Biden proof of life required

a reply to: 777Vader

Trump Assassination attempt check...worldwide cyber problem check....Joe Biden some heavy rumors from viable sources. If he was dead would they admit it in the present geopolitical situation?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Maybe they killed him.

A failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

Biden's mental state, whatever that may be.

Was he becoming too difficult, refusing to step out of the race?

Maybe he was becoming, just another loose end.

I figured all along that they would like eventually end him, Given the way things have been going and my knowledge of past history history, it was the only outcome that fit.

a reply to: annonentity

If he were dead, there would be no issue with transfer of power or choice of a new campaign head.

The current situation is more embarrassing to the Dems and to Biden than if he had died.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

If he were dead, there would be no issue with transfer of power or choice of a new campaign head.

The current situation is more embarrassing to the Dems and to Biden than if he had died.

I think that it goes much deeper than a simple transfer of power. I expressed such in a recent OP.

The attempt on Trump was a desperate, last-ditch Hail Mary kind of thing. If failed. They really can't do it again as I think it'd be to obvious and would result in a real bad situation for those thought to be responsible.

I really think that they are lining stuff up to just burn down the whole thing. Scorched earth. If they can't take it, nobody will.

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

If he were dead, there would be no issue with transfer of power or choice of a new campaign head.

The current situation is more embarrassing to the Dems and to Biden than if he had died.

I think that it goes much deeper than a simple transfer of power. I expressed such in a recent OP.

The attempt on Trump was a desperate, last-ditch Hail Mary kind of thing. If failed. They really can't do it again as I think it'd be to obvious and would result in a real bad situation for those thought to be responsible.

I really think that they are lining stuff up to just burn down the whole thing. Scorched earth. If they can't take it, nobody will.

If the Dems wanted to take Trump out, I'm sure they would have had a better shooter, with a better gun doing it.

The shooter missed. It was a wonder that he even grazed Trump, as near as I can tell.

That Trump wasn't killed was not a sign of approval of him from God. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all survived assassination attempts.

It's probably just fair balance of karma because Trump did nothing about firearm regulation when he had reason, ability and motivation to do something after repeated mass murder shootings during his Presidency.

If the 2nd is about self defence, then a pistol might be arguable as weapon of self defence, but an AR style rifle? Get real! And if the 2nd is about defence from tyranny, then it was written exactly to enable the action that the shooter no doubt believed he was using the firearm for.

So, whichever way you interpret the 2nd, it is just a bad bit of legislature that cannot achieve any good end, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

If he were dead, there would be no issue with transfer of power or choice of a new campaign head.

The current situation is more embarrassing to the Dems and to Biden than if he had died.

I think that it goes much deeper than a simple transfer of power. I expressed such in a recent OP.

The attempt on Trump was a desperate, last-ditch Hail Mary kind of thing. If failed. They really can't do it again as I think it'd be to obvious and would result in a real bad situation for those thought to be responsible.

I really think that they are lining stuff up to just burn down the whole thing. Scorched earth. If they can't take it, nobody will.

If the Dems wanted to take Trump out, I'm sure they would have had a better shooter, with a better gun doing it.

The shooter missed. It was a wonder that he even grazed Trump, as near as I can tell.

That Trump wasn't killed was not a sign of approval of him from God. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all survived assassination attempts.

It's probably just fair balance of karma because Trump did nothing about firearm regulation when he had reason, ability and motivation to do something after repeated mass murder shootings during his Presidency.

If the 2nd is about self defence, then a pistol might be arguable as weapon of self defence, but an AR style rifle? Get real! And if the 2nd is about defence from tyranny, then it was written exactly to enable the action that the shooter no doubt believed he was using the firearm for.

So, whichever way you interpret the 2nd, it is just a bad bit of legislature that cannot achieve any good end, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.

AR-15's were just fine in your country until just a couple years ago when a guy from another country came in and shot 50 or so folks with the expressed purpose of getting your country to outlaw them. it worked. I just hope nobody comes over there and wants to keep KIWI's from drinking water.

But we are all good with rifles, and those with enough sense to understand things know, a semi automatic rifle is just that, even if it's black and scary looking.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AwakeNotWoke

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

If he were dead, there would be no issue with transfer of power or choice of a new campaign head.

The current situation is more embarrassing to the Dems and to Biden than if he had died.

I think that it goes much deeper than a simple transfer of power. I expressed such in a recent OP.

The attempt on Trump was a desperate, last-ditch Hail Mary kind of thing. If failed. They really can't do it again as I think it'd be to obvious and would result in a real bad situation for those thought to be responsible.

I really think that they are lining stuff up to just burn down the whole thing. Scorched earth. If they can't take it, nobody will.

If the Dems wanted to take Trump out, I'm sure they would have had a better shooter, with a better gun doing it.

The shooter missed. It was a wonder that he even grazed Trump, as near as I can tell.

That Trump wasn't killed was not a sign of approval of him from God. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all survived assassination attempts.

It's probably just fair balance of karma because Trump did nothing about firearm regulation when he had reason, ability and motivation to do something after repeated mass murder shootings during his Presidency.

If the 2nd is about self defence, then a pistol might be arguable as weapon of self defence, but an AR style rifle? Get real! And if the 2nd is about defence from tyranny, then it was written exactly to enable the action that the shooter no doubt believed he was using the firearm for.

So, whichever way you interpret the 2nd, it is just a bad bit of legislature that cannot achieve any good end, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries.

AR-15's were just fine in your country until just a couple years ago when a guy from another country came in and shot 50 or so folks with the expressed purpose of getting your country to outlaw them. it worked. I just hope nobody comes over there and wants to keep KIWI's from drinking water.

But we are all good with rifles, and those with enough sense to understand things know, a semi automatic rifle is just that, even if it's black and scary looking.

The issue wasn't with the AR being black and scary looking, it was with the fact that 50 people got killed. We have pretty much stopped that from happening again. Imagine that, politicians who achieve things!

And no-one is going to keep NZers from drinking water. It's a stupid thing to even suggest as an argument.

I also don't think that the USA is "all good with rifles": What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ah yes, the statistics. And in the interest of honesty, integrity, and non douche-baggery, I'm sure you will exclude the gang violence from those numbers, and focus on the real data, right?

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/efsgv.org...< br />
Or you could just lump those numbers into the national numbers, in order to make it appear that we have a much larger problem and AR-15's are the reason.

a reply to: 777Vader

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

Ah yes, the statistics. And in the interest of honesty, integrity, and non douche-baggery, I'm sure you will exclude the gang violence from those numbers, and focus on the real data, right?

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/efsgv.org...< br />
Or you could just lump those numbers into the national numbers, in order to make it appear that we have a much larger problem and AR-15's are the reason.

Um, why would anyone rational exclude gun deaths for any reason, from gun death statistics?

Also, the solution to reduce gun deaths is simply to make guns less available. Fewer guns = fewer people taking them up and causing harm with them and it's easier and more effective than psychological counselling for hours (the recent shooter, whose parents were both counsellors, would be enough proof of that).

The AR15 style rifle is the most popular firearm type in the USA, but all sorts of firearms cause gun deaths.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, yeah! That strategy has worked so well in places like Chicago, where they have some uncommonly strict anti-gun rules in place. Nobody ever gets shot in Chicago!

Here you go:

Proof of life video on Twitter

Man he got good at stairs!