Trump: Clinton's bodyguards should be disarmed; let's see what happens to her

[Zarn]

Reading through this thread, there is a couple of things that didn't make any sense to me.

Positions on gun control aside:

1) Trump is actually not advocating that the Secret Service agents protecting Clinton be disarmed. He was just calling Democrats hypocrites. Whether you think the is valid or not is your opinion, and I'm not getting into that. This is not a comment on people defending Clinton's stances and votes on gun control, especially since the comment was aimed at Clinton.

2) There is no way that all politician should be considered more important that any citizen. What you think is the best policy for protection is your belief. However, if you make a distinction between a politician and an average Joe or Jane in terms of importance, then you are being hypocritical against yourself. In theory, this should be a society of equals.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

Gosh, what a shockingly horrendous argument. Do you even reality bro?

Yes, valuing life is terrible. I'm sorry I triggered you with such evil thoughts.

[Zarn]

Yes, valuing life is terrible. I'm sorry I triggered you with such evil thoughts.

Your concern trolling shows such a gap in logic. Go back to your right wing safe spaces where such idiotic arguments are applauded by fellow deplorables.

The political leadership of a country always has to be better protected because they are in charge and responsible for running things. It's not a privilege accorded to the individual, but the position in government where a leadership hierarchy is necessary.

It's not, actually. You just replace them. The VP role is designed for exactly that. I also would like you to define deplorable, because I doubt I fit the category you are trying to fit me in.

[Zarn]

Politicians do need bodyguards more than the rest of us. Say that there's a president and vice president who agree on everything except trade and abortion. Now there are some people who will badly want to assassinate the president, and a successful assassination could change a few of the major decisions (even possibly SCOTUS picks) that would be made during those four to eight years. Or if there was an important Supreme Court decision about to be made and one of the judges gets assassinated and instead of a 5-4 ruling striking down the lower court's decision, it became a 4-4 ruling which would uphold the lower court's ruling by default. Meanwhile, average inner city citizens getting shot wouldn't have the same drastic effect.

It does not matter what they support. What if a private citizens becomes an advocate and is actually changing minds? Should that person then have security? Should others still not? People elect a ticket for a multitude of reasons. It is not restricted to one or two policies, anyway.

[Zarn]

Politicians have no more right to security than anyone else. If it is a good idea for them to protect themselves with guns, the everyone has the right. President, president-elect, and party nominee are not positions above citizen.

Of course politicians are in "positions above citizens."
We specifically elect them, and want them, to be in "positions above citizens."
You know ..... we have them debate and create laws which ordinary citizens do not do.
We allow them to make decisions in our courts (judges, justices) that ordinary citizens do not do.
We give them the authority to travel to other nations, and to discuss treaties, trade, allegiances and war ... things that ordinary citizens do not do.
So stop pretending that these people don't require more protection than you and me, because they do.
No one should be offended (or surprised) by the fact that their life IS more important than yours and mine.

That's not how republics work. Everyone is equal. They are elected to serve not rule.

But they are still part of the government, which makes them bigger targets for assassination. There are a lot of people I've seen online who either want Trump or Hillary dead. (They're probably joking, but Trump and Clinton's powerful status makes them targets for assassination.) Now how many people want you to die? You and I really don't need any bodyguards but celebrities, politicians, and icons do because it they get killed it will have a bigger impact than normal people.

Everyone is a potential target, which is part of my point. Ironically, good citizens in cities need it the most. Politician or not, someone dying is always equally disastrous. It dies not matter if it is the president or a beggar. That is still human life.

I can see your argument, but by that logic, those earning minimum wage should pay the same taxes as the top 1%. It's the same logic: the poor are more subject to running out of money (by the very nature of being poor), so we give them greater protection by lifting their tax burden. Likewise, because being President makes you incredibly high-profile, and because there are likely millions of people who would prefer to see Tim Kaine in the White House, it makes sense to give Clinton extra protection.

I don't support progressive taxation. Also, those ordinary citizens, in your scenario, are not getting the "income" they need. Without guns, anyone is a sitting duck. Guns for some but not all makes no sense. Either we should have them or we shouldn't.

So you support putting guns in the hands of potential terrorists and lunatics, or else spawning a gigantic, dangerous black market? ...OK

They would get the guns, regardless of legality.