Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

All this talk of a Trump assassination makes me really want to see some sort of detective show (think True Detective) where the main plot is the assassination of a conservative figure by a progressive group of people (politicians, celebrities, etc). Maybe make it a big conspiracy with other vices involved as well.

It works in the same manner in which shows about corrupt religious figures (season 1 of True Detective) work as well. People put out a front, a mask of morality and virtue but underneath that they're into some weird fucked up crime shit. Same thing works for vocally "progressive" people as well - they're supposed to be so educated, so socially conscious and wracked with white guilt or love for immigrants or whatever, it would be great to see a show that portrays them as secretly being all sorts of fucked up, child exploitation, immigrant sweatshops, drug dealing, etc.

One of the things I noticed about modern police/drama shows is that they all seem to be set in some strange alternate universe where it's 2016 but the moral majority not only still exists but is also the dominate political/cultural force for some reason.
 
One of the things I noticed about modern police/drama shows is that they all seem to be set in some strange alternate universe where it's 2016 but the moral majority not only still exists but is also the dominate political/cultural force for some reason.

That's the Hollywood Bubble in action. From where they sit, everyone else is a far-right fundie whackjob, and anyone who believes actions have consequences is a monster just trying to run (and ruin) everyone else's lives.
 
One of the things I noticed about modern police/drama shows is that they all seem to be set in some strange alternate universe where it's 2016 but the moral majority not only still exists but is also the dominate political/cultural force for some reason.

Feminism seems to think patriarchy exists and is the controlling force in our society, so it's no surprise that progressives want to believe they're still some fringe group of upright citizens fighting against the dang dirty Republican Christian Fundamentalists trying to take away women's right to work a job or get a divorce.
 
C2jY9iyUcAAbdaC.jpg:large

harry potter reference #43
 
I bet Obama is going to something super petty before officially leaving, like taking out all the "T" keys on the White House keyboards.
From what I've heard after Gore's people wrecked shit with their tantrum there's been protocols in place to keep that from happening. They didn't bother to make anything about wrecking the world beyond the White House before they throw your ass out as we've seen, but inside might not be too damaged.
 
Any drone that can carry a payload big enough to make for a reasonably deadly IED would be massive and loud as fuck, there's no way you're just flying one of them up to the president without anyone reacting.

What if I told you that you only needed to kill one man tomorrow instead of a bunch? The CDC states that a blast that generates 100mph of force is enough to cause a fatality. A small bomb would easily generate that amount of pressure.
 
What if I told you that you only needed to kill one man tomorrow instead of a bunch? The CDC states that a blast that generates 100mph of force is enough to cause a fatality. A small bomb would easily generate that amount of pressure.

It's also worth mentioning that someone landed a drone on the white house lawn a couple of years back AND that trying to shoot one down is damn near impossible (US Marines are instructed not to shoot at ISIS's Amazon drones, because shooting straight up at something you can't hit is a non-starter.)

what you are talking about is called "stoop technology", which is basically what you said...Using a small drone to take out an individual, without harming anyone around them. Actual stoop involves clouds of drones that target individuals (in a demonstration or the like), which then detonate, shoving a big nail or tiny explosive into the target's head.

You're describing the poor man's version of that.
 
It's also worth mentioning that someone landed a drone on the white house lawn a couple of years back AND that trying to shoot one down is damn near impossible (US Marines are instructed not to shoot at ISIS's Amazon drones, because shooting straight up at something you can't hit is a non-starter.)

what you are talking about is called "stoop technology", which is basically what you said...Using a small drone to take out an individual, without harming anyone around them. Actual stoop involves clouds of drones that target individuals (in a demonstration or the like), which then detonate, shoving a big nail or tiny explosive into the target's head.

You're describing the poor man's version of that.
I'm no security expert so take this with a grain of salt, but it occurs to me that the President generally travels in a heavily armoured limo. While it is certainly easy enough to kill a soft target, an armoured limo is pretty much the opposite of that. You'd basically need an anti-tank weapon to get at anyone inside. At best you could hope to break the armour plating, trapping the passenger and hopefully cutting a vital artery, as did happen in a previous road side bomb attack against an armoured limo in the middle east. The victim of the attack bled to death before they could free him/her from the wreckage. That seems like more luck then skill on the part of the bomber and while bombing has become more effective so has armour. I think the President is safe in his ride.
 
What if I told you that you only needed to kill one man tomorrow instead of a bunch? The CDC states that a blast that generates 100mph of force is enough to cause a fatality. A small bomb would easily generate that amount of pressure.

1. An IED that is only powerful enough to kill one man would have to be very close to the target to deliver enough energy to kill him.

2. You need a lot of explosive to make an IED that will kill with blast force alone.

3. A very small charge + fragmenting material in a jacket around the bomb would be more useful but again, you'd need to be very close to the target, there's no guarantee that the fragments would be enough to kill and not just wound, and the weight required even for just a small charge + whatever the fragmenting jacket would be made of (usually it's metal objects like steel bearings or bits of iron scrap) may make the IED unfeasible.

4. The Secret Service aren't idiots and probably are aware of the danger drones potentially pose and therefore will probably be ready to intercept any such rogue flying drones.
 
I'm no security expert so take this with a grain of salt, but it occurs to me that the President generally travels in a heavily armoured limo. While it is certainly easy enough to kill a soft target, an armoured limo is pretty much the opposite of that. You'd basically need an anti-tank weapon to get at anyone inside. At best you could hope to break the armour plating, trapping the passenger and hopefully cutting a vital artery, as did happen in a previous road side bomb attack against an armoured limo in the middle east. The victim of the attack bled to death before they could free him/her from the wreckage. That seems like more luck then skill on the part of the bomber and while bombing has become more effective so has armour. I think the President is safe in his ride.

I was assuming the attempt would be right at the podium. If I were the type to do that sort of thing, that's where I'd do it, for maximum laughs. Go high, he's talking, everyone's looking at him, the secret service is mostly looking at the crowd, any looking up have a minimal chance of seeing it until it starts to dive, then it's more or less too late.

And if the payload is, say, a glass fiber-wrapped baggie of RDX, it doesn't matter if the secret service knocks him down and covers him.

Everyone thinks he's okay, for about a day. Even if they don't, glass fibers don't show up on X-ray or MRI worth a damn.
 
Back