Trump is safe following shooting at Florida golf course; suspect detained

[Pogo]

What are the odds?

Pretty good, the course wasn't closed and anybody else on it could have taken a cell phone shot of Trump just to say they had been on the same course and then realized they could sell it to MSNBC or some rando website for a few bucks. Way more plausible than most of the websites you bring us.

 

[Pogo]

Then how did the shooter get on sight?

Or he was just hanging out at a few hundred yards on the periphery which is also about what that photo looks like with a cheap telephoto lens.

 

[Ebionite]

Then how did the shooter get on sight?

He wasn't. He fired through the fence.

 

[Pogo]

He wasn't. He fired through the fence.

LOL, the only thing that was shot was a picture of Trump that you thought was improbable but now you are claiming it was done through the fence.

Not a good idea to make stuff up when you have no clue.

And yes as a competent English speaker I am messing with you.

 

[Spice]

He wasn't. He fired through the fence.

And video and photos can be just as easily shot through a fence. Look at post #382. Zoom lens?

And, the shooter never fired!

 

[Copernicus]

The fact remains that this wasn't much of a failure of the Secret Service. They spotted the guy before Trump reached the location and drove the would-be shooter off by firing at him, causing the man to abandon his gun and flee. The man was quickly apprehended. None of Trump's body parts were even grazed by a bullet or piece of shrapnel this time, so there isn't much to work with in terms of marketable merch on Trump's campaign site.

Still, Trump gets to brag to his supporters that he survived another assassination attempt, and everyone gets to wring their hands over how close he came to almost getting shot at again. The best solution at this point would be for Trump to stop playing golf in locations that cannot be fully secured without an army of security agents to clear the area. He isn't the president yet and isn't entitled to the level of protection that a president would normally be entitled to. Toning down his violent, racist, misogynistic rhetoric would also help, but he wants to keep himself at the top of the news cycle. So he should just show up in public when they can erect bullet-proof barriers and secure the location properly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see liberalism per se as tending towards authoritarianism any more than libertarianism or conservatism does.

Very strange claim.
Conservatives tend most to it socially.
Liberals tend most to it economically.
Magas are the most authoritarian of all.
Libertarians are the only ones tending away from it.
We're the only party with liberty as the foundation.

Yes, you responded to anotherneil's comment about gun control with a claim about many liberals favoring Democratic Fascism. I disagree with that. Safety regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with fascism.

I've argued for safety regulation.
But many liberals want more, eg, banning some or all guns.
This is an important distinction.

We have lots of those kinds of regulations, and it is difficult to imagine a representative democracy that would be without them. So I saw your comment as rather a broad brush sweep at gun regulation, which, by the way, is supported by a majority of conservatives as well.

You "saw" incorrectly.
Apparently you don't read my posts
advocating specific gun control measures,
eg, training, storage, red flags.

Any law can be deemed a "tyranny of the majority" in a functioning democracy, but that has nothing to do with fascism.

Of course.
(I posted that because it's friendlier than "Duh!".)

 

[Copernicus]

...
Libertarians are the only ones tending away from it.
We're the only party with liberty as the foundation.

That has not been my experience. Since many libertarians who associate themselves strongly with the modern Trumpublican Party do espouse more authoritarian views in line with Republican policies on social issues such as abortion. I've met some of them online, and I am always a bit surprised about how much they have changed since the Civil Rights Movement was at the forefront of American politics. Some would argue vociferously against laws that ban smoking in public places. Not so much anymore. It really depends on who you talk to. But notice that I said many libertarians and not all of them. That's the same kind of hedge that you use to characterize those groups that you do not identify with.

I've argued for safety regulation.
But many liberals want more, eg, banning some or all guns.
This is an important distinction.

That is just not true about most liberals, but it is a straw man argument that those who oppose almost any gun regulation like to repeat. Many are gun owners, just like Harris and Walz. They argue for pretty much the same things you do. When you say "many", that could be any number, even a very small percentage. Instead of "many", tell us what percentage you think it is and on what basis you arrive at it.

You "saw" incorrectly.
Apparently you don't read my posts
advocating specific gun control measures,
eg, training, storage, red flags.

Yes, and I think you, I, and most liberals agree on that. Gun bans? Nope. That's a Republican trope and a canard.

 

[Stevicus]

Making distinctions between groups is essential if you want to find the cause-effect relationships that contribute to the overall benefit or detriment of society. The mechanisms of these relationships may not be obvious, especially when they are traditional.

How are we defining these groups in question? Would all US citizens be considered part of a single group, or would they be grouped into sub-categories?

Human rights are a political construct with no basis in ethics. Natural rights are different, but are not generally recognised because of religious prejudice relating to the union of the church and state.

No basis in ethics? What makes you say that? The Founding Fathers believed that people had certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. This belief led to the creation of what we refer to as the Bill of Rights, and the same basic concept was expanded upon and enhanced in later centuries, particularly after the Second World War when the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was signed by many nations.

While the UDHR carries no weight against the US Constitution (in terms of enforcement within US law), it is a helpful guideline in determining what is right and what is wrong in terms of how human societies should be governed. This implies the existence of a moral code which governments are expected to follow, which would be at the very core of what ethics are all about.

Of course, if there are governments which have no desire or intention of following these principles and moral guidelines, then all they have to do is say so. They can put it in writing. If they're not willing to be honest about their stated principles, or if their written words do not correspond to their actions in the real world, then that's the time to call them out on it.

Industry is based on ambition and commerce, and commerce relies on a system of ethics that rewards merit and punishes wrongs.

Yes, although the point was that slavery does not benefit a modern industrial society. It's like putting horses and carts on a superhighway.

This is the basis of conspiracy theory. Faith relating to the union of the church and state was central to the events of the early common era. Faith in the state was one of the Pauline doctrines and was central to the false accusations that led to the crucifixion. An alternative theory (insanity theory) that can be formed from the ideas of the early first century is that people can be socially functional and also suffer from a form of insanity that only affects reasoning or perception relating to a specific group of ideas. Insanity theory leads to the idea that people can cause injury without guilt, eg "not guilty by reason of insanity". This reasoning is apparent in the response of Festus and Agrippa to Paul's doctrine of resurrection (Acts 26:22-24, 32).

The church can certainly have a role in encouraging and maintaining faith among the populace, and that faith is essential to a stable, orderly, law-abiding society. In more recent times, it seems faith in the church itself has faltered. There may be any number of reasons for this, but as a partial replacement for that, people have placed their faith in the democratic system with the belief that they are electing politicians who have their best interests at heart. Whereas people once believed their kings and queens were chosen by God, they stopped believing that at some point (or perhaps they were dissatisfied with the choices God was making).

Just judgment considers intangibles like intent. One of the indicators of malicious intent is the concealing of evidence. One of the ways that information can be concealed is through the institution of social taboos though policies relating to hate speech or disinformation.

You may have a point, but in the final analysis, the only thing we can look at is their performance and the results of their choices and actions. Proving intent can be difficult when it's so easy for a government official to have plausible deniability by simply saying "I'm just doing my job." They might claim their intent is to "make the world safe for democracy" and/or "safeguard US national interests."

Even if they might possibly have some secret agenda with ill intent, there may not be any way that can be reliably proven, but they can be called out if they fail to achieve their stated objective. I think we have a system which is far too forgiving and indulgent towards bureaucrats and civil servants when they fail to do their duty or use incredibly bad judgment. We've seen it happen with bad cops all too often, but it's not just with cops.

The failure also extends to the people who endorsed them by voting for them.

Yes, ultimately, the voters are to blame for whom they elect, and along the same lines, most of the public tends to act like followers instead of leaders. If it's supposed to be a "government of the people," then "the people" have to be leaders, not followers. Among other things, it means they have to think clearly. Even if they might err and choose the wrong candidate at the polls, they still need to understand the issues and decide what they think is best for the country.

And, quite frankly, I think too many people are also too forgiving and too indulgent of bad politicians and other bad officials. The people need to toughen up.

This behaviour is characteristic of one of the Pauline traits, namely pride (2 Corinthians 11:5)

Or maybe Proverbs 16:18.

A few historical clues are the 1942 Foo Fighters, the 1942 battle of Los Angeles, Operation Highjump (1946), Roswell (1947), and the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The military context for Palestine involved the Havara Agreement and Menachem Begin's Irgun, responsible for the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel.

Well...yeah. The events of history that led us to where we are today are important to consider, as well as they lessons we might benefit from by studying past mistakes.
Some things might still be in the realm of "mystery," or at least not officially acknowledged by government or any other institution of standing. I take most conspiracy theories under advisement, but I neither believe nor disbelieve. I put it more in the category of "to be determined at a later date."

 

[Revoltingest]

That has not been my experience. Since many libertarians who associate themselves strongly with the modern Trumpublican Party do espouse more authoritarian views in line with Republican policies on social issues such as abortion.

Can you name any such public figures?
No Libertarian I know believes as you say.
BTW, I see your trick....
I addressed capital "L" Libertarians, ie, the party.
You addressed lower case "l" libertarians.

Also I smell some over-generalization here, ie,
making writ large your claimed authoritarian
libertarian acquaintances in order to claim
we're more authoritarian than liberals.
But it's liberals who created civil forfeiture,
who favor hate speech laws, who want price
controls, who want government to take over
more private industries, who expand the takings
clause to property for private use, who restrict
the right to jury trials, etc.

That is just not true about most liberals, but it is a straw man argument that those who oppose almost any gun regulation like to repeat.

You don't know what "straw man" means.
I say that most liberals do tend towards
more authoritarianism. You're failing to
recognize disagreement.
But it's fun to lob "straw man" accusations,
eh. Merely disagreeing lacks drama.

Many are gun owners, just like Harris and Walz. They argue for pretty much the same things you do.

Oh, really.
"Pretty much" is an over-reach.
Although there would be some things in common.
And I'd likely go even farther with training requirements.

When you say "many", that could be any number, even a very small percentage. Instead of "many", tell us what percentage you think it is and on what basis you arrive at it.

I quantified my claims just as much as you did yours.

Yes, and I think you, I, and most liberals agree on that. Gun bans? Nope. That's a Republican trope and a canard.

You deny there aren't liberals who want gun bans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nevermind me; I'm not the thread topic & frankly neither is your hijacking of this thread by changing it into a gun grabber debate.


And no one ought to be getting arrested for that.


Do you want a dictatorship?


False! He won in 2016 and becames POTUS back then - did you forget?

Were we a dictatorship during his presidency & if so, did he impose gun control? If he did, why are the pro-gun rights voters supporting him so much?

What you're saying makes no sense.


What counter example? I refuted your claims.

No, you did not refute anything. You only showed that you do not know how to debate.

 

[Copernicus]

Can you name any such public figures?
No Libertarian I know believes as you say.
BTW, I see your trick....
I addressed capital "L" Libertarians, ie, the party.
You addressed lower case "l" libertarians.

Honestly, I do not know about any Libertarian public figures, because I do not follow their party politics. You do, and my have wanted to limit your remarks to just those whom you consider to be party members. The fairly few Libertarians I know (including you) are not in any way authoritarian in my opinion, but they represent an extremely small segment of the voting population, AFAICT. Most people who call themselves libertarians do not seem to care much about the political party of the same name.

Also I smell some over-generalization here, ie, making writ large your claimed authoritarian libertarian acquaintances in order to claim we're more authoritarian than liberals. But it's liberals who created civil forfeiture, who favor hate speech laws, who want price controls, who want government to take over
more private industries, who expand the takings clause to property for private use, who restrict the right to jury trials, etc.

Rev, I have put in boldface all of the above unsupported claims that you made that I totally disagree with. Moderate Democrats were involved in some of those, but liberals have tended to oppose them. So I do not know where this is coming from other than perhaps Republican tropes that have wormed their way into libertarian discourse. Civil forfeiture, for example, has a very long history, and it seems to have had some very conservative Republican sponsors. Some of its more prominent critics are prominent liberals, such as political satirist John Oliver. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that liberals want government to take over any, let alone more, private industries. Pretty much all US liberals favor market reforms to increase competition, not socialist takeovers of industries.

You don't know what "straw man" means. I say that most liberals do tend towards more authoritarianism. You're failing to recognize disagreement. But it's fun to lob "straw man" accusations, eh. Merely disagreeing lacks drama.

No, I'm saying that many of the things you say about liberals are simply not real positions that they take, but conservative misrepresentations of liberal positions. Maybe some of that has to do with differences of opinion on the difference between liberal progressives and moderates within the Democratic party. In your mind, perhaps the two different wings of the Democratic base blend together. In my mind, they advocate for very different policies.

Many are gun owners, just like Harris and Walz. They argue for pretty much the same things you do.

Oh, really. "Pretty much" is an over-reach. Although there would be some things in common. And I'd likely go even farther with training requirements.

I don't see the daylight between their announced positions and yours, but you apparently feel it is significant.

I quantified my claims just as much as you did yours.

Fair enough. If you can rest your argument on the vague quantifier "many", I don't see why mine must be more specific. That was my point, after all.

You deny there aren't liberals who want gun bans?

Well, that's a good example of a straw man. I never said or implied anything of the sort. You can find self-described liberals who believe all sorts of claptrap. Same for libertarians and conservatives. The question is what you mean by "many". Now you have escalated to "most" in claiming that liberals tend towards authoritarianism. A slightly less vague, but equally gratuitous, bald assertion that I categorically reject.

 

[anotherneil]

No, you did not refute anything. You only showed that you do not know how to debate.

You can believe this if you wish, but our audience will be able to determine for themselves whether they agree with you or me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Toning down his violent, racist, misogynistic rhetoric would also help, but he wants to keep himself at the top of the news cycle.

I'm not sure it would.

I think a lot of his base would interpret that as a betrayal, which would put him at even higher risk of violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Honestly, I do not know about any Libertarian public figures, because I do not follow their party politics. You do, and my have wanted to limit your remarks to just those whom you consider to be party members.

I did.
Read it again (underlining added)....
"Libertarians are the only ones tending away from it.
We're the only party with liberty as the foundation."

Platform | Libertarian Party

As adopted by convention, May 2022, Sparks, Nevada. Download PDF

www.lp.org

The fairly few Libertarians I know (including you) are not in any way authoritarian in my opinion, but they represent an extremely small segment of the voting population, AFAICT.

The population of either Libertarians or libertarians?

Most people who call themselves libertarians do not seem to care much about the political party of the same name.

Many who aren't libertarians call themselves such,
eg, "left libertarians", who believe in socialism (ie,
economic authoritarianism), some conservatives
who lean a wee bit in our direction, but whose
knuckles still trample liberty.

Rev, I have put in boldface all of the above unsupported claims that you made that I totally disagree with.

Your claims are even less supported....just anonymous
un-quoted discussions with a few claimed libertarians.
So I advise against making that your hill to die upon.

Support: Compare the campaign platforms & exhortations
of Trump, Harris, & Oliver. You'll observe the level of
authoritarianism of each.
Are you familiar, or need I search & provide for you?

Moderate Democrats were involved in some of those, but liberals have tended to oppose them. So I do not know where this is coming from other than perhaps Republican tropes that have wormed their way into libertarian discourse. Civil forfeiture, for example, has a very long history, and it seems to have had some very conservative Republican sponsors. Some of its more prominent critics are prominent liberals, such as political satirist John Oliver. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that liberals want government to take over any, let alone more, private industries. Pretty much all US liberals favor market reforms to increase competition, not socialist takeovers of industries.

No, I'm saying that many of the things you say about liberals are simply not real positions that they take, but conservative misrepresentations of liberal positions. Maybe some of that has to do with differences of opinion on the difference between liberal progressives and moderates within the Democratic party. In your mind, perhaps the two different wings of the Democratic base blend together. In my mind, they advocate for very different policies.

I don't see the daylight between their announced positions and yours, but you apparently feel it is significant.

Fair enough. If you can rest your argument on the vague quantifier "many", I don't see why mine must be more specific. That was my point, after all.

Well, that's a good example of a straw man. I never said or implied anything of the sort. You can find self-described liberals who believe all sorts of claptrap. Same for libertarians and conservatives. The question is what you mean by "many". Now you have escalated to "most" in claiming that liberals tend towards authoritarianism. A slightly less vague, but equally gratuitous, bald assertion that I categorically reject.

You seem in denial of mainstream liberal programs & advocacy.
And I sense some of that liberal disdain for libertarians.
But I forgive you. We are extreme & far from your norms.

Some easily verified examples....
Biden: National rent control, civil forfeiture (ie, cops can
legally confiscate & keep any of our cash they find without
due process), foreign adventurism, supporting genocide in
Gaza, opposition to gay marriage (until recently).
Harris: Price controls on groceries
On RF: Criminalizing hate speech

I grant that liberals & conservatives each have some
areas where they're pro liberty, eg, abortion & regulation
respectively. They even have common ground with
Libertarians at times. But your putting Libertarians in
the same authoritarian camps as Dems & Pubs is specious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

View attachment 97274

I bet they're in on it, right? I bet they hired that shooter!
Have you ever met a conspiracy theory you didn't like?

He wasn't. He fired through the fence.

"The suspect did not fire his weapon during the incident."

What we know about the apparent Trump assassination attempt

The suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, remains in custody and has been charged with firearm offences.

www.bbc.com

 

[Revoltingest]

I bet they're in on it, right? I bet they hired that shooter!
Have you ever met a conspiracy theory you didn't like?

"The suspect did not fire his weapon during the incident."

What we know about the apparent Trump assassination attempt

The suspect, Ryan Wesley Routh, remains in custody and has been charged with firearm offences.

www.bbc.com

If Dems had hired an assassin, we wouldn't expect....
- Sticking his un-camouflaged out of the fauna.
(Snipers disguise the barrel to break up its outline.
They also keep the barrel behind their "hide".)
- Using an SKS or AK or clone. Those have poor
accuracy at distance.

IMO the ideal weapon would be a Springfield M1A
(the accurized Supermatch version). Use match
grade 308 HPBT rounds. Scope would be a
Springfield 3rd gen with ballistic compensation.
All reliable, dirt simple, & accurate to 1,000 yards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can believe this if you wish, but our audience will be able to determine for themselves whether they agree with you or me.

Yes they will. Do you seriously think that helps you?

 

[Kathryn]

The shooter never got a shot off. However, his vehicle was reported by a woman who saw something weird and reported it to the sheriff's office.

 

[Ponder This]

Trump proved -- by his own actions, and the actions of those who bow to his every whim, during and ever since the 2020 election that there is no measure he would not take to defeat the electorate in favor of himself.

This is all playful, of course, but it has been thought of before: the Agatha Christie novel "A Murder is Announced" tells the story of a woman who faked her own attempted assassination (with a bullet to the ear, no less!) in order to get away with a murder of her own. Now, I'll admit it's excessively unlikely Trump read a whole novel, but it has been made into film a couple of times, so he could have seen it.

Apparently, Trump was willing to take the measure of leaving office after 2020.

That you are "playful" (as opposed to serious) about Trump faking assassination attempts against himself is noted.
Considering that every bullet fired at Trump's rally will be accounted for and investigated thoroughly... there must be a significant conspiracy to accompany this fantasy. Playfully, of course, who else is involved?