I am not claiming this is true. But merely that if I was employed to destabilize the US, I would claim to have been responsible for a number of recent events in order to please my boss.
I am hoping the possibility of a joint common enemy can perhaps unite people in America a bit.
The guy who shot Trump in the ear had (arguably) no particular ideology or goal, just an interest in assassinations and a possible depressive disorder.
In that light, does it really matter what tier party the assassin belonged to? The joint common enemy you allude to is already inside the white house, and as long as that is still up for debate, the country has no future.
When the elected democrat couple was shot, the murder had "no kings" printed out and left in his car. Most names on his kill list were democrats but a few ones were republican, so fox news could tell the sheeps that it wasnt them, the MAGAs. No stochastic terrorism, just a single lunatic.
Hitler burnt down the Reichstag to justify his power grab and now we have trump coming out with a fast AI produced/polished response. IMO, timing and quality make this video special, maybe it was part of the plan too. And ofc, he doesnt blame voilent extremisn but "the left" in general, as usual.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ty1aDcnf5as
I know most reasonable people have difficulties thinking about it. Many people "thought we are smarter" by now, but what if this is actually another fast paced playbook, to mobilize the violent sheep (which are obviously more concentrated and agitated on the right) to paralyze and take over the US. What if we are not smarter by now.
Exactly this, maybe slower, happened before and is happening right now not just in the US. You really should consider this possibility and how fair and balanced you can be, when the other side is not.
Your dehumanizing rhetoric is part of the problem. Please read Dang's post at the top of this thread.
it's not, poor parents can't feed their children with hope
GP is currently the highest comment, and on other sites I've visited, while too many people cheer this or call for violent retaliation, most of the highly-upvoted comments (both liberal and conservative) condemn it and argue for de-escalation.
Anger and fear are powerful emotions, but so is hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and became President, winning his first election with the highest %votes since 1988. Donald Trump also became President in part due to hope; his supporters expected him to improve their lives, while most of Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's supporters just expected them to not make things worse. Now lots of people desperately need hope, and if things get worse more will.
Irrational hope can be dangerous: all the time, people make decisions that backfire horribly, and deep down they knew those decisions would backfire horribly, but they made them anyways out of desperation for an unlikely success. Perhaps this is another example, where the assassin delusionally hoped it would somehow promote and further their desires, but it will almost certainly do the opposite.
But hope can also be rational, and unlike anger and fear (which at best prevent bad things), hope can intrinsically be for causing good things. If a group or candidate that runs on hope for a better world gets enough attention and perceived status, it could turn public perception back to unity and optimism.