General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 215

Security from whom, from what?

Also, in an election where the right has brought the idea of being protected by walls to the forefront, it's interesting that the political elites of the opposition party would employ such measures for their own security, while telling their followers to deny the idea that walls bring security.

It's ironic imagery, given the issues in this campaign season, and the tone that has been used to discuss them.

 

The amount of respect people still have For Bill Clinton will never cease to amaze me

 

didnt we already dismantle this idea that private walls =/= human rights violations in deportations and impratical trillion dollar projects predicated on racism when zuckerburg came up?

have you never been to a concert with no name bands that have a barrier? havent a barrier at a public event where someones on stage is standard practice for everyone from a band opening a small tour to the president. it's a weird thing to seize on

 

It's the same type of argument when people say "why are they protected by secret service agents with guns while they say good guys with guns can't stop bad guys with guns?!". An assumed "gotch ya" that takes ignoring common sense to think it's an actual "gotchya".

The barrier at a public speaking event serves a ton of purposes, by far the biggest purpose it serves here is giving security a couple extra seconds to stop someone (a Bernie supporter or protester most likely) from rushing the stage and "embarrassing" the DNC during their big event.

They also have Obama and Biden speaking there, so the Secret Service may have requested it for all we know.

 

Bernie Sanders is going back to the Senate as an Independent — not a Democrat

 

It's just an interesting visual. Having prominent Democrats dismiss the idea of a security wall when there is a literal security wall right in front of them to protect them from, I guess, those evil Bernie supporters, or something.

 

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal

 

It's all about security, don't forget that the First Lady was in attendance and they try to minimize potential threats, the only other option would be to have armed secret service individuals replace the barrier which would be a lot of man power and would give off a more hostile look.
The security will also be tighter because The President, the First Lady, President Bill Clinton, and the presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will all be in the same arena. That's 4 separate secret service details that are assigned to each individual along with security for the event. Colbert was met with heavy resistance trying to get onto an empty stage even with Nancy Pelosi.

 

You have to know that I understand that it's about security. It's just all very ironic to me. The idea that an institution who deride gun owners while their leaders surround themselves with armed security 24/7, an institution that rejects the concerns of border-town Americans as racist for favoring a security wall while their leaders surround themselves with a security wall. Usually pointing these things out is met with "well the people on stage are simply more important than you".

That isn't a "gotcha" that's just hypocrisy.

But I don't think I am going to convince anyone here, so I will concede to a new topic.

 

I can't believe there's a comparison between personal security, staging, and filming logistics and a wall between countries. This is a really bad analogy. Yeesh.

 

Democrats don't want certain individuals (mentally ill, history of violent behavior) to have access to guns. I would imagine the Secret Service and event security must pass extensive background checks to obtain those positions.

 

If I could guarantee everyone owning a gun was as well trained and had to go through all the requirements of being a Secret Service agent, then I'd be much more open to people having as many guns as they want.

It's not hypocrisy unless you ignore common sense.

 

I think it's safe to say Hillary Clinton is the John Mayer of this election.

 

<whispers> You can put a fence around your house.

 

"Guns, in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence, arming more people to do what I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism," - Hillary Clinton in 2015.

Subtext: "Well...guns make me safer. But, I mean, I'm Hillary fucking Clinton, I deserve to be safe."

 

And Donald don't pay.

 

Are we talking about the same Secret Service agents involved in a Columbian prostitution scandal, or different ones?

 

"Guns" in and of themselves don't make her safer. The Secret Service does. These are really, really bad "points" again.

 

Elaborate?

 

I honestly wouldn't give two shits if someone was super well trained and gone through extensive mental health and background checks gets to both 1. Own as many guns as they want and 2. Fly to Columbia and spend money on prostitutes.

Hell, I don't even care if Billy-Bob Walker in Texas is spending money on prostitutes right now, that's not why I don't think he should have a gun.

 

A shitty racist that people continue to forgive for no other reason than what she does makes them feel good inside. But, I mean, it was also a joke.

 

While I personally don't have a problem with prostitution, I would believe that someone's judgement may be eschewed if they were tasked with protecting public political figures and thought it was a good idea to get drunk and hire prostitutes while on the job. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

Point being, we see plenty of well-trained, health-checked agents of the state either make egregious mistakes with their power or downright abuse it all together. It is absolutely pointless to give the benefit of the doubt to state-sanctioned force while doubting the intentions and abilities of the average citizen.

I apologize for derailing the thread.

 

So like Mel Gibson?