*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

The onus is on you to convince us of your theory - a theory you claimed is unlikely, mind.

How many cogent arguments do you want? There have been a few.
Comments have been made that throw shade on your theory and you ignore them. That doesn't make them go away.

There's no way I'm buying the idea that the security was that bad that day by accident.

If you exclude reason and evidence from your understanding, that's fine, but it's not convincing anyone else, here.

[Poopadoop]

The onus is on you to convince us of your theory - a theory you claimed is unlikely, mind.

I'm not trying to necessarily convince you, I'm just asking questions and putting forward possible alternatives to the establishment line. I must admit the fact none of you can answer the questions I'm asking adequately but instead get annoyed at the idea of them being asked is a bit humorous though.

How many cogent arguments do you want? There have been a few.

The main argument seems to be that the SS was having a bad day that day and that's why it happened. That's it. You think that's a plausible explanation, I don't. That's the difference.

Comments have been made that throw shade on your theory and you ignore them. That doesn't make them go away.

Most of these comments have involved taking what I say, twisting it into something silly, and then arguing "What I made up about your story is ridiculous, ergo what you actually did say is also ridiculous." Reductio ad mockum isn't a valid form or argument, sorry.

If you exclude reason and evidence from your understanding, that's fine, but it's not convincing anyone else, here.

What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.

Who's been interrogated from the SS and put up their hands and said "yes I was the top agent on the ground in Butler, I was in charge of seeing up the protection of Trump that day and I told my guys not to put a sniper on the rooftop. Had a fight with my wife a week earlier when we were planning the security arrangements, so I was off my game. Sorry, my bad. Then when we got there and Agent Smith said to me 'hey boss, don't you think we should have someone on that roof over there, you know the one with a clear line of sight to our client?' I said 'nah, fuck it, it's fine to leave that open.' "

Or, how about "yeah I misjudged the slope of that roof and so I told them to stay off it. My vision was blurry 'cause [insert excuse here]. Sorry, I'll be leaving now, I don't expect to receive my pension."

And I don't mean Cheatle. She wasn't there. I mean the person who was in charge of the show in PA that day. Why hasn't that person been subject to scrutiny? Why hasn't anyone been sacked or resigned, apart from Cheatle?

Unless you think Cheatle was actually overseeing the operation and making those decisions in real time there has to be other people you want to talk to.

Speaking of other people, why did Congress only quiz Cheatle and the FBI director and leave it at that? Why not quiz the people on the ground, the people who were actually there that day doing the security? Why do they all get a pass? None of them get fired? Huh?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not trying to necessarily convince you, I'm just asking questions and putting forward possible alternatives to the establishment line. I must admit the fact none of you can answer the questions I'm asking adequately but instead get annoyed at the idea of them being asked is a bit humorous though.

Your questions are dumb, though. Ask more interesting questions.

The fact that we choose not to answer dumb questions doesn't mean we don't have answers. [insert reductio fallacy]

I'm not annoyed at your questions. I'm annoyed at your tone. I'm annoyed that your attitude is that your hypothesis is unlikely, but that our failure to entertain your unlikely hypothesis somehow makes it more credible or us less smart. I'm annoyed that you aren't treating everyone here engaging in conversation with you with respect and dignity and an assumption of wanting to share our thoughts and know each other better. But mostly I'm annoyed at your default gas-lighting answers to the rest of us agreeing with you that your hypothesis is unlikely.

In short, your argument isn't pissing me off, your lack of respectful demeanor is.

The main argument seems to be that the SS was having a bad day that day and that's why it happened. That's it. You think that's a plausible explanation, I don't. That's the difference.

OK, so if you understand the crux of it, then why the attitude?

Most of these comments have involved taking what I say, twisting it into something silly, and then arguing "What I made up about your story is ridiculous, ergo what you actually did say is also ridiculous." Reductio ad mockum isn't a valid form or argument, sorry.

You're being a bit of a jerk, and treating other people with disrespect.
You reap what you sow.

What's the reason and evidence that the SS was having a bad day? Simple question.

People sometimes have bad days.

Who's been interrogated from the SS and put up their hands and said "yes I was the top agent on the ground in Butler, I was in charge of seeing up the protection of Trump that day and I told my guys not to put a sniper on the rooftop. [...]

le rofl

If it's human error, whoever the human is stands to lose their job at the very least and may face credible threats to their life by some other crazy shooter who decides that agent's negligence was intentional.

What they should do if they think there's any hint that their personal negligence had anything to do with the shooting is hire the best goddamn lawyer they can afford because this isn't going to be a small time consequence if their hunch they were part of it is correct. That lawyer is certainly going to tell them to keep their damn mouth shut about this and especially so in any remotely public space or setting.

[Poopadoop]

People sometimes have bad days.

That's not evidence.

If it's human error, whoever the human is stands to lose their job at the very least and may face credible threats to their life by some other crazy shooter who decides that agent's negligence was intentional.

Ok forget putting their hands up and coming forward, why aren't they being questioned? There's someone in charge of the operation there and no-one is asking them questions.