Bolton
-
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 17:59 last edited by
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.
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:07 last edited by@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.
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:15 last edited byTo 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.
-
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:16 last edited by Horace
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.
-
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:18 last edited by
I don't like thinking Iran can force America to write a 6m yearly check just by planting some rumor of an assassination plot against some ex-political operative.
-
wrote on 23 Jan 2025, 18:19 last edited by
-
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.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 01:53 last edited by@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.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 01:59 last edited byTo 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.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 02:03 last edited by Horace@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.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 03:14 last edited by RenaudaPresident 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) -
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)wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 16:48 last edited by taiwan_girl@Renauda Interesting interview. I dont agree with a lot of Sec. Bolton's world view, but I do think he is a smart guy, and has no reason to lie about his interactions when he was close to the center of power.
(PS. I think that he should trim his eyebrows. LOL)
-
@Renauda Interesting interview. I dont agree with a lot of Sec. Bolton's world view, but I do think he is a smart guy, and has no reason to lie about his interactions when he was close to the center of power.
(PS. I think that he should trim his eyebrows. LOL)
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 17:29 last edited by RenaudaTen or so years ago I thought Bolton was a dinosaur left over from the Cold War. I don’t think that any more especially with regard to Putin’s Russia and to a lesser degree China. His speciality is dealing with the former.
Jury is still out on his ME and Iran policy.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 19:27 last edited by Doctor Phibes
Apparently he's just pulled Fauci's security detail.
Again, I'm sure this was policy driven. It strikes me that guy's at higher risk than most.
-
Apparently he's just pulled Fauci's security detail.
Again, I'm sure this was policy driven. It strikes me that guy's at higher risk than most.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 19:47 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
Apparently he's just pulled Fauci's security detail.
Again, I'm sure this was policy driven. It strikes me that guy's at higher risk than most.
He did?! Thanks for the info, gotta go!
-
Apparently he's just pulled Fauci's security detail.
Again, I'm sure this was policy driven. It strikes me that guy's at higher risk than most.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 19:54 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
Apparently he's just pulled Fauci's security detail.
Again, I'm sure this was policy driven. It strikes me that guy's at higher risk than most.
True?
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 20:00 last edited by
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg49jz7v8no
President Donald Trump has revoked security protection for former top US health official Anthony Fauci, who has faced death threats since leading the country's Covid-19 response.
"You can't have a security detail for the rest of your life because you work for government," Trump told reporters, when asked about the decision on Friday. "It's very standard."
This week, Trump also revoked security protections for his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former envoy Brian Hook, who all faced threats from Iran.
Dr Fauci has now hired his own private security team that he will pay for himself, US media report.
Asked whether he felt responsible for the officials' safety, Trump said on Friday: "They all made a lot of money. They can hire their own security too."
Dr Fauci was previously protected by federal marshals, and then a private security company, which was paid for by the government, according to the New York Times.
One of Dr Fauci's most vocal Republican critics, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, had called for his security to be revoked.
He wrote in a post on X on Thursday that he had "sent supporting information to end the 24 hr a day limo and security detail for Fauci".
"I wish him nothing but peace but he needs to pay for his own limos," he said.
Trump has also revoked the security clearances of 51 intelligence officials who had claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 20:01 last edited by
If Fauci hadn't had a 6m/year SS detail, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's not an obvious thing that "of COURSE Fauci would have a 6m/year SS detail!". But news that Trump terminated this thing that nobody would have assumed existed, well, opportunistic shaming is opportunistic. Anyway, maybe GK's link is right, and it was already terminated under the Biden admin.
It's amazing how quickly left-leaning people have learned of the inalienable right of public figures to have permanent 6m/year secret service details. I bet the thought had never crossed anybody's mind, until it played a role in shame dunking against orange man.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg49jz7v8no
President Donald Trump has revoked security protection for former top US health official Anthony Fauci, who has faced death threats since leading the country's Covid-19 response.
"You can't have a security detail for the rest of your life because you work for government," Trump told reporters, when asked about the decision on Friday. "It's very standard."
This week, Trump also revoked security protections for his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, his former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former envoy Brian Hook, who all faced threats from Iran.
Dr Fauci has now hired his own private security team that he will pay for himself, US media report.
Asked whether he felt responsible for the officials' safety, Trump said on Friday: "They all made a lot of money. They can hire their own security too."
Dr Fauci was previously protected by federal marshals, and then a private security company, which was paid for by the government, according to the New York Times.
One of Dr Fauci's most vocal Republican critics, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, had called for his security to be revoked.
He wrote in a post on X on Thursday that he had "sent supporting information to end the 24 hr a day limo and security detail for Fauci".
"I wish him nothing but peace but he needs to pay for his own limos," he said.
Trump has also revoked the security clearances of 51 intelligence officials who had claimed that Hunter Biden's laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 20:05 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
Dr Fauci was previously protected by federal marshals, and then a private security company, which was paid for by the government, according to the New York Times.
So it wasn't an SS detail, and this is a matter of Fauci now needing to pay for the private security himself, if he wants to.
Again, there's no limiting principle here. And I am not impressed with this new shiny idea that public figures who used to work for the government are entitled to permanent free bodyguards.
-
If Fauci hadn't had a 6m/year SS detail, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's not an obvious thing that "of COURSE Fauci would have a 6m/year SS detail!". But news that Trump terminated this thing that nobody would have assumed existed, well, opportunistic shaming is opportunistic. Anyway, maybe GK's link is right, and it was already terminated under the Biden admin.
It's amazing how quickly left-leaning people have learned of the inalienable right of public figures to have permanent 6m/year secret service details. I bet the thought had never crossed anybody's mind, until it played a role in shame dunking against orange man.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 20:05 last edited byIf Fauci hadn't had a 6m/year SS detail, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's not an obvious thing that "of COURSE Fauci would have a 6m/year SS detail!". But news that Trump terminated this thing that nobody would have assumed existed, well, opportunistic shaming is opportunistic. Anyway, maybe GK's link is right, and it was already terminated under the Biden admin.
It's amazing how quickly left-leaning people have learned of the inalienable right of public figures to have permanent 6m/year secret service details. I bet the thought had never crossed anybody's mind, until it played a role in shame dunking against orange man.
I really don't mind them losing the details, but let's not try and pretend this isn't personal for your guy.
-
If Fauci hadn't had a 6m/year SS detail, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's not an obvious thing that "of COURSE Fauci would have a 6m/year SS detail!". But news that Trump terminated this thing that nobody would have assumed existed, well, opportunistic shaming is opportunistic. Anyway, maybe GK's link is right, and it was already terminated under the Biden admin.
It's amazing how quickly left-leaning people have learned of the inalienable right of public figures to have permanent 6m/year secret service details. I bet the thought had never crossed anybody's mind, until it played a role in shame dunking against orange man.
I really don't mind them losing the details, but let's not try and pretend this isn't personal for your guy.
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 20:06 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Bolton:
If Fauci hadn't had a 6m/year SS detail, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's not an obvious thing that "of COURSE Fauci would have a 6m/year SS detail!". But news that Trump terminated this thing that nobody would have assumed existed, well, opportunistic shaming is opportunistic. Anyway, maybe GK's link is right, and it was already terminated under the Biden admin.
It's amazing how quickly left-leaning people have learned of the inalienable right of public figures to have permanent 6m/year secret service details. I bet the thought had never crossed anybody's mind, until it played a role in shame dunking against orange man.
I really don't mind them losing the details, but let's not try and pretend this isn't personal for your guy.
I won't pretend that it can't be framed that way. I'd like to see a list of comparable people who Trump has allowed to keep the free bodyguards. I guess O'Brien is one. Is the list populated by Trump boot-lickers? That would be the narrative, so I'd like to see the list.