You realize that the line of argument you're making depends on the ability to predict the future perfectly, right?
I do, and the future under Trump is more of the same BS and undermining of our democratic pinnings…..I am 100% comfortable in my stance. DD
Oh wow -- Sam is so mad that his racism is coming out. So do you want Kamala Harris, whose father is from Jamaica and mother is from India, to be President? Would this be better for "the looks" of America? LOL Jamaica and India -- Sam's model countries for American leadership.
The way you see it is hardly how it is seen or practiced in the real world. The color of people's skin, what is between their legs, or what they like to do with the things between their legs, should, to the maximum extent possible, be the least considered part of someone's person as a potential employee.
It's basically simple math. If you force a number of 30 % [insert gender, race, etc.] into a job, you will get worse results. If you were to force a number of 30 % Asians in the NBA, the product would not be the same. If you were to force a number of 30 % women in the Navy Seals, the product would not be the same.
This is the most reasonable question I would have and it boils down to what they actually could see. There's a case for holding off action until the threat is evaluated. But not removing the target is harder to justify. The hardest is having no one either on the roof or observing behind the roof for the potential threat.
Is any of this real? That post by the "Thomas's Mom" talks about how his father was dead, but there are news stories quoting the father. https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/wo...s-donald-trump-during-rally-2024-07-14-941750
I mean, I assume they could see the guy had a rifle pointed at Trump for a while. Bystanders reported that they had been pointing the guy out to security forces for minutes. The sniper clearly had eyes on him. Why wait until he shoots...I just don't get it. It feels like a Lee Harvey Oswald situation. Let the guy do it, then take him out so he can't talk.
It's a normal reaction by those who have been cancelled or under threat of being cancelled. But there are those who would take it further and those who would be more forgiving upon evidence of repentance. But very few are willing to just let it go without even remorse.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4771083-trump-calls-unity-americans-shooting/ This is Trump's post 9/11 moment. Whether you like Bush or not, I think he did this country a great service after 9/11 regarding calling for peace and unity. He has religious leaders from most religions come to the White House to meet and give speeches. He helped prevent further religious extremism. This is nothing about his post 9/11 foreign policy. Now Trump, whether you like him or not, and whether you believe him or not, has the same opportunity. He has started off on the right foot: looking strong during the assassination attempt, thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement, and now calling for unity. This is nothing to do with how much blame he she get for the extreme rhetoric. This is about how to best move forward in squashing extremism.
My amateur perspective is the short cover agents would have been much better used to cover potential sniper nests than as less useful cover agents. I do think I would come up with the same thoughts before the benefit of 20 20 hindsight, but it's too late now to remove it from the exercise.
