For Trump alone, there have been 3 different incidents:
- Butler, Pennsylvania - 1 audience member killed, 2 others injured
- West Palm Beach, Florida - Traffic stop resulted in injuries to a 6-year old girl
- White House Correspondents Dinner
Charlie Kirk's killer was also not identified based on pre-trial facts regarding the weapon and force. There are also some who question the sincerity of his widow.
So, with that said, why did they stage the press dinner? Which, if any, of the other events were also false flags?
Wasn't staged, you can't stage with the rifle set up he had a bullet ONLY grazing his ear. Brandon did a great experiment showing this.
You're talking about the golf course on with the guy with links to Ukraine and I think Blackrock too, I think that was the guy.
The recent one, the Californian Teacher who turns out, was a 'dev' and his game on steam is in a ratings war between people buying the game to rate it high in support of the attempt and others buying, rating it low then refunding it, is probably just insane, he's a Californian teacher.
As for Charlie Kirk's killer, I believe the current guy on trial did shoot him but wasn't THE ONLY ONE involved in it, he had a lot of accomplices.
Can we please stop with the 'false flag' shit when in reality the situation is the left is homicidally insane, the Republicans in the Senate especially are too old, sit on their hands RINOs, Isreal has STILL got too much influence and Soros' activist AGs and judges are impeding any mass deportations on a scale to halt further damage.
This is what I believe as well, he had a bunch of people helping him, on Discord and elsewhere. I believe this is part of the overseas links that Joe Kent was talking about when asked about the Charlie Kirk assassination, overseas Discord users.
It's why Candace Owens is distracting anyone from actually asking the right questions
The immediate jump with so many on the right to calling everything a false flag and some fedop is as irritating as it is interesting. There's definitely some strange psychology going on with that. A confluence of multiple factors I think. First, most of those types aren't really that intelligent. They might not be retarded or incapable of living a normal life, but their ability to form and analyze complex ideas in their heads is somewhat low. This leads them to being unable to see nuance, incapable of telling the difference between similar but different things, and prone to lumping a lot of things together because it's easier on the brain.
I find a lot of them are people who were formally normie types who believed the news, read the newspaper, went along with the crowd, and then something happened that broke them from that pattern. They discovered one lie and it shook their understanding of the world so much that they ran as far away from that as possible. Instead of believing everything, they now believe nothing. There are some conspiracies that are true of course. For instance, we know the Clintons have had people murdered. But if you were to present an intelligent and thoughtful person with 10 conspiracy theories, they might be able to come to the conclusion that these 3 are true, these 4 have elements that are true but are overall false, and these other 3 are totally false. The typical 'conspiracy theorist' we're talking about though will just believe all 10.
There's an emotional aspect as well. People like to puff themselves up and think they're more important, more knowledgeable, more astute, etc than they really are. There is a temptation towards this feeling like they are in on some secret knowledge and how it grants them a special status. They are prone to thinking believing in every crackpot speculation they run across actually means they're more intelligent than everyone else, because they're one of the special chosen few who knows what's really behind everything. It feels good to think you're apart from everyone else because you know something they don't or saw truths they couldn't. The irony is that for most of them, they're actually believing mostly lunatic bullshit because they're less intelligent, with a handful of true things thrown in by chance. There's an interesting Dunning Kruger Effect element in which the typical crackpot 'space isn't real' types believe they are smarter than everyone because they are in fact dumber.
I find it mostly ends up being two types of people. Young guys in their 20s who are just believing the opposite of the common view because it's rebellious and different, and being young makes one want to act that way. And older guys in their 40s or 50s with mostly boring and predictable lives, working boring a predictable jobs, feeling overwhelmed and awash in a world where the bad guys win most of the time and there are so many forces and organizations that don't care about them and work against them most of the time. Being able to sit at their computer desk reading 4chan or watching Rumble videos and telling themselves this means they're warriors in a secret war against the forces of evil is emotionally gratifying, despite being nonsense. It's actually quite pitiable, and I would feel sorry for more of them if they weren't so insistent on being as loud, abrasive, and irritating about it as they are.
It's pretty rare to actually read anything insightful on this place anymore on threads like this but I like this one.
Based on what evidence?
The gun that, somehow, wasn't found by the bomb sniffing dogs, but was immediately found by some random dude once the FBI arrived on scene? The one that the prosecution refuses to give to the defense for examination?
The text messages to his "lover" in which he said he had intended to take the secret to the grave, but proceeded to spill his entire plan instead? The text messages that won't actually be presented in court, but instead pictures of the text messages that an agent took? The phone that the prosecution won't give to the defense for examination?
The fact that in said text messages, he claimed to want to go out on "his own terms" in what was clearly implied to be a shootout with the cops, but instead turned himself in?
The paper note that he wrote and left at his computer that was apparently destroyed but we have "evidence of it" that detailed his plan, despite his intention to take the secret to the grave?
The fact that they keep claiming that he turned himself in but can't produce video of him turning himself in, despite FOIA requests, because it was deleted?
The fact that many people keep claiming that he professed his guilt but for some reason, he seems to be fighting it out and paying for expensive attorneys? That his family doesn't seem to think he's guilty? (not in a "he dindu nuffin, he a good boy and it was Charlie Kirk's fault for bullying him!" way)
The fact that Erika Kirk immediately "forgave" him but also keeps fighting to have the case sped up as much as possible (invoking Utah state's victim's right to a speedy trial -- NOT the same thing as a defendant's right to a speedy trial) rather than simply let the justice system do its thing?
I've barely even scratched the surface of inconsistencies on this thing. To this day I have seen zero evidence that I find remotely convincing that Tyler Robinson is guilty of anything. A conveniently time-cropped video showing some dude running across a roof line and a couple of grainy photos that look vaguely similar to any number of lanky white guys. And a rifle -- inconsistent with the wound -- that miraculously appeared on scene nearby that was disassembled, assembled, fired, disassembled, and reassembled prior to being stashed and missed by bomb dogs. This isn't compelling evidence.
Some queer furry trans lover shooting Kirk is the easiest thing in the world to believe, so you'd need to have some really powerful evidence to put that into 'hard to believe' category.
Text messages: he thought he would get away with it, then when he sees himself on the camera he tries to keep his gay lover off the hook.
Fighting in court: other crazy libs are paying for it, the gov't won't let him off with a low-time plea deal because politics, so he rolls the dice at trial.
Erika: she's acting out good-Christian in forgiving him, and her and Turning Point seem to have a lot of secrets they want the spotlight off of.
So you lead with the obvious, easily explained ones?
Basically the government hasn't shown you their entire case and all the evidence, you say "why haven't they shown us the entire case? huh? conspiracy they're hiding things!"
News for you, that's what the trial is for. That's when you get to see the entire case made, not before the trial.
Charlie's killer cannot credibly be what is stated based on public facts since the caliber of weapon doesn't align with happenings. The bullet force should be larger than it was.
No, it shouldn't. The 30-06 round was the primary round used by the US for both WWI and WWII, producing 1-2 million casualties overall, many of which were well documented in various after action reports, medical reports, etc. What the 30-06 round can do when it enters the human body is in fact one of the most well documented and understood ballistic effects in the history of firearms. Hell, the US Army even wrote a book about it called "Wound Ballistics in World War II". Charlie's wound was well within that established baseline.
Stop listening to crackpots on Rumble. It's bad for your head.
I think I'll continue listening to ballistic experts on YouTube that examined the footage closely and making my own opinions rather than an unhinged social media poster like you who goes on 4+ lengthy paragraphs making psychological projections.
The bullet didn't have enough force. And that's the main inconsistency in the saga, never mind a myriad of other topics that another user touched upon.
You're genuinely a low IQ lunatic.
Why do people keep saying this? Why would you assume a bullet had to geaze his ear instead of him just popping a blood pack behind the podium? The "shot" was easier to fake than the Kirt shooting.
...there were people directly behind him in the stands so THEY'D have to be in on it to when there were people calling out the shooter BEFORE he shot as they saw him on the sloped roof.
There's less to suggest Trump faked it and more that the Democrats ARRANGED for the shoddy security as it was VERY suspicious Biden dropped out after the attempted when a day before he was determined to stay in despite his awful debate.