politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I hate that this is the new narrative, like violence against political opponents is a new thing in this country. Obama survived MULTIPLE assassination attempts. Bill Clinton and George Bush both survived multiple assassination attempts. Sectarian violence has been a thing in this country since its inception. The fact that the secret service failed to do their due diligence at policing the buildings surrounding Trump's latest rallies doesn't somehow mean that sectarian violence has reached some momentous peak. It simply means that people didn't do their jobs properly. Maybe because, like, why would they? I know that if I was a secret service agent assigned to the duty of watching after Trump, I wouldn't be particularly committed to the task. Maybe they felt the same way.
Edit: Here's the NY Times image of the vicinity surrounding the Trump rally. Why the fuck wasn't that place watched by the Secret Service? Any competent agency looking to protect someone would have 100% had agents watching that building.
I literally can't bring myself to respond to anything else you've said here because I clicked the Wikipedia link for assassination attempts on Obama, and learned that there was a plot to kill him with a Death Ray, and the leader of the group had actually constructed a partially working x-ray beam generator theoretically capable of delivering lethal doses of radiation over long distances.
Yeah; the FBI were doing undercover operations with them for 15 months before arresting them. I don't know any more details of the case than the wikipedia article highlights, but surely you'd have enough evidence to arrest people trying to build a death ray at some point prior to 15 months. Maybe our gov't just thought that their innovation was useful and figured they'd wait and see where they went with it.
Why would they pass up free R&D on a potential death ray?
They probably thought a death ray was total bullshit until suddenly it wasn’t
How is that not something that a lot more people know? That's nuts.
Did the secret service allow this? In the TMZ video of the return fire, it looks like the sniper on the roof was already aiming at the shooter well before he shot. And only after he shot did the sniper take him out.
Maybe coincidence...but seeing this level of incompetence from the secret service makes this whole thing seem very very fishy.
Did anyone even scatter when the gunfire went off? Thats a lot of shots. From the clips I've seen they stare.
I noticed that, too, but I just chalk that up to people freezing (fight, flight, freeze).
One interviewee said they thought it was fireworks.
The secret service are cops and ACAB holds as true as it always does.
But if the secret service had shot first it would be a VERY different news story. And while all the youtubes about how amazing the secret service are from former SS officers who now run private security firms talk about their training and planning... politics is their first priority. An SS officer who pulls out an uzi to protect a fallen president is one thing. An SS officer who pulls out an uzi to unload on someone who "might have a gun" is a very different story.
Yeah, but that guy definitely had a gun. It’s not as if one could easily conceal an A.R. 15 while sprawled on a rooftop.
It was kind of a perfect storm that is going to change how basically every protective force maintains security.
The shooter was (allegedly?) 130 something meters away.
Snipers are generally focused on distances greater than 150 meters. So it would be the guys with assault rifles who are responsible for targets within that radius. Their optics are going to heavily favor closer ranges and people (who play call of duty) very much overestimate just how good of a view you get through those optics. You have more than enough clarity to aim for a center mass shot or even a headshot but you aren't making out fine grain details.
So you have someone who has a large "something". Maybe you are hearing "it is a gun" from eyewitnesses but eyewitnesses are morons. So you have people squinting and trying to get a clear picture through fairly close range optics and trying to figure out if that is a rifle or a camera on a tripod or what. Because the people with "sniper scopes"? If they pivot to look at the shooter then they are now ignoring what they are ACTUALLY supposed to be watching and... that is a known tactic.
So you have secret service squinting while people are sprinting to go storm the building. Because even if it is a gunman, the best case scenario is to capture them alive so that the speech is not disrupted and you have zero risk of executing a civillian.
I feel like there's a difference between stopping and assassination plot and stopping an assassination attempt.
Sounds like this kid did it all on his own. Harder to stop a plot when you don't tell anyone.
I mean, sure. There were plenty of both.
Trump chose his secret service detail based on loyalty, not competence.