WH Correspondent’s Dinner - Trump evacuated, shooter in lobby
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 437
- Views: 5K
- Politics
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
I think this whole incident can be summed up as follows:
1. It was not staged;
2. There were some factors that made it appear staged, including the fact that the Trump WH is a disinformation/propaganda factory;
3. It is unimportant except as another entry on the list of "hey we have too much political violence."
But I hate to say it -- our system of government almost begs for this sort of thing. The greater the inability to remove obviously unfit people from office, the more appealing violent removal appears. Let's start at the apex:
1. Monarch. Can literally only be removed violently. If the monarch keeps waging a destructive, evil war the only thing to do is regicide. I would consider that regicide appropriate and moral in some circumstances -- i.e. the Bolsheviks were justified in executing the Romanovs, as were the Jacobins in France.
2. Life tenured important people. This includes federal judges. When unsuitable people are given life terms, then death becomes the only way out. I was happy when Scalia died and so were a lot of liberals. Conservatives were fucking ecstatic when RBG passed. Life terms make it impossible to see people's existence in non-instrumental terms.
3. Presidents whose terms last four years no matter how deeply unpopular they are. Trump will be removed from office, but not fast enough to prevent harm. It increases the temptation to remove him other ways.
Parliamentary systems tend not to have these problems because everyone is removable. Our impeachment process exists in name only. And while we haven't come across this just yet because the issue is relatively new in the public mind, but;
4. Gerrymandered congressmen who will never lose their seats, no matter how awful.
1. It was not staged;
2. There were some factors that made it appear staged, including the fact that the Trump WH is a disinformation/propaganda factory;
3. It is unimportant except as another entry on the list of "hey we have too much political violence."
But I hate to say it -- our system of government almost begs for this sort of thing. The greater the inability to remove obviously unfit people from office, the more appealing violent removal appears. Let's start at the apex:
1. Monarch. Can literally only be removed violently. If the monarch keeps waging a destructive, evil war the only thing to do is regicide. I would consider that regicide appropriate and moral in some circumstances -- i.e. the Bolsheviks were justified in executing the Romanovs, as were the Jacobins in France.
2. Life tenured important people. This includes federal judges. When unsuitable people are given life terms, then death becomes the only way out. I was happy when Scalia died and so were a lot of liberals. Conservatives were fucking ecstatic when RBG passed. Life terms make it impossible to see people's existence in non-instrumental terms.
3. Presidents whose terms last four years no matter how deeply unpopular they are. Trump will be removed from office, but not fast enough to prevent harm. It increases the temptation to remove him other ways.
Parliamentary systems tend not to have these problems because everyone is removable. Our impeachment process exists in name only. And while we haven't come across this just yet because the issue is relatively new in the public mind, but;
4. Gerrymandered congressmen who will never lose their seats, no matter how awful.
- Messages
- 4,291
Calla and Ram only respond to the dog whistles. Even those two dumbasses realize there is no defending this shit show.
- Messages
- 4,291
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
The point here is that our system creates powerful incentives for rational violence. Not "rational = good" but "rational = impactful." Dobbs resulted in the deaths of many pregnant women (and the bad sickening of many more). How best to save those lives? Kill the justices before they overruled Roe. On the other side, we get guys like Eric Rudolph. If you think abortion is murder, how do you save those lives? You kill the justices who defend Roe.
I don't have a full solution, but it seems to be that the more we empower individuals (like the president or the 9 justices), the more temptation we create. This is only a third order reason why the unitary executive theory is terrible, but it is. And it's why we really need to deconcentrate power at the Supreme Court level.
I don't have a full solution, but it seems to be that the more we empower individuals (like the president or the 9 justices), the more temptation we create. This is only a third order reason why the unitary executive theory is terrible, but it is. And it's why we really need to deconcentrate power at the Supreme Court level.
Callatoroy
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,105
Lol. What more is there to say on Iran war that hasn’t been said? Zzl “everything about the war is terrible”. No chance for rational discussion with brainwashed people who never read an article that differs from their hoped for outcome. Might as well be talking to a brick wall.
You guys are so eat up with it you have convinced yourselves last night was staged. High level stupidity at its finest.
Again I ask when did you become against conspiracy theories?
I think there was a whole John Grisham book about this.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
1. Who is convinced that it was staged?
2. Everything about the war *is* terrible. It is mind-boggling that you call other people brainwashed. This war fails every single test of a just or even useful war. No defined goals or victory conditions. Even if there were, there is no plan to get there. It is incredibly blunt and bloody in execution. It has never been explained to the American people or found their support.
That's not brainwashing. That is just basic logical analysis.
3. The reason folks like you obsess about "TDS" is that it makes you feel better about yourself. You see smart educated people speaking truth, and you have no rebuttal. Not for lack of trying, but even you know that you lose arguments on the regular. So you dismiss the entire discourse as lunacy. It's a common move. Especially popular in totalitarian governments, organized religions and other systems in which rational discussion is not allowed.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
I don't read John Grisham. What was it?
Callatoroy
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,105
Of a privately funded project?
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
Do you know why we generally do not allow the government to be privately funded? Do you have any inkling of understanding?
- Messages
- 4,291
- Messages
- 4,653
that is quid pro quo...
The "private funders" will be repaid with taxpayer dollars ( they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts ) and with a few dollars going to Trump personally as a commission for making the deal.
The author of that article wasn't attending the dinner, just one of the related parties -- where the president was not located. The author complained how easy it was to get into the Hilton and into the party, but that does not seem much different than any press event. It is much, much easier to shoot reporters than presidents. If the shooter wanted to take out Wolf Blitzer, he could have accomplished that. Likewise, if the shooter wanted to crash the Vanity Fair party after the Oscars and take out Tom Cruise, he probably would have a pretty decent shot at that, too. We don't expect SS-level security at press gatherings, we expect it for the President, himself.
What Was the Security Like Inside Trump's 2026 WHCD?
Mediaite Editor in Chief Joe DePaolo was inside the Washington Hilton Saturday evening prior to the WHCD and was stunned to encounter such lax security.www.mediaite.com
You should be able to get some pretty basic ideas of the security measures that were not taken here.
And glad I was right before -- while not a "security expert", you apparently know well the additional measures the Washington Hilton has undertaken over the years to beef up security...
Rather than linking articles, why don't you specifically state what security measures the Hilton should have implemented to prevent this guy from running toward the event space with a gun? In general, if someone's plan of attack is to just run really fast with a gun (not a particularly great plan), there has to be some first layer of security that is breached. It is not like this guy actually got into the dinner.
- Messages
- 2,104
You don't understand why that's a problem (as said above, it's a quid pro quo), and that's the problem with you and rest of MAGAland.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 13,349
It's not only the quid pro quo aspect. It's also the leverage. Private funders give, ballroom starts getting built, private funders are like, "eh, maybe I don't want to do this after all." I mean, I suppose that is indirectly a quid pro quo but anyway.
If we could rely on private actors to deliver public goods, we wouldn't need a government. It has been shown consistently over history that private actors are not reliable in that way.
- Messages
- 3,564
You constantly pretend to want discussion and yet you constantly insult posters here like a child. Why is that?