There's been another assassination attempt on Trump

[Postvieww]

When your argument amounts to an appeal to authority ("This guy used to be a Secret Service agent- he knows what he's talking about and has sources!"), pointing out that your "authority" is a known liar and a raving lunatic is a valid counter. You don't have any facts to present - you're just parroting Bongino and asking us to take his word for it, which we can't, because his word is worthless.

You have no evidence Bongino is “ a known liar “. That is just the typical liberal response to information that does not align with liberal narrative.

 

[Postvieww]

I Challenge everyone to watch at least the first 30 min of this video. It explains much of what is happening right now in this country. Hans, this is on your trusted YouTube so I encourage you to at least give this video some consideration without multiple excuses why you can’t watch any of it. Don’t condemn this if anyone doesn’t watch it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You have no evidence Bongino is “ a known liar “.

Bet.

Bill O'Reilly on Instagram: "Bill denounces conservative radio host Dan Bongino for spreading a blatant lie."

1,146 likes, 423 comments - billoreilly on June 21, 2024: "Bill denounces conservative radio host Dan Bongino for spreading a blatant lie.".

www.instagram.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/dan-bongino-election-fraud-messaging-437164

Regardless, though, your argument relies on Bongino's credibility. If your audience does not find him credible, your argument fails. For the same reason, I wouldn't make an argument to you that relied solely on Rachael Maddow's credibility, for example.

 

[Postvieww]

Bet.

Bill O'Reilly on Instagram: "Bill denounces conservative radio host Dan Bongino for spreading a blatant lie."

1,146 likes, 423 comments - billoreilly on June 21, 2024: "Bill denounces conservative radio host Dan Bongino for spreading a blatant lie.".

www.instagram.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/dan-bongino-election-fraud-messaging-437164

Regardless, though, your argument relies on Bongino's credibility. If your audience does not find him credible, your argument fails. For the same reason, I wouldn't make an argument to you that relied solely on Rachael Maddow's credibility, for example.

Are you serious you call this hit piece proof. I believe the 2020 election was stolen do you now call me a “known liar “?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Are you serious you call this hit piece proof. I believe the 2020 election was stolen do you now call me a “known liar “?

At this point, anyone who still says that Trump actually won the 2020 election is either lying or has been completely hoodwinked by said liars. I couldn't say which category you would fall into.

 

[Postvieww]

Josh Hawley has a whistleblower who says previous protocol used in protecting Trump at the golf course was not used in this case? Why not? How did two seemingly unprofessional gunmen just happen to find themselves in the two unguarded spots left open by secret service failures. The answer should be obvious to reasonable thinking people. How many of these “failures” are to happen before we get answers? Why did DOJ so quickly release information from the last would be shooter about a $150,000 reward to whomever could succeed where he failed?

 

[Postvieww]

At this point, anyone who still says that Trump actually won the 2020 election is either lying or has been completely hoodwinked by said liars. I couldn't say which category you would fall into.

I’ll help you out. I have not been hoodwinked by anyone. I just look at the facts and avoid absorbing liberal propaganda.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I’ll help you out. I have not been hoodwinked by anyone. I just look at the facts and avoid absorbing liberal propaganda.

Mmhmm. And what facts would those be?

 

[Postvieww]

Mmhmm. And what facts would those be?

You may never know because most liberals choose to ignore them. By just simply refusing to acknowledge anyone other than another liberal has anything of value to say. It really is quite telling when liberals ask for facts and proofs but seldom ever directly engage on the substance but immediately disparage the source. So predictable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You may never know because most liberals choose to ignore them. By just simply refusing to acknowledge anyone other than another liberal has anything of value to say. It really is quite telling when liberals ask for facts and proofs but seldom ever directly engage on the substance but immediately disparage the source. So predictable.

That's what I thought.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I Challenge everyone to watch at least the first 30 min of this video. It explains much of what is happening right now in this country. Hans, this is on your trusted YouTube so I encourage you to at least give this video some consideration without multiple excuses why you can’t watch any of it. Don’t condemn this if anyone doesn’t watch it.

Why should I bother with a guy who failed to become a physicist? What expertise does he have? I've got better things to do that watch 30 minutes of someone who loves to hear himself talk.

 

[Postvieww]

Why should I bother with a guy who failed to become a physicist? What expertise does he have? I've got better things to do that watch 30 minutes of someone who loves to hear himself talk.

Oh my my you are so predictable. You always have time to scrutinize my posts but you are too busy to deal with anything that may show liberals as they really are. Tell us who is people you believe us beneath your intellect conservatives should listen to?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh my my you are so predictable. You always have time to scrutinize my posts but you are too busy to deal with anything that may show liberals as they really are. Tell us who is people you believe us beneath your intellect conservatives should listen to?

I gave weinstein a try, but he was just spouting off conspiracies about the international order and presidential candidates, which is not only ridiculous, but has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[Postvieww]

I gave weinstein a try, but he was just spouting off conspiracies about the international order and presidential candidates, which is not only ridiculous, but has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Weinstein clearly gave reasons why he believed Trump would not be “allowed “ to be President. Being that there have been 2 attempts on Trumps life that is relevant to the topic of this thread. I can always count on you to avoid dealing directly with any information not favorable to the liberal point of view.

 

[Postvieww]

Josh Hawley has a whistleblower who says previous protocol used in protecting Trump at the golf course was not used in this case? Why not? How did two seemingly unprofessional gunmen just happen to find themselves in the two unguarded spots left open by secret service failures. The answer should be obvious to reasonable thinking people. How many of these “failures” are to happen before we get answers? Why did DOJ so quickly release information from the last would be shooter about a $150,000 reward to whomever could succeed where he failed?

Any liberal out there willing to deal factually with the above post? I am not holding my breath.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Weinstein clearly gave reasons why he believed Trump would not be “allowed “ to be President. Being that there have been 2 attempts on Trumps life that is relevant to the topic of this thread. I can always count on you to avoid dealing directly with any information not favorable to the liberal point of view.

And I told you it was a dumb conspiracy theory.

 

[Postvieww]

And I told you it was a dumb conspiracy theory.

You tell me a lot, but come up short on facts and long on opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You tell me a lot, but come up short on facts and long on opinion.

Come on. The guy starts with a long ramble about how the international order of some sort only will tolerate US presidential candidates that also support them. And that Trump was the first one who didn't meet their satisifaction. I didn't need to wait for the long and rambling "conclusions" Eric yanks from his "intellect" to know that it would be a waste of my time to bother with anymore.

What I don't get is why you can't be bothered to write a paragraph or two summarizing some video's point. This is a text-based forum, not a YT channel.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Any liberal out there willing to deal factually with the above post? I am not holding my breath.

Sure.

Josh Hawley has a whistleblower who says previous protocol used in protecting Trump at the golf course was not used in this case?

What protocol that was used previously was not followed in this case?

Why not?

Why would I be able to answer this question? Without knowing what you're referring to, I can't even speculate.

How did two seemingly unprofessional gunmen just happen to find themselves in the two unguarded spots left open by secret service failures.

I can think of many possibilities. Incompetence, insufficient resources, miscommunication, last-minute changes to schedules leading to limited time to conduct security sweeps, you underestimating the abilities of the gunmen, or maliciousness. Could be more too - that's just what I could think off the top of my head.

The answer should be obvious to reasonable thinking people.

No one on this forum has the information needed to conclusively determine the reason (or reasons) from the list of possibilities I provided above. Your preconceptions may cause you to favor one over the others, but there is no public information out there - just speculation and opinion.

Why did DOJ so quickly release information from the last would be shooter about a $150,000 reward to whomever could succeed where he failed?

I believe that it was part of the justification for the charge of assassination, which they legally have to release as part of the indictment. It's not like he'd be able to pay up anyways.

 

[Postvieww]

What protocol that was used previously was not followed in this case?

Sweeping the perimeter and posting an agent at known spots of vunerabilities. This spot was known, it had been used previously by the press. Gunman was there about 12 hours prior.

I can think of many possibilities. Incompetence, insufficient resources, miscommunication, last-minute changes to schedules leading to limited time to conduct security sweeps, you underestimating the abilities of the gunmen, or maliciousness. Could be more too - that's just what I could think off the top of my head.

1. Incompetence: Highly unlikely from supposedly the worlds most elite protectection service wit a 3 billion + budget. If this is the case why in Ron Rowe still there?

2. Insufficient resources: USSS has boasted enhanced protection for Trump and has previously guarded this golf course supposedly with less and according to the whistle blower did not follow previous protocols in this case.

3. Miscommunication: Laughable to suggest this from an elite protection service with a 3 billion dollars budget and years of experience and coming off o major failure in Butler, PA, while claiming enhanced security for Trump.

4. Last Minute changes: Well explain how a gunman lay in wait for 12 hours? No excuse for not sending an advance team just ahead of Trump to sweep the perimeter and cover know vulnerabilities. Teams were ahead of Trump on the course why not outside the course as well?

Nothing you thought of off the top of your head excuses or explains what happened. More heads need to roll but that is highly unlikely from this administration.

No one on this forum has the information needed to conclusively determine the reason (or reasons) from the list of possibilities I provided above. Your preconceptions may cause you to favor one over the others, but there is no public information out there - just speculation and opinion.

We have more than enough information to know that two failures of this magnitude from the USSS in this short period of time in inexcusable when our government has known about plots to take out Trump for at least two years and most likely 4. In 2022 Fox News reported on an Iranian threat to Trump and others. Ron Rowe and others need to go. Matt Getz says a top level DOD official told him there are 5 known hit teams in the US, 3 foreign and 2 domestic. And what was the liberal response on this forum? Matt is an "unreliable source" never mind the threats have been there for several years . It is always shoot the messenger (not literally) from liberals and ignore the facts.

I believe that it was part of the justification for the charge of assassination, which they legally have to release as part of the indictment. It's not like he'd be able to pay up anyways.

Even if that is true there is no justification for releasing such information to the public. Indictments are sealed all the time , all evidence is not released to the public in many cases . This was a blatant ridiculas move that could inspire more crazies to act. This was not needed in the public forum to charge this gunman!

Poll: 28% of Democrats say U.S. better off if Trump were assassinated

(The Center Square) – More than a quarter of Democrats in a new poll said America would be better off if former President Donald Trump had been killed in Sunday's

www.thecentersquare.com

The above link shows a poll of 1000 registered Democrats voters. 28% percent shocking say the US would be better off if Trump were assassinated.

Food for thought if 28% of everyday voters feel that way how many Government workers or politicians who stand to lose power and influence if Trump is elected feel that way.

What has happened to Trump by all available evidence screams it was allowed to happen.