Of course, it wasn't.

There hasn't been a visible threat to his life except his repulsive habits.

This "news" is at least 4weeks old. Do you Lumpers have any new outrage?

#9 | Posted by oneironaut

Duhhh LuMPeRzZ!!

STFU idiot.

Propaganda not being absorbed by MAGA? LOL why else do you think you're so full of s*&^? Because you're absorbing it faster than a Bounty paper towel.

The orange skidmark's ear wasn't hit by s^*%.

There's zero conclusive evidence of this.

You're an idiot.

There was never any denial that people were actually shot and killed.

There aren't photographs that represent conclusive proof. Every available photo from after the even show an ear with zero evidence of damage or injury.

The photos in the planned photo shoot with some sort of red substance running down his hand don't represent conclusive proof of anything.

Again, you're an idiot.

Of course you surely have something to substantiate your BS beyond, "Because I say so."

So you want evidence to support my assertion there's no evidence Trump was wounded? Are you dumb?

Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question.

#30 | Posted by BellRinger

Idiot can't actually consider the points raised because doing so would make him get the blue screen of death.

#35 there's no evidence Trump was shot. Period.

Don't worry Gutes Deutsch, we won't expect any real thinking from you.

All we can say is a red liquid. Absent any sort of evidence of a wound we can't bend say it's blood.

Its possible to be grazed

Which would have still been a visible wound, sport.

A visible wound that was never there.

a guy taking a bullet in the stands and dying

Why do the mouth breathers always fall back on this canard?

If the wound was faked then the whole thing was staged. Y'all want to go with that?

#49 | Posted by BellRinger

Show us any image showing an actual ear wound.

A scab. A red part where it's still healing.

Anything to show there was an actual open, bleeding wound on that ear.

I'll wait.

LOL so you can't find one.

Don't worry, I knew that was the case.

Zero logic skills, huh? This from the guy who can't produce a single photo showing any state of any wound on Trump's ear. Or a report of it from a physician who saw him.

Instead, you dance dance dance and try to throw around poor logic to keep speaking without producing...

Dunno.

Odd that there was "blood" with no wound, no?

Not over analyzing a thing.

If there is zero evidence of a wound, then I won't call that red liquid blood.

You're not very good at this.

The number of assumptions needed for your view are astounding because the only actual "evidence" you have is red liquid on his ear and hand.

Ahhh yes, the mucous and pathogens tell.

You have nothing.

One doesn't have to be a forensic anything to know that his ear shows zero evidence of any sort of wound. There was never a scab. Never a red, inflamed lesion that was healing. Nothing to ever indicate that the skin on that ear was broken enough to bleed.

All other questions are ancillary and irrelevant. I don't have to know or explain how they introduced a red liquid to his ear and hand since it could be anything and I can say quite confidently that there is zero evidence that it was blood from a wound on his ear.

Again, the number of assumptions you have to make for your position is ludicrous and makes Ockham laugh.

Again, you're telling me that the official narrative must be true because I don't have all the answers for your questions.

And that is poor logic.

No wound = not blood. I don't need to know details of the conspiracy (a disingenuous requirement BTW) in order to say it's a. likely not blood and b. it wasn't a real assassination attempt.

I've accidentally cut my ear in the past and it had no lasting damage. But, you continue to be you and argue that this entire thing was set up in some sort of grand conspiracy.

#70 | Posted by BellRinger

You're desperate. Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of assumptions you have to make in order to maintain your view -

1. Trump's ear was grazed just so perfectly that it bled like crazy but didn't leave a mark
2. Trump somehow got a completely inept SS detail on multiple levels
3. The venue somehow was staffed with the most inept cops they had available
4. The crane operator was more concerned with lowering the flag than taking cover during an active shooting
5. Trump's staff of more concerned with the safety of photographers/press than Trump
6. Trump's staff got insanely lucky in placing the photographers in exactly the right spot to get the photo they wanted

I'm sure there are plenty more.

But sure, keep thinking that you accidentally cutting your ear is the same as a graze wound from a bullet moving at 2200 feet per second.

Hardly. But nice attempt at both sides.

The implausibility of the official narrative should be a red flag for anyone seriously looking at it.

That is my 40,000 foot summary of my view.