic means as long as this stalemate persists. But this is a tangent. My point was, it's ridiculous to qualify every (or most) Trump voter(s) as "voting against their interest", "irrational" or "stupid".

That is obviously NOS4A2 calling out what he believes is hypocrisy: Trump incited an insurrection through words then Biden incited this attack through words. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

They're already fundraising off the clenched fist shot. It's the ultimate grift gift for a Donald Trump: martyrdom without death.

Perhaps the piercing of the ear so close to the brain will cause the man to awaken from his monomaniacal dream and see life the way Andrei did in War and Peace.

How is entering directly into full-scale war preferable over striking a deal with the Russians which they have been signaling is their intention since the March/April 2022? — Tzeentch

Good question, Chamberlain.

A shot into a crowd of Trump supporters and you hit a working man with a family.
A shot into a crowd of antifa/BLM, like in Kenosha, and you hit sex offenders and pedophiles.

Food for thought.

Florida judge dismisses criminal classified documents case against Trump

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/15/judge-dismisses-trump-classified-documents-case

Smith illegally appointed. Why do anti-Trumpists keep violating the constitution?

A shot in the crowd of a Capitol invasion and you hit a member of a militia group.

More to chew upon.

I am just glad the shooter did not have a bump stock that the Supreme Court just gave the thumbs up for. There is a model that fits the AR-15 used at the rally.

Special prosecutors were appointed under Trump as well, by both Rosenstein (Mueller) and Barr (Durham). One has even been appointed by Garland (Weiss) to investigate and prosecute Hunter Biden.

They've been used for a long time, with their constitutionality confirmed in Morrison v. Olson.

Here's a list.

Cannon is just an idiot. Or corrupt. Or a corrupt idiot.

But it's a useful decision. Now it can be appealed, overturned, and the case assigned to a competent judge who doesn't act as Trump's lawyer.

Durham was already an employee of the state, confirmed by the senate. Mueller, however, was not. One of his indictees raised the issue of his unlawful appointment, but it was denied by the DC court. It wasn’t appealed so never made it to the Supreme Court.

I suspect Cannon’s decision will be overturned in the court of appeals, but instead of the Mueller case, will reach the Supremes where the final decision will come through. No more unlawful appointments.