Trump shot at by his own supporters during rally

[Jamiet99uk]

This is all a side-show anyway because God isn't real.

[Crazy Anglican]

Two atheists from the UK are taking a discussion about an American assassination attempt and turning it into a religious debate?

[brainbomb]

This makes the UK sound like this ominous land of godless people.

[Crazy Anglican]

Why would that be?

[Crazy Anglican]

This makes the UK sound like this ominous land of godless people.

I just thought it was a bit ironic.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Some of this seems askew.

Jamie didn't make it a religious debate, he was merely noting that "God saved Trump" is a popular yet puzzling response to the assassination attempt. I agree that it is hard to think of a reasonable conception of divine intervention that would work this clumsily. I suspect we're merely lucky that a presidential candidate didn't suffer a cranial explosion on live television in the middle of an historic election cycle.

[Crazy Anglican]

Some of this seems askew.

Jamie didn't make it a religious debate,

That's debatable

he was merely noting that "God saved Trump" is a popular yet puzzling response to the assassination attempt.

It doesn't seem puzzling to me, it was just an appeal to the base. Just like the attempts to say it was a plot by Biden. The logic is staggering:

Biden can't carry a complete thought
Biden can't carry out his duties as a President
Biden can carry out a plan to assassinate his rival leaving not one trace of evidence leading back to him.

I agree that it is hard to think of a reasonable conception of divine intervention that would work this clumsily. I suspect we're merely lucky that a presidential candidate didn't suffer a cranial explosion on live television in the middle of an historic election cycle.

Yep that was lucky.

[brainbomb]

https://www.theonion.com/investigation-finds-secret-service-failed-to-account-fo-1851592934

[Octavious]

I'm confused. In what sense did it become a religious debate? What aspect of religion was being debated?

I was merely pointing out that the notion of whether or not Trump wins or loses the election is a matter of extreme importance is a belief held both by die hard MAGA chaps and our own dear Jamie. Opposite sides of coins spring to mind.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You and Jamie seemed to be discussing the contours of divine intervention and the problem of evil, though it seems like neither of you wanted to lol.

And your contention that those for and against Trump have something in common because they care about the outcome of the election seems wrongheaded. Voters should care and there are reasonable reasons to be extra invested this time around.

[Octavious]

No we weren't. We were discussing relative priorities.

Jamie was being critical of people who apparently consider Trump's survival and increased chance of being elected a more important event than the outcomes of various other newsworthy incidents (in particular school shootings), which I find amusing because Jamie believes the same thing but from a different angle

I don't recall saying that viewing the election as more important was wrong, or even implying it.

[CaptainFritz28]

No we weren't. We were discussing relative priorities.

I found that rather confusing, as there would be no need for prioritizing one thing over another for God.

[CaptainFritz28]

Whether or not it's providence seems irrelevant to me, though. If God kept Trump alive, that might be to make him go on to win the election or it might be to have him lose it, have a sudden change of heart on what to do with his bountiful monetary supply, and go on to fund children's hospitals, thereby achieving both matters in question at once.

It shouldn't change one's vote whether God saved Trump or not, bc whether or not He did is irrelevant to the election.

[Jamiet99uk]

No we weren't. We were discussing relative priorities.

Jamie was being critical of people who apparently consider Trump's survival and increased chance of being elected a more important event than the outcomes of various other newsworthy incidents (in particular school shootings), which I find amusing because Jamie believes the same thing but from a different angle

I was not saying that, exactly.

I was specifically responding to social media posts from Republican supporters who were claiming that God intervened to protect Donald Trump.

I was reflecting that, if they are right, it is problematic, to me, that in their minds, God would intervene to save the life of Donald Trump, but would not intervene to save the lives of schoolchildren gunned down in the USA on a horrifyingly regular basis.

This seems a fucked-up worldview to me.

[Crazy Anglican]

This is all a side-show anyway because God isn't real.

I agree with you about the idea that God would intervene to save Trump but not school children (cancer patients, etc.). There is a whole debate that we could have about that and it would be necessarily a tangent, as it is in the current election cycle. I don't know of anyone who would take seriously the notion that God saved Trump so that he can be President now. When it is presented as a political statement then it's a political debate, albeit not one that I particularly have any stake in being that I'm not a Christian Nationalist. I'm just a Christian. The above statement was when it strayed into a religious debate. The existence of God isn't necessary for us to discuss the behavior of people. I could make the contrary statement "Sure, God certainly exists", so Jamie's statement was a tangent and invited tangential response. (Sorry that was a bit pedantic but as everyone else didn't seem to see why it was bordering on a religious debate I thought I'd clarify)

I think politically a far better discussion would be that the Republicans are big on gun ownership, but don't allow them in their rallies. Even the NRA didn't allow them in their convention in Texas last year. It seems incongruous at best and hypocritical at worst. At the very least you could say "Hey look, when it's your lives at risk you're for a little bit of gun control. Why not spread that around to the rest of us?"

[Jamiet99uk]

I think politically a far better discussion would be that the Republicans are big on gun ownership, but don't allow them in their rallies. Even the NRA didn't allow them in their convention in Texas last year. It seems incongruous at best and hypocritical at worst. At the very least you could say "Hey look, when it's your lives at risk you're for a little bit of gun control. Why not spread that around to the rest of us?"

This is a very valid point since one of the arguments for allowing people to have guns is "if there's a BAD guy with a gun, all the GOOD citizens with guns will be able to deal with him!"

So if that's the case, how come good Republican supporters aren't allowed to bring their assault rifles, automatic pistols, Colt 45's, etc, to the rally? Surely that would make everyone safer?!

Totally agree it is a hypocritical position.

[Octavious]

I think politically a far better discussion would be that the Republicans are big on gun ownership, but don't allow them in their rallies. Even the NRA didn't allow them in their convention in Texas last year. It seems incongruous at best and hypocritical at worst. At the very least you could say "Hey look, when it's your lives at risk you're for a little bit of gun control. Why not spread that around to the rest of us?"

This is a very valid point since one of the arguments for allowing people to have guns is "if there's a BAD guy with a gun, all the GOOD citizens with guns will be able to deal with him!"

So if that's the case, how come good Republican supporters aren't allowed to bring their assault rifles, automatic pistols, Colt 45's, etc, to the rally? Surely that would make everyone safer?!

Totally agree it is a hypocritical position.

I don't agree at all, to be honest. What you are viewing as hypocrisy looks to me to be clear evidence that the gun friendly population of America have nuanced views regarding the right to carry guns and are not the absolutists they are often portrayed as being. "We support gun rights but believe there should be rules to protect people's safety in a range of circumstances" is a far better reflection of right wing American attitudes than the gun crazed lunatic stereotype the American left lazily thrusts upon them.

[Crazy Anglican]

I don't agree at all, to be honest. What you are viewing as hypocrisy looks to me to be clear evidence that the gun friendly population of America have nuanced views regarding the right to carry guns and are not the absolutists they are often portrayed as being. "We support gun rights but believe there should be rules to protect people's safety in a range of circumstances" is a far better reflection of right wing American attitudes than the gun crazed lunatic stereotype the American left lazily thrusts upon them.

I think the opposite is true as well. Most advocates for gun control aren't absolutists either. Gun control isn't synonymous with banning guns, but any discussion of gun control tends to get the, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" response. This is an issue where the loudest people with absolutist views seem to be the ones that prevent any meaningful work among those with more moderate views. It is also the way that both parties tend to characterize people in the other one.

[Octavious]

No argument from me on that point

[brainbomb]

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/rnc-ear-bandage-trump-shooting-b2582181.html



So like, this is too ridiculous to even be real. Standing in solidarity with trump by covering your ears so you can barely even hear the shit being said at the convention?


WHAT DID THEY SAY?

They said its JD VANCE!


No I DONT WANNA GO TO FRANCE, theyre communists!

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-07-18/trump-style-ear-bandages-are-new-trend-at-republican-national-convention