380
Nice whoever comes after trump should end his secret service detail and the ones for all his little nazi offspring too
He'll be dead by then and he knows it.
Wow. You really think there's going to be another election?
Of course, he has a bunch of children you can vote for.
I don't understand how so many people don't realize how serious shit is at the moment.
He's got to die eventually, no?
Then it's time for Trump jr. To take the King position ?
I think it might be Barron. The media has been starting to glaze him and give him some air time and float his name. Don Jr has been doing tons of really cringe campaigning for El Presidente, but given he hasn't really been talked about in the media, I don't think they're floating him next
The pettiest president strikes again.
Set that precedent, Donnie. Set it.
No Democrat would ever do the same, he's safe.
No Democrat now, sure... But the ones that get elected after Trump, that's another story.
Bold of you to assume there will be another election
Also bold of him to assume the democratic party is capable of change.
Not too bold, since states run elections, and blue states will continue to run normal ones. Red, states, though? Oh, those'll be corrupt up the wazoo.
and they're a majority by almost 2:1, guaranteeing republican victories going forward.
Yup. It's grim nationally, but at least blue states have a change of not being total shitholes within.
Ending it 3 months early... hell I was going to say how Petty sounding but yeah course it is.
That makes it worse. It means the only reason to do it is to call attention to the removal of protection, like "Will no one rid me of this turbulent ~~priest~~ opposition member?"
I hear Canada is nice this time of year. They might relax their drug-related restrictions for Hunter.
I hear he's got a huge hog.
They should move.
OK so this is actually pretty normal?
Edit: For all the Lemmings out there having trouble understanding, you don't have to read the article, but at least read the summary. Their USSS protection would end in a few months anyway. Trump is a colossal asshole, yes, but they're only getting a few months less of USSS protection. The length of time they get protection is fairly normal.
Posting about it on social media seems to be thinly veiled stochastic terrorism
That is pretty fucked up indeed. I still doubt anyone attacks them or anything.
Maybe not, but maybe they will.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F
Maybe, maybe. But the way stochastic terrorism works is you just roll the dice against long odds over and over and eventually someone does what you're suggesting.
Paul Pelosi is a pretty solid example here
If their USSS protection would have ended in like July anyway, couldn't a potential attacker have just waited until then to do whatever they're gonna do? I get that by calling attention to it, Trump increases the odds of an attack though.
I get that by calling attention to it, Trump increases the odds of an attack though.
Yeah that's really the whole of it. They're not trying to get smart professional people to shoot their enemies. They want to get impulsive people. That person isn't likely to go look up these things but if they get the idea put in front of them they might act
Trump did for his family after leaving office in 2021.
It's normal to extend it. It's not normal for the next President to end it. Especially when that hypocrite did it for his own offspring just 4 years earlier.
load more comments
(2 replies)
No. How the fuck would you think that's normal?
This is how the fuck:
"But outgoing presidents can extend protection for those who might otherwise not be eligible for up to six months after they leave office"
It would end in a few months anyway. Yeah he's being petty and he's a dickhead, but it's not that big of a difference.
Thank you for proving my point. I think you need to look up the definition of normal, because you obviously don't have a fucking clue what normal is.
How did I prove your point at all? I'm talking about the time range of protection ending. There's like a three month difference. In the realm of terrible things Trump has done so far, this is barely noticeable.
Lmao 🤣 your initial comment said this was pretty normal. It's literally never happened. As for your other argument, maybe look up some dates or something.
Hello? Are we even having a conversation or are you just ecstatic that you got a chance to be smug on the internet? What dates am I supposed to look up? The summary said they usually get six months of protection after the former president's term ends. So they'll be missing out on 4 months of protection that they would normally get. Please save your smug energy for the actual Trump supporters.
So, 2 months versus 6 months means nothing. It's totally normal for Trump to vindictively take away 66% of their protection? And, I said look up some dates because you originally said 3 months. Keep it up, my smugness intensifies.
You are right about one thing. I said 3 months because I can't count. Inauguration is late January, so then until now is 2 months. I am horribly sorry not to have met your expectations, O Lord of Righteousness. Since you're till having trouble understanding what I'm saying, it wasn't 66% of their total protection. Assuming they were protected for the entirety of Biden's term, Trump is taking away (since you love numbers so much) 7.4% (4 out of 54 [4 years is 48 months, plus the 6 month extension period] total months of their overall protection.
This just keeps getting more entertaining. How exactly would Trump have taken away their protection before he was president? Their protection while Biden was president is not in any way related to this argument. Again, my only argument is that this is not normal as your first comment suggested, but by all means, keep trying to talk yourself into it being normal. Either way, I'm done here. Enjoy your down votes as I'm sure you will.
Hello, Elesevenenseven. You seem to have trouble understanding that them losing less than 10% of the total protection time means that they have almost the normal amount of protection time. I'm not saying that Trump would have taken away their protection before he was president. At this point, I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is actually that poor or if you're just really desperate to keep up the nitpicky smug internet argument act.
I agree that taking away the protection is not normal. I get that. Their protection ending is normal. It's not like he ended what would normally be lifetime protection. I could have worded my original comment better, but I didn't expect someone to get so invested in being an asshole in response to a comment I wrote in 10 seconds while multitasking.
All that shit talk to tell me I'm right. Thank you.
Forcefully ending the protection early despite it being established by the previous president? Hell no.
normal? for the diaper-in-chief to be a petty whiny little baby? yup.
Everything Trump does is normal. For a dumb rapist conman.
Petty, but not unprecedented. It’s pretty normal.
Has any other president canceled their predecessors USSS protection for offspring early?
abby something
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
380 points (100.0% liked)
News
27412 readers
3643 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS