At least three news outlets were leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign, including its report vetting JD Vance as a vice presidential candidate. So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received. Instead, Politico, The New York Times and The Washington Post have written about a potential hack of the campaign and described what they had in broad terms.

News outlets were leaked insider material from the Trump campaign. They chose not to print it | AP News

For the love of...Iran is so fucking incompetent...Leak it to someone with the balls to print. Now all of a sudden journalists have integrity and standards in America, Iran's leaker should have said it was about Hillary Clinton, they would have published everything without even reading it.

Hilarious, seems Trump's interview with Musk was the same old talking points, same old rambling nonsense, except this time with a lisp and that's all people are talking about now, Lmfao.

In an emailed response to an inquiry about the lisp from a Huffington Post reporter, the Trump campaign said, “Must be your s****y hearing. Get your ears checked.”

I only listened to a few seconds just to hear it. They might want to change that response cause everyone heard it 😂

Omg they said weird that means I lost 😯

Also no, posts did not cause riots people are responsible for their own actions. In the same way posts did not cause BLM to burn down buildings and posts did not cause that guy to shoot trump. People are responsible for their own actions. Also a republican bias? That must be why kamala's posts still get hundreds of thousands of likes on X. Delusion in display

"When you demonize a guy this long and this intensely, making people falsely believe they will somehow lose their democracy if he wins, this is what happens." - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

Squarely on democrat shoulders and their media extremism. - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

If they'd apologize for their past rhetoric and say something like "If Obama had been shot in 2012 we would react much more harshly and go after republicans. We need to treat this with the same severity. We were wrong to say such extreme things." I'd gain some respect for them - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

Evidence that calling someone Nazi and threat to democracy would make people consider shooting him?  I can't provide evidence for thoughts I'm afraid.  Provide evidence it doesn't I guess. - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

They just need to take responsibility for their rhetoric. - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

They encourage more of that behavior every day trying to paint their enemies the way they do. - You in response to the Trump assassination attempt.

===

So which is it? Are people responsible for their own actions or did Democrats words apparently (lol) cause an assassination attempt on Trump? Or perhaps you're just regurgitating talking points without thinking for yourself, thus it would explain this sudden change in view to aid you in your new argument.

I'll make this simple for you though in regards to the UK.

1. Fake news was spread that the murderer was a boat immigrant.
2. People rioted against immigrants because they believed one was the killer.

Pretty damn safe assumption that there wouldn't have been riots if the fake news wasn't spread in the first place.

Just like there weren't riots for...

• Lucy Letby, a British former neonatal nurse who murdered 7 infants and attempted the murder of 7 others.
• Kyle Clifford, a man who killed a mother and her two daughters with a crossbow in July 2024.
• Daniel Anjorin, a 14 year old boy killed in a sword attack in April 2024.

Of course Trump want to close the Department of Education...Lmao.

The uneducated are his biggest base after all.

Exactly!  Which is it?  Was I right there or right here? It's not a safe assumption at all on your part.  It's a wild baseless assumption. Far more reasonable to say years of calling a particular person a Nazi would cause one person to go to violence than not liking an immigration policy causing multiple attacks on random people.  But you do you and continue to live in convenient delusion and bias to suit your narratives.

Why are you asking me? You're the one changing your arguments that words and disinformation can't lead to violence.

Context and motivating factors matter beyond simple words too, for example, we have zero evidence as to the motivation of the shooter as of yet and conflicting evidence of what political party he was aligned to, hence why I leaned more towards the typical "mentally ill dude wanting to go down in infamy" rather than a political motivation.

With the UK riots, we know a large motivating factor for the riots was anti-immigrant factors, inflamed by the fake misinformation that the killer was an illegal immigrant, the riots literally happened straight after this killing and the rioters are attack immigrants over the country, a contributing factor to these riots is therefore misinformation.

But you've gone from broadly saying that calling Trump a Nazi and "Democrat rhetoric" aka words, causes someone to commit violence, to that posts (aka words) do not cause people to commit violence in the UK, as people are responsible for their own actions, back to words caused someone to commit violence on Donald Trump. You keep changing your argument with a broad brush.

It ain't my issue if you can't stick to your script.

No I've caught you in a trap.  Either you say it's simple and broad as "social media posts influence people so these two are the same" or you admit it's more nuanced and can acknowledge the difficulty of convincing one man to hate one man compared to influencing an entire group of people.

Or you just keep going.  It's quite entertaining watching you try to square the circle and wiggle away from either of those when they're really the only two options available to you.

Well since the other thread got locked when I back him into a corner I guess I don't want this one to also be.  Ah well he's throwing the typical playbook of you're an ist, ism, phobe, etc. And anything you say to dissent to our golden goddess is only further proof.  Apparently sleeping with someone couldn't possibly influence their decision to promote you and if you think different you're a sexist.  At this point I feel like I'm arguing with a South Park character that's supposed to be there to parody an American liberal.

I’m not sure why anybody is taking RDJ posts seriously, he’s clearly trolling.

You can’t defend Trump who constantly lies and spreads hateful, violent, sexist, racist, transphobic, Islamophobic rhetoric, cheated on his wife, is liable for sexual abuse, stole and refused to return classified documents and tried to overturn an election then turn around and get upset at Walz for his war comment.

RDJ just wants to live in his little bubble and deny reality.