Trump Assassination Attempt(s)

#2,076
#2,076
theFallGuy said:
I think 20 year olds are way more into politics then we ever were when I was 20. I blame social media for constantly blasting stuff. When I was 20 it was parties and football. No one ever talked about politics this much. And that was during the Bush Gore election debate
Click to expand...
the carter folks were telling me when I was 20 that Reagan would start WW3 if he got elected....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, davethevol, theFallGuy and 2 others
#2,077
#2,077
knoxvol52 said:
This is why I hate Politics, everyone seems to be more worried about if the shooter was a lib or a republican backer. What America needs to be concerned about is how this Country is going to hell in a hand basket no matter who is the President.
But no it's a pissing contest like everything else.
Click to expand...
First things first - still have to determine whether it was a bullet or shards of glass that penetrated Trump’s ear.

Only then can @BowlBrother85 determine if Trump was in any real danger, or if he’s just making all of this up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, KptVFL, MemphisVol77 and 6 others
#2,078
#2,078
joevol33 said:
View attachment 658737
That's me quoting you, I'm not trying to "claim" you said anything, you literally said it. I'm only asking a question, because you're fussing about one sides conspiracies, when the other did it first, and more.
Click to expand...
The whole day through
Just an old sweet song
Keeps WoodsmanVol, on my mind

I said WoodsmanVol, WoodsmanVol;
A song of you

WoodsmanVol, WoodsmanVol,;
joevol33, has WoodsmanVol, on his mind.
 
#2,080
#2,080
whodeycin85 said:
Ah interesting..so in your mind...the POTUS is on record using the phrase put Trump in the bullseye..and then an assassination attempt on Trump happened...that could be viewed as incitement...is that an official act??? If so the Trump J6 speech was official and there was no insurrection...or does incitement not fall under official acts..courts will decide that if charged..
Click to expand...

This is where MAGA is going overboard. The "bullzeye" comment by Biden wasn't referencing literally violence but rather we need to target him to beat in the election and stay focus on him. (It was probably in relation to how the Democrats were turning the bullzeye on Biden asking him to step down).

I can't stand Democrats but to use the "bullzeye" comment is just as ridiculous as the Democrats missuse of Trump's "blood bath" comment. (Trump was clearly referring to economy/stock market when that is taken into context).

The media is spinning statements out of context constantly to spread a bias narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1, MemphisVol77, DaddyChad and 3 others
#2,082
#2,082
walkenvol said:
Yes, I’m suggesting exactly that if it is properly reviewed and approved by a judge. I may be completely wrong, but it seems reasonable to me. And to be clear I wasn’t suggesting they enter the buildings, only that they were able to secure the roof top from someone with a weapon. JMO, TIFWIW
Click to expand...

That’s crazy. Let’s just throw out the 3rd amendment, private property rights are sacrosanct and if a property owner refuses to let security onto their property then the politician needs to pick another venue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL and tbh
#2,085
#2,085
LSU-SIU said:
Yes it does. (I don't know the status of the building btw) If the owner doesn't give them access than that's that.

On the ground might have worked but probably would have been tough to get him from down below quickly. The only quick way in that situation was a sniper with a little height to help.
Click to expand...
If somehow it was private property it would’ve stuck out even more as a security threat. This wasn’t a professional sniper ninja that got into position to take a shot either. This guy doesn’t get into that position and get off a shot unless this is an inside job or unless you have people so incompetent that they have no business being on that detail.

And I would say the same about this if it were Biden. Didn’t matter the candidate, secret service doesn’t fail in this spectacular a manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and cobbwebb0710
#2,086
#2,086
It certainly sounds like a significant oversight.

The Secret Service's protocols typically involve securing all potential vantage points, especially those that could pose a direct threat. The fact that snipers saw the gunman but did not neutralize him until after he opened fire raises serious questions about the response and decision-making process in this situation.

The investigation will likely focus on understanding why this high-risk area was not secured and why the response was delayed. It's possible that there were communication breakdowns or other unforeseen issues that contributed to this failure.

~Sally
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, InVOLuntary, BernardKingGOAT and 1 other person
#2,089
#2,089
hog88 said:
Strong central government ruling over people with different cultures and values causes division.
Click to expand...

I am a fan of Aristotle's take, it really isn't the type of Government but the ethics/morality behind the power that matters. If you have ethical/good people in charge, things will be fine. Even a Monarchy can be run well if the King or Queen is a decent human being that cares about their subjects and approaches reality like they are a public servant. There were some highly successful Monarchs in the past that fit this bill.

Typically Republics are stronger because they have more checks and balances to prevent that immature ruler from coming along that ruins everything. It also gives people a voice in the decision process (how this voice is limited is the debate between Democracy and Republic).

However, Democracy/Republics do have a weakness and it is typically when things get divisive. In Aristotle's day, the Republic of his time (Athens) lost the Peloponnesian War to Oligarchy Sparta. The Spartan system was seen as a better system as a result.

Similarly, the Roman Republic gave way to a Dictatorship under Augustus Caesar.
 
#2,091
#2,091
theFallGuy said:
I think 20 year olds are way more into politics then we ever were when I was 20. I blame social media for constantly blasting stuff. When I was 20 it was parties and football. No one ever talked about politics this much. And that was during the Bush Gore election debate
Click to expand...
This guy would have been about 11 or 12 when Trump began first running for the Republican nomination. For almost half of his life there has been a nonstop flow of Trump is evil, Hitler, deplorable, a racist, a misogynist, anti-Semite, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, a threat to democracy and "must be stopped" (Pelosi quote from less than 2 weeks ago) and on and on and on. That likely had a huge effect on him and others. It was moral imperative to stop him using any means required.

This is the fruit of the left's demonetization of anyone not aligned with their beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, cobbwebb0710, HammondB3Vol and 3 others
#2,092
#2,092
whodeycin85 said:
Ah interesting..so in your mind...the POTUS is on record using the phrase put Trump in the bullseye..and then an assassination attempt on Trump happened...that could be viewed as incitement...is that an official act??? If so the Trump J6 speech was official and there was no insurrection...or does incitement not fall under official acts..courts will decide that if charged..
Click to expand...
You are taking that comment out of context. It obviously wasn't meant literally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: berryvol
#2,094
#2,094
VolsLFC said:
Just my .02 but it’s more of an indictment of where we are with mental health. Unfortunately it’s not hard to weaponize those who struggle mentally. Wish we had more resources devoted to it.
Click to expand...
It’s sad really. I see these people on the streets on a daily basis. They clearly are not functioning properly and it’s mind blowing that closing mental care facilities is more humane than these people being so n the streets, out in society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and VolsLFC
#2,098
#2,098
BowlBrother85 said:
You are taking that comment out of context. It obviously wasn't meant literally.
Click to expand...

Rational people understand that it's an expression of focusing on something intently. Those with an agenda will exploit the low IQ to foster division, it's always interesting to watch context get left out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, DuckInAPen, berryvol and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top