200
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
200 points (95.9% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2899 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes it is, if you didn't read the article and also know nothing about anything.
Man with brain injury who recently had been publicly eviscerated for a rightward swing maybe is a little bit careless when driving. Yeah it’s suspicious.
Yeah? And? There are accidents all the time.
Total non sequiter.
Just come out and say what you think is going on. Was this some convulated failed assassination? Was he trying to murder suicide? Did the deepstate cut his brakes because he told Bill Maher too much?!
A bunch of bad stuff happened in his life recently and he had a bit of a mental lapse when driving. Maybe you should stop reading so many conspiracy blogs.
Also: I find it hilarious how much extrapolation people replying made here. Y’all are just as bad as the rightwingers you think you’re better than.
Lol wut? You're the one claiming something suspicious happened in this extremely boring non lethal non interesting event that happens every minute of every day, but now I'M the consisparcy blog nut?
There is no consisparcy here! You are making so many wild jumps here. I was laughing at you with those 3 """theories""".
I never said the word conspiracy, nor implied it. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand.
Then what exactly is suspicious?!?
That he got into an accident after a series of negative things happened to him. I’m saying I doubt it was an “accident.” Dude is possibly dangerous to himself and others.
That is literally the definition of a conspiracy.
A conspiracy of one person? I’m saying Fetterman is possibly lying about it being an “accident.” Just him alone.
What, so he intentionally rear-ended the other car? If he wasn't intending to hit the car, it was an accident, regardless of any impairment that might have caused it.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting might have happened here. He’s not in a good way right now, that’s plain as day from his wild ideological shift.
So what would his motive be? He suddenly wanted to try to kill himself and his wife?
Yes, at least himself. But the timing is very suspicious here given what has been happening with him (clinical depression, sudden change in personality, etc.). I would not be shocked if this is the start of more reckless behavior.
Jesus. You should've just said that from the start. Maybe he is, who knows.
But look at the mass downvotes and negative responses to your original comment. You need to understand that conspiracy nuts think everything is suspicious and part of whatever grand master plan they believe in. So when you talk like a nut, people assume you are one and treat you as such.
A single person’s actions should be able to be called “suspicious” and not automatically go down some crazy conspiracy theory rabbit hole. That’s what I mean by wild extrapolation by commenters here, it’s literally the behavior of the far right.
Its easy to say everyone misunderstood me, but you should look at the common factor in each of those misunderstandings. You can think you communicated perfectly, but if the net effect is so many people didn't understand you, then perhaps it's time to consider more precise word choice instead of vague thinks like "suspicious".
The common factor is that everyone wanted to score easy internet points by painting my original comment as something it was not.
🙄
"Everyone but me was wrong."
Yep, classic groupthink.
Or... classic arrogance. Everyone else can mishear but impossible for you to misspeak?
You sound like a teenager.
I made myself very clear in responses to the original comment what I meant. If people chose not to read those responses, that’s on them. And yeah sure: continue name calling, just like the other commenters here.
Come back to this thread in a month and re-read. You were vague on top of vague.
People who turn conservative or less progressive don't get into car accidents so if he did that's unusual?
The dude is possibly having a mental breakdown. Trying to cause yourself harm can be part of that process. That’s the suspicious part. People really, really can’t read.
Nah, you are trying to salvage this situation by changing everything you meant. Suddenly you are trying to sanitize every reference you made to political ideology and try to dress up this as concern. Now you accuse everybody else of conspiracies and extrapolation when you used 'suspicious' (which has a very clear connotation about a malign or hidden background https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspicious) instead of 'indicative', 'concerning', 'worrisome', 'troubling'. People can read, and they read 'suspicious' which along with your references to political ideology really says who is the one thinking about conspiracies.
I don’t necessarily believe his story that this was an accident, I believe he was trying to harm himself and others. That’s what I’m suspicious of. Come back a few months when this dude completes his mental breakdown and does something really fucked up to himself and others.