🔴🔴DONALD TRUMP has been shot🔴🔴

[ry474k3]

Of course. Government in its operations IS Democracy. But we the people have a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy = group dictatorship.

Republic makes everybody the ruler of his own castle, so to speak.

Guys hold the phone and take a deep breath because this is an historical moment in bitcointalk history. BADecker has actually said something that is factual  and correct :

What did you expect from an agency run by a woman because of gender parity?

Did you see the lady agent taking her weapon out and flapping it about with the holster still attached?
The whole thing was a clusterfuck.
https://rumble.com/v575hln-this-video-of-trumps-assassin-changes-everything-redacted-with-clayton-morr.html



[moderator's note: multiple posts have been merged]

[Hispo]

...

Do you know who's going to be the next president? The one that survives

I have already seen some people on the internet suggesting this disaster was all because the chief of the secret services happens to be a woman, instead of a man, and thus o my because of that, she is alledgedly unable to serve properly. Don't get me wrong, I believe that indeed hiring someone because of their skin color or their gender, instead of their actual skills could very bad, specially if we talk about federal agencies.
Though, I lean more towards the possibly this was just people within the team of Trump getting confidence on the actual level of threat over their boss, they have gone through hundred of rallies and nothing happened, eventually they violate their own security protocols.

Also, it is ironic how you talk about presidential candidates surviving one another. Biden because of his age and Trump because there was someone out there who wanted him dead and was willing to act on it.

[Vod]

I have already seen some people on the internet suggesting this disaster was all because the chief of the secret services happens to be a woman, instead of a man, and thus o my because of that, she is alledgedly unable to serve properly.

Yes - women have more empathy than men, and might be slower to kill a person.  However, she does not pass down those sexual traits to the hundreds of agents that were working that day.    The ones in the field operate on the training they received in the academy.  Unless there is an official memo from the chief that says "Delay firing if you feel she could be on her mensies", we cannot blame the chief for this one.  Blame the academy.

[codIuni]

There are questions for those from the USA. Are you left or right? Who is better for you, Biden or Trump? Treat

[ry474k3]

There are questions for those from the USA. Are you left or right? Who is better for you, Biden or Trump? Treat

We value freedom of choice and I choose to be in the middle but some days I am up and on other days I am down but rarely lean to the left or the right in case I fall over.

[Hispo]

I have already seen some people on the internet suggesting this disaster was all because the chief of the secret services happens to be a woman, instead of a man, and thus o my because of that, she is alledgedly unable to serve properly.

Yes - women have more empathy than men, and might be slower to kill a person.  However, she does not pass down those sexual traits to the hundreds of agents that were working that day.    The ones in the field operate on the training they received in the academy.  Unless there is an official memo from the chief that says "Delay firing if you feel she could be on her mensies", we cannot blame the chief for this one.  Blame the academy.

Blame the academy or whoever was behind the scenes who did not greenlight further action... According to information I have seen circulating online, the counter-sniper team of president Trump had the threat on sight for several minutes and there were not given authorization to shoot first on the target. Though, It resulted in the death of one person and the others injured, to me it sounds logical for the counter-sniper not to shoot first, it would have brought several legal problems on the table if the secret service killed someone first and asked questions second, there would definitely be lawsuits on the table against the secret service and the one who pulled the trigger.
To me, this is a situation which was never supposed to escalate to the point of the counter snipers being the ones calling the shoots, whoever was tasked with clearing the roofs prior Trump getting on the stage has more responsibility.

I cannot help but to think it is kind of disturbing to remember we are talking about a young man of ,20 years old, at that stage of life one is not supposed to seek to kill the president...

[YADAYADA]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.



 It looks like he was radicalized like most anarchist marxists are. The real culprits are those who bring about destruction of the peace through radical policies and ideaologies that are not conducive to the American way of life. Liberty and freedom for all and the right to pursue happiness cannot be ensured by radicals whether they are extreme left or right. Extremists in politics and education and all other critical areas in civil society are the real culprit.

I am not sure why that post above was deleted but what I say goes BOTH ways. Radical right wing policies whether they be so called liberal or conservative or a mixture of both can cause the same butterfly effect.

For example president Trumps pick for VP is very telling in what the idealism is behind the "other" sides objectives are and that is putting aside the so called project 2025.

For anyone remotely interested in where this could be going read as follows:


Your new VP has a hero. You see where this is going right? An authoritarian technocracy ruled by an appointed "Chaiman of the board" and technocrats like Elon Musk ,Peter Thiel, along with hidden elite 3rd parties represented by the likes of RKF et al. The "sustainable , technocratic and authoritarian" future is being planned on BOTH sides of the fence whether is left or right.


During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as primary influences on his political and religious views.

Yarvin's reading of Thomas Carlyle convinced him that libertarianism was a doomed project without the inclusion of authoritarianism,



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameralism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-2024-election-rcna162222


In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure. The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch. Yarvin admires Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism, and the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime. He sees the US as soft on crime, dominated by economic and democratic delusions.

In many thousand words’ worth of blog posts over the past 15 years, computer programmer and tech startup founder Curtis Yarvin has laid out a critique of American democracy: arguing that it’s liberals in elite academic institutions, media outlets, and the permanent bureaucracy who hold true power in this declining country, while the US executive branch has become weak, incompetent, and captured. But he stands out among right-wing commentators for being probably the single person who’s spent the most time gaming out how, exactly, the US government could be toppled and replaced — “rebooted” or “reset,” as he likes to say — with a monarch, CEO, or dictator at the helm. Yarvin argues that a creative and visionary leader — a “startup guy,” like, he says, Napoleon or Lenin was — should seize absolute power, dismantle the old regime, and build something new in its place.

So there you have it folks. It appears now especially after the recent supreme court ruling that the "chaiman of the board" might soon become a "King". Let that sink in to all you who spout nonsense about a republic and land of the free and home of the brave. The ignorant masses will have their glorious leader it seems.

[paxmao]

And meanwhile many are just concerned with inflation.

But Trump is not a libertarian, he was kind of booed by them. Trump is happy to USE libertarianism to his own goals, as anything else including black and Latino that are badly affected by inflation but will get the short end of the stick in their assess.

[coolcoinz]

Did you see the lady agent taking her weapon out and flapping it about with the holster still attached?
The whole thing was a clusterfuck.
https://rumble.com/v575hln-this-video-of-trumps-assassin-changes-everything-redacted-with-clayton-morr.html

I'm not 100% sure but the lady who couldn't holster the weapon is apparently the director of the SS. Imagine that!
What would a group of doctors in a hospital say if the boss couldn't do a surgery because her hands are shaky?

They say ann interesting thing in that program you've linked. For instance that the best vantage point in the area (water tower) had nobody on it, but a lake on the other side was secured. I guess it's because they were afraid of a gunman emerging from the lake and shooting Trump

[Vod]

to me it sounds logical for the counter-sniper not to shoot first, it would have brought several legal problems on the table if the secret service killed someone first and asked questions second, there would definitely be lawsuits on the table against the secret service and the one who pulled the trigger.

I think the SS would have been protected from liability by killing a man with a rifle crawling on a roof towards a political leader.   (At least here in Canada intent plays a big deal.)  On the other hand, now they do have a lawsuit (probably) for allowing that innocent civilian to be killed. 

[BADecker]

There seems to be a whole lot of 'stuff' that the SS did or didn't do, that points to the idea that they might have been part of the Trump assassination attempt.


New evidence points to complicity of SECRET SERVICE in Trump's attempted assassination - https://banned.video/watch?id=6697b4744b02c82ba5fbf70b

[Hispo]

to me it sounds logical for the counter-sniper not to shoot first, it would have brought several legal problems on the table if the secret service killed someone first and asked questions second, there would definitely be lawsuits on the table against the secret service and the one who pulled the trigger.

I think the SS would have been protected from liability by killing a man with a rifle crawling on a roof towards a political leader.   (At least here in Canada intent plays a big deal.)  On the other hand, now they do have a lawsuit (probably) for allowing that innocent civilian to be killed. 

Heh, these kind of events are difficult to end up without having to deal with a lawsuit, aren't they?
if it was not a lawsuit from the family of the shooter, then I would not be surprised if the family of Donald Trump would bring a lawsuit on the table because of alledgely allowing an armed person to climb up to a roof near the him.
Though, I don't have much knowledge to how far secret service immunity goes and what they are allowed to do and not.
A reasonable think to do would have been to neutralize the threat by non-lethal means, but I guess that was not possible.

[Severus111]

The first video below shows better what could have occured if he did not turn his head to the right at that exact moment. The one beneath it is a call he had with RFK jr describing what happened at that moment.


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1813624953289248768/pu/vid/avc1/540x540/z9MeIJLQlMMXTcg6.mp4

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1813260454476546048/vid/avc1/1280x720/BzdhavIFAET-6Ou3.mp4

[paxmao]

to me it sounds logical for the counter-sniper not to shoot first, it would have brought several legal problems on the table if the secret service killed someone first and asked questions second, there would definitely be lawsuits on the table against the secret service and the one who pulled the trigger.

I think the SS would have been protected from liability by killing a man with a rifle crawling on a roof towards a political leader.   (At least here in Canada intent plays a big deal.)  On the other hand, now they do have a lawsuit (probably) for allowing that innocent civilian to be killed. 

Yep, they are not supposed to shoot at anything that moves, they are supposed to see if there is actually an identified threat. Besides, the snipers are NOT looking at 150 meters, they  are supposed to be covering no closer than 500 m and oftentimes 1 km onwards.

The failure was well before that - firstly on the threat and location analysis, secondly on the search an surveillance, and lastly in not having a few guys around close enough.

[BADecker]

Not only is there logic for the Secret Service being involved, now there is evidence.


New evidence points to complicity of SECRET SERVICE in Trump's attempted assassination - https://banned.video/watch?id=6697b4744b02c82ba5fbf70b


You might be tempted to say, if they wanted Trump dead, all they would need to do is shoot him. But it isn't that simple. They don't want the whole world to see just how deep the Deep State has penetrated government. Also, they don't want a formal rebellion by the people. So, they need to play the game carefully.

Trump is partially in prison, with the SS as his closest guards. And he knows it... now if not before. Find the video of Trump walking into the RNC at Milwaukee. Look closely at his face as he walks in. More and more the look of defeat. The "fight, fight, fight" at Milwaukee doesn't have the strength that it did before. Trump knows that the SS is his enemy, and that they are just playing the game carefully to avoid rebellion.


If you really want to get a clear understanding of what is going on in general, watch this video - under an hour - really good.
WE ARE ALL ROAD KILL ON THE ROAD TO HELL-ERNIE HANCOCK - https://rumble.com/v57cwb5-we-are-all-road-kill-on-the-road-to-hell-ernie-hancock.html

[YADAYADA]

ALL politicans are either puppets or actors for the hidden hand at this stage.

[BADecker]

ALL politicans are either puppets or actors for the hidden hand at this stage.

And in the US, it doesn't matter, if we understand who and what we are, and how 'they' can't even attack us if we don't agree to let them.

The one, major danger is a potential change to the Constitution and Amendments. SCOTUS can only go so far in twisting interpretations of Amendments and Constitution. The important thing is to not allow a Con-Con (Constitutional Convention) where Amendments can be changed, dropped or added.

[FelixDeSuza]

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Trump-Harris debate, it's going to be fun. At least someone can really mess up someone's rating.

[Hispo]

ALL politicans are either puppets or actors for the hidden hand at this stage.

And in the US, it doesn't matter, if we understand who and what we are, and how 'they' can't even attack us if we don't agree to let them.

The one, major danger is a potential change to the Constitution and Amendments. SCOTUS can only go so far in twisting interpretations of Amendments and Constitution. The important thing is to not allow a Con-Con (Constitutional Convention) where Amendments can be changed, dropped or added.

I once asked a friend whether it was possible for the United States to celebrate a constitutional referendum and choose to change their constitution completely, that friend (he lives in New York, by the way) told me that was impossible and even trying to do so would spark a hot civil war in the country, he had no doubt about that, quite scary.
That little conversation I had with him was very interesting and got me thinking, if there are so many countries around the world and even here in the Americas which have decided to re-write their constitution in this decade or the past one, what is the big deal with the United States calling their people to update their most fundamental laws and voting with what to change and what to keep? Chile is a good example of a democratic country which peacefully has decided to change their constitution a couple of years ago and it is still one of the best countries in Latin America.