Why? Because the testimony from a doctor sitting next to him is different. The shots would have reached the area a lot before the sound of the shots would reach the space. I am not besmirching anyone's memory; I am expressing skepticism.
The interview I saw with the doctor seemed to indicate that he'd been sitting a bit further away and been called over when it was clear the poor man had been hit.
We don't know which of the five bullets fired by the gunman hit him. If it was one of the last fired he would have had time to do what's been claimed.
From the video it's clear that Trump and others took cover very quickly as the shooting started.
Without detailed ballistic analysis it's difficult to work out exactly what happened.
@Gramps49. If it's the Armalite that was the favourite firearm of the IRA then it's as close to an assault rifle as 'Damn it!' is ti swearing.
The fact is, these are military style firearms not .22 hunting rifles.
The interview I saw with the doctor seemed to indicate that he'd been sitting a bit further away and been called over when it was clear the poor man had been hit.
Yes, that’s what I heard in an interview with the doctor. In the interview I saw, the doctor didn’t say he was sitting next to Comperatore. In fact, he specifically said that he was beside Comperatore “within 45 seconds of the shots being fired.” He described the various things he looked at and observed before he was aware that Comperatore had been shot, and that by the time he got to Comperatore, someone else was already applying pressure to the wound.
The doctor also said that there were 3 quick shots, then a pause of a number of seconds, then 3 or 4 more shots. So the first 3 shots being fired, Comperatore moving to shield his family, and then being hit when the second round of shot were fired seems quite plausible.
And in the interview I saw, the doctor finished the interview by saying Comperatore “died a hero.”
I’m all for healthily skepticism, but I really haven’t seen anything that casts doubt on the accuracy of what’s been reported—that Comperatore was trying to shield his family when he was shot. What specifically did you hear the doctor say, @Caissa, that makes you skeptical?
I did not equate the AR stye assault weapon to a .22 rifle. I said it fires a .223 bullet and said it is similar to the NATO 5.56 mm bullet.
The anatomy of a .223 cartridge includes the primer, the body, which contains the gun powder, and the projectile. The projectile is about the size of a .22 projectile, but the body contains the gun powder similar to a .308. (7.82 round) Simply put, there is a lot of wallop behind that projectile, much more than a .22. That wallop makes the projectile tumble shortly after it leaves the muzzle. When it hits a human target, it is designed to liquify soft tissue and organs, It shreds bones.
I have fired an AR 15. It is designed to kill humans. But I would not use it for hunting. I want to preserve the meat the AR15 would pulverize.
Which is rather the point I was making. The gunman wasn't using a hunting rifle. The .22 reference was hyperbolic.
I can be as pedantic as the next man (or woman) over points of detail but I've come across plenty of instances online where US gun aficionados or advocates come up with shtick like:
'The AR123 isn't actually an automatic or semi-automatic. It only fires X rounds a minute whereas a semi-automatic only fires W rounds a minute unless you work the thingummy-jig switch in which case it fires Y rounds a minute at which point it exceeds the rate of fire expected from an automatic without actually being an automatic. Get your facts straight!'
The point I was making that if it looks like an assault rifle and performs like one it's pretty damn close to being an assault rifle whatever the AR stands for.
From this side of the Pond it now looks as if a Trump victory is assured. Heaven forfend that there be more of these incidents.
I notice that William Hague, a former Conservative Party leader here is saying in his regular opinion piece in The Times, that the assassination attempt isn't a 'game-changer' as such but simply serves to reinforce the situation as it already stands.
As a side note regarding the events of the other day, TICTH the attitude that the death of someone on the other political side, even a nasty political side, doesn’t matter/isn’t a loss/does not merit caring. Apparently the dead fireman at the rally had posted some nasty things on Twitter (he was at a Trump rally, so this is a shock?). I was saddened in a discussion on FB to see someone on “my” anti-Trump side expressing the above sentiments about the dead fireman. I just… God have mercy. 😔🕯
Which is rather the point I was making. The gunman wasn't using a hunting rifle. The .22 reference was hyperbolic.
I can be as pedantic as the next man (or woman) over points of detail but I've come across plenty of instances online where US gun aficionados or advocates come up with shtick like:
'The AR123 isn't actually an automatic or semi-automatic. It only fires X rounds a minute whereas a semi-automatic only fires W rounds a minute unless you work the thingummy-jig switch in which case it fires Y rounds a minute at which point it exceeds the rate of fire expected from an automatic without actually being an automatic. Get your facts straight!'
The point I was making that if it looks like an assault rifle and performs like one it's pretty damn close to being an assault rifle whatever the AR stands for.
From this side of the Pond it now looks as if a Trump victory is assured. Heaven forfend that there be more of these incidents.
I notice that William Hague, a former Conservative Party leader here is saying in his regular opinion piece in The Times, that the assassination attempt isn't a 'game-changer' as such but simply serves to reinforce the situation as it already stands.
It's worrying when I agree with Mr Hague but I do. I think, when the dust settles, this changes very little.
I have come across many gun nut pedants and they are ridiculous. There is no one in civilian life who needs a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds rapidly. And as noted above, the use of such a weapon for hunting would also be very silly.
High-velocity rounds are made to kill. It's as simple as that. They are depressingly clever designs and make use of ingenious engineering to achieve this aim. As I was intimating before there are very few areas one can hit a human body with such a round and not potentially cause a fatal wound. I just want to reiterate here that many of the types of bullet that are used are banned from military use.
Trump supporters support Trump
People who see him for what he really is, know that stopping him is vitally important.
The constituency of people whose mind has been changed is probably very small. Just because the loud fanatics are loud does not mean their numbers are growing.
Nick Tamen: Yes, that’s what I heard in an interview with the doctor. In the interview I saw, the doctor didn’t say he was sitting next to Comperatore.
Caissa replied: I was referring to a different onsite interview on MSNBC with an ob/gyn. This would have taken place within an hour of the shooting. I will try to find footage. Regardless, if it will make people feel better I will retract my comments about my skepticism.
In line with what ChastMastr has written, a man in the crowd died. He was a Trump supporter, otherwise he wouldn't have been there. He appears to have posted nasty stuff online. He won't have been the first to do so nor the last. That doesn't mean he would have been incapable, either instinctively or in a consciously heroic way, of trying to protect his family.
We don't know. We won't until a proper ballistic review has been carried out.
It's perfectly feasible that he did act as he's reported to have done. Whether he did or didn't he's still dead. 'Any man's death diminishes me.'
@Gramps49. If it's the Armalite that was the favourite firearm of the IRA then it's as close to an assault rifle as 'Damn it!' is ti swearing.
The fact is, these are military style firearms not .22 hunting rifles.
The Armalite that was popular with the IRA was the AR-18. The one allegedly used by Mr. Crooks seems to be a variant of the AR-15, a "civilian" version of the M16 used by the U.S. military and the favored weapon of American mass shooters.
So apparently in 2016 Vance was highly critical of Trump but, like so many Republicans, has now lined up fully with him. What changed his mind (apart from ambition and self-interest?)
Last night, Mrs Gramps was moping around, depressed. I asked her what was going on. She stated she was afraid of the future. I asked what she meant. She said Trump is going to win.
My reply was even if he did win, he will at best be a lame duck president, in that most presidents in their second term do not amount to much. Should the Republicans win Congress, it would only be two years before the Democrats can take it over. If that happens, there will be more of a balance.
Over the long run, Trump may do some damage, but it would only be temporary. We will survive.
But it remains to be seen that he will win. I am not giving up. I may go down with the ship, but I am not throwing in the towel yet. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)
So apparently in 2016 Vance was highly critical of Trump but, like so many Republicans, has now lined up fully with him. What changed his mind (apart from ambition and self-interest?)
Same old story we see over & over again. Even Kamala Harris was launching some vicious barbs at Joe Biden on the debate stage in 2019.
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
So apparently in 2016 Vance was highly critical of Trump but, like so many Republicans, has now lined up fully with him. What changed his mind (apart from ambition and self-interest?)
Same old story we see over & over again. Even Kamala Harris was launching some vicious barbs at Joe Biden on the debate stage in 2019.
Well yes, I'm sure that's true, but even so the convert usually tries to justify their shift, both to other people and to themselves. The external pressure produces a real internal shift, or so it seems to me. So my question is - what was the internal shift that Vance made?
So apparently in 2016 Vance was highly critical of Trump but, like so many Republicans, has now lined up fully with him. What changed his mind (apart from ambition and self-interest?)
For context, "highly critical" means Vance was torn between whether "Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler". To the best of my knowledge none of Biden's 2020 primary opponents equated him with Adolf Hitler.
And why are ambition and self-interest insufficient explanations by themselves?
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
And there's a decent chance Ukraine won't. Which, as well as being a disaster for Ukraine, imperils all of Eastern Europe and brings with it the risk of a much wider conflict. Additionally, such a development would almost certainly emboldened China with respect to Taiwan.
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
And there's a decent chance Ukraine won't. Which, as well as being a disaster for Ukraine, imperils all of Eastern Europe and brings with it the risk of a much wider conflict. Additionally, such a development would almost certainly emboldened China with respect to Taiwan.
Trump winning really is a big deal.
AFZ
This.
Alas...although many things could happen to make Trump2 less awful than it might otherwise be...
(TBF, I think @Gramps49 may have just been referring to himself and Mrs Gramps).
So apparently in 2016 Vance was highly critical of Trump but, like so many Republicans, has now lined up fully with him. What changed his mind (apart from ambition and self-interest?)
For context, "highly critical" means Vance was torn between whether "Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler". To the best of my knowledge none of Biden's 2020 primary opponents equated him with Adolf Hitler.
And why are ambition and self-interest insufficient explanations by themselves?
Because these explanations are too general, too easy. They have no detail. They are about as useful as saying: "because he is a nasty nasty man to whom we say Boo! Boo Vance!"
Because (as I suggested in my reply to Powderkeg) most people do not seem to themselves to be driven by ambition and self-interest. They tell themselves that there are other reasons, and maybe that might even be true. Even if not true, the nature of the cloak they choose to justify themselves may tell us something useful.
Perhaps one thinks that these reasons are never true, that everyone and everything is ultimately driven by economic and political self-interest and that any rational or moral justification is merely posturing, to be ignored. If one accepted that - which I don't - then the moral censure implied by your last sentence would lose its force. If everything everyone does is ultimately about power and money, then why should we ourselves be any different, and who are we to judge?
From this side of the Pond it now looks as if a Trump victory is assured. Heaven forfend that there be more of these incidents.
Perhaps this is an appropriate time for a reminder that Election Day is 111 days away (as of today, Tuesday, July 16). Voting for military overseas voters can start in a little over 2 months. For places with early voting, that starts in around 3 months.
Any of those are an eternity in American presidential politics. So many things can happen between now and when people vote.
I mean, two weeks ago, the talk was all about whether Biden should step aside. His abysmal debate performance surely meant his doom, and there were calls from all quarters to replace him. Yet within a few weeks, the polls showed the race was still a statistical dead heat, with little change if someone replaced Biden.
The talk for Biden to step aside is gone, at least for now, because something else happened that changed the trajectory of the race. And as others have said, I doubt the assassination attempt will lead many voters to move from Biden to Trump. The race will, I suspect, remain a statistical dead heat, polling wise.
Who knows what else will happen between now and November that may prod the needle one way or the other?
Last night, Mrs Gramps was moping around, depressed. I asked her what was going on. She stated she was afraid of the future. I asked what she meant. She said Trump is going to win.
My reply was even if he did win, he will at best be a lame duck president, in that most presidents in their second term do not amount to much. Should the Republicans win Congress, it would only be two years before the Democrats can take it over. If that happens, there will be more of a balance.
Over the long run, Trump may do some damage, but it would only be temporary. We will survive.
But it remains to be seen that he will win. I am not giving up. I may go down with the ship, but I am not throwing in the towel yet. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)
I admire your sunny optimism. I sincerely hope you are right.
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
These are gross generalizations.
Remember, there are 50 states in our union. While some states have passed restrictions for some of the groups listed above, other states have passed laws supporting them. Moreover, if Trump does try to impose national restrictions, there will be lawsuits demanding injunctions against them. It will take time to get them all the way up to the SCOTUS.
The UK survived many conservative Prime Ministers who were just as bad. It took the UK nearly a generation to kick the Tories out. Here, in the US, we are talking four years tops, before we get to do it all over again.
I agree with Nick, it is still a dead heat in the national polls.
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
These are gross generalizations.
Perhaps. But they are likely needed to balance out this:
Last night, Mrs Gramps was moping around, depressed. I asked her what was going on. She stated she was afraid of the future. I asked what she meant. She said Trump is going to win.
My reply was even if he did win, he will at best be a lame duck president, in that most presidents in their second term do not amount to much. Should the Republicans win Congress, it would only be two years before the Democrats can take it over. If that happens, there will be more of a balance.
Over the long run, Trump may do some damage, but it would only be temporary.
I’m by any measure an optimist, but I think you underestimate the damage Trump could do if the Republican Party—they really should be renamed the Trump Party, or maybe the Trumpniks—also control Congress. “Temporary” in this case could mean “decades-long.”
I'm no fan of any of our recent Conservative PMs but I don’t think any of them were anywhere near as venal as Trump. Johnson came closest. Truss wasn't venal so much as radically incompetent and didn't last 5 minutes.
Besides, a British PM isn't a President, even though the role seems to have headed more that way since Blair. Wilson could behave 'presidentially' at times and like Blair he was Labour.
At any rate, I think we are comparing apples and pears. British Conservatives tend to be different from their US counterparts in a similar way to how the UK Labour party doesn't map across exactly to the US Democrats.
Yes, there are parallels and equivalents but they aren't an exact match.
We've had an unprecedented turnover of PM's in recent years, largely due to the upheavals caused by the Brexit referendum and its aftermath.
It remains to be seen whether things will stabilise under Starmer. We haven't 'got rid' of the Conservatives. They'll take a while to recover but recover they will.
Not everyone will survive a second Trump term. Unwillingly pregnant people, trans folks, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, people of colour, Muslims, socialists: all are at increased risk under a Trump presidency.
These are gross generalizations.
Perhaps. But they are likely needed to balance out this:
Last night, Mrs Gramps was moping around, depressed. I asked her what was going on. She stated she was afraid of the future. I asked what she meant. She said Trump is going to win.
My reply was even if he did win, he will at best be a lame duck president, in that most presidents in their second term do not amount to much. Should the Republicans win Congress, it would only be two years before the Democrats can take it over. If that happens, there will be more of a balance.
Over the long run, Trump may do some damage, but it would only be temporary.
I’m by any measure an optimist, but I think you underestimate the damage Trump could do if the Republican Party—they really should be renamed the Trump Party, or maybe the Trumpniks—also control Congress. “Temporary” in this case could mean “decades-long.”
Hmmm ... yes. I hate to say this but @Gramps49's blithe optimism that Ukraine could recover the Crimea and drive out the Russians appears to have been misplaced and doesn't inspire confidence in his predictive abilities.
I think we would head into new and very unpredictable territory in a second term of Trump. Yes, it would take him a long time to unravel State legislature but he'll be out to get revenge on those he blames for him losing office last time.
There seem no shortage of people - like Vance - who seem hell-bent on supporting him to further their own ends.
Trump has no power over state legislatures. His party may put up candidates for the legislature, but blue states will continue to be blue states. There is not much swing there.
Before we go much further, the chart linked here shows that the race is more wide-open than you think. It is still anybody's race. The chart posted will be updated three times a day until the election.
It's always the case that it's easier to destroy than create. Repairing the damage done by a government in a few months can take later governments years to achieve. It's never as simple as electing someone else.
You're approaching the end of the first term of the Biden administration. Has that been long enough to correct the problems of the previous Trump presidency? Has the politically stacked Supreme Court been rebalanced, and women given back the rights to their own bodies?
Here in the UK I don't expect 5 or even 10 years of a Labour government to be long enough to repair the relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe, or recover from the strangulation of public services and investment in the economy (even if the new government scraps the Tory policy of austerity). And, lost opportunities are gone forever, allowing building of renewables and legislation for building efficiency doesn't make up for the fact that the UK could have already reached the point where renewables provide all our electricity and a million homes use practically no energy to heat.
Put simply, I'm far from convinced with an argument that says a few years under a bad government can be easily recovered from by electing someone else.
Put simply, I'm far from convinced with an argument that says a few years under a bad government can be easily recovered from by electing someone else.
This is a critical point.
2016 was a turning point for both the UK and the USA. Both had narrow democratic results that were deeply flawed but resulted in long-term effects.
I'm talking, of course, about the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum.
My thoughts in 2016, was that the election of Trump was the worst of the two in terms of the effects and damage that it would do but the much more easily fixed of the two. In one sense, this is correct as Trump lost in 2020 and Biden has done an awesome job.
However, both directly and indirectly there is a long shadow from Trump's election in '16. The direct is that he's managed to skew the Supreme Court with not just Conservatives but radical activists who have no respect for the rule of law and are engaged in a naked power grab. The indirect is that he's created a cult that has captured the GOP and made it into a fascistic movement.
In theory, the USA has very strong Constitutional protections. In reality, I think they are much weaker than other systems that on the face of it are more vulnerable.
If you put this together, then it is inescapable that a Trump second term, especially with this Supreme Court in place, is a genuine threat to the Republic. It is not hyperbole to say so. Is it inevitable with a Trump win? No, there are many who will continue the fight, but the power that Trump could wield would have very little in the way of practical limit. The saving grace about Trump himself is that he's an idiot and has no actual vision. In this sense he really isn't America's Hitler. Some of the people around him however, are deeply motivated and have a plan.
The optimist in me, says that if Trump manages to win and pull down the Republic then the phoenix that arises from the ashes will be much better. However, firstly that is not guaranteed and secondly the pain for the US (and the rest of the world) to get there will be huge. If you want to play with the parallels, the (West) Germany that emerged and grew from 1945 onwards is a much better and stronger country than the Weimar Republic, but the cost of getting there was huge and took nearly a decade and a half to emerge.
Biden is about to come out with a proposal to limit the terms of the justices on SCOTUS as well as imposing an enforceable code of ethics. Technically, the term of office limitations would have to be passed through constitutional amendment process, but the code of ethics would have to be passed through Congress.
At this point, these would only be campaign promises, but they might be enough to move the needle when it comes to keeping the presidency.
In any case, Biden believes there will be two positions on the court that will open up through retirements. If so, this next term will be consequential.
Nonetheless, the polls still show it is a wide-open election. The fat lady is not even on stage yet.
Biden is about to come out with a proposal to limit the terms of the justices on SCOTUS as well as imposing an enforceable code of ethics. Technically, the term of office limitations would have to be passed through constitutional amendment process, . . .
And given the current political environment, it will be dead on arrival.
. . . but the code of ethics would have to be passed through Congress.
And then SCOTUS would likely strike it down as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.
In any case, Biden believes there will be two positions on the court that will open up through retirements.
Unless, of course, Biden wins, in which case Thomas and Alito will delay retirement. Neither will retire unless a Republican is in the White House.
Biden is about to come out with a proposal to limit the terms of the justices on SCOTUS as well as imposing an enforceable code of ethics. Technically, the term of office limitations would have to be passed through constitutional amendment process, but the code of ethics would have to be passed through Congress.
Requiring retirement would probably require a Constitutional amendment since Art. III, § 1 states Supreme Court Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". In other words the only way to remove existing Justices is impeachment. In past court shrinkages the number of judges was decreased by attrition, sometimes enacted solely so a specific president (e.g. Andrew Johnson) wouldn't be able to appoint Justices.
One possible way around this is to specify that any Justice over the age of 75 must take "senior status", which is a form of semi-retirement where they're technically still on the court but don't hear en banc cases. Most people don't realize that Sandra Day O'Connor did not retire from the Supreme Court, she took senior status. Occasionally she would still hear cases at the appellate court level, which is permissible for Supreme Court Justices on senior status. She finally fully retired in 2018, twelve years after most of the public thought she retired.
Another possibility beyond an age bar would be requiring senior status after a set number of years on the en banc court, which would eliminate the obvious work-around of appointing young Justices. I've heard eighteen years of service bandied around as a possible figure, which is convenient because, if properly spaced, this would allow a Supreme Court nomination every two years (barring death or early retirement) assuming the court remains at its current size of nine Justices. At the moment the Justices with at least 18 years on the high court are Thomas (32 years), Roberts (18 years), and Alito (18 years).
Biden is about to come out with a proposal to limit the terms of the justices on SCOTUS as well as imposing an enforceable code of ethics. Technically, the term of office limitations would have to be passed through constitutional amendment process, . . .
And given the current political environment, it will be dead on arrival.
. . . but the code of ethics would have to be passed through Congress.
And then SCOTUS would likely strike it down as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.
In any case, Biden believes there will be two positions on the court that will open up through retirements.
Unless, of course, Biden wins, in which case Thomas and Alito will delay retirement. Neither will retire unless a Republican is in the White House.
Like I said, these are being offered up as campaign promises.
The code of ethics would apply to all high-ranking government officials, not just SCOTUS.
Justice Roberts will turn 70 this year. He might want to go fishing more.
It is, I think, worth bearing in mind the point made earlier by @Nick Tamen (IIRC) that there's still a long way to go before November.
Many people on this side of the Pond are praying, or keeping their fingers crossed, that Mr Biden is successfully - and peacefully - re-elected.
I saw the news about the shooting of Trump on the TV at breakfast in my hotel on Sunday morning (I was at a family wedding party over the w/e), and my very left-wing companions (sister, niece, and sister-in-law) were all appalled at what had happened.
The code of ethics would apply to all high-ranking government officials, not just SCOTUS.
And I can easily see this Court saying that such a code cannot extend to the judiciary.
I think this mis-states the problem. Other government officials, including the various inferior federal courts, already have Congressionally passed codes of ethics that they must follow. The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole, and glaring, exception.
It would be hard for the Supreme Court to argue that Congress has the authority to regulate the ethics of other parts of the federal judiciary but not themselves, but a body that can spin presidential immunity out of nothing might just be able to do it.
I have fired an AR 15. It is designed to kill humans. But I would not use it for hunting. I want to preserve the meat the AR15 would pulverize.
Quite a lot of people use an AR-15 style rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO for hunting. It seems to be fairly common for vermin control (coyotes and so on), and a not infrequent choice for small deer.
The ammunition is cheap and widely available. AR-15 style rifles are widely available, inexpensive, and generally reliable.
The code of ethics would apply to all high-ranking government officials, not just SCOTUS.
And I can easily see this Court saying that such a code cannot extend to the judiciary.
I think this mis-states the problem. Other government officials, including the various inferior federal courts, already have Congressionally passed codes of ethics that they must follow. The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole, and glaring, exception.
It would be hard for the Supreme Court to argue that Congress has the authority to regulate the ethics of other parts of the federal judiciary but not themselves, but a body that can spin presidential immunity out of nothing might just be able to do it.
Exactly, and the bolded bit was my point. I’m well aware what Congress has already done in this regard. I also have no trouble imagining this Supreme Court, should Congress make an ethics code applicable to them, saying “too far, can’t do that.” (And maybe adding for good measure, “And while we’re at it, Congress can’t impose any code of ethics on the federal judiciary. Only we can do that.”)
I think we’ve seen any concern about what is “hard for the Court to argue” pretty much thrown out with the trash. The only quibble I’d have with the bolded is that given the context of what we’re talking about, I’d replace “might just be able to do it” with “in all likelihood will do it, however unconvincingly.”
Structural stuff is the worst, the most difficult to undo. I am pretty shocked about the presidential immunity decision. That is almost Enabling-Act bad and I expect it to be exploited in short order.
I have fired an AR 15. It is designed to kill humans. But I would not use it for hunting. I want to preserve the meat the AR15 would pulverize.
Quite a lot of people use an AR-15 style rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO for hunting. It seems to be fairly common for vermin control (coyotes and so on), and a not infrequent choice for small deer.
The ammunition is cheap and widely available. AR-15 style rifles are widely available, inexpensive, and generally reliable.
The question, of course, is whether they should be. But that ship sailed a long time ago, overlooked with the 'well-regulated militia' clause.
Comments
We don't know which of the five bullets fired by the gunman hit him. If it was one of the last fired he would have had time to do what's been claimed.
From the video it's clear that Trump and others took cover very quickly as the shooting started.
Without detailed ballistic analysis it's difficult to work out exactly what happened.
@Gramps49. If it's the Armalite that was the favourite firearm of the IRA then it's as close to an assault rifle as 'Damn it!' is ti swearing.
The fact is, these are military style firearms not .22 hunting rifles.
The doctor also said that there were 3 quick shots, then a pause of a number of seconds, then 3 or 4 more shots. So the first 3 shots being fired, Comperatore moving to shield his family, and then being hit when the second round of shot were fired seems quite plausible.
And in the interview I saw, the doctor finished the interview by saying Comperatore “died a hero.”
I’m all for healthily skepticism, but I really haven’t seen anything that casts doubt on the accuracy of what’s been reported—that Comperatore was trying to shield his family when he was shot. What specifically did you hear the doctor say, @Caissa, that makes you skeptical?
The anatomy of a .223 cartridge includes the primer, the body, which contains the gun powder, and the projectile. The projectile is about the size of a .22 projectile, but the body contains the gun powder similar to a .308. (7.82 round) Simply put, there is a lot of wallop behind that projectile, much more than a .22. That wallop makes the projectile tumble shortly after it leaves the muzzle. When it hits a human target, it is designed to liquify soft tissue and organs, It shreds bones.
I have fired an AR 15. It is designed to kill humans. But I would not use it for hunting. I want to preserve the meat the AR15 would pulverize.
I can be as pedantic as the next man (or woman) over points of detail but I've come across plenty of instances online where US gun aficionados or advocates come up with shtick like:
'The AR123 isn't actually an automatic or semi-automatic. It only fires X rounds a minute whereas a semi-automatic only fires W rounds a minute unless you work the thingummy-jig switch in which case it fires Y rounds a minute at which point it exceeds the rate of fire expected from an automatic without actually being an automatic. Get your facts straight!'
The point I was making that if it looks like an assault rifle and performs like one it's pretty damn close to being an assault rifle whatever the AR stands for.
From this side of the Pond it now looks as if a Trump victory is assured. Heaven forfend that there be more of these incidents.
I notice that William Hague, a former Conservative Party leader here is saying in his regular opinion piece in The Times, that the assassination attempt isn't a 'game-changer' as such but simply serves to reinforce the situation as it already stands.
It's worrying when I agree with Mr Hague but I do. I think, when the dust settles, this changes very little.
I have come across many gun nut pedants and they are ridiculous. There is no one in civilian life who needs a weapon capable of firing multiple rounds rapidly. And as noted above, the use of such a weapon for hunting would also be very silly.
High-velocity rounds are made to kill. It's as simple as that. They are depressingly clever designs and make use of ingenious engineering to achieve this aim. As I was intimating before there are very few areas one can hit a human body with such a round and not potentially cause a fatal wound. I just want to reiterate here that many of the types of bullet that are used are banned from military use.
Trump supporters support Trump
People who see him for what he really is, know that stopping him is vitally important.
The constituency of people whose mind has been changed is probably very small. Just because the loud fanatics are loud does not mean their numbers are growing.
AFZ
Caissa replied: I was referring to a different onsite interview on MSNBC with an ob/gyn. This would have taken place within an hour of the shooting. I will try to find footage. Regardless, if it will make people feel better I will retract my comments about my skepticism.
In line with what ChastMastr has written, a man in the crowd died. He was a Trump supporter, otherwise he wouldn't have been there. He appears to have posted nasty stuff online. He won't have been the first to do so nor the last. That doesn't mean he would have been incapable, either instinctively or in a consciously heroic way, of trying to protect his family.
We don't know. We won't until a proper ballistic review has been carried out.
It's perfectly feasible that he did act as he's reported to have done. Whether he did or didn't he's still dead. 'Any man's death diminishes me.'
Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
This option, said the caption, would be much cheaper...
Meanwhile, Trump's running mate has not exactly endeared himself to our new government by describing the UK (possibly jocularly) as an Islamist country:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/16/trump-running-mate-jd-vance-uk-first-islamist-country-nuclear-weapon
Sorry, US Shipmates, but where the dickens do the Trumpistas find these people?
The Armalite that was popular with the IRA was the AR-18. The one allegedly used by Mr. Crooks seems to be a variant of the AR-15, a "civilian" version of the M16 used by the U.S. military and the favored weapon of American mass shooters.
So long as there is woodwork for cockroaches to crawl out of . . . .
My reply was even if he did win, he will at best be a lame duck president, in that most presidents in their second term do not amount to much. Should the Republicans win Congress, it would only be two years before the Democrats can take it over. If that happens, there will be more of a balance.
Over the long run, Trump may do some damage, but it would only be temporary. We will survive.
But it remains to be seen that he will win. I am not giving up. I may go down with the ship, but I am not throwing in the towel yet. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)
Same old story we see over & over again. Even Kamala Harris was launching some vicious barbs at Joe Biden on the debate stage in 2019.
Well yes, I'm sure that's true, but even so the convert usually tries to justify their shift, both to other people and to themselves. The external pressure produces a real internal shift, or so it seems to me. So my question is - what was the internal shift that Vance made?
For context, "highly critical" means Vance was torn between whether "Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler". To the best of my knowledge none of Biden's 2020 primary opponents equated him with Adolf Hitler.
And why are ambition and self-interest insufficient explanations by themselves?
And there's a decent chance Ukraine won't. Which, as well as being a disaster for Ukraine, imperils all of Eastern Europe and brings with it the risk of a much wider conflict. Additionally, such a development would almost certainly emboldened China with respect to Taiwan.
Trump winning really is a big deal.
AFZ
This.
Alas...although many things could happen to make Trump2 less awful than it might otherwise be...
(TBF, I think @Gramps49 may have just been referring to himself and Mrs Gramps).
Any of those are an eternity in American presidential politics. So many things can happen between now and when people vote.
I mean, two weeks ago, the talk was all about whether Biden should step aside. His abysmal debate performance surely meant his doom, and there were calls from all quarters to replace him. Yet within a few weeks, the polls showed the race was still a statistical dead heat, with little change if someone replaced Biden.
The talk for Biden to step aside is gone, at least for now, because something else happened that changed the trajectory of the race. And as others have said, I doubt the assassination attempt will lead many voters to move from Biden to Trump. The race will, I suspect, remain a statistical dead heat, polling wise.
Who knows what else will happen between now and November that may prod the needle one way or the other?
I admire your sunny optimism. I sincerely hope you are right.
These are gross generalizations.
Remember, there are 50 states in our union. While some states have passed restrictions for some of the groups listed above, other states have passed laws supporting them. Moreover, if Trump does try to impose national restrictions, there will be lawsuits demanding injunctions against them. It will take time to get them all the way up to the SCOTUS.
The UK survived many conservative Prime Ministers who were just as bad. It took the UK nearly a generation to kick the Tories out. Here, in the US, we are talking four years tops, before we get to do it all over again.
I agree with Nick, it is still a dead heat in the national polls.
Hmmm ... that remains to be seen. I'm not so sure we have.
Be afraid ... be very afraid .....
Besides, a British PM isn't a President, even though the role seems to have headed more that way since Blair. Wilson could behave 'presidentially' at times and like Blair he was Labour.
At any rate, I think we are comparing apples and pears. British Conservatives tend to be different from their US counterparts in a similar way to how the UK Labour party doesn't map across exactly to the US Democrats.
Yes, there are parallels and equivalents but they aren't an exact match.
We've had an unprecedented turnover of PM's in recent years, largely due to the upheavals caused by the Brexit referendum and its aftermath.
It remains to be seen whether things will stabilise under Starmer. We haven't 'got rid' of the Conservatives. They'll take a while to recover but recover they will.
Hmmm ... yes. I hate to say this but @Gramps49's blithe optimism that Ukraine could recover the Crimea and drive out the Russians appears to have been misplaced and doesn't inspire confidence in his predictive abilities.
I think we would head into new and very unpredictable territory in a second term of Trump. Yes, it would take him a long time to unravel State legislature but he'll be out to get revenge on those he blames for him losing office last time.
There seem no shortage of people - like Vance - who seem hell-bent on supporting him to further their own ends.
Though she is also, for the record, right now in Milwaukee attending the Republican convention.
Before we go much further, the chart linked here shows that the race is more wide-open than you think. It is still anybody's race. The chart posted will be updated three times a day until the election.
You're approaching the end of the first term of the Biden administration. Has that been long enough to correct the problems of the previous Trump presidency? Has the politically stacked Supreme Court been rebalanced, and women given back the rights to their own bodies?
Here in the UK I don't expect 5 or even 10 years of a Labour government to be long enough to repair the relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe, or recover from the strangulation of public services and investment in the economy (even if the new government scraps the Tory policy of austerity). And, lost opportunities are gone forever, allowing building of renewables and legislation for building efficiency doesn't make up for the fact that the UK could have already reached the point where renewables provide all our electricity and a million homes use practically no energy to heat.
Put simply, I'm far from convinced with an argument that says a few years under a bad government can be easily recovered from by electing someone else.
This is a critical point.
2016 was a turning point for both the UK and the USA. Both had narrow democratic results that were deeply flawed but resulted in long-term effects.
I'm talking, of course, about the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum.
My thoughts in 2016, was that the election of Trump was the worst of the two in terms of the effects and damage that it would do but the much more easily fixed of the two. In one sense, this is correct as Trump lost in 2020 and Biden has done an awesome job.
However, both directly and indirectly there is a long shadow from Trump's election in '16. The direct is that he's managed to skew the Supreme Court with not just Conservatives but radical activists who have no respect for the rule of law and are engaged in a naked power grab. The indirect is that he's created a cult that has captured the GOP and made it into a fascistic movement.
In theory, the USA has very strong Constitutional protections. In reality, I think they are much weaker than other systems that on the face of it are more vulnerable.
If you put this together, then it is inescapable that a Trump second term, especially with this Supreme Court in place, is a genuine threat to the Republic. It is not hyperbole to say so. Is it inevitable with a Trump win? No, there are many who will continue the fight, but the power that Trump could wield would have very little in the way of practical limit. The saving grace about Trump himself is that he's an idiot and has no actual vision. In this sense he really isn't America's Hitler. Some of the people around him however, are deeply motivated and have a plan.
The optimist in me, says that if Trump manages to win and pull down the Republic then the phoenix that arises from the ashes will be much better. However, firstly that is not guaranteed and secondly the pain for the US (and the rest of the world) to get there will be huge. If you want to play with the parallels, the (West) Germany that emerged and grew from 1945 onwards is a much better and stronger country than the Weimar Republic, but the cost of getting there was huge and took nearly a decade and a half to emerge.
AFZ
At this point, these would only be campaign promises, but they might be enough to move the needle when it comes to keeping the presidency.
In any case, Biden believes there will be two positions on the court that will open up through retirements. If so, this next term will be consequential.
Nonetheless, the polls still show it is a wide-open election. The fat lady is not even on stage yet.
And then SCOTUS would likely strike it down as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.
Unless, of course, Biden wins, in which case Thomas and Alito will delay retirement. Neither will retire unless a Republican is in the White House.
Maybe, maybe not. I mentioned one possible statutory work-around in a related thread a few years back.
Another possibility beyond an age bar would be requiring senior status after a set number of years on the en banc court, which would eliminate the obvious work-around of appointing young Justices. I've heard eighteen years of service bandied around as a possible figure, which is convenient because, if properly spaced, this would allow a Supreme Court nomination every two years (barring death or early retirement) assuming the court remains at its current size of nine Justices. At the moment the Justices with at least 18 years on the high court are Thomas (32 years), Roberts (18 years), and Alito (18 years).
Like I said, these are being offered up as campaign promises.
The code of ethics would apply to all high-ranking government officials, not just SCOTUS.
Justice Roberts will turn 70 this year. He might want to go fishing more.
And I can easily see this Court saying that such a code cannot extend to the judiciary.
Only if there’s a Republican in the White House.
Many people on this side of the Pond are praying, or keeping their fingers crossed, that Mr Biden is successfully - and peacefully - re-elected.
I saw the news about the shooting of Trump on the TV at breakfast in my hotel on Sunday morning (I was at a family wedding party over the w/e), and my very left-wing companions (sister, niece, and sister-in-law) were all appalled at what had happened.
Really? I was under the impression that The Court has been constantly amending the Constitution for a little while now...*
AfZ
*Sightly hammy satire. My apologies.
I think this mis-states the problem. Other government officials, including the various inferior federal courts, already have Congressionally passed codes of ethics that they must follow. The U.S. Supreme Court is the sole, and glaring, exception.
It would be hard for the Supreme Court to argue that Congress has the authority to regulate the ethics of other parts of the federal judiciary but not themselves, but a body that can spin presidential immunity out of nothing might just be able to do it.
Quite a lot of people use an AR-15 style rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO for hunting. It seems to be fairly common for vermin control (coyotes and so on), and a not infrequent choice for small deer.
The ammunition is cheap and widely available. AR-15 style rifles are widely available, inexpensive, and generally reliable.
I think we’ve seen any concern about what is “hard for the Court to argue” pretty much thrown out with the trash. The only quibble I’d have with the bolded is that given the context of what we’re talking about, I’d replace “might just be able to do it” with “in all likelihood will do it, however unconvincingly.”
(though that would set a terrible precedent.)
The question, of course, is whether they should be. But that ship sailed a long time ago, overlooked with the 'well-regulated militia' clause.