War veteran gave his purple heart to Trump today for taking a bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania

Many HAVE looked at his ear, @Sleepy_Gary , including the doctors that worked on the ear. Are you suggesting that they all are mistaken or worse? I doubt it. I'm sure you are intelligent, and you really CAN'T deny the blood that plainly was splashed across his face. So obviously he WAS injured and under fire on that stage, and I assume you've figured that out.

So I guess you are simply telling yourself -- and somehow finding it to be very significant -- that the ear was torn by shrapnel from a rifle bullet -- instead of a bullet.

Let's assume that's true. So what? What's your point? You think that makes an enormous difference of some kind?

When he stood back up and raised his fist -- and refused to cower and hide on the floor of the stage -- do you think he was thinking "oh, I've just been hit by shrapnel not the whole bullet, so I'm not really in any danger, so let's fake bravery?"

Do you realize that somebody DIED that day, a few feet away?

Seriously, what's your point?

If you still want to believe every bad thing you read about Trump -- despite YEARS of nonsense propaganda against him -- and if you want to tell yourself (and others) that I'm "gullible" because, like, you know, it was only SHRAPNEL from something the bullet struck close by that tore his ear and not, like, an actual bullet, well ....

You're free to do that, I guess. I have no idea why that would make an importance difference when reflecting either upon his obviously brave behavior or my gullibility (or lack thereof), but I'm not going to change your mind. So ... have a nice evening!

Ah yes @Noflaps you can’t trust any media, but you can trust trump’s doctors. Just like his doctor that said he’s “the healthiest president in American history” - and later admitted that Trump made him say that.

thehill.com/homenews/administration/385765-trumps-ex-doctor-says-trump-dictated-letter-claiming-he-would-be/

Again, you don’t acknowledge that Trump literally stole money from children with cancer, and that you’re so gullible you would defend a person that would engage in that level of evil.

www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

Have a great evening, enjoy wasting more of your precious life defending a con man that wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.

I guess I'll have to await an explanation of why shrapnel would make a real difference. You don't seem to want to reflect, at least not in the forum, about why you consider that an important distinction, @Sleepy_Gary .

In the meantime, I acknowledge that you can find many Trump-critical articles if you look for them. That's been true ever since he dared not to follow the politics of many in the media. Before then, there was LOTS of good press, oddly.

You can find a few that are critical of Biden and Harris, too. But I guess those are just propaganda, then?

Good luck cross-examining an article.

Or is that unnecessary? Is hearing only one side of a narrative all that's ever needed to go "all in" with agreement, so long as we like the narrative?

We heard and read about "pee tapes" too! Were any "pee tapes" ever found? I guess I'm gullible for not being slavishly devoted to that narrative, too!

By the way -- has the U.S. southern border been "secure" during Ms. Harris's tenure? Or am I gullible for entertaining even a shred of doubt about that.

One thing I don't doubt, though: if I dare to disagree with a popular narrative, and ask calm, Socratic questions about it, trying to solicit reflection about it rather than reflexive acceptance, it becomes likely that somebody will start calling me names or otherwise belittling me. Suddenly, I won't just be "mistaken" -- I'll be gullible! (For example).

Fortunately, I've got a dependable sense of humor and find the predictability of that to be rather amusing. And even a bit instructive!

Why is it an important distinction?

@Noflaps said in #19:

> Trump didn't just "get shot." He took a bullet through his ear and then IMMEDIATELY stood back up into visibility and raised his fist in defiance.

First he got shot. Now it doesn’t matter if he got shot or not.

You don’t find value in factual information because you can’t argue with the writers who gathered the data. So reality doesn’t matter to you if you don’t agree with it, pretty typical. Again, enjoy your fervent defense of a man who would steal from children cancer charities.

To be honest, I want to say that my friends all want Harris to become the president. I found this was very confusing, when I ask them for a reason why they support Harris, they don’t know what to say. Therefore in my perspective, U.S. presidents were not as better as before, I think they need obvious and apparent improvements, and they need to worry more about U.S itself, instead having every type of wars to other “enemy” countries.

@SleepyGary -- I already accepted, merely for the purpose of argument -- that Trump's ear may have been torn by a piece of shrapnel dislodged by a bullet rather than the bullet.

And then I asked WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE -- what's the POINT of arguing for such an inconsequential distinction -- in the context of the topic of this thread? After all, plenty of service members over the years have been KILLED by shrapnel.

But instead of answering that, you respond, in essence, by insulting ME, claiming (inexplicably) in #64 that I "don’t find value in factual information...."

Stop and reflect, please! The man felt a sharp pain. Blood began to flow. Nearby, a person was killed. He had good reason to feel real fear and hide on the floor.

BUT HE STOOD UP! BRAVELY! UNDETERRED!

That's the point!

I really don't think we should STRAIN to pretend that it matters WHAT tore his ear. Why try to make a mole hill out of a mountain?

Furthermore, you are SPECULATING about what struck his ear. You have no certain "facts" on your side. Please don't mistake your own preferences or speculations for incontrovertible fact.

It's important that NONE of us -- of ANY political persuasion -- assume that as soon as we encounter some written or spoken article or narrative that we LIKE that it just MUST, immediately, be incontrovertible "fact" that nobody can or should debate and that needs no further investigation or other viewpoints to be heard.

And even if you're right about shrapnel. SO WHAT? Trump only knew that he felt pain and was GENUINELY in danger, no matter WHAT it was that caused his bleeding. The precise nature of the striking projectile would not have been known to him at that moment, and it makes NO difference to whether or not Trump acted bravely in that moment, which he clearly DID.

And insulting me doesn't change that. Neither does nitpicking about the nature of the projectile.