Looks like someone has figured out how to manipulate their easily manipulable minds into thinking what has a non-negligible chance to be true.
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2026
808 points (99.0% liked)
politics
29509 readers
5723 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Guess it was just a matter of time that they'd eventually accept that he wasn't really helping them or even trying and direct that paranoia back at him. And all that denial to avoid feeling stupid about falling for it is going to be channeled into even more rage.
Who? Crooks? The dude that was in a BlackRock ad? Lol
I think the one that happened in Butler was a real attempt. But the assassination failed due to the complete and absolutely stupidity of the would-be assassin. Before I continue I need to mention that assassins in general are idiots who succeed primarily due to luck and error on the security's part than due to their ingenuity.
Crooks (the shooter) was someone who was not particularly known as a decent shot, and the AR-15 that he had was on the lower end of the AR-15 quality hierarchy. This was tested by numerous gun youtubers that the rifle was a shit rifle for anything other than fairly close range shooting. On top of that, the ammunition that he used was also cheap, budget range ammunition, and the cherry on top was that he was using iron sights and didn't have a telescopic sight, meaning even making a chest shot at that distance was a long shot, let alone hitting a human head, which is already a small, highly mobile target at close range, would be extremely tiny at that distance. The MOA (minute of accuracy) of the rifle and the ammunition used would made a headshot a one in a million hit. If he was being realistic with his own abilities and the weapon/ammunition combo he was using, going for a chest shot would have been the only viable option, but even then, the ammo was weak and likely wouldn't have produced much cavitation if he did hit at that distance, meaning unless he hit the heart Trump would have likely survived due to the immediate medical attention he would have received.
This is why I am more apt to believe that the Charlie Kirk shooting was more legit. The alleged rifle there was a 30-06 hunting rifle with (according to alleged shooter comments) using a 2000$ scope. The .30-06 caliber is much, much better suited for distance shooting (it can easily kill a human being at 700 meters, with the longest range kill using that caliber was during WW1 at 1.25 kilometers by an American soldier). Also the pricey scope would have made aiming and measuring factors to make the shot (wind, distance, etc) much more readily manageable.
Nope, 120 meters is just too far away for an accurate shot. If he was shooting to miss and trump nicked his own ear with a razor blade, he killed a guy on stage. Trump was doing a lot of these rallies and the Secret Service was complaining they didn't have enough time and resources to sweep the areas around each one. Thomas Crooks was just a very smart neurodivergent kid, and when a rally was held a mile from his home, he saw his chance and took it.
load more comments
(13 replies)
They are stupid but eventually they can figure out one thing out a thousand.