WHAT
- Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump was shot at a rally in PA.
TRUMPS STATEMENT
“I want to thank The United States Secret Service, and all of Law Enforcement, for their rapid response on the shooting that just took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured. It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”
WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW SO FAR
- gunman is dead
- Trump “is fine”
- one attendee is dead
- another attendee is in critical condition
News Sources
- CNN - Trump rushed off stage after shooting at Pennsylvania rally
- AP News - Live updates: Shooting at Trump rally is being investigated as assassination attempt, AP sources say
- The Hill - George W. Bush condemns ‘cowardly attack’ at Trump rally
- Warren Sharp (@SharpFootball) on Xitter - video interview with witness who tried to warn police before shooting happened
- Sky News - Gunshots reportedly fired at Donald Trump rally - as former president rushed off stage (Article confirms one rally attendee dead)
- Reuters - Biden says he is grateful to hear Trump is safe, has been briefed on shooting
- OAlexanderDK on Xitter - The shooter was on a roof approximately 125m or 400ft from where Trump was standing.
- JakeMRosen on Xitter - An emergency room doctor I spoke with tried to save someone’s life in the crowd
If the only way you can discuss an assassination is by advocating for additional violence and pushing lies, then I guess not?
How did you determine what was true in this situation and what was false? I am curious about your methodology.
True: confirmed information. False: unconfirmed information of a speculative nature. Do you see a specific issue you disagree with or are you just trying to argue?
You are just moving the problem around via definitions not actually saying what method you used to know exactly what happened yesterday.
All I asked is how you arrived at the truth. Did you see evidence that the general public didn’t? Because what I am seeing is you all are so absolutely certain you have literally compared it to Covid misinformation. Amazing, a 30 hour news event is so well understood you can compare our knowledge of it to the single most studied virus in human history months after a new variant had appeared.
It is not unreasonable how you were able to obtain information the rest of us apparently do not have and how you were able to eliminate all other alternatives so quickly.
You are limiting discussion to centrist viewpoints, centrism caters towards permissive attitudes towards fascism. You know this.
“hey guys don’t politicize an attempted political assassination”
Not really what I said at all. “Hey guys, don’t make stuff up, please rely on credible sources, and don’t advocate for violence”.
Or, in other words: follow the rules we’ve always had in place
Advocating for, or not advocating for, violence is a political stance. Many people defend Israel’s ongoing genocide and are not blocked from doing so. That doesn’t feel like the rules being consistently enforced. The people speculating on whether or not this is staged have access to the same information as everyone else, and in the spirit of true discourse, if it was seen to be false you could figure that out by discussion rather than censorship.
If you have evidence that it was staged, feel free to share it. If you don’t, then we ask that you not speculate. It’s no different than any other claim for which we’d require a basic amount of credible substantiation.
Should I start reporting every comment that doesn’t have sources? 😂😂
If someone has made a claim that runs counter to commonly acknowledged information, please report it. If you need a few examples…
You would need a source to say:
You would NOT need a source to say:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Saying that someone who shot a president is likely an assassination attempt is not a logical fallacy. There are pretty much 2 possibilities: targeted attack and random acts of violence. The fact that he seemed to be aiming at Trump suggests the former.
“widely speculated” … like I said, I don’t think it was staged, but it’s clear that most of what is being stated the day after this event is speculation.
I don’t personally think it was staged, but be honest … it’s not like you delete every single comment that doesn’t have sources …
We remove comments that make objectively false claims, especially when they involve life or death situations. Covid misinformation is a good example.
The virus was studied by multiple different healthcare agencies across multiple different continents.
This is not comparable to the performance yesterday.
I didn’t compare a vaccine to an assassination attempt.
Here’s your source.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583
It’s INSANE to me that you’d suggest we do nothing or even promote political violence over this.
The Lemmy.World content policy prohibits advocacy of violence. We are enforcing the rules of Lemmy, not our own personal preferences. If you prefer an instance without such limitations, you are free to engage with another instance.
Yet you seem to think acting like a petulant child is appropriate. Some of us have had our hands slapped because we crossed a line. But you can still act like an adult when it happens.
If you don’t like the rules, fine. Then go elsewhere.
Speculating on an event that has already occured is not a “life or death situation” in the way spreading information that discourages the use of life-saving vaccines is.
Given the state of American discourse right now, I’m going to hard disagree with you there.