Caring deeply about my message exactly every 4 years is truly inspiring
You must log in or register to comment.
The $15 donation was another guy with the same name. This guy was 17 at the time.Snopes sez: false https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-shooter-donation/
I just want to chime in and say thank you for editing your post after finding new information. If everyone in the world was like you, this place would suck a lot less.
Please Ive heard this but I could never find a source for it.
Huh. Well, I trust Snopes enough to retract that. For obvious reasons they don’t specify the address in question.
You shouldn’t trust Snopes at all anymore. They literally said that Trump never said “good people on both sides”.
Which Trump bragged about in the debate a few days later.
I don’t trust them at all, anymore
Okay - hit me with those links!
They are probably referring to this:
Yeah, a couple of problems with it though:
First, he DID say, after the “Jews will not replace us” march, and intentional murder of a counter-protestor that there were “very fine people on both sides.” So he DID say that. The statement that he did not say that is false. Note:
Editors’ Note: Some readers have raised the objection that this fact check appears to assume Trump was correct in stating that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville incident. That is not the case. This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump’s characterization was wrong.
Secondly, Snopes has apparently incorporated the trump administration’s walk-back of that to say yeah he didn’t know they were all nazis.
While I disagree with that analysis, it is laid out plainly that that’s how they arrived at the true/false determination of what this demented sociopath meant.
Which is - imo wrong, but fair. Identifying an address that matches the address of alleged shooter is simply comparing two empirical values. So while I disagree with the ‘both sides’ analysis I think there’s room for them to claim it was false, unlike the donation address matching the shooter’s address.
Everything to me just points to this being a very confused and disaffected kid who wanted to do something memorable with his life. I genuinely don’t think there was much consideration beyond that. He was 20 years old, were your political beliefs as concrete and nuanced when you were that age as they are today?
I was 19 for 9/11. It solidified where I stood pretty well. I’d say 20 year olds today could easily be just as galvanized, especially with the way social media has changed things since then.
were your political beliefs as concrete and nuanced when you were that age as they are today
…yeah. To be fair, I’m 22, but I’ve been in the board of a local political party for over 3 years now. You could maybe make that argument for 16, but honestly, even then I was at political demonstrations.
I’d argue that your experience is an exception and not the rule. Most teenagers aren’t nearly so politically involved. And at 29, I’m a very different person than when I was 20.
I’d argue that maybe the world for kids today isn’t the same as it was for you 10 years ago and maybe you aren’t the authority on it.
Does the comment I replied to’s personal anecdote make them the authority on the political involvement of teenagers? Did I ever claim to be the authority? We’re having conversation, relax
You relax, they were just making a point too. You did use your anecdote in a way that implied a broad sweeping point. Calm down.
