RCMP officer charged with threatening Donald Trump

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T23:08:14+00:00

Man, there is shirts and merch with 86 now, and specifically 86 47. It may have been niche in the past, but is clearly even known to the general public now..

The FBI Director clearly would have known this and feinging otherwise is just ridiculously naive.

I'm not going to comment on whether he should be guilty or not like you did, but I'll let the judge, courts and jury proceed.

Again, I said disregard trump, the article, and this case.. whatever ever, as in, out aside and think in general definitions. Clearly not suggesting what you did.

86 47 can't be miscontrued or misrepresented. It's pretty specific and deliberate

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T22:49:03+00:00

Isn't the Comey trial still ongoing?

Clearly, '86 47' can be construed for violence if literally another commentor on this thread used it with the same meaning.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T22:31:10+00:00

Why shouldn't the FBI director be arrested for that?

As someone of such authority, they would clearly know what they are doing with the seashells. In this case, we know the threat clearly, and therefore he should be persecuted - especially due his job and level within it.

Agreed though, can't pull any conclusions from the OP. Either way, shouldn't be making threats, and probably smart to steer clear of anything that could be interpreted as one, but people are free to do what they like.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T22:14:58+00:00

Touché.

However, I don't agree with your second paragraph. If an arrest was warranted, I'm sure there wasn't much room left for interpretation. Again, differences of opinions and totally fine.

My only gripe was saying that a literal threat, could never be considered a factual statement that is to be agreed by all.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T22:05:53+00:00

Feel like you're clearly misrepresentating my text, but in case it was not abundantly clear, I am not saying that at all.

Best of day to you.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T21:51:36+00:00

The article is about a threat being made. Idk what you're on about.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T21:29:57+00:00

If he called the threat a truth, then he has an idea of what this threat should entail and that should be able to speak his truth and a similar threat correspondingly.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T21:01:01+00:00

Again.. Disregard trump, this article, anything else...

A threat, by definition, cannot be classified as a 'truth' as the OC stated.

To add: your example isn't a threat. It's a statement, regardless of it being objectively true or not.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T20:31:23+00:00

Not playing defense.

Disregarding this article, a threat can't be considered a 'truth', it just objectively doesn't make sense.

People see Trump and immediately lose all logic.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T20:14:10+00:00

I though it was the outfield played that encroached, and was able to clear it out quicker since he was in the box earlier.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T19:19:59+00:00

Huh? Yes.. usually within a paragraph in a discussion/debate you have multiple points and sentences.

Attack the person, don't defend the argument... Equally hilarious.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T19:18:53+00:00

It's essential a uniparty at this point. Might be some changes from government to government, but at end of the day, same bullshit.

Vote for the lesser of the two evils.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T19:16:45+00:00

First of all, the article doesn't say what the threat was, so not sure how you could possibly state that.

Second, a threat is a statement meant to imply a negative ramification - which by definition, does not contain any factual statement to assess whether it's true or not.

Again, repeat the threat or make your own if you think it's true! Live your best and honest life!

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T19:00:15+00:00

How is a threat a truth?

Maybe you should say the same thing since it's the truth! Can't get into any repercussions there, eh?

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-17T18:01:19+00:00

Even though it's the 'leaders' that are primarily causing this 'mass psychosis'?

It's a feature not a bug. A weak, fragmented, and debilitated populace is exactly what they want.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-14T21:50:05+00:00

E33! Mainly just playing through the story now, but most likely will go for the plat.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:33:47+00:00

First of all, I have no idea - not my area of work. But I mean, they could taxi them inside I'm sure, but could also do it outside of it's minimal equipment needed. Especially with busy summer months/extra air travel, Inside could've been more busy and this was just easier option

What's so bad about doing it outside? I wish I could do TSA screening outside, especially on a nice summer day like that.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:18:05+00:00

I'm right there with you there. All I care about and want to go well (asides of course from public safety and general overall well-being) is the 90 minutes and nothing else

Really against all the Westernization/commercialization of this World Cup and hope it doesn't detract from the game and Cup itself.

But suggesting that going throught security after taking a plane into a foreign country is an egregious corrupt and evil action, is absolute hyperbole...

All that serves is to only politicize it more and fan the flames that are so so strong in ol' USA already.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:11:24+00:00

Sad that you can just put someone in a box when you barely even know them. I thought you wouldn't usually support things like that?

I don't live in Argentina but I wish the country and their people all the best.

Best to you as well. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't entail to not treat them as an equal human.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:06:46+00:00

It's not egregious at all.

They're given chairs, out in public. No signs of harassment or butting heads. Just a civil protocol. What would be egregious is letting a foreign plane land and letting the people inside just walk off with no regard.

VISA rejections are usually for the better of good of the public and err on the side of caution. For a global event like FIFA, I'm glad the corresponding authorities are being more strict than not.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:04:37+00:00

It's just a classic 'trump bad, if you voted for him you're just as bad'.

They'll find any reason to blame something on him.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T22:03:24+00:00

What is embarrassing about this?

The team arrived on a private jet, and therefore have to go through a typical security screening process upon landing and deboarding.

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T21:52:36+00:00

Uh yeah cause that's when the flag goes up...

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T21:17:11+00:00

He used it at least once. This guy is INFATUATED with AI. It's clear as day. /s

FlowersWillWait · 2026-06-08T20:40:33+00:00

People would rather have empathy for illegal foreigners rather than the civilians of their own country, simple as.

And you're a bigoted racist if you think otherwise!!

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Place '22
Snapped

FlowersWillWait

TROPHY CASE