*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

It is hard to believe, indeed absurd, that a supposed elite security force would allow this to happen, that their standards could be allowed to slip so much. But it's even harder to believe that half of the team are in on some plot, and are willing to put their unknowing colleagues and civilians at risk. It's harder to believe the deep state or CIA or whoever would recruit someone who can't shoot to shoot a former president protected by an armed security team including snipers. It's harder to believe that he didn't really get shot and he's acting hurt while one of his supporters bleeds to death. It's harder to believe the whole thing was staged.

It's an unlikely event, however you look at it. Complacency seems to me the least absurd, even if it remains somewhat absurd.

You know, Poopadoop, for someone whose open claim is that the conspiracy they're putting forward is laughably unlikely, you sure do seem to be defensive about any one agreeing with you or suggesting something less laughably unlikely.

Your tone is inconsistent.

Biden stepped out of the race and put forward Kamala as his alternate.

The question was posed and I don't know the answer:
Is there any other example from all of history where a white male with (some call it) the most powerful job in the world stepped down and gave the job to a non-white, non-male?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I used the word "complacent", which doesn't just mean "bad day", it can mean standards slowly slipping over time.

---

But their standards would have to slip so low that even a mug like me can instantly recognise they're screwing up in a big way. Multiple big ways in fact. And then on top of that, that no-one notices this level of complacency and no-one raises it with someone higher up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

they must either not be in on it

---

The fewer people who actually know what's going on the better. The personal detail around Trump doesn't have to know or do anything out of the ordinary. They're told on the radio "Agent Orange is clear, take him on stage," they follow that order, then when the bullets start flying off they jump in.

It's whoever's the local SS commander giving the orders you'd want to question. They're the one leaving the roof uncovered, they're the ones letting AO out in the open with an active threat about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

they must have recruited the shooter.

---

I don't know. If it was staged, then he might have been "recruited," but only as a patsy. They put blanks in his gun and the real shots came from somewhere else. They might not even have recruited him in any real sense - they might have found out from his internet and phone history (the real one, not the one they're reporting to us which appears to be non-existent) what he had in mind and just let him up on the roof, but replaced the bullets in the gun he hid with blanks. If they're foiling attempts all the time, then certainly they could pick one to let play out while eliminating any real danger that Trump gets shot.

OTOH, if it was a real attempt to bump off Agent Orange, he's still a patsy and could have live ammo or not. They're hardly going to get a world-class sniper to agree to set up on a roof in the middle of things where he's definitely going to get killed. They'd put the real shooter a longer distance away, defo out of camera range and the sight of nosy civvies. Wherever the Butler PA equivalent of the grassy knoll is, they'd put him there.

The problem with the latter scenario is it would only take one cop or agent doing their job properly to suss out the patsy kid and put a cap in his ass. If the patsy's already dead your whole plan would be screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

However you look at it, any plot that involves the deep state trying to off Trump, or Trump pretending to have been shot to boost his popularity, involves some absurd mental gymnastics.

---

Any explanation that has the SS commander on the spot suddenly being so incompetent that even I could have done a better job makes about the same amount of sense as any other scenario I outlined. Add to that the fact that the kid was a walking red flag on the day and no-one managed to stop him before he got in position and supposedly started shooting. It's all just too fishy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

But it's even harder to believe that half of the team are in on some plot, and are willing to put their unknowing colleagues and civilians at risk.

---

Why would it require half of them to be on it? The people on the ground are just doing what they're told. It's whoever's giving the orders that's suspect here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's completely absurd to believe the deep state or CIA or whoever would recruit someone who can't shoot to shoot a former president protected by an armed security team including snipers.

---

fyp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's harder to believe that he didn't really get shot and he's acting hurt while one of his supporters bleeds to death.

---

You think he cares more about himself getting to be POTUS again and stay out of prison, or about some rando in Pennsylvania?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's harder to believe the whole thing was staged.

---

We all agree that's impossible. I don't know why you keep bringing it up like it needs to be entertained. You might as well say it's even harder to believe it was done by the Alien Lizard people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Complacency seems to me the least absurd, even if it is completely absurd.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You know, Poopadoop, for someone whose open claim is that the conspiracy they're putting forward is laughably unlikely, you sure do seem to be defensive about any one agreeing with you or suggesting something less laughably unlikely.

Your tone is inconsistent.

---

I never described my theory as "laughably" unlikely. You've finally joined everyone else in employing the reductio ad banana here.

I think the idea that the SS suddenly turned into a bunch of mall cops is laughably unlikely, just as unlikely as when it happened to JFK.

Something else happened, it wasn't that. Once you appreciate that, it's logical to then speculate on what that something else was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

But their standards would have to slip so low that even a mug like me can instantly recognise they're screwing up in a big way.

---

So you're saying that you, a civilian on the ground drinking a beer, can tell if a sniper is looking where he should be looking? You might see a fat donut eating town cop aimlessly scanning rooftops from the ground and you can think "the fuck is this guy doing" but you're not going to be able to tell what a sniper is and isn't doing.

If you're an alert guy not drinking beer, you might be the guy telling fattie there's someone on the rooftop, you might see someone acting suss and think "why is he not drawing attention?" but most people are just oblivious to any sort of threat. If I saw someone with a range finder, I wouldn't know what I was even looking at. Would you? Would I consider it suspicious? Probably not, I'd probably just think he's doing something with his phone or is a blogger with a camera or some shit.

If I saw someone on a rooftop at such an event, obviously that's as big a red flag as you can get without seeing a gun or hearing someone shout "Allah Akbar". But that seems to me the only obvious security failing that you'd expect the majority of people to notice.

Quote:

---

They put blanks in his gun and the real shots came from somewhere else.

---

Ok this is plausible. Still somewhat absurd, but no more so than anything else I guess.

Quote:

---

Why would it require half of them to be on it?

---

Well I wasn't being literal with the word "half", I'm just splitting the team into "in on it" and "not in on it", doesn't neccesaily have to be equal size groups. I know "half" has a very precise definition but it is a word commonly used in a looser sense.

Complacency is not completely absurd. I'd wager wars have happened because of unbelievable human complacency. Certainly major disasters have, like Chernobyl.

I mean, it seems to me that USA was a millimetre or two away from civil war. If Trump actually gets assassinated, that would be much worse than him winning another term in office. That's the delusion of thinking you're doing something good when actually you'd be destroying America as we know it.

Humans are capable of very serious lapses in judgement and concentration, even elite agents. Complacency is always viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So you're saying that you, a civilian on the ground drinking a beer, can tell if a sniper is looking where he should be looking? You might see a fat donut eating town cop aimlessly scanning rooftops from the ground and you can think "the fuck is this guy doing" but you're not going to be able to tell what a sniper is and isn't doing.

---

Obviously I'm not going to be trying to do the SS' job while I'm living my MAGA life at a Trump rally, if that's what you mean.

I mean after the fact, when I hear the story that a guy got on a roof 150m away and shot at Trump, my first thought was "how the fck did they let him get to a primo firing spot?"

Then when I hear that he was identified as a threat, and hear that Trump was let out of his clown car anyways, my first thought was "umm, isn't their job to keep him alive?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

I mean after the fact, when I hear the story that a guy got on a roof 150m away and shot at Trump, my first thought was "how the fck did they let him get to a primo firing spot?"

---

I imagine that was everyone's first thought.

Quote:

---

Then when I hear that he was identified as a threat, and hear that Trump was let out of his clown car anyways, my first thought was "umm, isn't their job to keep him alive?"

---

I mean, there's going to be more than two categories of "threat" and "not a threat". Someone acting suspicious with what might or might not be a range finder is a different world of "threat" to someone crawling on a roof with a rifle.

If they've seen the kid on the roof and still let Trump out, I would agree that's not something that can be put down to simple complacency. If they've seen him with a range finder and not really understood the potential gravity of the situation, then this is still bad but at least potentially a good-faith error of judgement, rather than ulterior motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean, it seems to me that USA was a millimetre or two away from civil war. If Trump actually gets assassinated, that would be much worse than him winning another term in office. That's the delusion of thinking you're doing something good when actually you'd be destroying America as we know it.

Humans are capable of very serious lapses in judgement and concentration, even elite agents. Complacency is always viable.

---

IDK. I think the Republican politicians actually hate Trump. Every chance they get to talk shit about him, they take. It just only happens once every few years. Trump rallies the Republican base and the politicians turn around and support him again.

IDK how people would react. People at the rally might have rioted. Maybe not. Sometimes people are actually calm and orderly in the face of tragedy. Hard to guess, IMO. As much as I disagree with Trump, it would be terrible for him to be assassinated. Terrible for his family, and a miscarriage of justice on any level. Trump has committed many crimes, but none of them worthy of death penalty.

Trump is divisive and a faucet of corruption and lies, but if we can't beat that rhetoric at the microphone, that's on us, not him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

IDK how people would react. People at the rally might have rioted.

---

I feel like a riot is the least of the worries, if Trump got killed. And you're right that people are probably more likely to be calm at the actual event, largely through shock but also because these events probably aren't attracting the extremists.

What I'd be more worried about is the aftermath, the political fallout that would engulf the country. I think Trump being assassinated would turn him into a martyr and radicalise a lot of people who currently aren't all that radical. This is an armed country we're talking about, and Trump's supporters tend to also support gun rights and own guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What I'd be more worried about is the aftermath, the political fallout that would engulf the country. I think Trump being assassinated would turn him into a martyr and radicalise a lot of people who currently aren't all that radical. This is an armed country we're talking about, and Trump's supporters tend to also support gun rights and own guns.

---

Yeah, but the politicians who actually support Trump's totalitarian policies are few and relatively lacking in power within the party.
My best guess is that most Republican politicians wouldn't want to turn Trump into a martyr. The few that would want to do so don't seem to hold enough sway with anyone outside their own districts to accomplish anything.

The big names in the Republican leadership have all spoken out against Trump when he was down. They just turn full hypocrite the moment he starts swaying public support again. My gut says they'd really like to distance themselves from him if they could.

And it's not like only the Republican voters have guns, man. My family has lots of guns, and I don't think any one of us would be described as Republican, neither in spirit nor in voting habits.
But also... the ethos of gun ownership equating to a populace itching for a chance to kill other humans is so wrong. Americans are no different than anywhere else when it comes to the bravado to talk big when times are easy, but then not to act quite so brazen when troubles actually arise.

I think it'd be actually hard to galvanize the American people into a civil war. There's nothing so huge as economic nuking being forced on one side. The abolition of slavery was economy-changing. That threatened people's livelihood. That put the stability of food and shelter at risk for half the country - or so it seemed to them at the time. There's no real existential threat like that these days. It's all rhetoric and lies.

I sincerely hope that my fellow countrymen are not so eager to put their own lives at such risk as to engage in insurrection over such false pretenses and narrative boogeymen.

Civil wars don't just spontaneously erupt because a bunch of yahoos get pissed off. You need two sides organised against each other. The MAGAtards couldn't organise their sock drawers, never mind a revolution.

If Trump got killed and the MAGAtards decided it was time to overthrow the gov't, and they want to call it a civil war, well fine. I'll take whichever side the US Army's on.

What would more likely happen is you'd see a rise in extremist right wing terrorism. Maybe some yahoos would step up their attacks on liberal politicians. It certainly wouldn't be pretty, but these kinds of things are already happening, they'd just become more frequent imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

And it's not like only the Republican voters have guns, man.

---

This isn't a deterrent to those who are political radicalised and intent on causing civil unrest. In fact, if anything, the other side being heavily armed too means the conditions for civil war already exist in USA. Probably better than the conditions for an armed coup, but still not good.

Quote:

---

I think it'd be actually hard to galvanize the American people into a civil war.

---

I can't tell you how right I hope you are here. Unfortunately I'm not so confident. I sincerely hope I'm wrong though.

Quote:

---

The abolition of slavery was economy-changing.

---

You're right that regular people are more likely to be motivated by economics than politics. And that is a good thing because this isn't an economic problem, it's political. So most normal folk aren't going to be radicalised, at least not immediately. The problem is if there are politically motivated folk who light the fuse, and armed opposition fights back. That's when you might start to see people taking sides.

Quote:

---

I sincerely hope that my fellow countrymen are not so eager to put their own lives at such risk as to engage in insurrection over such false pretenses and narrative boogeymen.

---

Yeah me too. I think the whole world hopes USA remains socially stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Civil wars don't just spontaneously erupt because a bunch of yahoos get pissed off.

---

No they don't. But they do start when political leaders get assassinated.

Quote:

---

You need two sides organised against each other.

---

You need two armed sides, and one side to put the other side in a situation where it's fight or roll over. People don't tend to roll over, especially armed people, and especially when they're motivated by an intense hatred of the political leader of their opponent.

Quote:

---

What would more likely happen is you'd see a rise in extremist right wing terrorism.

---

Maybe. If Trump got killed, I think we'd being witnessing widespread riots at this moment in time. How does the left respond to that? Do they take to the streets in an attempt to restore order? Or do they stay inside and wait for the police and military to restore order?

Also, the reaction of the government is important. They can't be too soft otherwise they risk failing to restore order. But if they get a bit too heavy handed, that can get more people onto the streets. This is an extremely difficult balance to maintain.

The path to civil war can very quickly go steeply downhill. An incident like an assassination is certainly enough to take matters beyond the point of no return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No they don't. But they do start when political leaders get assassinated.

---

Which one started that way?

/argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You need two armed sides, and one side to put the other side in a situation where it's fight or roll over. People don't tend to roll over, especially armed people, and especially when they're motivated by an intense hatred of the political leader of their opponent.

---

They can't just be a rabble though, to fight a proper war you need leadership, organisation, logistics, and an actual military strategy besides "arrrrggggh they killed mah president!"

Who's going to lead the new confederate army? Who's going to sort them into divisions, get their food and ammo sorted out, plan how they're going to fight? JD Vance?

Any rebellion big enough to pose an actual threat to the government would get squashed like a bug. Have you heard of the US Army? They're pretty good at the whole war thing. It's like they're trained professionals who do it for a living as opposed to a bunch of yokels with assault guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If Trump got killed, I think we'd being witnessing widespread riots at this moment in time.

---

Probably. Widespread riots is quite a ways from a civil war though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How does the left respond to that?

---

The "left?" Why are they suddenly in charge of the response? The government would go in and deal with the riots, like they always do. A few yahoos would get killed, then things would settle down.

When BLM or whoever was rioting because people were getting shot for driving while black, was it the "right" that dealt with it? No, it was the authorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Do they take to the streets in an attempt to restore order? Or do they stay inside and wait for the police and military to restore order?

---

What? How crazy do you think the average American is? It's like you think they're all just sitting in their living rooms waiting for an excuse to pop a cap in someone's ass. The vast majority of them are peaceful. They'd let the authorities deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Probably. Widespread riots is quite a ways from a civil war though.

---

It is.

Quote:

---

The "left?" Why are they suddenly in charge of the response?

---

Well I'm assuming that it's "the right" that are going to cause problems in the hypothetical event of Trump getting assassinated. If there's a serious problem that the police and military are struggling to keep a lid on, then ordinary civilians who oppose the civil unrest could take to the streets. If extremists on the right start killing political opponents, then the extremists on the left are likely to retaliate.

Quote:

---

When BLM or whoever was rioting because people were getting shot for driving while black, was it the "right" that dealt with it? No, it was the authorities.

---

That's because the authorities could deal with it. At what point does it reach the point where people start to think the authorities are failing to deal with it? The BLM riots were not ever likely to escalate into full blown civil unrest between opposing political factions. The assassination of a leader is a different matter.

Quote:

---

The vast majority of them are peaceful. They'd let the authorities deal with it.

---

What if the authorities are unable to quell the uprising? Will the vast majority of people remain on the fence?

Quote:

---

Which one started that way?

---

idk, I'm not a history expert. I'd be willing to bet on it though, that at least one civil war happened as a direct consequence of an assassination. It must have done. If not I'd be extremely surprised.

Gov't's don't change unless their military leaders allow it, or a non-gov't military overpowers the gov't's military.

Ain't no non-gov't military overpowering the US. Ain't no single gov't military coming close to that.



I feel pretty assured that if civil violence broke out on large scales, there'd be curfews and tear gas confrontations with police and all the sorts of stuff we were seeing during the BLM protests.


The National Guard is armed forces adjacent. Sometimes called "Weekend Warriors." People in the NG mostly work full time jobs and go do army stuff 1 or 2 weekends a month. They're basically a huge reserve of trained troops who can be activated at a moment's notice. They exist in all 50 states and 4 US territories. I've known a bunch of them in my life. They're about as solid as any other group, but with a dominating, "Get it done and don't make excuses" vibe.

It's not uncommon to activate the NG in times of environmental catastrophe or to aid in keeping the general peace during periods of civil unrest.


Increases in political terrorism sounds far more likely than any organized Rep vs. Dem combat. You do need organization, training, chain of command, etc. to actually fight in large groups. That's a huge step to be taken.

That's some amazing healing going on there, from having the top of your ear shot off (Donald Jr.'s words) to having a completely intact ear in just two weeks.


https://static.independent.co.uk/202...I214324455.jpg

"How about when the second sniper, the one with the real bullets, shoots one of the assholes behind you. How about, Mr President... hear me out... how about you grab your ear, you act like you've been shot, you fall to the floor, and then you take THIS RAZOR BLADE and you... Sir, have you seen The Wrestler? No, Mickey Rourke, anyway. SOMEONE GET HIM A TAPE OF THE WRESTLER! Daren Aarnovski's best movie. You take the razor blade, sir, and you cut the top of your ear, and then you stand up, and you raise your fist, as if IN DEFIANCE OF GODS WILL! And we'll have our audio guy start up Titanium by Sia, and you fist pump the air and start a USA chant... It will be the icing on the cake!"

Too many fucking parts! Completely unnecessary. Like the idiotic WTC bomb theory. You already flew a plane in there, you don't need to blow it up. You don't need to blow up WTC7. It makes no sense. You made your point. Whatever you wanted to do that for, you already did it with the first thing. No need to tag on the other thing.

And don't be upset at me for telling you this, be upset at everyone who listens to this and then makes fun of you behind your back. I'm telling you, out of respect, that this is a lunatic theory. It makes absolutely no sense.

I've heard MSNBC commentators go with the ear conspiracy while there's Project 2025 going on. You have an out in the open - actual conspiracy to turn the US into a fascist theocracy, and you're worried about this BS.

Oh well, if you're going to laugh at me that totally wins the argument. Reductio ad mockum.

If you actually have cogent arguments for why he couldn't have faked it, what are they? Saying "too many moving parts" is very vague. How many moving parts do you think there would have to have been? Trump, some high-up in the SS, and the patsy. That's three. Who else do you think would have had to be involved?

Explain the giant black hole in the SS protection that just happened to occur on the one day a "lone nut" decides to off the Orange Jesus. Are they just having a "bad day" like they did in Dealey Plaza? Explain how Trump gets shot in the ear, bleeds like a stuck pig, then two weeks later his ear is perfectly normal. He obviously didn't cut his ear because there's no wound there. And I already said Trump didn't have to know about real people getting killed, or if he did, it's plausible that he cares more about saving his own fat ass than a few NPCs in PA.

You can't explain any of these things which is why you resort to being all "harhar tinfoil hat, oh you so dumb I so smart, I know what really happened and you don't," instead of offering up anything that could remotely be construed as evidence.

Or if you don't like the "Trump faked it" theory, how about if someone high up in the SS just decided the world would be a better place without Trump in it, so they gave the kid a pass that day. Could you entertain that idea?

There's no way I'm buying the idea that the security was that bad that day by accident. Once I take that position, of course I'm going to start looking for other explanations.

The onus is on you to convince us of your theory - a theory you claimed is unlikely, mind.

How many cogent arguments do you want? There have been a few.
Comments have been made that throw shade on your theory and you ignore them. That doesn't make them go away.

Quote:

---

There's no way I'm buying the idea that the security was that bad that day by accident.

---

If you exclude reason and evidence from your understanding, that's fine, but it's not convincing anyone else, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The onus is on you to convince us of your theory - a theory you claimed is unlikely, mind.

---

I'm not trying to necessarily convince you, I'm just asking questions and putting forward possible alternatives to the establishment line. I must admit the fact none of you can answer the questions I'm asking adequately but instead get annoyed at the idea of them being asked is a bit humorous though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How many cogent arguments do you want? There have been a few.

---

The main argument seems to be that the SS was having a bad day that day and that's why it happened. That's it. You think that's a plausible explanation, I don't. That's the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Comments have been made that throw shade on your theory and you ignore them. That doesn't make them go away.

---

Most of these comments have involved taking what I say, twisting it into something silly, and then arguing "What I made up about your story is ridiculous, ergo what you actually did say is also ridiculous." Reductio ad mockum isn't a valid form or argument, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If you exclude reason and evidence from your understanding, that's fine, but it's not convincing anyone else, here.

---

What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.

Who's been interrogated from the SS and put up their hands and said "yes I was the top agent on the ground in Butler, I was in charge of seeing up the protection of Trump that day and I told my guys not to put a sniper on the rooftop. Had a fight with my wife a week earlier when we were planning the security arrangements, so I was off my game. Sorry, my bad. Then when we got there and Agent Smith said to me 'hey boss, don't you think we should have someone on that roof over there, you know the one with a clear line of sight to our client?' I said 'nah, fuck it, it's fine to leave that open.' "

Or, how about "yeah I misjudged the slope of that roof and so I told them to stay off it. My vision was blurry 'cause [insert excuse here]. Sorry, I'll be leaving now, I don't expect to receive my pension."

And I don't mean Cheatle. She wasn't there. I mean the person who was in charge of the show in PA that day. Why hasn't that person been subject to scrutiny? Why hasn't anyone been sacked or resigned, apart from Cheatle?

Unless you think Cheatle was actually overseeing the operation and making those decisions in real time there has to be other people you want to talk to.

Speaking of other people, why did Congress only quiz Cheatle and the FBI director and leave it at that? Why not quiz the people on the ground, the people who were actually there that day doing the security? Why do they all get a pass? None of them get fired? Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You can't explain any of these things which is why you resort to being all "harhar tinfoil hat, oh you so dumb I so smart, I know what really happened and you don't," instead of offering up anything that could remotely be construed as evidence.

---

I specifically recall asking you not to be upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.

---

They're just guys. They've done hundreds of Trump rallies, and all but one were boring as shit. They decided the roof was far (and hot) enough to be outside their perimeter, and it was good enough if the cops handled that. The cops said: This roof is hot as fuck, I'm not going up there... and then this happened. You have one possibility with all those intricate cogs moving to stage an assassination attempt including human sacrifice to make it believable, and the other possibility is cops being lazy/incompetent or whatever, and you're obsessing with the conspiracy theory...

I'm almost positive Epstein didn't kill himself, but I'm spending zero energy engaging with that because, what's even the point? There's nothing to go on. And you have nothing to go on here either.

What do you mean: why isn't the ear bleeding two weeks later? Do you have a human body? When do you ever cut yourself and bleed for two weeks. It was a tiny cut, possibly from shrapnel, it healed, end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I specifically recall asking you not to be upset.

---

I'm more amused than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

They're just guys.

---

They're not just guys, they're the Secret Service.

And yes I get it, on the inside they're still human and capable of making mistakes, even big mistakes. But not a bunch of them at the same time.

They've got a command center set up somewhere around there that oversees the whole thing; they're in touch with everyone there. I don't know how many people are in it (and they're obviously not going to tell us), but I'm guessing it's more than a couple of guys and a coffeemaker.

I also don't know how many messages they get during the day that could make them take pause. But, someone sends them a text saying 'look, there's this weirdo walking around with a rangefinder,' and the people in command of security all just go, 'oh that's nice,'. Then a half hour later another text comes in and says 'you know weirdo range-finder guy? Now he's wandering around looking at buildings.' And again they all go 'nothing unusual about that, he's probably just thinking of buying one of those warehouses someday. Ignore him. Send out Agent Orange. It's hot, let's get this shit over with.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

They've done hundreds of Trump rallies, and all but one were boring as shit.

---

You know most security is boring right? It's not like they're picking off potential assassins left and right at most of these rallies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

They decided the roof was far (and hot) enough to be outside their perimeter, and it was good enough if the cops handled that. The cops said: This roof is hot as fuck, I'm not going up there...

---

Please, use your head for just a minute. The SS don't just say to the local hillbilly cops "you're in charge of everything > 149m away from the stage,' and hope the local cops do a proper job of it unsupervised. They give them explicit instructions on where to have people ahead of time, get there a couple of hours in advance and make sure they're following those instructions, and if they're not, they don't let the client out in the open.

Also, if you're one of these hillbilly cops you don't get to say "i'm not going up there, it's hot out," and if you do you should be instantly fired. And if you're the guy in the command center and someone says 'where's the guy on building 7 (or whatever)' you don't just go 'ah well I guess it was too hot for him.

And even if that goes unnoticed, you don't have to be physically on the roof to cover it with a rifle. They can see the whole roof from the 2nd story building next door where they have snipers stationed. But yet, Crooks gets up there, crawls around for who-knows-how-long with all the yokels yelling 'he's on the roof! he's got a gun!' and nothing happens until he lets off eight rounds at Agent Orange. Come on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

You have one possibility with all those intricate cogs moving to stage an assassination attempt

---

Why do you need all these intricate cogs? You need one person in charge of security deliberately letting him slip through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

including human sacrifice

---

Right, because if there's one thing psychopaths in power care about it's the lives of innocent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I'm almost positive Epstein didn't kill himself,

---

Now who's the conspiracy nut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

but I'm spending zero energy engaging with that because, what's even the point?

---

If there's no point engaging in things you don't have the answers to, then why do you keep posting about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

And you have nothing to go on here either.

---

I have questions that aren't being satisfactorily answered. I also know this kind of thing has happened in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Do you have a human body?

---

Most days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

When do you ever cut yourself and bleed for two weeks. It was a tiny cut, possibly from shrapnel, it healed, end of story.

---

If it was a tiny cut that is invisible two weeks later, why did it bleed so much? Is Trump a hemophiliac? God, I hope he never nicks himself shaving, he'll need an emergency transfusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I'm not trying to necessarily convince you, I'm just asking questions and putting forward possible alternatives to the establishment line. I must admit the fact none of you can answer the questions I'm asking adequately but instead get annoyed at the idea of them being asked is a bit humorous though.

---

Your questions are dumb, though. Ask more interesting questions.

The fact that we choose not to answer dumb questions doesn't mean we don't have answers. [insert reductio fallacy]

I'm not annoyed at your questions. I'm annoyed at your tone. I'm annoyed that your attitude is that your hypothesis is unlikely, but that our failure to entertain your unlikely hypothesis somehow makes it more credible or us less smart. I'm annoyed that you aren't treating everyone here engaging in conversation with you with respect and dignity and an assumption of wanting to share our thoughts and know each other better. But mostly I'm annoyed at your default gas-lighting answers to the rest of us agreeing with you that your hypothesis is unlikely.

In short, your argument isn't pissing me off, your lack of respectful demeanor is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The main argument seems to be that the SS was having a bad day that day and that's why it happened. That's it. You think that's a plausible explanation, I don't. That's the difference.

---

OK, so if you understand the crux of it, then why the attitude?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Most of these comments have involved taking what I say, twisting it into something silly, and then arguing "What I made up about your story is ridiculous, ergo what you actually did say is also ridiculous." Reductio ad mockum isn't a valid form or argument, sorry.

---

You're being a bit of a jerk, and treating other people with disrespect.
You reap what you sow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.

---

People sometimes have bad days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Who's been interrogated from the SS and put up their hands and said "yes I was the top agent on the ground in Butler, I was in charge of seeing up the protection of Trump that day and I told my guys not to put a sniper on the rooftop. [...]

---

le rofl

If it's human error, whoever the human is stands to lose their job at the very least and may face credible threats to their life by some other crazy shooter who decides that agent's negligence was intentional.

What they should do if they think there's any hint that their personal negligence had anything to do with the shooting is hire the best goddamn lawyer they can afford because this isn't going to be a small time consequence if their hunch they were part of it is correct. That lawyer is certainly going to tell them to keep their damn mouth shut about this and especially so in any remotely public space or setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Please, use your head for just a minute.

Right, because if there's one thing psychopaths in power care about it's the lives of innocent people.

Now who's the conspiracy nut?

If there's no point engaging in things you don't have the answers to, then why do you keep posting about this?

---

4 examples of a lack of respect


***
and oskar... please don't take his bait.

"Do you have a human body?"
is right there in tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

People sometimes have bad days.

---

That's not evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

If it's human error, whoever the human is stands to lose their job at the very least and may face credible threats to their life by some other crazy shooter who decides that agent's negligence was intentional.

---

Ok forget putting their hands up and coming forward, why aren't they being questioned? There's someone in charge of the operation there and no-one is asking them questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

4 examples of a lack of respect


***
and oskar... please don't take his bait.

"Do you have a human body?"
is right there in tone.

---

So when I make a joke it's completely rude and disrespectful, but when someone else does it's the proper tone. Rigggggghtt.

Seriously dude I don't know why you get this way. We're just having fun talking about shit and giving each other a hard time, and you act like we're using hate speech. Take it easy ffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So when I make a joke it's completely rude and disrespectful, but when someone else does it's the proper tone. Rigggggghtt.

---

No. I was calling you both out.

Oskar reflecting your tone was inappropriate as well.

Just tone it down a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Seriously dude I don't know why you get this way. We're just having fun talking about shit and giving each other a hard time, and you act like we're using hate speech. Take it easy ffs.

---

I get this way because I can handle you and ong trash talking each other because ong is a mod and has told me many times that he gives 0 fucks about your attitude. When the only people involved in the conversation are you 2, I turn a blind eye to it. When the conversation blooms to include other people, your tone no longer fits the vibe of courteous people sharing ideas. Which it never did, mind, but again, I ignore it when it's just you and ong.

That's my line and my frustration. I hope it helps clarify.


Furthermore, since it seems relevant - you grate my nerves almost constantly. There are occasional gems of posts from you that seem to actually show the ability you have to pull together disparate information and apply your personal expertise on them. I appreciate those posts and it reminds me that you have a lot to offer when you choose to.

I'd have banned you years ago and many times over the years if not for ong suggesting I just ignore you and let him handle it. Out of respect for him, I have done so. Indeed this conversation about Trump's attempted assassination went on for quite a while before I started pushing back at your tone. I understand if you feel like I sometimes just pick on you for no reason, but there are reasons, and lengthy conversations have gone on behind the scenes where you have an advocate in ong.

Since I've said this, I open your plain and unfiltered thoughts about me in response. I have promised ong and I'll promise you that I will never ban you from FTR, provided ong is still here as co-mod. Your in his hands as far as that goes. I say all this because I don't think it's fair to have a power dynamic between us and to take advantage of that by calling you out w/o your equal opportunity to clap back.

Oskar's giving me the same amount of attitude I'm giving him. As far as I know, he's not taking it personally either. If he is, if he's actually sitting over there getting upset when I crack jokes at him, then he's a big boy, he can say so himself. The same is true of Ong. Guys, are you upset because I tease you?

Do you know why we can talk to each other this way and still get along, why no-one has taken their ball and gone home? Because we understand we don't mean anything personal by it, and because even if the other guy did, they're not the most important person in the world to us and it's not that big a deal whether they're perfectly well-behaved with us all the time.

You, on the other hand, seem to take things I say personally not just when they're directed at you, but when they're directed at people who aren't you. That's why I have a problem with you. If you want to take me personally yourself, then fine, I apologise if I've come across as rude or disrespectful. But if you're going to sit there and tell me I have to treat everyone else with the same kid gloves, when they don't even care themselves, I'm not prepared to do that just for your sake, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Oskar's giving me the same amount of attitude I'm giving him. As far as I know, he's not taking it personally either. If he is, if he's actually sitting over there getting upset when I crack jokes at him, then he's a big boy, he can say so himself. The same is true of Ong. Guys, are you upset because I tease you?

---

I called him out, too. You're both taking things too far.

Wise cracks can be delivered without personal comments. Wise cracks are good times. I like crackin' wise.
Just don't insult each other's intelligence or other personal traits and it's all good.

And no, it doesn't really matter if anyone is taking personal offense at the comments. If you want to make those comments to each other in private DM's, then by all means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

But if you're going to sit there and tell me I have to treat everyone else with the same kid gloves, when they don't even care themselves, I'm not prepared to do that just for your sake, sorry.

---

I'm asking you nicely to knock off the personal comments and passive-aggressive comments.

Please work with me to cultivate an environment where the jokes are funny and designed to elicit laughs, and not personal guilt, shame or other critical crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFmvXQp6F8

One of the dumbest people to ever serve in politics. After 8 years I'm still baffled. Previously unseen levels of stupidity. He's going in with the mission of trying to retain as many black voters as possible, and it turns into: "Kamala turned black" and "Illegals are taking black jobs"

"A black job is anybody that has a job." :popcorn:

I can't understand why repeatedly blaming the woman closest to him for the technical issues that seem to have delayed the show isn't a bad enough reason to not vote for the man. Even if they were her fault, which obv. she's the talent, not the crew, there's nothing but looking like a dick to call her out publicly. So at least he only did that a few times?

Trump was oafish in that.

While her question was combative, Trump is asking to take a job where other world leaders will be combative with him, and this is his chance to show the audience how professional he can be in that situation.

Instead, he acts like a petulant child and berates the woman repeatedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

oafish

---

...always learning new words. :thumbsup:

The contrast is incredible. Biden was so diminished, he made Trump look almost presidential, but in Harris/Waltz you have two very well spoken people who can get their message across and reveal Trump/Vance as the clown show that it is.

But back to the assassination conspiracy. I think poop has it backwards. I'm not saying that Biden called up some old friends to cash in a long overdue favor, but itsn't it interesting that Biden was all like "I'M STAYING IN THE RACE!" in the face of horrendous polling. Then there's a failed assassination attempt on Trump, and 20 minutes later Biden comes out with a statement "Actually, I thought about it and I'm longer staying in the race."

I confess that I did read a couple dictionaries front to back about 25 years ago.

Oafish is a good one. It deserves a comeback.



I have no sensible or reasonable explanation for how any shooter got so close to a former POTUS.

Sure. Biden tried to organize a political coup against Trump and when it almost worked, he was all, "Fuck it, I can't even assassinate someone, how can I be a good president?!?"

It's as ridiculous as everything else I've heard or thought up myself, so ... sure.

I feel like whoever is pulling those kind of strings has three options...

1) fake an assassination attempt so that Trump's popularity soars, forcing Biden to stand aside,
2) actually assassinate Trump, or
3) assassinate Biden with covid.

1 seems the most absurd by a mile.