User

There was nothing specific about use of force against Trump. It was a standard SOP for all FBI warrant operations.

No, I am being factual. When you keep saying he drove into the crowd, it is important to point out that doesn't mean he ran into anyone physically. Even now, you say he "nearly" struck people. He either did or he did not. I am not aware of anyone being hit. Are you? Sigh... Here you go again, you get to towards the end of a discussion with me, where we have said numerous things, and now you make some vague claim about dishonesty. No, that is a dishonest game you play. If I said something dishonest, point out exactly what it was. What exactly did Perry fantasize about? What exactly did he research? Lets see you actually back up this nonsense. LOL, now you are comparing the lawlessness of taking over the streets with running a red light? They don't make eye rolls big enough. Again, he did not drive into anyone. Which facts were fictions? Which one? Name them. Enough of your games.

I literally just gave you 3 things beyond thoughts and prayers. You decryed them. Now you are back to the same lame comment I have already defeated. Again... I asked you what your solution is then. What actions? You claim to not be anti-gun, so this should be really interesting to see what your solutions are here that are not anti-gun.

There is always a need. It is basic SOP. If the FBI are going somewhere to effect a warrant, they operate from a standard SOP. Just because there are secret service there doesn't change this fact, and I am not even sure how many were there because Trump was not there at the time anyhow. If some staffer jumped on an FBI agent with a kitchen knife, they have use of force procedures as a matter of SOP. They don't just show up and presume that this time is the magical time where nothing could ever possibly go wrong.

Yeah, they had a warrant and executed that warrant. None of that was any kind of attempt to kill or shoot Trump or as you claimed "ordering a hit" Give me a break. That is nonsense. No one was authorized to murder anyone, let alone a political leader or Trump.

You try again.

You were the one pushing the simpleton only thoughts and prayers lie. Easy peasy, no thinking required. I brought up several measures folks do indeed support to help keep kids safe and then your knee jerk reaction was to be anti-gun against any of them. You say you are not anti-gun, but here you are again saying more people packing guns will not make kids safer and then proceed to mock our gun laws further... So, what is it you support then, to make kids safe in schools?

If you are not anti-gun, why are you here being anti-gun against allowing people to lawfully carry guns for their self defense to protect kids? To have law enforcement with guns to protect kids?

And here you just said you were not anti-gun... No, not almost all of the guns are bought legally by the shooters.

The FBI is authorized to shoot anyone as a matter of policy. This is such a dumb phony thing to be outraged over. If Trump picked up a knife and tried to stab an FBI agent... *GASP* they are authorized to shoot him. Duh. Any execution of a search warrant includes this language as a matter of SOP. They knew Trump was not there anyhow and they executed the search warrant when he was not there. This notion that they were somehow sent to shoot Trump is just nonsense. There was no hit ordered on Trump. That is an outright fiction.

So now you want to watch the little kids die and do nothing. LOL Remember, you just tried to claim folks had nothing but thoughts and prayers...

They did not make anything. There was no deal. If the Russians believed there was, they are fools. They are not fools though, they are just liars and you are here pushing their propaganda. You tried to claim there was a deal, and all you have is backroom discussions that were never made official. That is no deal.

Daniel Perry did. I clearly stated that and added more context here. There were indeed expert witnesses that evaluated how Foster was carrying the weapon as well. I am merely here to present factual information about what happened. You guys on the left support this lawlessness in the streets, these are the kinds of consequences that follow. I say, don't support lawlessness in the streets. That is my position. Driving into them? Who was hit? Who was injured? No one. He came to a stop. People then rushed his car. Including Foster with a firearm. I am not doubling down on anything more than pointing out the facts here.

Not true at all. There are numerous measures proposed to help stop and prevent these things from happening. Things like allowing teachers and others to be armed, better security, SRO's... Those on the political left here think putting up no gun signs and their wishful thinking and happy thoughts about gun free zones will protect kids.

If there is no official agreement, there is no official agreement. US leaders are members of NATO. The US does not control NATO or set all NATO policy like some dictatorship. They can't make any such promises on NATO's behalf. The fact that US leaders talked about it doesn't prove anything other than they talked about it. NATO has consistently expanded since its inception. Nothing in its charter prevents or precludes that. It has ALWAYS been an organization that expands. The only embarrassing thing here is how you and other Russian / Putin supporters push this garbage to somehow justify Putin invading Ukraine.

No, that is not accurate to what was claimed at all. Perry did not claim he merely had a gun, he claimed that he was raising the gun towards him, and that is when he feared for his life. You do not have to wait for someone to actually be shooting you before you defend yourself. This is simply a matter of fact for what Perry perceived and claimed, which is more than he simply had a rifle on a sling. Of course you are anti-gun. That has been your schtick with me for the last few days now. Who are you to judge what other's feelings are regarding their sincere thoughts and prayers?

Yes, by illegally protesting in the streets. They certainly did stop him. It is a road, meant for driving on. He was forced to stop because those people illegally taking over the streets were in his way. There is some video, and you can see after he comes to a stop, many in the crowd start running to swarm the vehicle, including Foster, who approaches him with a gun. Had they simply walked on past him and left him be, none of this would have ever happened. Had Foster simply walked on by and let him be, none of this would have ever happened. These are facts, trying to insult me doesn't make your case any better.

Is this a joke? "No formal deal was struck" There is either a deal or there isn't a deal. Talk about a deal doesn't equal a deal. There are no lies, there is no dishonor. There was no deal.

Where was a ruling not impartial? You have jumped a long way from a judges wife flying a flag to claiming they are not being impartial in their rulings.

Politicians? Which one was a mere politician? Everyone appointed had a career in law, as a judge before this. You clearly do not understand the meaning of "stack" the court. Replacing existing justices through the existing legal mechanisms is not "stacking" the court. Expanding the court and increasing its size in one go, beyond existing legal frameworks and norms to "stack" the court is stacking the court.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be political in its rulings. Its members are still people with families who participate in the normalcy of life and the world. There is no such absurd expectation that a family member can never engage in politics or merely flying a flag. I wonder, were you this outraged when RBG was outright attacking Trump in her public speech during the 2016 election?

The only wishful thinking I am guilty of being wrong about here was expecting you to respond directly to the things I say or provide some objective evidence to back up the garbage you assert. So, no real source for how NATO promised Russia no expansion?

The fact that he ran a red light (again, what amounted to a rolling stop on a right-hand turn) and was then stopped by the crowd... does not preclude the fact that the crowd then angrily surrounded his car, including Foster, who approached him with a gun. My description of events is accurate. What I said was quite clear: "When the left supports lawlessness in the streets like this, be prepared for the consequences. When you participate in lawlessness like this, carrying a rifle in a threatening way... be prepared for the consequences. "

I get it, you don't like guns, but this is just silly nonsense now. There are plenty of laws regarding guns that preclude gunfights in the streets over any dumb excuse...

You cited rules... where do any of them apply to this situation?