Secret Service wants Trump’s campaign to not schedule large outdoor rallies and events

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
Brilliant. So we have a USSS that says this now after they allowed the damage to begin with. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Guess who's still running the USSS? Yup, same people that was running the USSS since Jan 2021.

Evidence is showing the USSS knew the shooter was there before Trump was even on the stage. Explain THAT

The Director did, they identified him as 'suspicious' and not a 'threat'; maybe therein lies the failure.

She never offered proof for who made that determination so quickly. Alarm Bells sounding 🤣🤣🤣🤣

What does it matter who? What matters is whether or not their operational strategies work well in all known and potential (unknown) situations. Perhaps thinking outside their box is what is required.

What does it matter? 🤣🤣🤣 It matters because it failed (or it was a success). This roof was a few hundred feet away from Trump and they knew somebody was there that wasn't supposed to be 🤣🤣🤣🤣

No, I asked why does who matter not why what matters.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

There was simply no excuse. The simple fact that Cheatle even mentioned the roof pitch (slope) at all just SCREAMS inexperience and lack of qualifications, just SCREAMS it. T

In more ways than one.


She's either too stupid to protect the protectees or she's too stupid to cover her own behind.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: FlyersFan

Exactly, the scene was not secure because outdoor spaces is where most political assassinations happen and that is the main reason for failures, not DEI.

But The USSS had the other roofs secured. Why not the roofs a few hundred feet away? 🤣🤣✅

She did say there was 'oversight' but where was the 'oversight' on that other 'oversight'?

She never said the oversights were standard. I bet they were intentional. The real "oversights" and WHY they were "overlooked" is coming out later. 😃✅

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

You said Trump agrees. Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees? Why change your subject now?? The dead link you posted doesn't quote Trump agreeing. 🤓

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

I am not left. I am not for Trump. I am not for Harris. I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion, where can I find it?

Nothing but more election interference from the "save democracy" democrats...

originally posted by: quintessentone
I am not left.

yes you are.

I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion,

Oh? When are you going to start with that?
Haven't seen it out of you .... ever.


Trump has not agreed that outdoor rallies are a bad idea.
No one has quoted him saying that.
So people need to stop claiming that he did.

Trump said he can't have any outdoor rallies IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
Not until the Secret Service gets their sh!t together and does their job right.
And that'll take them dismantling their woke DEI agenda that they
have been operating under for the past two years. And that'll take
a full overhaul of assessing personnel and training etc etc.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: quintessentone
I am not left.

yes you are.

I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion,

Oh? When are you going to start with that?
Haven't seen it out of you .... ever.


Trump has not agreed that outdoor rallies are a bad idea.
No one has quoted him saying that.
So people need to stop claiming that he did.

Trump said he can't have any outdoor rallies IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
Not until the Secret Service gets their sh!t together and does their job right.
And that'll take them dismantling their woke DEI agenda that they
have been operating under for the past two years. And that'll take
a full overhaul of assessing personnel and training etc etc.

I have voted Conservative, Liberal and Green, so if that makes me the evil "Left" then it's only in your mind.

Any protection service may never be able to protect anyone in a large outdoor venue and it may have nothing to do with DEI hires or failed strategic planning, because it would be an impossible mission to begin with.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
Brilliant. So we have a USSS that says this now after they allowed the damage to begin with. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Guess who's still running the USSS? Yup, same people that was running the USSS since Jan 2021.

Evidence is showing the USSS knew the shooter was there before Trump was even on the stage. Explain THAT

The Director did, they identified him as 'suspicious' and not a 'threat'; maybe therein lies the failure.

She never offered proof for who made that determination so quickly. Alarm Bells sounding 🤣🤣🤣🤣

What does it matter who? What matters is whether or not their operational strategies work well in all known and potential (unknown) situations. Perhaps thinking outside their box is what is required.

What does it matter? 🤣🤣🤣 It matters because it failed (or it was a success). This roof was a few hundred feet away from Trump and they knew somebody was there that wasn't supposed to be 🤣🤣🤣🤣

No, I asked why does who matter not why what matters.

Read what you just wrote. It makes exactly zero sense.

But then again, it's almost a direct quote out of the Killary play-book, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"...you might as well have just come out and said it. You know you wanted to.

After the fact, it is a very convenient excuse to use in order to obfuscate the guilty. It sounds a lot cooler than saying..."LOOK!! Over there!!...a shiny object!"...and then everyone knows what you really meant.

LOL!

originally posted by: quintessentone
... it would be an impossible mission to begin with.

No it's not. Simply putting an agent on that roof like one should have been would have made the rally 'mission accomplished' for the Secret Service instead of 'mission failure'. There is nothing 'mission impossible' about the Butler rally. Security was executed with incompetence. That's not 'mission impossible' ... that's 'mission failure' due to human error.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen
Brilliant. So we have a USSS that says this now after they allowed the damage to begin with. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Guess who's still running the USSS? Yup, same people that was running the USSS since Jan 2021.

Evidence is showing the USSS knew the shooter was there before Trump was even on the stage. Explain THAT

The Director did, they identified him as 'suspicious' and not a 'threat'; maybe therein lies the failure.

She never offered proof for who made that determination so quickly. Alarm Bells sounding 🤣🤣🤣🤣

What does it matter who? What matters is whether or not their operational strategies work well in all known and potential (unknown) situations. Perhaps thinking outside their box is what is required.

What does it matter? 🤣🤣🤣 It matters because it failed (or it was a success). This roof was a few hundred feet away from Trump and they knew somebody was there that wasn't supposed to be 🤣🤣🤣🤣

No, I asked why does who matter not why what matters.

Read what you just wrote. It makes exactly zero sense.

But then again, it's almost a direct quote out of the Killary play-book, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"...you might as well have just come out and said it. You know you wanted to.

After the fact, it is a very convenient excuse to use in order to obfuscate the guilty. It sounds a lot cooler than saying..."LOOK!! Over there!!...a shiny object!"...and then everyone knows what you really meant.

LOL!

I asked, why 'who' matters, and not ask why the 'what' matters. Clearer for you?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

I am not left. I am not for Trump. I am not for Harris. I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion, where can I find it?

FWIW quintessentone I enjoy seeing your contrarian responses here but FWIW Ive been on X and Discord and other spaces in regards to the general and specific topic

Your dismissive and impossible viewpoints are essentially walking and talking like a duck, ergo they have a daffy tone to them. Respectfully of course.

Not to get too esoteric but you mentioned impossible, imagine where humanity would be if everybody throughout history looked at an issue and declared it impossible.

You and I both would be scratching our azzes, drawing pictures on a cave wall to communicate.

Butler had its challenges but as Ive mentioned a couple of hundred feet of well-placed curtains would have eliminated Crooks's vantage point completely,

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

I am not left. I am not for Trump. I am not for Harris. I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion, where can I find it?

I see the issue now. You have to look for facts, dig into reports. Find corroborating evidence to back up those facts. And most importantly, you have to be willing to accept facts that go counter to your narrative. Discussion is 100% on you and your ability to convey rational thought.

Waiting for others to give you facts is why you have to ask this quesiton.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

I am not left. I am not for Trump. I am not for Harris. I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion, where can I find it?

FWIW quintessentone I enjoy seeing your contrarian responses here but FWIW Ive been on X and Discord and other spaces in regards to the general and specific topic

Your dismissive and impossible viewpoints are essentially walking and talking like a duck, ergo they have a daffy tone to them. Respectfully of course.

Not to get too esoteric but you mentioned impossible, imagine where humanity would be if everybody throughout history looked at an issue and declared it impossible.

You and I both would be scratching our azzes, drawing pictures on a cave wall to communicate.

Butler had its challenges but as Ive mentioned a couple of hundred feet of well-placed curtains would have eliminated Crooks's vantage point completely,

Exactly, so it's challenging and maybe some impossible strategic operations and not DEI, do you agree? That is my whole position here and on other threads.

a reply to: quintessentone

you are equating the DEI aspect to only dealing with Cheatle being a woman. That has nothing to do with any of this. Even the small little girl trying to protect Trump isn't what this is about. It's about the hiring process.

With DEI, you ONLY select applicants who fit a certain criteria. Female, of color, or whatever characteristic that is needed for the Diversity aspect. In some jobs, that's fine. It's stupid as you eliminate possible qualified applicants by using an idiotic method in the hiring process, but if it's your company, and it's not someone's life on the line, let it fail due to stupidity. But when lives are on the line, like security or military, diversity needs to be ignored. Merit based hiring is the only factor that should be used. Find the best out of ALL the options. And if your entire basketball team is a bunch of 7 foot black kids, then so be it, they showed they were the most qualified to do the job. Or is that racist?

eta:
a real life impact of this is playing out in front of us all. Harris was chosen because Biden said he was going to pick a Black Woman as VP. he came close. But he didn't pick out of a pool of highly qualified choices, he picked from a small group of women who were already in politics. That's ignorant, and as soon as the sugar high wears off, everyone will see that for what it is.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

you are equating the DEI aspect to only dealing with Cheatle being a woman. That has nothing to do with any of this. Even the small little girl trying to protect Trump isn't what this is about. It's about the hiring process.

With DEI, you ONLY select applicants who fit a certain criteria. Female, of color, or whatever characteristic that is needed for the Diversity aspect. In some jobs, that's fine. It's stupid as you eliminate possible qualified applicants by using an idiotic method in the hiring process, but if it's your company, and it's not someone's life on the line, let it fail due to stupidity. But when lives are on the line, like security or military, diversity needs to be ignored. Merit based hiring is the only factor that should be used. Find the best out of ALL the options. And if your entire basketball team is a bunch of 7 foot black kids, then so be it, they showed they were the most qualified to do the job. Or is that racist?

Exactly, so for the position of SS Director she was selected for her decades of experience and her coming up the ranks just like all the other male Directors, is that a reasonable deduction?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone
Trump agrees it's a bad idea to hold large outdoor rallies.

www.nbcnews.com...

Why can't you quote where Trump said he agrees ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If Trump "plans" to stop holding outdoor rallies does it not stand to reason, to you, that he agrees to stop holding outdoor rallies?

so now, "stands to reason" is equal to "fact"? I had no idea the rules had changed yet again.

So are you saying Trump disagrees with holding large outdoor rallies but is forcing himself to because he has no choice, while also saying that he will still hold small outdoor rallies. Where is the critical thinking?

so you are saying Trump will manage the country way better than someone placed there because of her skin color and gender?

Will anyone placed there manage the country for all the people? Doubtful.

based on what was said, Trump wants to make the US energy dominant, prosperous, and work towards self sufficiency. In doing that, the byproduct is a better, safer, more prosperous nation. A nation we all live in. You can be angry all day every day because he's mean and orange. And you can do it from the security of a better place. Or we can continue down the path we are on. Which is the way Harris will go.

Trump had his chance previously, and the national debt is out of control, so no soap.

But Harris gets a pass? She has been #2 for the last 3.5 years silly.

I am not left. I am not for Trump. I am not for Harris. I am for reasonable and fact based political discussion, where can I find it?

I see the issue now. You have to look for facts, dig into reports. Find corroborating evidence to back up those facts. And most importantly, you have to be willing to accept facts that go counter to your narrative. Discussion is 100% on you and your ability to convey rational thought.

Waiting for others to give you facts is why you have to ask this quesiton.

I ask for others to provide sources to back up their claims, which they rarely do, is the issue here.