CdnFox Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bennie-thompson-secret-services-rfk-1892371 a prominent House Democrat has introduced new legislation that would strip felons of Secret Service protection, specifically mentioning former President Donald Trump in case he's convicted in one or more of his criminal trials. Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, is bringing forth the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act—or the DISGRACED Act—which would terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of either state or local felonies. Trump, whose first of four criminal trials involving hush money payments and alleged falsified records prior to the 2016 presidential election, is specifically mentioned by Thompson as someone whose protection privileges would be affected should he be found guilty. ----------------- Ok - that is beyond scummy even for the Dems. I get that they're scared he might win again - but to strip a former president of his protections is basically saying you want to see someone kill him. Like - it was BAD when they subverted democracy to try to keep him off of the ballot, but to actually try to put his life in direct danger to satisfy their petty political ambitions? This is absolutely horrible. I've never bought into the whole 'democrats hate democracy and will do anything to cheat to victory' storyline. I 've always thought 'sure they fight dirty but they still respect the basics of democracy. I am prepared at this point to admit i was wrong. The democrat politi9cians are horrible people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 Kennedy isn't getting protection. Joe's handlers want him out of the race so they are willing to force him to pay for his own protection or risk suffering the fate of his ancestors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 20 Author Report Share Posted April 20 8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Kennedy isn't getting protection. Joe's handlers want him out of the race so they are willing to force him to pay for his own protection or risk suffering the fate of his ancestors. I handn't heard that but it's believable of course given this. There's just some lines you don't cross. It doesn't matter how partisan politics gets you don't do certain things, They've gone far over a line here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 (edited) On 4/20/2024 at 3:34 AM, CdnFox said: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bennie-thompson-secret-services-rfk-1892371 a prominent House Democrat has introduced new legislation that would strip felons of Secret Service protection, specifically mentioning former President Donald Trump in case he's convicted in one or more of his criminal trials. Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, is bringing forth the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act—or the DISGRACED Act—which would terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of either state or local felonies. Trump, whose first of four criminal trials involving hush money payments and alleged falsified records prior to the 2016 presidential election, is specifically mentioned by Thompson as someone whose protection privileges would be affected should he be found guilty. ----------------- Ok - that is beyond scummy even for the Dems. I get that they're scared he might win again - but to strip a former president of his protections is basically saying you want to see someone kill him. Like - it was BAD when they subverted democracy to try to keep him off of the ballot, but to actually try to put his life in direct danger to satisfy their petty political ambitions? This is absolutely horrible. I've never bought into the whole 'democrats hate democracy and will do anything to cheat to victory' storyline. I 've always thought 'sure they fight dirty but they still respect the basics of democracy. I am prepared at this point to admit i was wrong. The democrat politi9cians are horrible people. Looks like tike the democrat party is trying to communicate something without actually saying it. No doubt it's sinister as f*ck.... Edited April 21 by Deluge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 21 Author Report Share Posted April 21 3 hours ago, Deluge said: Looks like tike the democrat party is trying to communicate something without actually saying it. No doubt it's sinister as f*ck.... Well what they are saying is "trump is so evil he doesnt' deserve to live so we won't stop someone from killing him". These are the SAME people who claim that trump should be punished for using 'excessive rhetoric' leading to Jan 6. They are actively encouraging the murder of their political opponents with this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Well what they are saying is "trump is so evil he doesnt' deserve to live so we won't stop someone from killing him". These are the SAME people who claim that trump should be punished for using 'excessive rhetoric' leading to Jan 6. They are actively encouraging the murder of their political opponents with this. It would certainly save them the trouble of manufacturing all these bullshit lawsuits. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 On 4/20/2024 at 3:43 PM, CdnFox said: I handn't heard that but it's believable of course given this. There's just some lines you don't cross. It doesn't matter how partisan politics gets you don't do certain things, They've gone far over a line here. There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caswell Thomas Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 On 4/20/2024 at 2:34 AM, CdnFox said: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-bennie-thompson-secret-services-rfk-1892371 a prominent House Democrat has introduced new legislation that would strip felons of Secret Service protection, specifically mentioning former President Donald Trump in case he's convicted in one or more of his criminal trials. Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, is bringing forth the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act—or the DISGRACED Act—which would terminate Secret Service protection for individuals convicted of either state or local felonies. Trump, whose first of four criminal trials involving hush money payments and alleged falsified records prior to the 2016 presidential election, is specifically mentioned by Thompson as someone whose protection privileges would be affected should he be found guilty. ----------------- Ok - that is beyond scummy even for the Dems. I get that they're scared he might win again - but to strip a former president of his protections is basically saying you want to see someone kill him. Like - it was BAD when they subverted democracy to try to keep him off of the ballot, but to actually try to put his life in direct danger to satisfy their petty political ambitions? This is absolutely horrible. I've never bought into the whole 'democrats hate democracy and will do anything to cheat to victory' storyline. I 've always thought 'sure they fight dirty but they still respect the basics of democracy. I am prepared at this point to admit i was wrong. The democrat politi9cians are horrible people. Not "scummy"... safer....people who don't like the old draft dodger if he wins might take a few potshots at him and hit one of Trump's SS Officer's ....I mean " private militia" guards by mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 4 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said: Not "scummy"... safer....people who don't like the old draft dodger if he wins might take a few potshots at him and hit one of Trump's SS Officer's ....I mean " private militia" guards by mistake. But, I thought the left didn't like guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 1 hour ago, Rebound said: There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period He's not a candidate. He's a former president. They ALWAYS qualify - period. People go after former presidents. The whole deal is that if you're president, you KNOW you're going to honk people off if you do the right things no matter how hard you try otherwise, so you are granted protection so that you can make decisions freely and not fear being killed later. IT's the same in all democracies. The system doesn't work without it - you protect your former leaders. They are saying "It's all right to kill this former leader because we don't like him. Get your head out of your ass - this is one of those rare subjects that should transcent even the left wing echo chambers- EVERYONE should be angry this was proposed and should say so loudly to their party reps. 22 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said: Not "scummy"... safer....people who don't like the old draft dodger if he wins might take a few potshots at him and hit one of Trump's SS Officer's ....I mean " private militia" guards by mistake. Scummy beyond words. I should have guessed a lying sack like yourself wouldn't have the morals to know that it's wrong to ecourage people to kill leaders of their country. How pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 1 hour ago, Rebound said: There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period That is an absolute lie. The law was created because Robert F Kenedy was shot and killed. This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His son. It is literally who the law was written for. Plus, it says major candidate. RFK Jr. is on the ballot in several states. He is also polling well above 5%. He is a major candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 (edited) 41 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: That is an absolute lie. The law was created because Robert F Kenedy was shot and killed. This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His son. It is literally who the law was written for. Plus, it says major candidate. RFK Jr. is on the ballot in several states. He is also polling well above 5%. He is a major candidate. Got an idea. Stop being a dope, and instead, look up the rules for who qualifies for Secret Service protection. It isn’t difficult to do. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=who+qualifies+for+secret+service+protection Among other things, it’s not 5%, it’s 20%: “Whether the candidate is an independent or third-party candidate for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics National Average for 30 consecutive days.” RCP has Kennedy at a pathetic 4%. Edited April 22 by Rebound 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: That is an absolute lie. The law was created because Robert F Kenedy was shot and killed. This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His son. It is literally who the law was written for. Plus, it says major candidate. RFK Jr. is on the ballot in several states. He is also polling well above 5%. He is a major candidate. So if he had 4x as much support he'd qualify? Bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 6 hours ago, Rebound said: There are established procedures which determine when a presidential candidate qualifies for Secret Service protection. RFK Jr. doesn’t qualify, period Yes - rebound - there is. And what they are trying to do is CHANGE that proceedure so that trump will no longer have protection as an ex president. That is nothing short of utterly disgusting. They are taking the established procedure and trying to change it with the intent of making it easier for someone to kill a former president. They mention him by name. How the F*CK can you support that crap? I don't care WHAT party is doing it - that's HORRIBLE. They are literally inviting people to kill trump. THis has NOTHING to do with kennedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 22 Report Share Posted April 22 10 hours ago, CdnFox said: Yes - rebound - there is. And what they are trying to do is CHANGE that proceedure so that trump will no longer have protection as an ex president. That is nothing short of utterly disgusting. They are taking the established procedure and trying to change it with the intent of making it easier for someone to kill a former president. They mention him by name. How the F*CK can you support that crap? I don't care WHAT party is doing it - that's HORRIBLE. They are literally inviting people to kill trump. THis has NOTHING to do with kennedy. Oh, the hand-wringing! Someone doing something disgusting is bothersome to you? Are you an expert at telling us what is disgusting? Well, please!!! Is sex with a porn star while your wife is pregnant disgusting enough for you? How about parading around in public with your pregnant mistress while you're still married? Disgusting enough? Evading the draft and making fun of a war hero because his fighter jet was shot down in combat? Disgusting enough? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 22 Author Report Share Posted April 22 1 hour ago, Rebound said: Oh, the hand-wringing! Someone doing something disgusting is bothersome to you? ROFLMAO - what a freaking hypocrite you are Quote Are you an expert at telling us what is disgusting? Yep. Quote Is sex with a porn star while your wife is pregnant disgusting enough for you? Sorry are you talking about clinton or trump? Oh - sorry clinton was the rapist who paid the hush money, trump was the porn star who got paid. Hard to keep them straight some times. Both are far less disgusting than litearally inviting people to kill your political rivals. Murder is worse than adultry. Glad i was here to sort that out for you. Quote How about parading around in public with your pregnant mistress while you're still married? Disgusting enough? Compared to trying to get a political rival killed? It's not even close. Quote Evading the draft and making fun of a war hero because his fighter jet was shot down in combat? Disgusting enough? Compared to calling half of the US "Deporable' people? Not really. And certainly not compared to murder. Look - even for your teeny tiny little tribally obsessed brain you HAVE to realize that this is over a line. WHataboutism does NOT change that. This is horribly wrong - like, BEYOND wrong. Get a grip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 On 4/21/2024 at 7:23 PM, gatomontes99 said: That is an absolute lie. The law was created because Robert F Kenedy was shot and killed. This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His son. It is literally who the law was written for. Plus, it says major candidate. RFK Jr. is on the ballot in several states. He is also polling well above 5%. He is a major candidate. Here, read the text of the law for yourself and stop making stuff up. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 On 4/22/2024 at 12:19 PM, CdnFox said: ROFLMAO - what a freaking hypocrite you are Yep. Sorry are you talking about clinton or trump? Oh - sorry clinton was the rapist who paid the hush money, trump was the porn star who got paid. Hard to keep them straight some times. Both are far less disgusting than litearally inviting people to kill your political rivals. Murder is worse than adultry. Glad i was here to sort that out for you. Compared to trying to get a political rival killed? It's not even close. Compared to calling half of the US "Deporable' people? Not really. And certainly not compared to murder. Look - even for your teeny tiny little tribally obsessed brain you HAVE to realize that this is over a line. WHataboutism does NOT change that. This is horribly wrong - like, BEYOND wrong. Get a grip. Are you honestly telling me that the billionaire can’t afford security? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 7 minutes ago, Rebound said: Are you honestly telling me that the billionaire can’t afford security? Few can realistically afford the kind of Security the Secret Service provides. Between their manpower and the logistics behind it, it is a massive operation that costs $$$$. If they can afford it is not really the point, we as a society and country have found it kind of valuable to protect former Presidents due to their unique nature of being assassinated and having people hate them... and not wanting to see them get killed or kidnapped or otherwise harmed the day they step out of office. This is all just petty and spiteful, even your response here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 32 minutes ago, User said: Few can realistically afford the kind of Security the Secret Service provides. Between their manpower and the logistics behind it, it is a massive operation that costs $$$$. If they can afford it is not really the point, we as a society and country have found it kind of valuable to protect former Presidents due to their unique nature of being assassinated and having people hate them... and not wanting to see them get killed or kidnapped or otherwise harmed the day they step out of office. This is all just petty and spiteful, even your response here... Seriously, will the Republican-lead House pass this bill? No, they won’t. It’s all a bunch of nonsense, if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 (edited) On 4/21/2024 at 5:09 PM, CdnFox said: He's not a candidate. He's a former president. They ALWAYS qualify - period. People go after former presidents. The whole deal is that if you're president, you KNOW you're going to honk people off if you do the right things no matter how hard you try otherwise, so you are granted protection so that you can make decisions freely and not fear being killed later. Not just that... The worst case scenario is actually that a former leader gets kidnapped. Then what? He's tortured to gain information? What does that information cost the US? What if he's ransomed...? What does that cost the US? How humiliating is it if a small-time terrorist group captures the POTUS? Or a country that no one has ever heard of? Or a major geopolitical foe? The 'prominent House Democrat' that you're speaking of is dumb enough to get elected. I'm gonna look to see who it was, and go place a bet in Vegas that they get 'elected' at some point. Edited April 24 by WestCanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, Rebound said: Seriously, will the Republican-lead House pass this bill? No, they won’t. It’s all a bunch of nonsense, if you ask me. No, they would not pass this, but that was not the point. I am glad that you agree the Democrat who came up with this legislation is pushing a bunch of nonsense and this legislation is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 Just now, User said: No, they would not pass this, but that was not the point. I am glad that you agree the Democrat who came up with this legislation is pushing a bunch of nonsense and this legislation is nonsense. It happens in Congress all the time. Politicians of both parties proposing bills they know cannot pass. It seems completely pointless to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatomontes99 Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Rebound said: Here, read the text of the law for yourself and stop making stuff up. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056 All you did is prove me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 24 Author Report Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Rebound said: Are you honestly telling me that the billionaire can’t afford security? Are you honestly telling me you think the secret service is something you rent? I realize it has the words "Service" in it but that's not how it works. The president of the united states gets protection afterwards. What this person is doing is trying to place his political rival in danger of death or injury. You need to seriously think about that for a minute - you're going to wind up losing your country the way things are going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.