If it was not bit, we must acquit.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaEd8nXAAACB3Q.jpg
Printable View
If it was not bit, we must acquit.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaEd8nXAAACB3Q.jpg
Why are you comparing these injuries? For one reason only. Ear. That's all they have in common.
For a bullet to do that kind of damage, the angle it would need to approach at would imply that the slightly torn ear is the very least of your worries.
You don't seem to be taking into account the fact that Trump is actually still alive. That says more than you're letting on about the angle at which the bullet hit him. It basically slightly touched the top of his ear while running parallel to his head, before continuing on its trajectory. On this basis, he's one very lucky man. We're talking millimetres from death.
Holyfield's ear is missing a chunk because some brute bit into it and ripped. You might as well compare someone who has fallen out of a plane with someone who has been hit by a plane, because plane.
So you're saying a bullet has to strike an ear at a particular angle to make it bleed a lot? What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Analogy fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No. Because it's the same body part, with the same number of blood vessels. An injury to one person's ear is comparable to an injury to another person's ear. What wouldn't make sense is comparing an injury to the ear in one person to an injury to another person's pinky toe.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But let's go with your angle. A bullet grazes an arm, it doesn't cause you to lose a pint of blood, any more than if you scratch your arm on some thorns. Both of them just give you a small amount of blood. It's the extent of the injury that matters, not how it happened. In the pics above, one has an intact ear (a grazing wound), one has a chunk of ear missing (a penetrating wound). One person is also a lot fitter than the other and should bleed more. That's the difference.
Apparently, the shooter was reported as a "suspicious person" to the local authorities an hour before the shooting.
The head of the Secret Service is getting hammered by reporters and is stonewalling every question.
It wasn't clear if multiple Congressmen were starting committees to investigate this, or if they were joining up on a single committee.
***
If you don't think what you're proposing is even likely, then why propose it? I'm with oskar on that one.
Because it's not outside of the realm of possibility to anyone who's seen what people are capable of. Also because I don't see what's wrong with talking about things that are possible but not likely. If you only want to discuss the official line then feel free not to respond to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What's funny though is that you guys don't dispute the things I suggest so much as twist what I say into something else and then argue against that. First, it's that the kid was a hired gun, even though if he was he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, which I said repeatedly was ridiculous.
Then when I say the SS fucked up royally, Oskar and Ong argue about how they're foiling assassination plots left and right, as if that somehow changes the fact they fucked up royally this time.
At least Ong acknowledges there's something fishy going on when the SS lets some guy climb on a roof 150m away from Agent Orange.
Play nice. No need to be defensive and/or passive aggressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're all friends here.
Don't make me turn this car around.
If you would have said from the start that it's unlikely, but not beyond speculation, then there'd be only agreement.
Lol i've said that in every post.
You're comparing Trump with Holyfield and then pulling me up for talking bollocks?Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
You just confirmed my point. You're comparing the two because "ear". That is literally all they have in common. In one case, we have a bullet grazing it at Mach 2 or whatever speed bullets go at, and in the other we have a tough bastard biting into an ear and then ripping a chunk off.Quote:
An injury to one person's ear is comparable to an injury to another person's ear.
Let's try and be a little more on point with the analogy, seeing as a stupid one isn't doing the job of demonstrating how stupid your point is.
Let's cut one of your fingers off, and stamp on another. Finger. Same injury right?
In fact fuck it, let's be super accurate with the analogy.
Let's just shoot you in one ear and bite you on the other. Bet you won't know which ear got shot and which got bit. You won't be able to tell the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Let's graze one of your ears with a bullet and bite a chunk out of the other, since that's what actually happened.
The only thing that you said that makes sense is that the bullet was going very fast and even if it did little actual damage in terms of taking out flesh, it could have damaged the blood vessels through the impact of even a very tiny portion of the ear being struck. That would make sense I guess.
Meanwhile, this has been going on at the RNC. America is so fucked if Biden doesn't drop out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttb7-kY3RMY
Selling special "assassination shoes." Yeah, this guy's definitely not capable of faking his own near-death experience.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nation-attempt
I've had worse dates.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can say what you want about fascists, but they know how to put on a fucking show!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He's backed out, Jack!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMNsEuia_7I
I watched a couple more minutes of it and I want to revise that statement. Where is coked up Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle when you need them?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That is a huge relief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Someone (Obama) must have really slapped Biden around when he refused to drop out after it was basically announced that he would. It would have been absolutely devastating. He's endorsing Harris, which is a great sign. She's awkward, but she is about the best on policy Dems can realistically hope for. I see Buttigieg is already doing the press tour. I'm sure they would rather have anyone else than Harris. She's a scary candidate for Establishment-Dems. She is firmly left of center, and I would not be surprised to see a handbrake-turn on Israel the likes we have never seen.
I for one would be extremely hopeful for a 2-term Harris presidency. I still think Bush v. Gore was the most crucial election in world politics in my lifetime, but Harris v. Trump feels like an even bigger turning point.
We're not over the hill yet, but Biden dropping out is a huge relief. I have half a can of sugarfree Monster in the fridge, and I'm pulling it out for the occasion. A toast to Democracy! Left is best! Down with Trump!
It is, even if it seemed kind of inevitable. They were pretty much all asking him to hand over the car keys Grandpa.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Harris, please don't fuck it up.
I was legitimately worried after the flip-flop over the weekend. When Biden announced he was going to continue campaigning, I was bracing for the worst. That's why I imagine he got a very, very firm talking-to behind the scenes. This was not an easy taking of the keys, it appears.
I'd imagine it was really easy. It just needed someone to whisper in his ear that he'll die of covid if he doesn't quit.
It's like that Bill Hicks bit: They show you the JFK assassination from a completely different angle.
- "Any questions?"
- *Bill Clinton impression* "Just what my agenda is."
I'm quite surprised that some leftists commentators are out there calling for a Harris replacement. I don't know who they would replace her with who would have a better resume and better voting record, never mind the optics of replacing the incumbent black female VP.
I reckon this is the source of the problem they're anticipating with voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
My grandpa was about Biden's age and had a minor stroke. He wanted to drive the next day.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's never easy.
Nah, what they whispered was, "look, we tried it your way and the kid was a lousy shot and missed. Now give us the damn keys or you'll be next."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He might not have been a lousy shot. He might have just been unlucky. Seems like the kid had a poverty gun with a 1x magnifier and a red dot for a sight which was approximately the same apparent size as Trump's head, meaning there's a relatively high margin of error. Also, Trump turned a little towards the shooter just before he was shot at, which quite possibly saved his life.
Assuming the kid fired real bullets, of course. It still could be fake blood and an event full of crisis actors.
Nah he was a lousy shot. He failed to make his school's rifle team, which isn't what I'd expect to be a particularly high bar.
Might have been because he was bullied and they though he was psycho, rather than being a bad shot.
He obviously used up all his luck by having the world's greatest security team being replaced by the keystone cops for a day, i.e., no-one finding the rifle he'd pre-hidden at a Trump rally, security losing track of him after he was seen with a range-finder, no-one being on the roof he climbed up on 150m from Agent Orange, no-one thinking it might be worth keeping AO secure while they figured out who this kid with the gun was that all the civvies were pointing and yelling at, and none of the SS snipers having a line of sight on him until after he'd pulled off eight rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just another lone-nut assassin kids, nothing to see here.
Have we seen the ear that supposedly got pierced by a high-velocity rifle bullet yet? Any medical records been released?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What you're suggesting here is in the same ball park as the claims that the Sandy Hook School massacre was staged by crisis actors.
If Alex Jones were suggesting this you'd be mocking him.
I don't think it's completely out of the question that it was staged, these kind of things have happened. I just find it highly unlikely compared to the idea than some dickhead decided he wanted to leave a legacy, and security were either complacent or complicit. Trump is quite possibly the most hated man on the planet, which is hilarious really when you think of all the terrible cunts around the world that nobody has heard of. That's the power of media.
What I also find hilarious is that it's poop who's flirting with ridiculous tin hat paranoia while I'm being rational.
Just so we're clear: You're arguing that the Deep State decided to leave a giant black hole in their security one day just on the off chance someone might come along and decide to off Trump, and then that someone came along that very day and decided to do it, is the more plausible scenario here?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm just asking questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No. You're filling in gaps with nonsense rather than more logical assumptions. What you say here is indeed highly unlikely, and as ridiculous as what you were speculating.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
What is viable are these two possibilities...
1) that one or maybe even two security guys turned a blind eye until shots were fired. Individual(s) deciding on the spot to "stand down", rather than a plan.
2) they were is a state of "stand down" for every event of Trumps they were contracted for, and finally someone had a pop at him but fucked it up.
I still think complacency is the most likely. It's still dodgy but a series of failings at the wrong time is all it takes, especially if there are multiple failed attempts we don't know about. Apparently the gun that took the shooter's head off was capable of doing so from a much further distance. So, perhaps the security snipers were complacent in that they thought closer buildings were secure, and the threat would come from further away. I'm just speculating here, I really don't know what to believe, but that, along with those two "stand down" ideas, seem more plausible to me than anything else I've seen suggested.
The fact security were putting their heads in line of fire to protect Trump tells me that, for security to be "in on it" as a unit, the shooter has to be too. If the shooter has not been recruited, then those who were protecting Trump were taking very grave risks and deserve medals, not accusations of criminal neglect.
This is why I find it hard to believe they stood down as a unit. And I find it hard to believe individuals would allow shots to be fired, knowing the risks to civilians and colleagues.
For it to be bullshit, it's either a hired shooter who was under orders to only shoot at Trump and his supporters, not security; or it's a completely staged event with crisis actors.
The first one is plausible, though still unlikely. The second is not a serious idea, it's outright paranoia on a par with Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.
So they were aware of the threat (and the evidence is that Crooks was named as a possible danger BEFORE Trump even got out of his car, but decided, "nah nothing bad will happen, let's ignore that threat." Or, "hey there's a threat to our client, but meh we're bored let's see what happens."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
lol this is so ridiculous. Your theory is basically that the SS, or at least someone in it, just didn't feel like doing their job that day.
And how did these one or two guys think that was going to pan out for them personally? Just deciding not to do their job when that meant letting someone shoot at the ex-POTUS. Were they expecting no-one to ask any questions afterwards and they'd just go on with their careers as usual?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why every event? There's people with cell phones filming all of these. Surely someone would notice if there was lax security if it was happening every time. We'd have people posting videos of Orange Jesus with an uncovered building somewhere nearby.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Every security expert I've seen interviewed has agreed that a) there's no fucking way there shouldn't be someone on that roof; and b) there's no way a radio call says "we've identified a threat," and then the client is let out of their car. It's just too ridiculous to be an accident. Someone high up in the SS did this on purpose, and did it for this specific event.
Everything else that happened is open to debate. Whether it was a real assassination attempt or staged, what Crooks' role was in it, etc. is what we don't know.
Why would you need crisis actors to fake an assassination attempt? You're arguing against a theory that no-one is putting forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Look at what happened to JFK. The guy's routinely going around in a motorcade waving at crowds, just like Eisenhower before him. At every event before Dallas, they're following strict security for the motorcades. That means, all buildings secured with no open windows, no driving below a certain speed (so no sharp corners), security on the running boards and motorcycle outriders surrounding the car, SS, local police and even military units all over the place.
Then one day they go to Dallas. Here, for some unknown reason, once they get to Dealey Plaza, every one of the above rules is violated. Windows in buildings are left open. The car makes a 135deg. turn onto Houston St., slowing down to 11 mph (I don't know what the minimum allowed speed was exactly but it was certainly higher than this. There's no SS on his running boards and the motorcycle outriders are reduced in number and kept behind the car (rather than next to it where they could serve as human meat shields). Local police told not to take part in security, and military units told to stand down. A few seconds later: Splat.
Point is there's precedence for the SOP of the SS to be compromised. To suggest it was an accident that ALL of these rules are broken in one time and place when they've been followed every other time is simply not plausible. The same applies to the Trump rally. There's no way you'll ever convince me the SS not doing their jobs that day was an accident
Says the guy who accused me of having a theory involving hundreds of crisis actors.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Next you're going to accuse me of finding a link between the Head of the SS being named Cheatle and Trump looking like a giant cheeto.
You never had a bad day at work?Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
If you think the target is a bad enough person, you can give fewer fucks about the consequences. Would you take a bullet in the head to kill Hitler in 1935? A lot of people would. If you're convinced Trump is literallyHitler, you don't care about consequences because you convince yourself you're a hero and that half the world will think you're a hero. Deluded and narcissistic, perhaps, but some humans do have these traits.Quote:
And how did these one or two guys think that was going to pan out for them personally?
Also, it's pretty difficult to prove that someone saw a threat and ignored it. So it's not unreasonable to think someone could believe there will be no consequences if they play it right.
Depends. I mean, how do you know a state sniper is not watching a rooftop? You can only know if someone is able to get on that roof and fire off a few rounds.Quote:
Surely someone would notice if there was lax security if it was happening every time.
The general public will only become aware of security lapses when it's obvious security has been breached.
Because if there are no crisis actors, then real people, actual civilians, got shot. Some people are indeed disputing this, and I'm sure you hinted at it yourself when talking about whether someone actually died.Quote:
Why would you need crisis actors to fake an assassination attempt?
The difference between faking an event with nobody getting hurt, and faking an event were people get shot and die, is massive. It's not only political suicide if it goes wrong for Trump, it's death row. And just like people exist that want to take Trump's head off, so too do people exist that would like to see Trump go to prison.
If Trump is remotely culpable for that man's death, then someone will talk.
There's also precedence for highly skilled and disciplined human beings having a shit day at work. It only has to happen once in a career.Quote:
Point is there's precedence for the SOP of the SS to be compromised.
I'm not convinced either.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
You didn't reply to my reason for not thinking the SS allowed it to happen. They put their fucking heads in the way. Respond to that. For them to do that, they must either be feeling very lucky, or know the shooter won't target them.
I guess you're reply with "they recruited the shooter", which takes us back to "why the fuck did they recruit an idiot who didn't even get in the school rifle club?"
We all say a lot of ridiculous things, but this is among the least ridiculous things in this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The notion that someone having a bad day, or not being 100% or even above 80% on any given day at work seems the most plausible idea here. Maybe even expand on it. For whatever reason, the Secret Service were dramatically overworked in the days leading up to the event. Many people could have been operating on less than optimal sleep or fatigue.
It's just a blind guess with no evidence to support it, but it's more reasonable and likely, IMO, than "ermagherd fake blood!"
Or those agents closest to the target weren't in on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But that does imply that at least some agents were willing to not only risk the lives of civilians in the background behind the target, but also their coworkers.
Not impossible, but less likely than incompetence.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence.
-Hanlon's Razor
They couldn't very well play it out by just standing around doing nothing (or I guess according to you they could have, if they were having a bad day at work).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Unlikely events sometimes happen. Unlikely != impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
-Poopadoop
I mean, quoting some glib phrase from whoever that guy is - and I don't care if it's Einstein - as if the quote itself counts as evidence contributes nothing to a debate.
I never said that they recruited the shooter to hit Trump in the ear. Your counterarguments are getting increasingly banana-esque.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
All I'm saying is I wouldn't put it past the guy. He had Hulk Hogan speaking at his rally ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That's like saying a guy who drives his car into a crowd of people, then lobs a bomb at them, then shoots at the cops who try to arrest him, didn't do it on purpose, he was just having a bad day and forgot how to be a nice person.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
These aren't minor whoopsies and there wasn't just one of them.
I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else. I always believed people actually did get shot, I just questioned whether Trump was one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I never said that it was someone having a bad day but that didn't stop you calling it my "theory".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It might have been someone having a bad day, but I didn't actually suggest that. I used the word "complacent", which doesn't just mean "bad day", it can mean standards slowly slipping over time.
I know you never actually said they recruited the shooter. I'm saying that, if it's staged, and for security to put their heads in line of fire, they must either not be in on it, or they know the shooter won't hit them. If it's the latter, then they must have recruited the shooter. So you don't think that? Glad that's cleared up. What do you think? That the guys who stuck their heads in the way aren't part of the plot?
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.
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?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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
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
fyp.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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
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
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I never described my theory as "laughably" unlikely. You've finally joined everyone else in employing the reductio ad banana here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.
Ok this is plausible. Still somewhat absurd, but no more so than anything else I guess.Quote:
They put blanks in his gun and the real shots came from somewhere else.
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.Quote:
Why would it require half of them to be on it?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?"
I imagine that was everyone's first thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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.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?"
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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:
Originally Posted by mojo
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:
I think it'd be actually hard to galvanize the American people into a civil war.
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:
The abolition of slavery was economy-changing.
Yeah me too. I think the whole world hopes USA remains socially stable.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.
No they don't. But they do start when political leaders get assassinated.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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:
You need two sides organised against each other.
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?Quote:
What would more likely happen is you'd see a rise in extremist right wing terrorism.
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.
Which one started that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
/argument
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!"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Probably. Widespread riots is quite a ways from a civil war though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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 OngBonga
It is.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
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:
The "left?" Why are they suddenly in charge of the response?
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:
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.
What if the authorities are unable to quell the uprising? Will the vast majority of people remain on the fence?Quote:
The vast majority of them are peaceful. They'd let the authorities deal with it.
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.Quote:
Which one started that way?
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.
If you exclude reason and evidence from your understanding, that's fine, but it's not convincing anyone else, here.Quote:
There's no way I'm buying the idea that the security was that bad that day by accident.
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
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
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
What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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?
I specifically recall asking you not to be upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
I'm more amused than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
They're not just guys, they're the Secret Service.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.'
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
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
Right, because if there's one thing psychopaths in power care about it's the lives of innocent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Now who's the conspiracy nut?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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
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
Most days.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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 oskar
Your questions are dumb, though. Ask more interesting questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
OK, so if you understand the crux of it, then why the attitude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're being a bit of a jerk, and treating other people with disrespect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You reap what you sow.
People sometimes have bad days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
le roflQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
4 examples of a lack of respectQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
***
and oskar... please don't take his bait.
"Do you have a human body?"
is right there in tone.
That's not evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
No. I was calling you both out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oskar reflecting your tone was inappropriate as well.
Just tone it down a bit.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
I called him out, too. You're both taking things too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
I'm asking you nicely to knock off the personal comments and passive-aggressive comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
...always learning new words. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.