This seems silly, the issue at hand is that there are really four facts that are relevant or possibly relevant that we know about this person and it's down to how you analyze each fact.

He's a young white dude
He donated to a progressive thing
He registered as a republican
He shot at Trump.

Each of you have to explain away some facts to make your theory work.

Ryuu: He's a generic shooter.
Shot at Trump but that's politically neutral, don't know why he donated to a progressive cause, but he's a registered republican so those two pretty much cancel one another out. Young white male was not included in the analysis, but I imagine a young white male is not a bastion of progressiveness on average.

Jimbo: He's a radical progressive terrorist.
Shot at Trump seems to be the most important fact to you and is difficult to square with anything other than democratic leaning. Registered as republican but that can be explained away and again is cancelled out by his donation to a progressive cause. Lastly his demographics make him likely to be progressive but that's up for debate.

In the end the same facts are there, and you're both just guessing at the other parts. The main contention is whether or not the target indicates political leaning. Under Ryuu's hypothesis it doesn't have to, under Jimbo's it is best explained with him disagreeing with Trump and most people that disagree with Trump are progressive so that's the best guess.

They're both just guesses and the only issue I see is that Jimbo wants to talk about how his thing is based on only facts and Ryuu's is opinions. They're both opinions based on the same set of facts and explaining them in different ways.

Thank you for laying this all out. I really appreciate you. I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

A spokesperson for Progressive Turnout Project said in an email that the group had received the donation “in response to an email about tuning into the inauguration” and that “the email address associated with the contribution only made the one contribution and was unsubscribed from our lists 2 years ago.”

What we know about the Trump rally gunman so far | CNN

Boy are Democrats the most absolutely pathetic, cowardly, feckless political party in the West. Fucking tell them, AOC. But also, this public fighting over the past few weeks hasn't been a good look...But also...Grow a goddamn spine. The first sign of problems and Dems start rolling around on the floor, vomiting and pissing themselves.

Resign. Go away. Make way for someone who actually has some fight in them. Get behind your President and shut the hell up. How does the French left unite to prevent a far right victory between a bunch of different parties but the Democrats under the same roof are all over the place! Rushing to journalists to tell them that they're doomed, good lord. Get a fucking grip.

*I still agree that it's worth considering Harris replacing Biden but Dems have gone about this so terribly, Lol.

Lol.

Blaming Democrats is too hard, time to blame DEI.

I love how while he's saying this, Fox is showing pictures of Trump's SS on the side, largely consisting of white men...

No doubt the SS fucked up hard though, they must be recruiting from America's police force with this level of incompetence.

People are also digging the Twitter posts of the man who was killed in the stands and... it's just as bad as you would imagine a MAGA rallygoer to be.

The word hero just doesn't mean the same, does it.

Yeah, I saw those, I wasn't going to mention it but since you brought it up, dude was a horrible person, absolutely disgusting comments, all I can really say is that I feel sorry for his children.

Yeah.

Although a rich nation like the US surely offers benefit payments and supportive care for the widowed and orphaned, right?

... right?

Yes, because as the data shows: 

- Young women have gone from 29% liberal in 1999 to 40+% liberal in recent years. 
- Young men on the other hand are consistently 25% liberal. 

The net result is that overall young people are more liberal, but young men are not. 

Another big factor is that younger populations are less white, and white populations are the ones that tend to favor more conservative policies.

A random young person is more likely to be liberal today than 25 years ago, a young white man is incredibly likely to be conservative.

Men across all those brackets are very unlikely to be liberal.  

This is what I was saying a few pages ago.

I could probably come up with 4 different stories that fit those facts about as well as each other. 

He could be a liberal who registered as Republican to vote against Trump in the primaries. This requires putting more weight on the donation; which I think it makes more sense to put less weight on it as it happened years ago. People at that age tend to change as they start exploring more politics. 

He could be a Democratic turned into an alt right Republican who thinks Trump isn't terrible enough. There's unfortunately very common for that age bracket, because lots of terrible people like Andrew Tate are very appealing to young white men.

He could be some random nobody who wanted attention.

I have a few other stories in mind, but I don't want to condone that kind of nonsense.  

This is surprisingly the best hypothesis for the $15 donation so far.

Seriously, I am baffled how a single $15 donation would be evidence for being a radical democrat. $15 is almost nothing, and it is nothing when there's absolutely nothing else in terms of similar actions, be it donations, chats or witness accounts.