calli
 July 16, 2024 9:54 am

In addition, rumour has it (hmmmmm) that his parents are progressives.

Even more worrying, I saw a report that they both worked as counsellors.
In other words, hand-patters who would have a very light touch when it came to discipline.

JD Vance is an Appalachian, of Scots-Irish descent. 

The Americanism Scotch-Irish is a bit of a misnomer, as they were neither Gaelic Scots nor Irish, but from the northern English borderland counties and English-speaking lowland Scots who came from the same genetic stock and shared a common “borderland” culture. They’d been transplanted to Ulster in the reign of King James VI, hence “Irish”. Gaelic speaking Scots were forbidden migration based upon fears they might join the Irish locals in rebellion. They also had to be Protestant, though not necessarily CofE. They later took their distinct culture with them to America.

‘Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America’ is the book to read on British culture in early north America.

It’s like she has no awareness that people have choice in a democracy.

I believe what she’s saying is that voters should only have choices approved of by the political Establishment.

Coming a day after the attempted assassination of Trump, it bespeaks a remarkable tone deafness born of the arrogance of our ruling caste.

You’ll also find similar attitudes in the Liberal Party. Indeed, Labor and Liberal combined to amend legislation to make the election of minor party candidates more difficult just a few years ago.

Btw, she’s another ex-McKinsey politico.

What sort of “legitimate” grounds would an OS “student” have to claim asylum .. FFS!

Might I suggest that merely submitting an asylum claim in Australia would be enough for a mainland Chinese student to claim fear of persecution on returning home?

Cunning!

A Never Trumper, Sheridan says J.D. Vance is too “combative”.

Sheridan is an “inside the Beltway swampie”.
Of course he hates Trump because he isn’t part of the club. Sheridan’s main basis for support of both Killary and The Sniffer was “experienced”.
In the case of Killary, it was 8 years FSOTUS, 8 years as senator and 4 years as Secretary of State. A bit of political background but no more than a couple of dozen other prospects. As for Sniffy Joe, 40 years of grift in Washington is hardly the sort of experience we need. And, of course, Sheridan’s assumption is that life experience outside the circle is not only worthless, but to be regarded with suspicion.
Using the example cited earlier of Trump threatening to pull aid if South American states didn’t take their crooks back, Sheridan would be horrified at this disruption of the normal order of things.
His Foreign Affairies contacts would have briefed him about the long history of aid and how it shouldn’t be used as a political lever.
When presses they can’t explain why not, and I can imagine Trump taking a normal commercial approach of “Well, why are we spending the money if we get nothing for it?”
Of course, these same Foreign Affairies/State Dept dweebs will now be busy churning out papers as to why military aid to Israel should be withdrawn on a whim.

Great article from bystander with experience at Trump rallies.
A First-Person Account Of Security Issues On The Ground In Butler, PA
By Gabriel Williams

To the iconic question “Where were you when JFK was shot?” we can now add “Where were you when Trump got clicked?” As it happens, my wife and I were 40-50 yards from the podium in Butler, PA, and approximately 200-225 yards from the shooter. This essay records my impressions of and thoughts about events I witnessed.

Preliminarily, though, I want to applaud the counter-sniper team that took out Thomas Crooks. Within a matter of seconds, these snipers, whose job is to be reactive, not proactive, identified the target, acquired him in their optics, and fired successful headshots on a prone, low-profile target. Crooks was dead before Trump was on his feet, pumping his fist. I don’t care who you are, this was top-shelf, gold-standard suppression on an active threat.
Putting aside rumors about instructions they did or did not receive before Crooks fired, I believe they did their job as swiftly and flawlessly as could be expected in the heat of the moment. For my part, respect is owed here until I’m definitively shown otherwise.

That said, everything else about yesterday was an absolute train wreck. Let’s start with entry to the venue.My wife and I have attended five Trump rallies, three of which were held outdoors. Once you get to the gate, security requires you to put everything you’re carrying on a table for inspection. Then, you go through a metal detector, after which an agent with a wand gives you the once-over. At least, that’s what happened at four of the five rallies.

Yesterday, I didn’t get wanded. Instead, when I went through the metal detector (which didn’t go off) and then presented myself in the usual ‘T’ stance with arms out, the uniformed agent simply said, “You’re good. You can go on through.”That struck me as peculiar but not alarming. I never thought a U.S. Secret Service agent—whose principal was not only the presumed Republican nominee for the presidency but a former U.S. president—would be so relaxed, but I knew I was safe, so I put it out of my mind.

The venue itself was also a problem. Here are two videos I took of the scene before Trump was shot:
 

 
In those videos, you saw:

• dense trees somewhat close in and to both sides of the venue, with clear lines of sight to the podium;
• open umbrellas;
• a water tower(!) about a quarter-mile off the venue, but with an excellent line of sight (I’m talking about Texas Tower/Book Repository-grade line of sight) to the podium. I noticed the counter-snipers repeatedly checking the tower;
• a utility pole almost right next to me with foot pegs in (which a couple of people actually partly climbed, without security protests, to get a better camera shot of Trump as his motorcade arrived; and
• elevated terrain that sloped downwards from spectator to podium.

When has the low ground ever been advantageous to a defender? The whole point of a podium is that the attendant protective detail has an advantageous and unobstructed view of the crowd. Indoors, I concede that this is probably acceptable, but that’s a finite and much more easily controlled space.Given these factors, who was running the advance team, and how did they conclude that this was a safe space for a presidential candidate in a heated campaign?

Between the water tower and the downward-sloping terrain, each should have been a red flag nixing the venue. At the very least, these deficiencies should have had dedicated members of either local law enforcement or USSS personnel assigned to them exclusively (such as shooters or just eyes on top of that water tower). Those who inspected and signed off on this location should be the first ones hauled before a congressional inquiry about this of course, the more pressing question is how a shooter armed with a long gun got within 130-150 yards of one of the most polarizing figures in U.S. political history–unchallenged. The fact that spectators apparently were shouting the alarm about this guy makes it even worse.

It’s infuriating and inexcusable that matters got to the point at which Trump was shot. If the venue had been properly vetted and analyzed, a young, inexperienced shooter could never have gotten within 400 feet of Donald J. Trump, climbed onto a roof, gotten into a prone firing position with even just a slight advantage in elevation, and fired off 6-8 shots before being neutralized.

It was Crooks’ own experience that saved Trump. There’s a small airfield immediately outside the venue, with the usual windsocks. As a pilot, I know how to read them. During the rally (allowing that windsocks are the roughest of measurements), I estimate that the wind was 8-10 knots, slightly gusting (breezy).
At 130-150 yards, that would have mattered very little to an experienced shooter who knew how to correct for windage. An inexperienced shooter, however, would not know that. I firmly believe Donald J. Trump is only alive right now because Crooks was a poor shot, almost certainly under immense emotional pressure.

The poor shot wasn’t because of security pressure. After all, Crooks got into position, set up, had Trump in his sights, and got off 6-8 shots, scoring one graze on a headshot, all without any serious challenge or impediment. Crooks had a clean shot on target, and, thank God Almighty, he blew it.
When I say the failures of the Secret Service here are inexcusable, the word “inexcusable: itself seems insufficient. We’re supposed to be the varsity, and the world just saw some of the best we have get punked by a 20-year-old with Dad’s AR.

I loathe pointing the finger at law enforcement officers or USSS. It’s a thankless job, and I easily believe they have problems with having sufficient personnel—but not an excuse. If you cannot properly and adequately protect the principal at an event, then you must tell the principal that the event cannot go forward. The director of the USSS, Kim Cheatle, is going to have some very uncomfortable questions to answer in the coming days, and it’s not hyperbole to call what happened yesterday a career killer. In a different era, any person failing this badly would have been expected to fall on her sword.

However, there is a silver lining to all this. Democrats and the radical left really are the undisputed masters of unintended consequences. By virtue of surviving (and getting back to his feet like a boss to pump the crowd), Crooks just banked Trump the kind of political capital that all of Trump’s money would never have been able to buy on its own.

Good luck throwing Trump in jail now, Justice Merchan.

Welcome back, Mr. President. We’ve missed you.

He will no doubt spit out a garbled story at some stage of himself being in mortal danger.

Birt surprised Luigi hasn’t used the moment to emphasise why he no longer uses his electoral office in Marrickville .. cos “threatening” .. LOL!