01:00 The Secret Service’s Reckless Disregard For Donald Trump’s Safety, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=156382
1:25:00 The case for forcing the mentally ill into treatment, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-case-for-forcing-the-mentally-ill-into-treatment.html
1:36:00 Charles Murray. The collapse of the social sciences in the West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaCA7j9iLrA
1:41:00 Trump ASSASSINATION Plot Details REVEALED
1:44:00 I Wish The News Media Had Given Joe Biden As Much Scrutiny As An NFL Coach, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=156302
1:51:00 Stephen J. James joins the show
1:55:00 Candor vs courtesy
2:05:00 Is Lizzo attractive?
2:26:10 Stephen J. James reflects on his recent visit to America
3:25:00 Secret Service protocol is to not fire on a shooter until he fires first?
Podnotes summary: I’m reflecting on the Secret Service’s response during an incident where a shooter targeted Donald Trump. The assailant fired eight shots before being stopped by security. This raises questions about why law enforcement didn’t act sooner despite having the shooter in sight and warnings from the crowd.
I’m speaking from Los Angeles at 6:10 AM on July 14th, analyzing video footage of the event. It seems that trained snipers had ample time to react but failed to do so until after numerous shots were fired. Additionally, it’s perplexing that no officers were stationed on a nearby roof with a clear view of Trump—a prime spot for an attempt on his life.
The Secret Service is currently under scrutiny; their history includes scandals and apparent incompetence which overshadow their recent emphasis on diversity within their ranks. Despite this focus, there was still a significant lapse in protecting President Trump effectively.
Furthermore, some Democratic legislators have previously sought to remove Trump’s Secret Service protection—actions that align with rhetoric painting him as a danger to democracy. Such language can dangerously imply justification for violence against him.
In light of these events, one must question whether protocol was followed or if priorities were misplaced leading up to this serious breach in presidential security—an investigation led by agencies like the FBI will hopefully provide answers soon.
Lastly, while media coverage initially downplayed the situation as “loud noises” disrupting a rally rather than acknowledging it as an assassination attempt against Donald Trump—a narrative shift only occurred hours later when officials addressed it directly. This highlights potential bias and reluctance among news outlets when reporting incidents involving controversial figures like Trump.
Imagine if Trump hadn’t ducked when he did; he saved his life, that’s a fact. The evacuation failed; Secret Service should cover and evacuate but didn’t act right. Dan Bongino, an ex-agent, says they failed massively and suggests the director resigns due to repeated ignored security requests for Trump.
The Secret Service focused on trivial things like agents’ tie colors instead of real threats—such a failure in their primary duty: protecting lives. Structural issues within the organization lead to incompetence despite having capable individuals.
Dan emphasizes structural excellence over personalities; without it, even good people fail in their roles. This recent incident is not isolated but part of a pattern of Secret Service failures needing congressional investigation.
There was also criticism about gender diversity priorities potentially compromising physical capability requirements for protective agents—a controversial stance questioning women’s roles based on strength stereotypes.
After an assassination attempt on Trump, there were delays in official communication and speculation about motives and political violence biases—raising questions about law enforcement transparency and media narratives surrounding such incidents.
Tim Mc, a former security detail member for presidential and vice-presidential events, shared insights on Twitter about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. He explained that the Secret Service uses a multi-tiered defense system. The inner tier provides close protection; these are agents who rush to shield Trump after an incident. The second tier involves mid-range threat identification and response, often staffed by local law enforcement attached to the detail temporarily—this is where Tim worked.
The extended tier covers long-distance threats like snipers. When shots were fired at Trump, counter-snipers couldn’t react immediately because they focus on distant threats beyond 150 meters—the range within which the shooter appeared. Consequently, when responding to this closer threat, a sniper had to significantly adjust his aim.
A serious question arises: how could someone get onto a rooftop with clear sight of Trump despite prior scouting of vulnerable spots? It suggests there was a failure in the middle tier responsible for securing nearby buildings—a role typically filled by local law enforcement rather than Secret Service.
Witnesses reportedly saw someone with a gun but police failed to act quickly enough due to limited communication between local officers and Secret Service liaisons. This inefficiency can be exacerbated when multiple agencies work together without familiarity or adequate information sharing.
In 2004 during President Bush’s tenure, miscommunication nearly led to disaster when Secret Service mistook positioned SWAT teams as threats. Delays in identifying real threats can stem from confusion over whether armed individuals belong to security teams or not.
Blame for this breakdown seems directed at whoever was supposed to secure areas around buildings where shooters could perch—an assignment likely given to local law enforcement officers present at such events.
As investigations continue into new security measures following this event and its impact on political discourse surrounding Donald Trump’s safety becomes more heated, many questions remain unanswered regarding how such an attack could happen amidst supposedly tight security protocols.
New York magazine: Many people who worry about subway safety are infrequent riders. There’s a stigma against fearing subway violence, but it’s a justified fear that should be met with compassion. Some argue that disturbed individuals on the subway aren’t bothersome, ignoring the link between mental illness and violence. To truly help those with severe mental illnesses, we must grasp their deep-rooted issues.
New York City isn’t facing a surge in violent crime; there was an increase in murders and gun crimes in 2021 due to various debated reasons, including police reluctance. However, crime rates have since fallen significantly.
Despite lower crime rates, many New Yorkers still fear crime, especially on subways. This disconnect may stem from policies around mental illness treatment which are too lenient and endanger public safety. For instance, in Toronto 2015, a mentally ill woman killed someone but was released within seven years.
The U.S has struggled with treating severe mental illness since state psychiatric hospitals began closing after the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Today’s inadequate facilities and overburdened doctors can’t meet demand – yet some advocate for even less government intervention.
Contrary to popular belief among educated circles, we’ve become less heavy-handed with involuntary treatments due to policy changes like Medicaid incentivizing private care over state-run facilities.
The current approach is failing by most standards; reforms are needed to make it easier for professionals to treat individuals without consent when necessary.
After decades of tearing down institutional care options for the severely mentally ill and homeless populations at risk of untreated psychosis or paranoia – conditions linked to higher criminality – society hasn’t found effective solutions despite knowing better approaches exist.
Some resist acknowledging any connection between serious mental illness and violence under misguided social justice views while others incorrectly assert that because many groups are more likely victims than perpetrators of violent crimes this means they’re not more likely offenders themselves – this logic fails as it doesn’t accurately assess risks associated with untreated severe mental illnesses which studies show do correlate with increased likelihoods of committing grave acts of violence.
In summary: Fear of subway violence is rational given links between untreated severe mental illnesses and heightened risks of violent behavior; however societal attitudes towards treatment remain conflicted amid persistent misconceptions about danger levels posed by those suffering from such conditions despite clear evidence suggesting otherwise.
Luke: Many conservatives distrust mainstream media, citing delayed recognition of Joe Biden’s apparent cognitive decline—a topic not covered in academic articles despite many on Donald Trump’s fitness for office. In 2020, a study by public health experts found no evidence of major cognitive challenges for either Biden or Trump.
The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks from Pennsylvania, donated $15 to ActBlue after Biden’s inauguration but later registered as a Republican. His online presence is minimal with only speculation about his political activities.
A former Secret Service agent highlighted security concerns at rallies like Trump’s where securing all areas is challenging. Local law enforcement typically assists but it’s unclear if they secured the building where the shooter was positioned.
Molly Hemingway suggests Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray should recuse themselves from investigating this assassination attempt due to potential conflicts of interest.
In response to this incident, discussions have emerged about whether such moments will be remembered vividly like other historical events and how people engage with news through alternative media seeking candid perspectives over polished mainstream narratives. There’s also debate over when it’s appropriate to comment on someone’s physical appearance in public discourse—highlighting tensions between candor and courtesy.
Women often excel in various aspects of life. For instance, during TV interviews with female journalists, I tend to perform better; their presence motivates me to do well. Similarly, a caring conversation with a woman once reenergized me when I was battling fatigue on a film set.
Women can also be more effective in certain professional roles. Many talent bookers for TV shows are women because they excel at the job. Jane Goodall’s success is another example—she was specifically hired because it was believed that her nurturing qualities would make her ideal for studying chimpanzees.
However, there are times when being around attractive women can be distracting. If I were injured and attended by an attractive female agent, it might distract me from the task at hand due to natural attraction.
Discussing public figures candidly could lead to more honest conversations about their capabilities or shortcomings without unnecessary politeness masking important truths. This shift towards openness may mean acknowledging uncomfortable facts like Joe Biden’s aging or Kamala Harris’ perceived lack of competence without sugarcoating them.
Physical appearance does have an impact on how we’re treated and how we navigate through life—it’s almost unavoidable. While beauty standards still dominate places like Las Vegas where attractiveness is marketed heavily, views on body image are changing—with both positive and negative reactions to weight loss becoming apparent in society.
Ultimately though, while physicality plays a significant role in our lives and interactions with others—in many ways acting as destiny—it doesn’t define everything about us or our potential outcomes entirely.
People with mental illness commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.
Mike reacts by recalling an experience where he noticed a stark contrast between attendees at two parties—one with blue-collar workers and another with college-educated professionals—leading to a discussion on whether wealth influences attractiveness.
Claire argues that judging people solely on looks is shallow, advocating for evaluating individuals based on their honesty and willingness to accept facts. She also touches upon gender biases in society.
The conversation shifts to politics, discussing the portrayal of Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and how such rhetoric may incite violence. Claire condemns the media’s role in creating hostile atmospheres while emphasizing the need for greater scrutiny of journalists’ actions.
Mike adds his thoughts on free speech and double standards in public discourse, questioning what constitutes good or bad speech. The dialogue concludes with speculation about Joe Biden’s presidential campaign viability amid concerns about his mental fitness and potential successors if he withdraws from the race.
Finally, there are reflections on security measures following an assassination attempt at a Trump rally, highlighting issues within government competence rather than conspiracy theories.
Larry and his wife attended a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, an election battleground state. During the event, discourse escalated as President Biden was criticized for incendiary comments targeting Trump. The rhetoric on both sides has been heated; some have irresponsibly likened Trump to Hitler or called him a Nazi, stirring dangerous emotions.
The left’s language is under scrutiny following past events where political figures were targeted with violence. Now, after Biden’s remarks about putting Trump “in a bull’s eye,” concerns rise over potential harm fueled by such statements.
Political violence isn’t new in U.S. history; it has sadly recurred throughout time. Recent events have reignited these fears, prompting calls for calm and responsible speech from leaders across the spectrum.
As election tensions mount, Democrats express frustration with Biden’s candidacy while Republicans capitalize on recent incidents to bolster support for Trump. Some speculate whether this could shift electoral outcomes or even lead to changes in candidates.
Amidst security concerns following an assassination attempt at the rally—where heroic actions saved lives—the Secret Service faces criticism for not preventing the shooter’s access to a vantage point near President Trump.
This incident raises questions about resource allocation within federal agencies and their focus amidst rising political strife as America heads into another charged election season.
The Secret Service’s protocol is under fire for allowing a gunman to shoot eight times before responding. Critics argue that private security would have acted faster, deeming the Secret Service unfit for protecting figures like Donald Trump. Despite praise for a counter-sniper’s quick 3-second response, many view their performance as inadequate.
There are calls for transparency and regular updates from law enforcement to prevent conspiracy theories and political tension. Oversight has been welcomed by some who trust field agents but question leadership in Washington due to past controversies.
After the recent incident, there is an urgent need to review and change security protocols, just as they were transformed following Reagan’s shooting in 1981. The focus should be on preventing such events at outdoor venues which pose significant challenges.
Leadership must take responsibility, ensuring agencies have the resources needed solely for protection missions—nothing else should distract from this goal.
Updates are anticipated from both President Biden and the FBI regarding this matter and how it will be investigated further. Speaker Mike Johnson also announced a full House investigation into what led up to this event.
