Davin News Server

On 2025-01-30 15:13, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <vngk1i$335nh$10@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> On 2025-01-30 06:40, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vneg28$2k65c$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-29 15:57, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <vnea9n$2j3hq$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-01-29 14:17, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vne6g5$2i969$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-29 13:04, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <vndklm$28p47$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-28 05:12, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn9il1$1f6me$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-27 17:10, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn9a1h$1c301$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-27 16:51, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn990i$1bigg$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-27 16:38, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn948e$1acs8$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-27 15:06, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn8k9r$1571u$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-25 05:12, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vn129o$2e30l$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-23 14:41, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vmu5vi$1oj0a$6@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No set up. People died. They tried and failed. This is settled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is it settled that "they" did anything?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're implying a conspiracy without evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're the one who said it was set up. That sounds like a conspiracy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree, and I've explained some of my reasons for thinking so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you want to turn your scenario from a lone shooter into a "they".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a lone shooter agree to a set up where he could die?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They wouldn't have told him about that part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you would trust that guy to shoot and almost hit you? Idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Almost hit"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds you're admitting Trump's ear wasn't hit at all...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There you go spinning the words again. Typical lib. Answer the question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said he was "almost hit".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means he wasn't actually hit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not twisting words by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a Freudian slip by you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. If it was a set up he would want that. Why would he trust someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get that close?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Answer yes or no:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you write that Trump was "almost hit"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You are like left wing media. Reread it stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "So you would trust that guy to shoot and almost hit you?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You stated clearly that he "almost hit" Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which means you understand that DID NOT ACTUALLY HIT HIM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I didn't. I said would he take that chance if it was a set up and
>>>>>>>>> tell the guy to almost hit him. You are just like the MSM, you spin and
>>>>>>>>> take out of context. Now tell me how he set it up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just look at the evidence that his ear wasn't shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On July 26, 2024:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked
>>>>>>>>       @realDonaldTrump about his bullet wound as they walked to their
>>>>>>>> meeting at Mar-a-lago. Former President Trump showed him where he was hit.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's 13 days after he was supposedly hit with a bullet that "produced
>>>>>>>> a 2 cm wide wound" (that's his personal lackey/doctor Ronny Jackson).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the pic:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTbW98EWoAInOib?format=jpg&name=4096x4096>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And explain why one of the Secret Service agents rushed to the stage...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...with a hand towel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How did he know one would be needed? Why would it be a priority to wipe
>>>>>>>> the blood from Trump's face...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...rather than getting him off the stage as quickly as possible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They waited until the shooting was over you moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how did they KNOW it was over?
>>>>>
>>>>> Radios "shooter down"  You know secret service stuff you moron.
>>>>
>>>>    From the same people that didn't see the first shooter, you mean?
>>>
>>> Nice spin. You asked I answered now you want to move the goalposts.
>> And I pointed out a HUGE logical hole in your answer.
>>
>> The Secret Service would NEVER assume that because one shooter was down
>> that there couldn't possibly be a second one.
>>
>> Protocol is to get the protectee GONE, ASAP.
> 
> Look at you trying to act all knowledgeable. You seem to forget the SS
> got in a lot of trouble for fucking that up. So now tell us how you
> think it was set up.

The SS got in trouble for what, precisely?

And do you recognize that errors come in different forms and what might 
be screwed up in one area doesn't automatically mean that everything 
will be done wrong.

Protection of person during a threat is the most basic job of the Secret 
Service, doofus. They would be drilling and drilling and drilling on how 
to react.