Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

That points to more of a systematic failure than some sort of effort to deprived Trump of protection

Secret Service seems to have been somewhat resistant to embrace new technology such as drone surveillance. As I said this is probably from a long history of nobody actually managing to get a shot off at the president for several decades (Regan was the last as I recall?)

They're really the last line of defense to my knowledge, the FBI would be doing most of the legwork finding and stopping any assassination plots before they got anywhere near a sitting or former president

Well they all seem f**cked after 4 years and halfway dead after 8, so they must be doing something

A lot of it depends on what you'd consider work. I doubt they composing emails or writing executive orders or organising meetings

Most of what national leaders would be doing is discussion, negotiation and making plans and decisions

I get what be you're saying that a lot of decisions seem to be made for them, but it's probably more like the president asks the secretary for housing to come up with plans to reduce homelessness and then has to review what they come up with plus all the implications and decide which course of action to take

While that doesn't seem like a lot, doing it all day for every day plus a ton of travelling would probably get pretty exhausting. Also I would hope the fact that their decisions can affect the lives of millions of people does weigh on them somewhat so they carefully consider the implications of their decisions

This goes back to a comment I made a while ago about how people should look for leaders who are competent administrators who think decisions through before taking action, rather than strongman clowns to spend more time talking than thinking

If this guy is the best that Iran can come up with then they couldn't assassinate Leo Varadkar, let alone someone with actual protection like Donald Trump

I'm not very familiar with the typical pricing of a contract killer but $5k seems a tad low to try and hire someone to take out a former president. The lad from Day of the Jackal charged more and that was in 1960s money

In fact I'm pretty sure that hitman who shot himself in the leg in Dublin a few years ago was charging more

Either the Iranian security services have been vastly overestimated, or else this was probably just some nut job who'd watched too many spy thriller movies

Ok. I'll cede you that because Trump is a committed friend of Israel and that would be enough for some in Iran to wish him ill-will: period: However whack-jobs with their own choices seem to be ten a penny now.

The rules here forbid any references that would indicate a preference toward a fatality occurring to presidential candidates in the electoral race debate so comment [by name] as to which candidate would have higher prestige wont be from me.

Ah cmon man, we're all adults here, have some credibility and honesty behind your words. You said the mulleur report claimed there's no collusion between the trump team and the russians, I contested that. Please show me where it doesn't? Here's the report

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl

So you're saying it found no collusion ...

Pretty sure they consider EVERYONE to be servants of the administration

Another scary aspect of it is that they want all military promotions to be approved by the white house. So a sitting president would be able to promote officers loyal to them over others

Just in case they need some rebellious types put down

Yes, well, Trump's been after this loyalty oath to himself at a personal level since his last spell in office [the FBI director he fired relating how Trump asked for a loyalty oath from him during their private dinner together].

AFAIK, US Military officers loyalty oaths are given to the US constitution alone and they are forbidden from giving the oath to a personality [as in Trump] for obvious reasons.

I've noticed in listening to some Soundbytes from swing states in the last few weeks, whenever they interview intending Trump voters and ask them why they intend voting for him, they nearly always, to a man or woman, parrot a version of a line or a concept that Trump has uttered in the past, be it on the economy (I heard a guy claim this week that under Biden the average price of a McDonald's meal has gone from $3.50 to $11!), Illegal immigration, Foreign policy or whatever. It is truly scary how brainwashed these people seem to be by one man, how totally accepting without any questions whatsoever of blatantly false narratives and how unable or unwilling to venture outside the box in making a decision of their own.

I was reading a book during the summer about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, which was Hitler and the Nazi's triumph of propaganda and a major charm offensive to the wider world, and the really scary things was that one could lift major passages out of that book and apply them directly to Trump and the MAGA fanatics.

I'm going to politely suggest that Prof David Runciman go and reconsider some of his points (yes I did read the article, no I will not be quoting it because I'm not bothered)

While I get his main argument that Trumpism doesn't resemble the rise of the Nazis, I think he's missing the point

First off, it's important to remember that it's effectively impossible to start a new political party in the US and be successful. If Trump had gone and started the MAGA party or whatever, then the best he would achieve would be to split the conservative vote and guarantee the Democrats victory

In many ways, the same thing happened to the Democrats in 2016 when Bernie Sanders (a longtime independent) tried to pull the party further left. In doing so he split the vote and helped Trump win

So the only path to victory is to subvert an existing party and reshape it to your views. This is largely what has happened to the Republican party over the past 8 years

Second, there's this perception that Trump is all bark and no bite and generally somewhat indecisive and easy to manipulate. This actually puts him more in common with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini who were notorious for changing their minds on a whim, being incredibly vain with fragile egos and would launch into savage verbal attacks against anyone who stood against them

Thirdly, regarding how the rise of fascism was marked by a violent change of power structures whereas Trumpism is externally more like a reorganisation of the government. This is simply a product of the systems in which they came about. The Weimar republic was an extremely weakened government that was relatively easy to overthrow

In contrast the US has very well established democratic systems with a lot of public scrutiny. Project 2025 doesn't explicitly detail violence against any opponents because (I assume) someone in the heritage foundation had enough brain cells to realise that writing it down would be a bad idea

Whether there will be violence, well I'll just let the whole January 6th thing stand as sufficient evidence that Trump supporters are prepared to use violence to achieve their aims

Lastly, I would advise people to look at the parallels between the fascist parties of the 1930s and modern Trumpism.

Both seek to malign and other sections of society to maintain ideological and national "purity"

Both focus on the use of trade protectionism and tariffs to focus their economies inwards

Both aim to support their economies using wealth taken from ethnic groups they have excluded from society

Both value loyalty to the party and leader above loyalty to the nation and it's ideals

Both seek to undermine the democratic process to gain additional power and suppress the opposition

Both are willing to use violence to achieve their aims

Both are terrible and need to be stopped before they gain any more power

(Don't worry @MisterAnarchy I know I'm not going to convince and ardent Trump fan like yourself of anything, I'm just writing the essay in case anyone else happens to be reading 😉)

I have the full facts, as does Runciman.

Trump is not a Fascist.

…Did you actually read the complete article?

You seem to accept Runciman's bona fides as an expert. This is his verdict on Trump:

He is a real and present danger to the American republic and the wider world…
The more that goes wrong, the more fascism will find its footing again. But a victory for Trump could nevertheless be a cause of 21st-century fascism. Not because he is a fascist, but because he doesn’t know how to govern and good government is the only guarantee against the worst form of politics returning.

He could yet be one of its [fascism] enablers.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to ask if you agree?

And if you do not reply, it would appear you have presented Runciman as an expert \ authority in bad faith.