The Catholic Message Board

I haven't heard of a serious assassination attempt on a President/major party nominee since the Reagan shooting. I remember one time somebody fired shots outside the White House awhile back. I don't even recall who the president was at the time. It was kind of not a serious attempt. But this is the second attempt on Trump's life in two months. The left's rhetoric is certainly working.

It's more than that, I think the Secret Service protection is intentionally bad and weak because the Deep State is hoping that eventually, they will be able to have a permanent solution to the "Trump problem" when an assassination attempt finally succeeds.

By doing this, they think that they are "protecting democracy" apparently unaware of the irony that if we have now reached the point where assassination is just a weapon to use against your opposition, it is not a democracy worth preserving.

Keep in mind, this is the same administration that responded to Tulsi Gabbard's criticism of Kamala Harris by labeling her (Tulsi) a "domestic terrorist" and putting her on the TSA "no-fly" list.

gherkin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 9:26 pm I haven't heard of a serious assassination attempt on a President/major party nominee since the Reagan shooting. I remember one time somebody fired shots outside the White House awhile back. I don't even recall who the president was at the time. It was kind of not a serious attempt. But this is the second attempt on Trump's life in two months. The left's rhetoric is certainly working.

I can't even think of another assassination attempt on a Presidential candidate apart from the, ah, successful one on RFK

George Wallace in 1972 I think?? Wound up putting him in a wheel chair....but I was only 8 years old, so I may be mis-remembering.

Doom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 11:37 pm It's more than that, I think the Secret Service protection is intentionally bad and weak because the Deep State is hoping that eventually, they will be able to have a permanent solution to the "Trump problem" when an assassination attempt finally succeeds.

By doing this, they think that they are "protecting democracy" apparently unaware of the irony that if we have now reached the point where assassination is just a weapon to use against your opposition, it is not a democracy worth preserving.

Keep in mind, this is the same administration that responded to Tulsi Gabbard's criticism of Kamala Harris by labeling her (Tulsi) a "domestic terrorist" and putting her on the TSA "no-fly" list.

I mean, the local sheriff is quoted as saying that because Trump isn't the sitting president, the protection around the golf course was not total. In other words, law enforcement knowingly allowed for there to be access for someone to attempt to assassinate Trump, in the same way they evidently allowed for a rooftop vantage in the first assassination attempt. Granted, the sheriff said this was standard practice, but given the fact that there had already been an assassination attempt on Trump, you might think the precautions would be increased. Evidently not.

Note that I am not saying that they knowingly allowed for possible shooting positions at the golf course with the hope or intention that someone would take advantage of one of those positions. That's not my point. I don't think that. My point is that they knew there were security gaps, they considered that standard practice, and they didn't see fit to close those gaps given the obviously increased risk factor here. Perhaps they will alter that approach in the future?

Meanwhile, the news story I read about the shooting, from the obviously trustworthy and unbiased ABC, took care to note that it was not clear that shooter was aiming his gun at Trump. I mean, of course, he might have just been in the bushes outside of where Trump was golfing, holding a rifle, because he was looking to pot some squirrels.

I'm kinda shocked that the MarLarGo grounds have a chain-link fence around them. Seriously? Heck, an inexpensive wooden privacy fence would be more secure. I would think they would have some sort of brick or stone wall around it.

And, yes, the Wallace assassination attempt was during his 1972 campaign for the Democratic ticket. Prior to that was the RFK assassination during his run for president.

And I have to say, as much as I dread another Trump Presidency, a Vance Presidency scares the socks off me!

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:02 pm I'm kinda shocked that the MarLarGo grounds have a chain-link fence around them. Seriously? Heck, an inexpensive wooden privacy fence would be more secure. I would think they would have some sort of brick or stone wall around it.

I don't know anything about the security at Mar-a-Lago but the course where he was golfing is a different place:

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:03 pm And I have to say, as much as I dread another Trump Presidency, a Vance Presidency scares the socks off me!

Because he's a millennial, right?

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 1:07 pm

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:03 pm And I have to say, as much as I dread another Trump Presidency, a Vance Presidency scares the socks off me!

Because he's a millennial, right?

That is not wrong, for sure! In the - debate? - with my son last night I said that MAYBE after Vance had another 20 years under his belt.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:56 pm

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:02 pm I'm kinda shocked that the MarLarGo grounds have a chain-link fence around them. Seriously? Heck, an inexpensive wooden privacy fence would be more secure. I would think they would have some sort of brick or stone wall around it.

I don't know anything about the security at Mar-a-Lago but the course where he was golfing is a different place:

florida.png

I'd think, with the security a former POTUS needs, he would have better fencing at all of his golf courses. The photos showed a chain link fence like in MY backyard.

I think Vance is fine, and Trump is a known quantity.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 5:42 pm I think Vance is fine, and Trump is a known quantity.

I used the term "monster we know is better than the monster we don't know". Honestly, I find it difficult to trust someone who makes bank off putting down people and fudging about his raising.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:43 am

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 5:42 pm I think Vance is fine, and Trump is a known quantity.

I used the term "monster we know is better than the monster we don't know". Honestly, I find it difficult to trust someone who makes bank off putting down people and fudging about his raising.

I dunno anything about whether he was fudging. I do know I read the book and didn't find it especially interesting or enlightening. But, then, in my late teens, early twenties, my four besties were Vermont hillbillies. There were no revelations about hillbilly life in Vance's book that I found at all surprising. I lived it myself with my buddies. I do think it's sad that Vance appears to be a Cuomo "Catholic". But I find it kind of hard to believe that if Trump were assassinated, Vance would win the election. I wonder if anyone's been bold enough to even try polling about that--not that I would imagine such polls would be very accurate.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:43 am

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 5:42 pm I think Vance is fine, and Trump is a known quantity.

I used the term "monster we know is better than the monster we don't know". Honestly, I find it difficult to trust someone who makes bank off putting down people and fudging about his raising.

Say more, what exactly did he fudge?

And do you find it easier to trust Harris or Walz (who has "fudged" a great deal about his background and has attacked Vance deceitfully) than Vance?

The book has been fact checked by several outlets, but, none of them are Fox News or National Review...

Parallel would be for me to write a book and claim that I grew up in a trailer house in Kentucky.

We did live in a mobile home, a model home that dad bought with every bell and whistle and even the decorator furniture, for a year in the town of my birth. It is across the river from Kentucky in Ohio (literally across the river, as a wee kid I'd stand in the backyard and watch junk float down the river). We moved away when I was 7 years old. I actually "grew up" in Missouri in a comfortable, middle class custom home that my dad designed which sits on acreage on a private lake.

Mr Vance grew up in his grandparents' middle-class home in suburban Ohio. That is a couple hundred miles from Appalachia.

If Tim Walz has written an autobiography, I'm unaware of it. I'm on the library waitlist for Kamala Harris' "The Truth We Hold"

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:30 pm The book has been fact checked by several outlets, but, none of them are Fox News or National Review...

Well I read one "fact check" (in the New Yorker - not sure why you would bring up Faux News or NR) and it turned out it was just missing detail, not that Vance had invented anything.

What are some of the things Vance claims in his book that didn't happen?

You can check here for some examples of Walz's tenuous relationship with the truth:
https://reason.com/2024/08/22/tim-walz-keeps-lying/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics ... index.html

One thing that's bothered me is his attacks on Vance for going to "Yale as a philosophy major" (this is a direct quote) which most people would probably take to mean that Vance majored in philosophy at Yale. But he didn't, he went to Yale Law after majoring in philosophy and political science at Ohio State. Now maybe what he said isn't strictly false, but the framing is dishonest.

peregrinator wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 2:23 pm

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:30 pm The book has been fact checked by several outlets, but, none of them are Fox News or National Review...

Well I read one "fact check" (in the New Yorker - not sure why you would bring up Faux News or NR) and it turned out it was just missing detail, not that Vance had invented anything.

What are some of the things Vance claims in his book that didn't happen?

As I said above, he did not grow up in Appalachia. I read it back when it came out, and while I do not recall the exact line "I was raised a poor white child in Appalachia", it was certainly the premise.

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 5:14 pm

peregrinator wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:56 pm

Kage_ar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2024 12:02 pm I'm kinda shocked that the MarLarGo grounds have a chain-link fence around them. Seriously? Heck, an inexpensive wooden privacy fence would be more secure. I would think they would have some sort of brick or stone wall around it.

I don't know anything about the security at Mar-a-Lago but the course where he was golfing is a different place:

florida.png

I'd think, with the security a former POTUS needs, he would have better fencing at all of his golf courses. The photos showed a chain link fence like in MY backyard.

But that almost sounds like you're saying Trump is at fault for not having done a better job at securing his own safety at his golf course. This isn't how secret service protection works, to my knowledge. It is the job of the agents to make secure the areas that their protectee enters: it's not the job of the protectee to secure himself. As I noted above, it appears to be standard practice to allow for non-total protection of former presidents, which apparently explains why shooting vantage points were left unsecured at the golf course. But if President Biden happened to own a golf course, and went golfing there, he'd have received total protection during the event irrespective of how well he'd fenced his own grounds.

My point is more that there have been two assassination attempts on Trump--the first of which clearly exploited an unsecured shooting position. Any brand-new infantry second lieutenant in the Army could have recognized that leaving that spot unsecured was a grave tactical error. And then despite the obviously heightened security risk posed by Trump's violent enemies, the secret service allowed yet another (potentially many other) dangerous security loopholes at the golf course. I'm hoping that perhaps lessons were learned this time around.

Any time a divisive public figure like Trump goes out in the open air, there's some kind of risk to him, and even the very best protection team can't foresee all potential dangers and fend them off. A dedicated assassin might be able to find a way. But leaving these obvious great, gaping holes in his security looks......