(10-14-2024, 03:25 AM)Ksihkehe Wrote: I'm probably an outlier on this, but I've started to believe that the DNC or whoever is making decisions doesn't want them to be in the White House beyond January. The reasons would derail, but I don't see it as their first choice. I think they'd have preferred Vance though, in an impotent administration mired with old guard Republicans oozing back to life. With no coherent successor to Trump, it would hamstring things. You could also argue that it would lionize the Republicans to a strong political movement, but I see where there's still plenty of rot in the core of that tree. I believe Vance would be elected, but be dragged into a war for the direction of the party with the old Republican guard.

...

Just a follow-up thought.  There's another angle here also....

All of these shooters / potential shooters are, or were, 'known' individuals at local, state and federal levels.  They were all 'persons of interest' in some capacity.  Hold onto this thought for a moment.

Practically every day we read about this theme of personal freedoms (firearms ownership, invasion of privacy, surveillance, mental health, etc.).  On the one hand people say authorities can't 'harass' people with Big Brother monitoring. On the other hand, the supporters of Big Brother say they can't fix one problem without infringing on some 'freedom' (i.e. gun ownership, privacy, etc.).

In each of the three attempts so far we have:

• illegal firearms, or dubious possession.
  
• mental health issues
  
• "person of interest" (i.e. known by authorities prior to the event)
  
• oh, and conveniently...white male, non-immigrant, perpetrator.  (how convenient is that????)
  

What are the chances?

Is this setting the stage for real Big Brother society?