gehringer_2 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) 22 minutes ago, pfife said: Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/ Hit 'em where they live, Joe! This is a great move both as policy and as politics. I think it will be very popular with independents and will also help with disaffected/wavering progressives unhappy with the pace of change. Edited July 16 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 Everything in there is a photon torpedo to the heart of the Klingon bird of prey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 8 hours ago, oblong said: The right wings consoiracy on this is that it was because of DEI. That is why Trump removed all women from his secret service team this week (at least those around him that can be seen). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: Hit 'em where they live, Joe! This is a great move both as policy and as politics. I think it will be very popular with independents and will also help with disaffected/wavering progressives unhappy with the pace of change. I have been pretty down on his chances lately, but this is something that could actually make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: We are really supposed to believe that with added security someone got within 160 yards and not be detected? Does that seem like a rational conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben9753 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: We are really supposed to believe that with added security someone got within 160 yards and not be detected? Does that seem like a rational conclusion? What’s your rational conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I have been pretty down on his chances lately, but this is something that could actually make a difference. This is what Biden has been able to hold in reserve - the fact that he has a policy apparatus that can start making proposals that can drive voter interest and engagement. Let see if he can continue to make good use of it. And what does Trump have? Project 2025 if your taste is autocracy, and a Tax/Tariff proposal guaranteed to hammer the middle class, blow the budget to smithereens AND start an international trade war in one fell swoop. Edited July 16 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: That is why Trump removed all women from his secret service team this week (at least those around him that can be seen). When some people, men or women get put into high pressure scenarios they freeze up. This lady here did just that. Not saying she is there due to DEI but to get this level assignment I do question some things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 2 hours ago, oblong said: The normalization of this man and his family by our national media has been the most ... Disgusting thing. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 23 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: We are really supposed to believe that with added security someone got within 160 yards and not be detected? Does that seem like a rational conclusion? The funniest (sadly) comment I saw was from one of the LEO's about why the roof wasn't secured - something to the effect of "well someone would have needed a ladder to access that roof...... No kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 7 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: When some people, men or women get put into high pressure scenarios they freeze up. This lady here did just that. Not saying she is there due to DEI but to get this level assignment I do question some things. Those don’t tell me anything. We don’t know their policies and procedures. Lots of armchair QB going on with the replies in that post. We don’t know what the lady crouching downs job was in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: The funniest (sadly) comment I saw was from one of the LEO's about why the roof wasn't secured - something to the effect of "well someone would have needed a ladder to access that roof...... No kidding? A $150 drone could have secured an area twice as big as 160 yards. I'm not sure why any drones weren't used. It's time for some conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1776 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) You really can’t make this stuff up.. Embattled Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle has a bizarre explanation for the agency’s failure to secure the rooftop used by the shooter who attempted to assassinate former president Donald Trump over the weekend. “That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” Cheatle told ABC News in an exchange that was not included in the outlet’s write-up of the interview nor the published transcript. Edited July 16 by 1776 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 Just now, Sports_Freak said: A $150 drone could have secured an area twice as big as 160 yards. I'm not sure why any drones weren't used. It's time for some conspiracy theories. There is one drawback in putting drones up, and this is maintaining FOF ID. There may be a feeling that keeping the sky completely clear is the least ambiguous way to maintain security - anything that is flying can be assumed hostile. That's just a spitball though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 minute ago, oblong said: Those don’t tell me anything. We don’t know their policies and procedures. Lots of armchair QB going on with the replies in that post. We don’t know what the lady crouching downs job was in that situation. She attempted to holster her weapon 3-4 times and finally gave up. That part was my point. The moment got too big for her. That should have been picked up during her vetting process but mistake get made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 6 minutes ago, 1776 said: You really can’t make this stuff up.. Embattled Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle has a bizarre explanation for the agency’s failure to secure the rooftop used by the shooter who attempted to assassinate former president Donald Trump over the weekend. “That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,” Cheatle told ABC News in an exchange that was not included in the outlet’s write-up of the interview nor the published transcript. so that's some kind of special slope unlike the slope on all the other buildings we've seen sharpshooters on ever since 9/11? Like maybe slopes at angles from non-Euclidean geometry or something? (won't even mention that last time I looked there was pretty much no-place in the US where you couldn't rent a cherry picker,,,,,) Edited July 17 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben9753 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Remember those brave not DEI men who stopped the Texas schools shooter? /s 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Just to veer off topic a little and make a general observation. We see so many of these kinds of institutional failures because people simply have no *imagination* anymore. "Well we didn't think anyone would do that." is the modern excuse de jure. Maybe it's being spoon fed passive video entertainment for a lifetime, maybe it's helicopter parenting, maybe it's fluoridation, IDK, but the inability of people to game out obvious possibilities seems to be getting worse all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 48 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: When some people, men or women get put into high pressure scenarios they freeze up. This lady here did just that. Not saying she is there due to DEI but to get this level assignment I do question some things. One of them froze, so they got rid of all three? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 23 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Just to veer off topic a little and make a general observation. We see so many of these kinds of institutional failures because people simply have no *imagination* anymore. "Well we didn't think anyone would do that." is the modern excuse de jure. Maybe it's being spoon fed passive video entertainment for a lifetime, maybe it's helicopter parenting, maybe it's fluoridation, IDK, but the inability of people to game out obvious possibilities seems to be getting worse all the time. I bet Trump gamed out that scenario for years - getting up after getting injured and showing his stength to his fans. That was the perfect storm for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said: We are really supposed to believe that with added security someone got within 160 yards and not be detected? Does that seem like a rational conclusion? Somebody obviously screwed up whether it be poor planning or somebody just not doing their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 lol. omg. So the narrative is to blame DEI hiring, more specifically, THE WOMEN. I suppose I should be surprised that some feel very comfortable to offer that supposition without even a modicum of embarrassment. I’m not. It’s rapidly becoming the new normal here in the future Gilead. Praise be, bitch-es. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 28 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Just to veer off topic a little and make a general observation. We see so many of these kinds of institutional failures because people simply have no *imagination* anymore. "Well we didn't think anyone would do that." is the modern excuse de jure. Maybe it's being spoon fed passive video entertainment for a lifetime, maybe it's helicopter parenting, maybe it's fluoridation, IDK, but the inability of people to game out obvious possibilities seems to be getting worse all the time. MAGA will tell you the problem is too many blacks and women in leadership positions. I’m sure there’s some part of Project 2025 that will address it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 We have gone 43 years without a shooting at a protected and suddenly they don’t know what they are doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Just now, Hongbit said: MAGA will tell you the problem is too many blacks and women in leadership positions. I’m sure there’s some part of Project 2025 that will address it. I also like the inversion of the risk equation. Why should the risk involved in providing a certain aspect of the job mean you get a pass on doing it? Isn't it obvious that the perp will exactly pick a position he thinks you think will be too much trouble? If putting *your* man in the spot is risky, then you still have to find a way to provide the security for the spot without putting your man at risk, you don't just punt. How hard would it have been to put eyes at two corners of the building so no-one could put a ladder up unseen? It's really amazingly incompetent. And that's not Cheatle, all she is doing is not throwing her people under the bus - she didn't do the local planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.