Bolton
-
And how about Mike Espers? And Pompeo? And Hook? You have yet to acknowledge what their inclusion in the list does to your overall argument, to the extent that you have one. (Of course I get that nipping at my heels is the point and you don’t necessarily have an argument).
-
I suspect there is some sort of back story with O'Brien which made Biden's handlers drop him. Having worked for Trump in some capacity is not enough, if that's the point of your comparisons with Pompeo et al.
Again, you have to live in a world where the intelligence services are able to say "that guy, that guy right there, he's received death threats from Iran, but we're sure they're not after him now. Let's save 6 million and not give him protection next year". So, just to be clear, that's the world you live in, right?
-
No, I suspect we are going to see a lot of changes at the Secret Service. I think we are going to see assets pulled from peripheral figures such as Bolton or Pompeo. I suspect they are getting out of the counterfeit investigation business.
Pique, realignment, efficiency, whatever.
Times are changing...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
No, I suspect we are going to see a lot of changes at the Secret Service. I think we are going to see assets pulled from peripheral figures such as Bolton or Pompeo. I suspect they are getting out of the counterfeit investigation business.
Pique, realignment, efficiency, whatever.
Times are changing...
Pique, realignment, efficiency, whatever.
Spite.
This is first day stuff. The shock and awe planned including rewarding friends and smiting enemies. I don’t think they spent the last 45 days studying cost efficiency in the secret service with the idea to unleash efficiency moves day one.
-
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
I was only joking
-
When you look at everything through a blue lens, everything has a blue tinge.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Jolly’s answer to your question is ‘yes’.
-
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
I think these revocations are conveniently frameable as spite, but can be easily viewed as reasonable. I do not think there is going to be open season on these people now that they don't have their detail, and it is public record how expensive they are. There is such a thing as an abundance of caution, and there is such a thing as spending other people's money in order to make oneself feel secure that your own ass is covered. Trump has exposed his ass here if Pompeo or Bolton et al get assassinated, but obviously they have a far greater chance of dying in a random traffic accident or any number of other things. The calibrated risk for these people is extremely low, or so I surmise. Not worth 6m per year of taxpayer money. To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
I think these revocations are conveniently frameable as spite, but can be easily viewed as reasonable. I do not think there is going to be open season on these people now that they don't have their detail, and it is public record how expensive they are. There is such a thing as an abundance of caution, and there is such a thing as spending other people's money in order to make oneself feel secure that your own ass is covered. Trump has exposed his ass here if Pompeo or Bolton et al get assassinated, but obviously they have a far greater chance of dying in a random traffic accident or any number of other things. The calibrated risk for these people is extremely low, or so I surmise. Not worth 6m per year of taxpayer money. To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways.
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
Elbows up!
-
The O'Brien character apparently has his detail reinstated, which I can only guess is maybe payback for Biden's handler's having capriciously dropped it (or, in jon's world, the intelligence services providing an exacting threat assessment which singled out him as the one guy Iran doesn't want to kill anymore), or maybe it's just a crony, sweetheart deal. There is also a chance that Trump considers him a valuable asset for some reason, more valuable than the others he dropped. Which sounds cold, but perfectly reasonable as the actions of an executive go.
-
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
I don't really understand this whole argument. Is anybody seriously trying to argue that Trump isn't petty and vindictive and takes everything personally?
The best anybody has managed to come up with is 'Trump is coldly rational when dealing with Bolton, but is emotionally attached to O'Brien, so his better nature leads to him allowing him to keep his security', which seems to be an extraordinarily generous assessment of Trump's personality.
I agree with your statement.
-
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
I agree. The counter response to any terror attack is many times greater than the attack itself (and I am not saying that it shouldn't be).
(This may be a bad example, and I am not trying to make light of the incident so I apologize in advance, but....)
That car that drove down the street in New Orleans is going to cause a massive change in how car security, etc. is handled on almost every street that has an event in the US, with some sort of increased cost.
The odds of me being on a street where a terrorist drives a vehicle down it is closer to zero than 100%, but now for any parade, there will be blockades, extra police, etc.
An assassination of a public figure will have the same effect. So, better to prevent it, than react after it happens.
-
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
I agree. The counter response to any terror attack is many times greater than the attack itself (and I am not saying that it shouldn't be).
(This may be a bad example, and I am not trying to make light of the incident so I apologize in advance, but....)
That car that drove down the street in New Orleans is going to cause a massive change in how car security, etc. is handled on almost every street that has an event in the US, with some sort of increased cost.
The odds of me being on a street where a terrorist drives a vehicle down it is closer to zero than 100%, but now for any parade, there will be blockades, extra police, etc.
An assassination of a public figure will have the same effect. So, better to prevent it, than react after it happens.
@taiwan_girl said in Bolton:
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
I agree. The counter response to any terror attack is many times greater than the attack itself (and I am not saying that it shouldn't be).
(This may be a bad example, and I am not trying to make light of the incident so I apologize in advance, but....)
That car that drove down the street in New Orleans is going to cause a massive change in how car security, etc. is handled on almost every street that has an event in the US, with some sort of increased cost.
The odds of me being on a street where a terrorist drives a vehicle down it is closer to zero than 100%, but now for any parade, there will be blockades, extra police, etc.
An assassination of a public figure will have the same effect. So, better to prevent it, than react after it happens.
There still needs to be what the Supreme Court calls a "limiting principle". Which is, some principle by which you can determine that movement in a good direction, has gone far enough. Precautions against assassinations of certain public figures are good, but you need a principle that can tell you more precaution is not due. Most internet arguments in particular abandon any limiting principles, with the participants advocating for their preferred direction, as if going in that direction forever would be a good thing.
My claim in this thread has been that it's reasonable to rescind the 6m/year secret service protection for these characters who received death threats from Iran some years ago. Of course, I am not privy to the intelligence reports, but I would at least say, it's not unreasonable on its face.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Bolton:
To what benefit is killing these people, exactly? Other than some terror effect? Terror effects can be achieved easily in other ways..
None of those questions ever cross the mind of ideological or religious fanatics. It’s all about the terror effect. Nothing more.
I agree. The counter response to any terror attack is many times greater than the attack itself (and I am not saying that it shouldn't be).
(This may be a bad example, and I am not trying to make light of the incident so I apologize in advance, but....)
That car that drove down the street in New Orleans is going to cause a massive change in how car security, etc. is handled on almost every street that has an event in the US, with some sort of increased cost.
The odds of me being on a street where a terrorist drives a vehicle down it is closer to zero than 100%, but now for any parade, there will be blockades, extra police, etc.
An assassination of a public figure will have the same effect. So, better to prevent it, than react after it happens.
There still needs to be what the Supreme Court calls a "limiting principle". Which is, some principle by which you can determine that movement in a good direction, has gone far enough. Precautions against assassinations of certain public figures are good, but you need a principle that can tell you more precaution is not due. Most internet arguments in particular abandon any limiting principles, with the participants advocating for their preferred direction, as if going in that direction forever would be a good thing.
My claim in this thread has been that it's reasonable to rescind the 6m/year secret service protection for these characters who received death threats from Iran some years ago. Of course, I am not privy to the intelligence reports, but I would at least say, it's not unreasonable on its face.
President Trump is very vindictive. It is pretty obvious that the removal of secret service and remove of security clearance for Sec. Bolton was due to his dislike of him..
Trump despises Bolton because Bolton has Trump’s gross incompetence nailed and holds him to account for it at every opportunity.
An interview with Bolton from 10 or so days ago that surely had Trump rolling over in bed a few nights.
(
Link to video)
