According to the CEO of the Far-Right Platform, Gab. Known for having neo-Nazis, white supremacists, antisemites, supporters of Trump and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon, a supposed Biden supporter created an account on Gab, to debate in good faith with all the far-right...On Gab...An utterly irrelevant social media platform? Seems like a stretch.

"The CEO stressed he has been “unable to confirm” was definitely Crooks’"

Maybe he could be on the website, but this would have to be taken with a massive grain of salt given the source has reason to lie and can't even confirm it was him. Also, all the listed posts were apparently made in January 2021 and February 2021, which would be around the ActBlue donation but still predates him registering as Republican later in the year.

I'm more inclined to the believe the CEO of Gab is seeking publicity but even if true, it doesn't confirm he didn't switch to Republican later in the year, especially if he's palling around on Gab of all places, if someone believes he was a Democrat because of the Act Blue donation but then switched to Republican because of him registering as Republican, this bit of news doesn't change anything to them because it still predates the registration.

1.) Not confirmed.

2.) All the posts in there appear to be over 3 years old.  

We are disclosing this information at significant personal and business risk. If the past is any guide, defying the D.C. consensus by publishing the first definitive evidence that the shooter was a Biden supporter - something Democrats and their media allies have tried to cover up and deny at every turn - has a high probability of resulting in significant political and media backlash.

In the past, we have been the target of politically motivated inquiries from both the House Oversight Committee and the Joint Committee on the January 6th Attacks, both of which sought to interfere with our mission of protecting free speech online. The enemies of freedom have the ability to impose significant present and future legal costs and any donations we receive will help to defray those costs.

If you wish to support our endeavors, kindly consider donating to Gab: https://donate.gab.com

========

This doesn't help his credibility in his second tweet, it screams "I'm a grifter" Lol.

Though again, it could be true, I'd take it with a massive grain of salt, even if it is true though, it doesn't change anything for me, I'm already under the assumption he WAS a Democrat but then switched to Republican and this new "evidence" still wouldn't counter that theory due to the dates. I honestly still believe he didn't do the assassination for any political reason though, I think he just wanted to go down in history

I called your post nonsensical because it's nonsensical. And explaining that the existence of some angry Destiny streamer insulted a dead firefighter doesn't make "Destiny Burner account" any less nonsensical.

Also, Biden dropped out. So the other random point you think you're making is irrelevant.

Here are a few thoughts on the shooter, after doing some research.

1. According to FBI director Wray, he did an internet search on the distance between Oswald and JFK, which took place in 1963.

2. This guy may have been book smart (i.e. smart in school) but he was not street smart, and lucky for Trump he wasn't.  Why do I say this?  His gun, an AR-15, which belonged to his Dad, apparently had a red-dot sight.  The distance from the shooter to Trump was 400 ft, I have to say that since I own a red-dot sight, I would never think of using it against a target more than 200 ft away.  There is no magnification in a red-not, lucky for Trump, he did not have a scope with magnification.

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.  

convenient...so you don't need any information about the shooter to come out because by definition the shooting happened and the rhetoric happened and that's all you need. 

You'e claiming 'liberal rhetoric' when this was not uncommon from his own party.
Even his own running mate called him "American Hitler".

But what need is there even for rhetoric from anyone else when Trump himself told his followers to march on the capitol and fight like hell? Which they did. And at one point the only thing remaining between elected officials and the mob was one door with glass windows, which they also broke down.

This was fueled by Trump falsly claiming that the lection was stolen, and that Mike Pence was able to send the votes back (he does not have the authority to do that). As could be seen by the "Hang Mike Pence" chants allong with the gallows they brought.

He did not want to give up his position. This was the biggest threat to US democracy in centuries.

Look, Torillian, the reason why liberal rhetoric is so dangerous is because what it implies differs greatly from what the people on the far-right infer.

When liberals say that Trump is a fascist and a threat to democracy who must be stopped, then the implication of this is "come election time, vote against him." But the far-right is used to coded language from their own party, so when they hear that someone needs to be stopped, it's not about votes; it's about (the fantasy of) killing.

Also worth mentioning, the fact that the shooter missed confirms that he was a Republican.

>I can't provide evidence for thoughts

That's unfortunate. People have been writing down thoughts for thousands of years and talking for even longer than that. And in the 21st century, we can find evidence of thoughts by what people do online - what they search for, videos they make, posts they make. 

>Provide evidence it doesn't

The real issue is assuming that there's only one explanation for something. 

A fire starts someone. Do we assume that it happened because the person was being called a Nazi. Or maybe they just cooked something too long. Or left their cigarette somewhere. Or someone in their vicinity did.