By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump offered a contradictory account of his response to the shooting of a Minnesota state lawmaker. Initially claiming ignorance of the June incident, he later suggested he would have ordered flags lowered if requested by Governor Walz. However, this statement is contradicted by past remarks and video footage. This evidence shows Trump was dismissive of Governor Walz, stating he wouldn’t speak with him.
Read the original article here
Who? Trump first says he’s ‘not familiar’ with Minnesota Democrat’s assassination, and that simple phrase, “Who?”, speaks volumes. It’s a response that immediately sets off alarm bells, a carefully constructed shield against accountability. Was it genuine ignorance? A calculated dodge? Or, perhaps, a combination of both, seasoned with a healthy dose of self-preservation? The options, as some suggest, are varied and each one, unfortunately, paints a rather unflattering picture.
Perhaps he genuinely didn’t know, his memory fading, overwhelmed by the ceaseless stream of information and demands. It’s a possibility, considering his age. It’s not a particularly flattering excuse, but it’s an excuse nonetheless. Alternatively, maybe the news hadn’t reached his inner circle, the people who feed him information, the gatekeepers of his reality. Maybe they deemed it unimportant, a detail best left unmentioned, knowing it wouldn’t serve his immediate interests.
Or, and this is another uncomfortable prospect, maybe he did know. Maybe he simply didn’t care. That cold, hard assessment is frequently brought up. The assassination of a Democrat, from his perspective, might be nothing more than a footnote, a minor inconvenience. It doesn’t align with his goals, doesn’t offer any immediate political capital. Instead of a heartfelt acknowledgment, a simple “Who?” served his purposes much better. It allowed him to distance himself, to avoid any messy obligations of empathy or sympathy.
There’s also the tactical consideration. “Who?” could be a delay tactic, buying him precious moments to formulate a response, to gauge the political landscape, to assess the potential benefits or detriments of acknowledging the event. It is a strategy, as some suggest, to give himself time to think, a deliberate move to limit the number of questions and provide a carefully constructed message.
The act of declining to contact the governor of Minnesota is also a crucial factor to consider. Some reports that the former president not only knew about the assassination but declined to express any form of sympathy to Tim Walz. The implications here are more profound, suggesting a calculated indifference, a prioritization of political maneuvering over simple human decency. It’s a powerful statement, made all the more potent by its simplicity.
The question becomes, why wouldn’t he acknowledge the death? Is it due to memory issues or simply a way of avoiding any perceived weakness? Or is there some deeper, more unsettling calculation at play, one that prioritizes political gain over basic human empathy? The reactions suggest the latter. This is not just about forgetfulness; it’s about values.
The “Who?” is not just a question; it’s a posture. It says, “I am not invested in this. This doesn’t matter to me.” To some, this might be a symptom of a failing memory. To others, it’s a deliberate act of callousness, an embodiment of the cynical political calculation.
Even more striking is the comparison between Trump’s response to a conservative death and the assassination of a Democrat. The implication is clear: one warrants action and outrage, the other, a casual dismissal. This is a clear signal, a message to his supporters and his base. It confirms a deep-seated bias, a willingness to exploit tragedy for political gain, and an apparent lack of empathy for those outside his own tribe.
Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this is the apparent acceptance of this behavior by his base. The criticism suggests the base doesn’t care. The base is content to dismiss it as a minor issue, or simply to ignore it altogether. They’ve become accustomed to the dismissals and insults.
It’s a sobering reminder of the increasingly polarized political climate. In this environment, basic human decency takes a back seat to tribal loyalties. The “Who?” becomes less about the victim and more about reinforcing the divide, solidifying the us-versus-them mentality that has come to define American politics.