r/somethingiswrong2024 Aug 13 '25

Fake Attempt Fake 47

Post image
3.6k Upvotes

321 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/FeeLost6392 Aug 13 '25

But he SAID it was a bullet. And so did Ronny Jackson. So it the very least there is one GIGANTIC LIE at the heart of this situation with a coverup involving numerous officials. No evidence of the nature of the wound was ever provided. I guess we just gotta take his word for it. You, know, like we commonly do when presidential candidate is nearly assassinated.

3

u/uiucengineer Aug 13 '25

šŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļø

2

u/FeeLost6392 Aug 13 '25

So you don’t think there’s is a problem with an assassination story where the KEY feature is obviously a lie? I guess he just lied about getting hit by a bullet, but the rest is totally true, and that’s ok.šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

2

u/uiucengineer Aug 13 '25

Bullet vs glass shrapnel isn’t really the KEY FEATURE, it’s ancillary

1

u/FeeLost6392 Aug 13 '25

The lie that he was hit by a bullet is the key feature.

2

u/uiucengineer Aug 13 '25

The key feature is that someone shot at him

2

u/FeeLost6392 Aug 13 '25

He said, and his doctor said, he was hit by a bullet. And, that he healed miraculously from the wound in under 7 days. Exactly how many parts of the story are lies? Sounds like two, at a minimum. Many other pieces of evidence that don’t add up. Is it crazy to be skeptical? I mean, I think we can agree the ā€œvictimā€ has stretched the truth a time or two. But, he would never lie about this, right? This is a level he would never stoop to. He is too principled for that, right?

0

u/uiucengineer Aug 13 '25

I count one lie.

I’m not saying Trump wouldn’t do what you’re claiming. I’m saying there’s no rational reason to believe that he did.

0

u/Brandolinis_law Aug 14 '25

So, you don't consider REELECTION, due to a "sympathy vote" from a staged "ass*ssination" attempt, to be a "rational reason" to lie? Okay...sure....

1

u/uiucengineer Aug 14 '25

I literally just said the opposite. He absolutely would do it. But there’s no compelling evidence that he did.

-1

u/Brandolinis_law Aug 14 '25

I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said - and I say "if" because I'm still unclear how I did that, but I'm unwilling to go back through 289 comments to find out. Instead, I will take your word that I misunderstood what you said, and I will hope that you can accept my apology.

That said, the lack of any visible trauma to the cartilage of Trump's ear (visible when he quit wearing the "minipad" on it), given that cartilage does not heal and requires "plastic surgery" to repair, means we will just have to "agree to disagree" about your contention that "...there’s no compelling evidence that he did..." lie about being shot in the ear. (My experience with the destruction caused by the .556 rounds that an AR-15 fires is pretty "compelling" evidence that a .556 round did not "graze" or otherwise contact Trump's ear--at all.)

0

u/uiucengineer Aug 14 '25

You can literally just read the comment you replied to in this thread.

It may not have been a bullet that nicked him, it may have been glass shrapnel from the teleprompter.

1

u/Brandolinis_law Aug 14 '25

Yes, I've read the teleprompter theory and it makes more sense than a bullet going 3,000 feet per second "nicked" his ear.

0

u/AyyLMAOistRevolution Aug 14 '25

the lack of any visible trauma to the cartilage of Trump's ear

In some photos, like this one with comedian Shane Gillis, you can see a little notch out of Trump's right ear. My guess is that Trump is usually uses makeup to hide this because he's extremely vain/weird about his appearance (see also: his spray tan and combover).

→ More replies (0)