Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:34 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 7:31 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 6:53 am Man, as the details continue to emerge, the Secret Service only looks worse and worse...and worse. Talk about dropping the ball.

You happen to see the FOIA dump yesterday, relating to the frequency and reach of unauthorized access to Trump at Mar-a-Lago?

We’re all inclined to see what we want to see in these things, but it might well just be that we’re seeing the result of the Secret Service not having the resources to protect this particular protectee, and this particular protectee not having the willingness to modify the way he wants to live in order to help the Secret Service protect him.

But it seems, in this instance, as if they did have the resources to protect him -- secret service spotted him on the roof 20 minutes before he fired.

And then they shot him 20 seconds after he fired.

So it doesn't seem like a resource problem in this case.

I might attribute it more to what twocoach said -- you can't shoot him just because he's carrying a high powered rifle because carrying that weapon is not against the law.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:56 am Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 9:14 am I dunno, if I really wanted to protect someone, and I was one of the best at doing so, I'd try to hit his arm or hand - and if I missed and hit his head, well, wtf are you doing crawling on a roof with a rifle in the first place?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:56 am Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 10:43 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 8:56 am Ah, yea, I guess.
But again, they spotted him, and had 20 minutes to do something about it.
You have to know they saw him crawling on the roof aiming the gun - they must have just been waiting for him to actually fire.

Maybe fire a warning shot right by him?

For what? Pennsylvania is an Open Carry state. It is perfectly legal for him to be sitting there watching the speech while holding a rifle. You want the GOP nominee to shoot someone for executing their God given right to bear arms?!?

Welcome to the unintended consequences of open carry laws, where law enforcement is now put in a position where they cannot do anything to a person with a gun until AFTER the person with a gun does something illegal with that gun. Which means law enforcement can no longer prevent that from happening.

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:12 am This is a protected and policed event.
Normal security protocols would not suffice for this event.

The first local cop who saw the guy on the roof (if that report is true) is most at fault. There should have been communication to the entire security team that there was an unauthorized person on that roof.

They should have known every single spot that each of them are supposed to be, and there should have been spotters keeping an eye on EVERY single angle that had line of sight to that stage.
This is gone over several times in situational briefings and security plans. Team leaders question all members on their responsibilities and rules of engagement.

This guy should have been seen and neutralized prior to getting that shot off. Even if that simply meant getting Trumps fat ass to the ground.

This has systematic failure written all over it.

Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:12 am Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:26 am

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:12 am Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

Which leads me to the one logical conclusion: God saved Trump

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:37 am

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:26 am

Overlander wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:12 am Once again, a slight turn of his fat melon saved Trump.

Which leads me to the one logical conclusion: God saved Trump

Clearly

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:17 pm

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 3:47 pm You don't remember Muslims not being allowed in the country during the first (oh, about a) week that Trump was President as his puppeteers tested the courts?
Don't you remember pages of the EPA website literally disappearing?

That was just the warm up. If dt is Pres, life will change. His brand of politics is what young adults are learning now and it is horrible. The not being civil, the interruptions, the not knowing what one is talking about it. Life as we know it will not be pretty in 10 years. The wage gaps will be wider. The rich, taking more of what is ours (the air, the water, etc). you get the idea. You either want to blame someone (new RNC voters) or want a better future for your children (blue voters).

It's going to be cynical rent-seeking, everywhere you look. With precisely the effects you mention, and more - the tandem erosion of public spaces and the barest will for collective action are very much of a piece with the "polarization" that the polarizers will tell you they are against.

Project 2025 wants to eliminate NOAA and the National Weather Service

It’d be hard to imagine a government agency which does more for ordinary Americans and which has less to do with politics than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration It’s an organization dedicated to climate, oceans, weather, the country’s coasts, and environmental matters in general. It’s staffed with scientists, technicians, and administrators who, for the most part, pursued their careers out of a passion for the stuff NOAA deals with on a day-to-day basis.

The National Weather Service in particular, which operates under NOAA’s aegis, does just a couple of basic yet critical things but it does them very well: it forecasts the weather and issues warnings about severe weather. It makes the data it gathers and the forecasts and warnings it promulgates available to the public for free. It’s just an amazingly useful service. People may take it for granted but that’s also proof of just how useful and seamless it is. People assume it will always be there because it always has been there. And people like that it’s there.

But it won’t be there if Donald Trump gets elected and Republicans enact Project 2025, which seeks to basically eliminate it. From The Atlantic:

Charging for popular services that were previously free isn’t generally a winning political strategy. But hard-right policy makers appear poised to try to do just that should Republicans gain power in the next term. Project 2025—a nearly 900-page book of policy proposals published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation—states that an incoming administration should all but dissolve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under which the National Weather Service operates . . .

. . . NOAA “should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” Project 2025 reads. The proposals roughly amount to two main avenues of attack. First, it suggests that the NWS should eliminate its public-facing forecasts, focus on data gathering, and otherwise “fully commercialize its forecasting operations,” which the authors of the plan imply will improve, not limit, forecasts for all Americans. Then, NOAA’s scientific-research arm, which studies things such as Arctic-ice dynamics and how greenhouse gases behave (and which the document calls “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism”), should be aggressively shrunk.

Republicans want to do this for two reasons, one old, one newer.

The old reason first reared its head back in the 1990s when the private company AccuWeather lobbied Republicans — particularly Senator Rick Santorum — to hamstring the National Weather Service. It did this so that AccuWeather could better monetize its own service without a free competitor. Never mind that AccuWeather and other such companies get most of their raw data and much of their forecast modeling for free from the National Weather Service in the first place. In short: it’d be a straight money play for well-connected private sector players who want nothing more than to be rent-seekers.

The newer reason: Republicans don’t like that NOAA is observing the effects of climate change and it would like as few people to know about what’s really happening as possible. Again, NOAA is not politicizing this stuff. It’s not got a dog in the fight. It does not have employees writing op-eds or anything. It’s just collecting the data and conducting the modeling about what is actually happening in the world. Republicans don’t want people to know what’s happening in the world, however, because knowledge of what’s happening in the world immediately renders most Republican political priorities insanely unpopular.

I will admit that I am not wholly unbiased when it comes to this topic. As I’ve mentioned before, my father was a meteorologist technician and then a field office manager at the National Weather Service for nearly 40 years. A “weatherman” generically speaking. Because of that I saw first hand what the National Weather Service does, what it doesn’t do, how it interacts with the public, with aviators, with business, with TV news and even those rent-seeking private weather outfits. Sometimes I am accused for being too pro-government and New Deal-eyed optimistic about what it can do, but if I am a lot of that comes from watching how much good and useful stuff can come from a part of the government which seeks to do nothing other than provide a service for the public. It’s an agency that is as benign as could be, staffed by non-political people who overwhelmingly got into it because they simply love talking and thinking about weather. Sometimes they’re wrong about which way the wind blows, but with all apologies to Mr. Dylan, you do need a weatherman.

We can’t have that if Republicans take over, however, because that interferes with their mission to (a) privatize as much public money as they possibly can; and (b) hide factual information which complicates their economic and ideological agendas. That matters more to them than you or me knowing if a dangerous storm is coming or a farmer knowing if it’s a good time to plant. At least if we aren’t rich enough to pay some private company to tell us.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:41 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:17 pm

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 3:47 pm You don't remember Muslims not being allowed in the country during the first (oh, about a) week that Trump was President as his puppeteers tested the courts?
Don't you remember pages of the EPA website literally disappearing?

That was just the warm up. If dt is Pres, life will change. His brand of politics is what young adults are learning now and it is horrible. The not being civil, the interruptions, the not knowing what one is talking about it. Life as we know it will not be pretty in 10 years. The wage gaps will be wider. The rich, taking more of what is ours (the air, the water, etc). you get the idea. You either want to blame someone (new RNC voters) or want a better future for your children (blue voters).

It's going to be cynical rent-seeking, everywhere you look. With precisely the effects you mention, and more - the tandem erosion of public spaces and the barest will for collective action are very much of a piece with the "polarization" that the polarizers will tell you they are against.

To wit.

Project 2025 wants to eliminate NOAA and the National Weather Service

It’d be hard to imagine a government agency which does more for ordinary Americans and which has less to do with politics than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration It’s an organization dedicated to climate, oceans, weather, the country’s coasts, and environmental matters in general. It’s staffed with scientists, technicians, and administrators who, for the most part, pursued their careers out of a passion for the stuff NOAA deals with on a day-to-day basis.

The National Weather Service in particular, which operates under NOAA’s aegis, does just a couple of basic yet critical things but it does them very well: it forecasts the weather and issues warnings about severe weather. It makes the data it gathers and the forecasts and warnings it promulgates available to the public for free. It’s just an amazingly useful service. People may take it for granted but that’s also proof of just how useful and seamless it is. People assume it will always be there because it always has been there. And people like that it’s there.

But it won’t be there if Donald Trump gets elected and Republicans enact Project 2025, which seeks to basically eliminate it. From The Atlantic:

Charging for popular services that were previously free isn’t generally a winning political strategy. But hard-right policy makers appear poised to try to do just that should Republicans gain power in the next term. Project 2025—a nearly 900-page book of policy proposals published by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation—states that an incoming administration should all but dissolve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under which the National Weather Service operates . . .

. . . NOAA “should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” Project 2025 reads. The proposals roughly amount to two main avenues of attack. First, it suggests that the NWS should eliminate its public-facing forecasts, focus on data gathering, and otherwise “fully commercialize its forecasting operations,” which the authors of the plan imply will improve, not limit, forecasts for all Americans. Then, NOAA’s scientific-research arm, which studies things such as Arctic-ice dynamics and how greenhouse gases behave (and which the document calls “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism”), should be aggressively shrunk.

Republicans want to do this for two reasons, one old, one newer.

The old reason first reared its head back in the 1990s when the private company AccuWeather lobbied Republicans — particularly Senator Rick Santorum — to hamstring the National Weather Service. It did this so that AccuWeather could better monetize its own service without a free competitor. Never mind that AccuWeather and other such companies get most of their raw data and much of their forecast modeling for free from the National Weather Service in the first place. In short: it’d be a straight money play for well-connected private sector players who want nothing more than to be rent-seekers.

The newer reason: Republicans don’t like that NOAA is observing the effects of climate change and it would like as few people to know about what’s really happening as possible. Again, NOAA is not politicizing this stuff. It’s not got a dog in the fight. It does not have employees writing op-eds or anything. It’s just collecting the data and conducting the modeling about what is actually happening in the world. Republicans don’t want people to know what’s happening in the world, however, because knowledge of what’s happening in the world immediately renders most Republican political priorities insanely unpopular.

I will admit that I am not wholly unbiased when it comes to this topic. As I’ve mentioned before, my father was a meteorologist technician and then a field office manager at the National Weather Service for nearly 40 years. A “weatherman” generically speaking. Because of that I saw first hand what the National Weather Service does, what it doesn’t do, how it interacts with the public, with aviators, with business, with TV news and even those rent-seeking private weather outfits. Sometimes I am accused for being too pro-government and New Deal-eyed optimistic about what it can do, but if I am a lot of that comes from watching how much good and useful stuff can come from a part of the government which seeks to do nothing other than provide a service for the public. It’s an agency that is as benign as could be, staffed by non-political people who overwhelmingly got into it because they simply love talking and thinking about weather. Sometimes they’re wrong about which way the wind blows, but with all apologies to Mr. Dylan, you do need a weatherman.

We can’t have that if Republicans take over, however, because that interferes with their mission to (a) privatize as much public money as they possibly can; and (b) hide factual information which complicates their economic and ideological agendas. That matters more to them than you or me knowing if a dangerous storm is coming or a farmer knowing if it’s a good time to plant. At least if we aren’t rich enough to pay some private company to tell us.

https://cupofcoffee.beehiiv.com/p/cup-c ... ly-18-2024

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:09 pm when i want to know what the weather is doing. i look outside.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:09 pm when i want to know what the weather is doing. i look outside.