Shooting at the Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Election Rally

[Keef]

Whatever you say buddy. It’s literally the SS job to protect the President with their life at any and all costs. It’s what they signed up to do. Just like it’s my job to indiscriminately plug up a gang banger that just got lit up by police after said gang banger just killed 3 innocent bystanders, or cut a drunk driver out of his mangled car he just wrapped around a telephone pole after killing 5 innocent handicapped people in wheelchairs waiting at a bus stop, or pull a tweaker out of a commercial building fire that they started.

It’s not Trumps or the much more feeble Biden’s job to have to duck. Of course they should, but that’s not how this stuff works. While I agree with you that they are much more qualified to make decisions than you or I am…because they actually are in the SS, I would hope that it’s only the best of the best with the proper attributes to protect all of our important elected officials, and not some dainty DEI hire - regardless if they’re male, female or some other kind of oversight box checker on a DEI stat sheet.

But I digress. In the end, it is what it is right?

Why do you care so much? Are you like a hiring manager for the Secret Service or something?

I've been arguing on the internet for years and I can't even get people to turn their headlights on when it's dark out. Y'all have been going on for two pages now, throwing **** at each others walls, nothing has stuck, who gives a damn?

 

[Famine]

The Secret Service wasn't even meant to protect the President when it was first created. That role only became part of its mandate after the assassination of William McKinley. It was originally created to protect the USA's financial infrastructure. That's why it was part of the Treasury (but now Homeland Security).

Currently the agency's mission is to protect a variety of politically important figures, and their spouses and children, and visiting political leaders, including investigating any threats, as well as investigating financial cybercrime, fraud, identity theft, document counterfeiting, and missing children. One of its most important functions is keeping track of the 14 surviving double-eagle gold coins, only one of which is allowed to be bought or sold.

But sure, hurr durr smol woman bad meat shield.

 

[Danoff]

The Secret Service wasn't even meant to protect the President when it was first created. That role only became part of its mandate after the assassination of William McKinley.

Seems like something I should not be just now learning.

 

[Keef]

Seems like something I should not be just now learning.

Only a bad libertarian doesn't know the SS protects the gold!

 

[Liquid]

Seems like something I should not be just now learning.

McKinley has an entourage but not a dedicated protection detail. Leon Czgolgosz was in a crowd of people shaking his hand and he simply stepped up close-range and shot him. McKinley died a week later.

 

[buickgnx88]

The Secret Service wasn't even meant to protect the President when it was first created. That role only became part of its mandate after the assassination of William McKinley. It was originally created to protect the USA's financial infrastructure. That's why it was part of the Treasury (but now Homeland Security).

I thought it was started to protect the president from giant metal spiders?

 

[05XR8]

Not to derail anything, but it’s very ironic after watching the new Captain America trailer with the assassination attempt on General Ross, who had bulletproof shield around him while doing a speech. No such precautions made for all the types of scenarios these security forces should be thinking of.

 

[Zero2Oblivion]

Not to derail anything, but it’s very ironic after watching the new Captain America trailer with the assassination attempt on General Ross, who had bulletproof shield around him while doing a speech. No such precautions made for all the types of scenarios these security forces should be thinking of.

Trump doesn't need any kind of bulletproof glass or shield because everyone loves him*. Why would anyone ever try to hurt him!?

*according to Donald Trump.

 

[Populuxe]

This is the widow of the fire fighter who was killed at the rally:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/corey-comperatore-trump-shooting-victim/index.html

"She also told the New York Post President Joe Biden did try to call, but she doesn’t want to speak to him. “My husband was a devout Republican, and he would not have wanted me to talk to him.”

However, Helen Comperatore added she does not hold the current president responsible for what happened to her family.

“I don’t have any ill-will towards Joe Biden,” she said. “I’m not one of those people that gets involved in politics. I support Trump, that’s who I’m voting for, but I don’t have ill-will towards Biden.”

“He didn’t do anything to my husband. A 20-year-old despicable kid did,” she continued.

The family has not heard from the former president, she added."

 

[Yard_Sale]

God was trying to kill him, the gunman on the rooftop was His instrument to execute His will. It's just that Trump's pact with Satan is so strong that not even a divinely inspired assassin can thwart his evil.

Sure, except that detail involves more than just jumping in front of bullets. So the idea that she has no business being there is pretty questionable to start with.

But then you also had to throw in this little zinger at the start.

That one's pretty unequivocal in what you're stating. Women have no business in the military. And that one isn't questionable, it's outright wrong. The military is a colossal organisation, and the vast majority of it is not on the front lines where physical size and strength is at it's most valuable. There are tons of jobs in the military where being swole means very little compared to just being good at what you do.

Hell, in a modern military with modern technology even on the front lines the role of pure physicality is as diminished as it has ever been. The amount of war that is conducted from vehicles, from ships, from aircraft, with drones, with artillery, or just with long range weapons means that someone who is just decently fit can absolutely contribute meaningfully. There are still places for squads at the peak of physical ability to excel and those people are needed too, but they are not the only people contributing.

But thanks for clearing up that yes, you are choosing to stick with the misogyny instead of just judging people on whether they're capable or not.

Yeah, it is. If not doing it gets the President killed, then they just helped someone kill the President.

When you're the head of a major country, looking out for your own wellbeing is part of your job. Also when you're just an ordinary human, but even more so when your death would have major impacts on the lives of thousands or millions of other people. You don't just get to handwave your actions with "that's someone else's job".

That is how this stuff works. Just because you're the President, doesn't mean you get to just sacrifice other people's lives so that you can keep doing whatever the **** you want. You are supposed to be responsible for serving an entire nation, not some spoiled child who everyone else has to bend over backwards to accommodate.

If the President needs to be standing while he's being shot then there are people who will do their best to make sure that he can. But it damn well better be worth those people putting their lives on the line. "That's what they signed up for" is not it. Nobody signed up to die. They might have signed up willing to put their lives on the line to keep their country safe and secure, but nothing about Trump standing up straight made the country safer or more secure. Anyone who died protecting his right not to duck would have died for nothing.

Reading comprehension is key.

The word I specifically used was “drafted” into the military, as in a “draft card” that young men in the United States have to fill out when they turn 18.

I’m all for women being in the military, law enforcement ect. But I’m 100% against women being forced into the military, like young men are apt to, in the United States.

As far as the rest of what I said, I stand by purely on the scope of whom they have to protect. Am I against women in the Secret Service? Of course not.

But for the safety of our past and present elected leaders, I personally would only want the best of the best (and yes, for me this includes physical attributes), protecting the likes of Biden, Obama, Trump, Pelosi, and their families.

I’ve been on waaaay too many police-related calls that have gone sideways, to see what happens when you have cops that aren’t physically up to the task be them fat and out of shape, not strong enough, not big enough, ect. People get hurt. Civilians get hurt. Wouldn’t want that to happen to America’s most important figures

 

[Keef]

This is the widow of the fire fighter who was killed at the rally:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/corey-comperatore-trump-shooting-victim/index.html

"She also told the New York Post President Joe Biden did try to call, but she doesn’t want to speak to him. “My husband was a devout Republican, and he would not have wanted me to talk to him.”

However, Helen Comperatore added she does not hold the current president responsible for what happened to her family.

“I don’t have any ill-will towards Joe Biden,” she said. “I’m not one of those people that gets involved in politics. I support Trump, that’s who I’m voting for, but I don’t have ill-will towards Biden.”

“He didn’t do anything to my husband. A 20-year-old despicable kid did,” she continued.

The family has not heard from the former president, she added."

This woman may not be in her right mind by November but if she's got any self-respect she'll realize that she is and always has been her own woman able to make her own choices, and she'll look back and remember this exact moment when a sitting president did his job to try to connect with his people, but the one her husband supported did not.

That's going to be one hell of a moment for her when it comes. She will realize that she spent all that time giving her agency away to her husband and following his lead even when he was wrong. That isn't love, that is some sort of mental illness.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Go back and read your original post again, you didn't mention a thing about Trump or the GOP. You just claimed Russian interference wasn't a thing, don't move the goalposts now that's been shown to be incorrect.

I didn't move the goalposts. I just said that the impact of said interference ultimately didn't mean ****, as the Mueller report said.

Try a pass at this sentence from the perspective of someone who isn't a straight white guy.

Well who do you call this guy?

January 6th happened, so you're going to sit there and type out that Trump isn't a threat to democracy? The man tried to stage a coup and incited a group that attempted to lynch the VP. Even if you don't think Trump was behind January 6th for whatever reason, the man has literally cast doubt on the entire election process by making wild claims how it was stolen from him despite the complete lack of evidence.

Yes I am going to sit there and say that Trump isn't a threat to Democracy. The people are. The left are using Trump as a figurehead for these crimes, even though he didn't actually commit any of them. Trump did not break his supporters into the White House - a crazy mob comprised of all sorts broke in. Not just Trump supporters.

And let's see, the last time Trump was in power, he dissolved the agency that looked out for potential global pandemics, which ultimately led to the spread of COVID-19. He then proceeded to push a bunch of unscientific garbage and fueled an entire group to believe that COVID was a scam or wasn't nearly as bad. He then threw away the playbook that the Obama administration created, which outlined how to deal with it and ended up having over a million Americans die while completely ruining the economy. So his track record of not making everyone's life crap is pretty crap itself.

Didn't Democrat run states have an extremely high number of deaths per capita compared to Republican ones? Trump didn't make the rules for each state did he?

Also, never mind how he pulled us out of the climate agreement, fueled climate change, and nearly pulled us out of NATO, which would've allowed Russia to take over Eastern Europe.

That climate agreement was a load of crap.

Lastly, as others have pointed out I think you are being awfully narrow in your perspective on the idea of Trump not wanting to make people's lives crap. This is a serious question, are you not counting Queer people or Migrants? I'll give you that he doesn't have the same inherent fundamental hatred for Queers as actual Conservatives do (because he's actually a life long liberal from NYC simply conning conservatives into supporting him) but that doesn't mean the people he's appointed to make decisions share that disinterest. The real issue with a Trump presidency is that he (increasingly!) gives the power to the most Machiavellian people who will, in bad faith, fellate Trump (because Trump, on a cellular level, cannot possibly refuse it because his dad ****ed him up so bad) as much as needed to position themselves in power

What did Trump do to Queers and Migrants exactly?

 

[Meythia]

I personally would only want the best of the best

Bruce Lee doesnt come to your mind, because he was small?

 

[UKMikey]

I didn't move the goalposts. I just said that the impact of said interference ultimately didn't mean ****, as the Mueller report said.

Yeah you did. You said there was no Russian interference. There was and it did mean ****. It changed the outcome of the election. All the Mueller report said is they couldn't prove Trump initiated it. But it still happened.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ScottPuss20]

Yeah you did. You said there was no Russian interference. There was and it did mean ****. It changed the outcome of the election. All the Mueller report said is they couldn't prove Trump initiated it. But it still happened.

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It didn't mean **** in that it didn't actually label Trump as being responsible. There was no collusion.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't move the goalposts. I just said that the impact of said interference ultimately didn't mean ****, as the Mueller report said.

If you're going to lie, at least don't do it when an audit trail exists to show the fact. You said...

"Also, didn't the Democrats say that there was Russian interference during the 2016 election campaign?"

...dismissing the interference as a myth, I posted proof of that interference, you then moved the goalposts by changing the standard to be...

""The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates"

In other words, it didn't mean ****."

...the report is also clear that it did mean ****, as the interference impacted the election materially (the only debate is to what degree) despite insufficient evidence that the Trump campaign was actively involved in it.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong about it if you tried.

It happened.

It had an impact on the election.

These are demonstrable facts, and the report you cited clearly states both of these.

It didn't mean **** in that it didn't actually label Trump as being responsible. There was no collusion.

Not your original claim, ergo you moved the goalposts to require Trump/GOP involvement.

And to be specific, it's insufficient evidence, quite different from no evidence.

Yes I am going to sit there and say that Trump isn't a threat to Democracy. The people are. The left are using Trump as a figurehead for these crimes, even though he didn't actually commit any of them.

Yes he did, he's been convicted of 34 of them.

Trump did not break his supporters into the White House - a crazy mob comprised of all sorts broke in. Not just Trump supporters.

Evidence shows quite the opposite, he incited a mob, of Trump supporters, who broke in with the aim of murdering the VP and overturning the election result.

Didn't Democrat run states have an extremely high number of deaths per capita compared to Republican ones? Trump didn't make the rules for each state did he?

That's quite a claim, I hope you have evidence from reputable sources to support it.

That climate agreement was a load of crap.

Again nope, and you've no credible sources to support that.

What did Trump do to Queers and Migrants exactly?

Yeah, the gish-gallop can stop here, you want to make spurious claims from now on, you start to support them with credible sources.

 

[ScottPuss20]

If you're going to lie, at least don't do it when an audit trail exists to show the fact. You said...

"Also, didn't the Democrats say that there was Russian interference during the 2016 election campaign?"

...dismissing the interference as a myth, I posted proof of that interference, you then moved the goalposts by changing the standard to be...

""The 448-page Mueller Report, made public in April 2019, examined over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates"

In other words, it didn't mean ****."

...the report is also clear that it did mean ****, as the interference impacted the election materially (the only debate is to what degree) despite insufficient evidence that the Trump campaign was actively involved in it.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong about it if you tried.

It happened.

It had an impact on the election.

These are demonstrable facts, and the report you cited clearly states both of these.


Not your original claim, ergo you moved the goalposts to require Trump/GOP involvement.

And to be specific, it's insufficient evidence, quite different from no evidence.

The report was written in an attempt to uncover dirt on Trump that would ultimately get him out of the White House.. a ploy which failed spectacularly when Mueller failed to show what the Democrats believed.

 

[McLaren]

If that's a YouTube channel you follow, that explains so much.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Again nope, and you've no credible sources to support that.

Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

"For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States."

 

[Scaff]

The report was written in an attempt to uncover dirt on Trump that would ultimately get him out of the White House.. a ploy which failed spectacularly when Mueller failed to show what the Democrats believed.

Goalposts moved again (and no that wasn't what the report was written to do).

You made a claim, evidence shows it was wrong, own it and move on, as all you are doing now is making yourself look less and less credible.

Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

"For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States."

I said credible.

 

[eran0004]

I didn't move the goalposts. I just said that the impact of said interference ultimately didn't mean ****, as the Mueller report said.

Where does the report say that? Mueller wrote that the interference was sweeping and systematic and that both the Russian government and the Trump campaign believed they would benefit from it (page 1 in the report).

As for moving the goalposts, here is what you wrote:

Also, didn't the Democrats say that there was Russian interference during the 2016 election campaign? I know Trump wasn't happy with such a crazy assertion, so why should you be surprised that he'd turn things back on them?

If you haven’t moved the goalposts, please explain what makes it a “crazy assertion” when it’s factually true. Do you mean that it’s crazy to tell the truth to Donald Trump, because he only tolerates alternate facts?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Well who do you call this guy?

Association of German National Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ScottPuss20]

If that's a YouTube channel you follow, that explains so much.

I don't follow it. But I did find it interesting that these people who care soo much about "inclusion" hate Trump for some reason.

(and no that wasn't what the report was written to do).

Yes it was!

You made a claim, evidence shows it was wrong, own it and move on, as all you are doing now is making yourself look less and less credible.

I'm not denying the Russian interference.

I said credible.

Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know

The Paris Agreement charted a new course in the effort to combat global climate change, requiring countries to make commitments and progressively strengthen them. Here’s what the accord seeks to achieve, and why our future may depend on its success.

www.nrdc.org

Here are a few of the problems I see:
-Nations can set their own climate objectives
-It's not legally binding
-Wealthy nations have to help poorer nations
-Could take reliable power sources away from poor countries

Where does the report say that? Mueller wrote that the interference was sweeping and systematic and that both the Russian government and the Trump campaign believed they would benefit from it (page 1 in the report).

If you haven’t moved the goalposts, please explain what makes it a “crazy assertion” when it’s factually true. Do you mean that it’s crazy to tell the truth to Donald Trump, because he only tolerates alternate facts?

Sorry, I meant collusion.

 

[ScottPuss20]

delete

 

[Scaff]

Yes it was!

Citation required.

I'm not denying the Russian interference.

Yes you were, then you moved the goalposts. Own your mistake.

Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know

The Paris Agreement charted a new course in the effort to combat global climate change, requiring countries to make commitments and progressively strengthen them. Here’s what the accord seeks to achieve, and why our future may depend on its success.

www.nrdc.org

Here are a few of the problems I see:
-Nations can set their own climate objectives
-It's not legally binding
-Wealthy nations have to help poorer nations
-Could take reliable power sources away from poor countries.

That the Paris accords are not perfect (no one has claimed they are), doesn't make it a load of crap. Not does it make Trumps' approach of do nothing a viable less 'crap' alternative.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Yes you were, then you moved the goalposts. Own your mistake.

I did not, I made a mistake.

That the Paris accords are not perfect (no one has claimed they are), doesn't make it a load of crap. Not does it make Trumps' approach of do nothing a viable less 'crap' alternative.

I can see why he did it though.

 

[Scaff]

I did not, I made a mistake.

And rather than own that mistake you moved the goalposts rather than acknowledge the mistake and clarify you claim. Something that would have been considerably easier if we hadn't needed to drag it out of you.

I can see why he did it though.

So do I, to make rich people richer at the expense of the planet. It certainly wasn't to propose a better climate plan.

 

[Meythia]

-Wealthy nations have to help poorer nations

How is that a problem?
The poor nations are getting poorer because of how the wealthy nations are operating.
Without the peasant with nothing but land to farm on, the king wouldnt be as wealthy but instead slowly starve in his greed.

 

[ScottPuss20]

And rather than own that mistake you moved the goalposts rather than acknowledge the mistake and clarify you claim. Something that would have been considerably easier if we hadn't needed to drag it out of you.

It took me a while to realise the error of my ways. I legit forgot that I said "crazy assertion" and I'm sorry for that.

So do I, to make rich people richer at the expense of the planet. It certainly wasn't to propose a better climate plan.

No it wasn't, it was to ensure that people had reliable power sources. Some of the climate targets are simply unattainable and Trump didn't want to buy into that. Especially with China being let off the hook essentially.

 

[Scaff]

It took me a while to realise the error of my ways. I legit forgot that I said "crazy assertion" and I'm sorry for that.

At last, thank you

No it wasn't,

Evidence shows otherwise, every policy in that regard simply aimed to reduce or remove regulations around fossil fuels and strip out any form of climate change mitigation.

it was to ensure that people had reliable power sources.

Nope.

Some of the climate targets are simply unattainable and Trump didn't want to buy into that.

Nope, they are attainable.

Especially with China being let off the hook essentially.

Again it doesn't, I'm not sure what your sources are, but I can guess the bias they carry with them.