Ryuu96 said:
EricHiggin said:
Why are you assuming the worst of me and not them? How do you know that they didn't understand completely yet twist my words? Why did they only use quotes around "allowed"? Why aren't you questioning them?
Their point made no point about me, as you said, I'm not American, but it made a point about Americans, based on what I said, so I made a point about people worldwide, based on what they said. Again, you either need to question them, or assume you were wrong about words being twisted and that we both were just incorrect in our assumptions.
Who was and still is in control in the Gov? Were there known threats to Trump or other candidates like RFK? Did RFK not submit a big report showing that to be the case? Was the Gov proactive in making sure those candidates were kept as safe as reasonably possible with beefed up security? When you refuse protection to candidates, especially with the last name Kennedy, until candidates start getting shot at, when the temps are blazing hot which everyone is aware of, you can't help but question the choices the leadership is making. Anyone else we should blame? I remember being told a lot from 2016-2020 that everything boiled down to Trump and it was always his fault because he's the President. Is that not the case anymore? Those members were never questioned about that stance.
Should they get some credit for stopping it? Yes. Would most see things the same way if the tables were turned? Highly unlikely. That doesn't change the fact that after one attempt already, a second attempt was well in progress, and shouldn't have ever gotten that far.
|
Why are you assuming the worst of me and not them?
Because you twisted his words into something completely different that he never even came close to saying, meanwhile, he quoted you almost word for word, your response could have been a clarification but it wasn't. You also don't have exactly the best history in Politics, Permabanned from the US Politics thread, Permabanned from the Political Board entirely, both only lifted because there's a day limit on permabans. Criss receives the benefit of the doubt in this situation from me because I know him and because I know you and because Criss quoted your words almost exact. If you say someone "allows" something then Criss interpretation of that is very much a logical one to make.
I'm not answering your 20,000 questions, I know that tactic.
The ones responsible for Trump's security are the security services (shocking), that in these cases would be the Secret Service (Trump's own personal detail) and the local Police, which ironically, the Sherriff of the area was a Republican. I would place no blame on Democrats or Republicans in House/Senate/President or any other forms of political office outside of the security areas. The Secret Service were there and they failed to do their job correctly, the police also failed to secure the area, short of Joe Biden diving in front of the bullet himself there's nothing politicians could have done to prevent the fuck ups of the Secret Service and Police.
The 2nd attempt was a man with a gun going to Trump's golf course, he was nowhere near close to actually shooting Trump and Secret Service found him before he got the chance, Americans with guns isn't exactly a rare occurrence so it is no surprise that it "got that far" when America's entire culture revolves around guns and it being incredibly easy to access them but this was a case of the Secret Service actually doing their job, why? Because they caught dude before he could even get close to Trump and fire a shot, they caught the dude because they were properly patrolling the area, something they didn't do in the 1st attempt.
The Secret Service likely stop dozens of attempts on politicians that we never hear of because that's their job.
|
As you said, they quoted me almost word for word, so then why didn't they quote all of that, instead of just "allowed" instead?
So you honestly think what I said in reply to them, not only doesn't make any sense, but doesn't have anything to do with what they said?
They assume I'm like a "crazy" American conspiracy theorist by me using the word "allowing" attempts, and you think that makes perfect sense and is acceptable, yet I make a point about crazy conspiracy theorists who think the Trump attempts were hoaxes, and you think that makes no sense and is unacceptable? Really? C'mon Man!
I have also explained to you already that was not what I meant. Just because that's what they assumed, you assume the same? You didn't assume I was American. I didn't know if they were or not, so I took the time to look at their profile to be sure.
I hate to break it to you but your reasoning is flawed. At least on my part. Can't and won't speak for them. We all know who ends up getting the benefit in these forums. Was my prior ban legit? How many times since have I been a 'problem' in need of warning or an instaban? And no, I'm not talking about those who deem me a problem if I post anything in here, period.
So exaggerate and say I asked 20,000, not 4 or 5, which themselves make a point, yet don't retort them, if you could. Tactics all around I guess.
Was the account not that the agent saw the barrel of the gun sticking through the fence? Trump could've been seconds away from death. Americans have guns so it's no big deal, is not an excuse for allowing someone armed within range of a candidate. Wasn't it also the police who caught the gunman thanks to the citizens? The agents were far enough away that the gunman was able to get away in a vehicle, and was only caught because the public let the authorities know where the gunman kept heading during the chase.
They only tell the public of attempts when enough of the public is involved that they can't hide it? I don't buy it. Sure there may be the odd attempt that's best kept secret on rare occasions, but I doubt there's a long list of them. If the Service and agents are doing their job, attempts should be extremely rare.
Essay Pro