I’m more put off by how as far as some major news channels, it’s as if nothing else has happened anywhere over the past 24 hours…
I think that might be a you thing - as far as I understand it “calls for” mean to publicly ask for something to happen. Which he did. Whether he meant it or had his fingers crossed behind his back is another issue.
I don’t think anyone need worry. The whole “call for unity” will disappear in a cloud of smoke at his next public event.
It’d be nice if Mr. Trump comes out of this near death experience a better person. What if politicos actually did stand together for a while and tone down the us versus them rhetoric for the upcoming election?
~Max
Yeah, ain’t happening.
One can dream…
~Max
At least that was a good game: nice to watch. And the right team won. Take note: it can be done.
The “us versus them rhetoric” is the bread and butter of the modern GOP since Newt Gingrich and his “Contract With America”, and the entire point of the MAGA movement is to blame all problems of modern United States, real and imagined, upon “the liberals”, which at last count included not only Democrats but former Presidents Bush & Bush, Bob Bennett, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Cindy McCain (the latter for the immortal sin of being the widow to a not sufficiently radically Conservative former presidential candidate despite evidencing no political ambitions of her own).
What an utterly disingenuous “dream” to hope that Trump, of all people, is going to become “a better person”, something he has evidenced absolutely no capacity for even after experiencing a severe case of COVID, being confronted with his various perfidies and misbehaviors, et cetera. One might as well wish for a leopard to change its spots to pink and purple. If anything, Trump and his facilitators are going to try to use this as their “Reichstag Fire” incident to try to claim that the “Deep State” is literally trying to martyr their leader.
Stranger
This is my thinking as well.
TF “second amendment solution” G?
I don’t know, maybe news outlets are bringing up the irony. I’ve deliberately avoided any coverage of the event. Like all things TFG says or does, it isn’t going to change the way I vote. The less time I spend hearing about him, the happier I am.
Ironically as a brit in the US for 20+ years the American reichstagbrand and the looming fascist dictatorship did at least distract me from the stress of the lead to the the final. Not that I’d recommend it versus, say, having a better football team 
I agree. The photo is iconic. You can’t pick and choose these things. When I opened Facebook today, every one of my “friends” who lean to the right had posted that photo, along with their own gushing commentary about his “bravery” in “fighting for us even when he was shot.”
And then I unfollowed every one of them. I didn’t need that crap with my morning coffee.
I guess I’ve been fortunate. I only had one “friend” post that photo. I did not simply unfollow him, I straight unfriended him. Because fuck him and everyone else who endorses the rise of fascism. That said, I should probably have guessed this asshole was part of that ilk back in 2020 when he stepped in to a FB exchange I was having with someone else to suggest that maybe I was getting too emotional when I asserted there is a “moral imperative” against voting for a fascist.
Today I heard from NPR, on different programs:
Russian leaders believe that the Biden administration created the environment that lead to Trump being shot (presented with no commentary).
Russia is 100% seeding social media with disruptive misinformation.
When something like this happens, you must dismiss the leaders in charge (of the secret service, in this case) in order to project the image of doing something.
… I think that there are just too many programs having to fill too much space, and most “news” on any subject is either simply uncritically platforming the opinions of so called experts, or journalists who think too highly of themselves platforming their own opinions.
As a fairly well-informed American, I find 99% of the news and reporting immediately following a major incident to be a waste of time and unhelpful. This case is no different.
Trump’s statement “ God alone saved him & He happened to move his head! Why God waste a second of his time on a mutant like him?
And would you apply the same standards to all candidates, including the sitting president? Would it be okay to say “The candidate’s office issued a statement that calls for…?” Would anyone even notice the difference? This seems to me to be an unworkable and pointless proposition.
I resent the media in this instance and any other political occurrence (like the debate, new york trials, etc) in over reacting that “this changes everything!” Bull-shit.
People who who were going to vote for Biden in April are still going to vote for him in November. People who were going to vote for Trump in April are going to vote for him in November.
The media would like you to believe the entire election rides on a bunch of flip-flopping voters that can get their minds changed by that days headlines.
No idea which way this election will go but I’m pretty sure it won’t be decided by a bunch of undecideds who couldn’t manage to form an opinion on these two guys over the past 8 years.
Wish I could agree with you, but I worry these morons will have an outsized effect on the election results.
Joe Biden made a speech this evening from the Oval Office. This is the same Joe Biden who only 48 hours ago people on this Board were arguing couldn’t mumble his way through saying “Good morning.” Does anyone here want to bitch that a speechwriter wrote the words for Biden and that he focused his eyes long enough to read them off a teleprompter?
No, they’re very different. Claiming innocence is a passive statement of alleged fact. The AP release turns a hypocritical statement posted on Truth Social by some minion as an actual (active tense) appeal for national unity.
I got the wording of the AP release slightly wrong in my quote; the actual release said “Donald Trump appeals for national resilience after the shooting at his campaign rally, saying ‘it is more important than ever that we stand United’.” Which is even worse than my paraphrase. Trump – the convicted felon and serial liar who called for a “second amendment solution” to Hillary Clinton and incited the January 6 rioters and was the most divisive president in history – isn’t “appealing” for shit. In my view it should be reported as a posting on his social media site and not glorified as an authentic appeal.
Not necessarily. There are different ways of reporting the same statement. Reporting that says “The office of ‘x’ issued the following statement today …” is always indisputably objective. Reporting that says “‘x’ appeals for national unity” may be fine in some circumstances, but it implicitly endorses the authenticity of the appeal, which is not fine at all when it comes from a scheming liar and conman. It turns what is implicitly the factual statement “‘x’ claims to appeal for national unity” into the biased, opinionated statement that “‘x’ (actually) appeals for national unity”.
Is there really that big a difference between the two styles of reporting? In most cases, no. But Trump is such an extreme case that here it matters. He’s lying and everyone except MAGAts knows he’s lying. Journalists should have sufficient insight and judgment to use the most objective form of reporting about Trump’s exhortations, otherwise they’re going to be reporting that “Trump urges his followers shoot Hillary Clinton”, “Trump appeals to his followers to riot at the Capitol”, but “Trump appeals for national unity”.
This is why earlier I brought up the example of how the media’s mindless quest for a misguided sense of fairness and equivalency has them quoting lunatic crackpots as “balance” to legitimate climate science, creating an artificial “debate” where there’s really nothing to debate. Fairness and objectivity are important principles in journalism, but so are good judgment and a responsibility to keep the public well informed.