I usually stay clear of posting about politics, but during the election, I called out the fact that there was going to be a thing that happened at the last minute that no one expected, that changed everything.

That was the "assassination attempt." I have lived in two countries where this kind of event changed an election at the last minute. There was no damage to Trump's ear. It was a hit... just on someone else.

Charlie Kirk was quite vocal about his campaign to have the Epstein file released... unredacted. This hit was done by a professional. Period.

Whoever they put in front of you saying they are the shooter will be an Oswald-like patsy. Trump's DOJ was already trying to ban transgender people from owning guns—trying to classify them as mentally ill—though cisgender straight (usually white) men are the overwhelming majority of mass shooters in the US.

He is trying to put people against each other, to start civil war to stay in power, and to continue to distract you from his failing health, that massive spot on his hand, and most importantly, the Epstein file.

https://file.nostrmedia.com/p/4eb88310d6b4ed95c6d66a395b3d3cf559b85faec8f7691dafd405a92e055d6d/e08d5fdab2d61828db44056f3ac7a6271ed9f0e18c40e86b76c9a8ba973dde2b.mp4

https://file.nostrmedia.com/p/4eb88310d6b4ed95c6d66a395b3d3cf559b85faec8f7691dafd405a92e055d6d/445665414616569aecd8259710a0ad6ea14cffaf0014a647fb426f8b3133da81.mp4

Video Credit: MISTERFREEDOMSTICK

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

They all want division, they all want unrest. We can't let this continue to devide us.

"Though cisgender straight (usually white) men are the overwhelming majority of mass shooters in the US."

With black men overwhelmingly being the perpetrators of gun violence generally...

Why would you write a post about not dividing people, and then single out heterosexual (or "cisgendered") white men?

Seems a little disingenuous...

You just did exactly what I'm talking about... trying to divide people by changing mass shooters and assassins to "gun violence generally" to make this about race. I stated a fact about mass shooters. Trump is the one trying to ban a specific group from gun ownership, not me.

So you mentioning white men wasn't about race?

How did you miss the bit where I just did exactly what you did but changed black to white?

What does Charlie Kirk's shooting have to do with mass shootings?

I think you need to reread my original post.

I think you need to.

You can’t have an extreme hormonal imbalance and be trusted with a gun… if you think this is a good idea, you have no idea 🤣

I don't want that to become a valid argument, as that sort of thing is easily aimed at women and would require a government reading of a blood tests and/or medical records to enforce.

it's a form of technocratic tyranny, like part of what happened to psychiatry, which is supposed to be a science of the organic sources of bad and maladaptive behaviour. the problem is that such power tends to attract the very kind of people who need that diagnosis done on them and put them away for life for the medical malpractise they engage in.

Well said

„though cisgender straight (usually white) men are the overwhelming majority of mass shooters in the US“

Counting or not counting gang violence?

Mass shooters, not counting gang violence, are defined as public shootings with 4+ deaths.

The Violence Project found that of 172 mass public shooters from 1966-2019, 97.7% were male and 52.3% were white https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

NPR reports that 98% of mass shooters are male, with white men disproportionately responsible for mass shootings more than any other group. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/27/981803154/why-nearly-all-mass-shooters-are-men

According to Wikipedia citing multiple studies, "Public mass shootings of persons unrelated to the shooter, and for a reason not connected with a previous crime (the rarest but most publicized) are committed by men whose racial distribution closely matches that of the nation as a whole." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

But when you look at who's actually pulling the trigger in these planned public attacks... school shootings, workplace shootings, church shootings—it's overwhelmingly cisgender men, mostly white.

Gang violence is a different category with different demographics and different solutions... those are typically conflicts between people who know each other.

I'm talking about the people who plan to kill random strangers in public places. Look at who actually attempts assassinations. Trump's trying to ban 2% of the population, but the patterns show who's really doing it.

Thank you for sharing the facts!

“Mass shootings” in America is firing upon an innocent group of kids/people who had no idea and/or no connection to shooter.

Gang violence is something accepted among the gangs as a part of the life.

Huge difference and she is correct…which doesn’t mean she is racist.

If she called out the blacks lots of people would have a very different opinion.

Either way, calling out a particular demographic whilst simultaneously calling for unity and chastising someone else for stoking division by calling out a particular demographic makes her a hypocrite.

And in any case, she's played right into what she claims to be Trump's plan - putting people against each other.

Good on her if that was her intention I guess...

I’m sorry you are confused. She was pointing out the fact that “mass shootings”, especially in American are just about all white males whose ideology is most similar to alt right groups.

You are the one injecting racism and not the subject by trying to bring in other crimes into “mass shooting” fold. You are doing this to distract from the facts and the focus the reader to something irrelevant to the issue…probably out of some form of insecurity.

She can discuss facts of crimes and not be divisive just by stating the findings. Now, the findings may be uncomfortable to you or others but your feelings towards the facts do not change them at all.

To me there is no way the shooter wasn't aiming at trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMK1gutLBh4

He was correctly in target but moved to point at a sign, and only then it was a near hit.

Nobody is gonna gamble a shot like that, plus the person who did get hit in the audience wasn't a person of prominence.

They 100% tried taking him out by proxy, the main reason it failed was his movement as well as the fact that the proxy wasn't a good shooter.

I did not know who this was until he got shot. Being so vocal on releasing the Epstein files seems to support my gut feeling that he was killed by the powers that shouldn't be.

I don't think this is the "thing". I think it's gonna be something economic, and closer to the midterms.

I think I'm too late, to this thread, tho. 😂 Everyone melting down in the comment threads, already. Whatever.

The way some people reacted to this event was truly revealing, and a few showed an aspect of themselves that can’t be overlooked. I don’t have any more to say about this, except it has changed my opinion of them. I suppose I should be grateful for this knowledge.

My feed was mostly Dads getting emotional, people praying, and some whining about Charlie's death taking all of the attention, when they just want to talk about Knots versus Core.

I saw a dark side of a few people that cratered my respect for them.

This is the one reason I've missed Facebook... to see how acquaintances reacted.

Oh I saw how mine reacted 😬🤮 no respect for life

I know exactly what people there are saying and I don’t even need to go back there to see it.

Why waste your time, right

My last attempt to post there a year ago went very badly.

🤣

FUD

this is a ref. to the whole show not you nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z