POTUS Election thread

[Hooahguy]

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes. So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this back in 2008:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one.

[Greyblades]

Per the Wikipedia article you posted, the president can fire the Secretary of Defense if he doesnt agree with the use of nukes

True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.

So the Secretary of Defense doesnt have veto power over this. Cheney said basically this back in 2008:

I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?

And you are right about this showing an ignorance about nuclear strategy and not an expressed desire to use them. But its still very chilling because its seems like hes ignorant about the fact that ideally nukes should be a last resort measure, not a "use 'em if you got 'em" measure. Lets say things escalate in the South China Sea. Im not so sure Trump wouldnt order a nuclear strike off the bat if a Chinese warship takes a shot at an American one.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.

[Hooahguy]

True he can fire them, but he has to then go through the deputy Secretary of defense and get them to agree. Going by the fact that pretty much every politician in the US is at best wary of him I believe that the worst case scenario is that Trump ends up firing an uncooperative Secretary of Defense and in response the heads of the executive departments use the 25th amendment to declare him incapacitated.

He can keep firing people until he gets an answer he likes. We can hope that his cabinet would enact the 25th but lets be real here, he will fill his cabinet with yes-men.

I'm not sure what to make of this, did Cheyne not know about the two man system?

Im sure he knows, but he would know better than any of us that the two man system is a formality at best.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

That is one hell of a wager. I trust Hillary a lot more because she has shown that she doesnt make rash decisions, whether or not you actually like those decisions.

Hopefully someone took him aside and explained nuclear strategy to him when he asked, and that they do it again both when the republicans have this intervention and if he's sworn in. And maybe once a month once in office.

If the report is true, he asked three times, which means that the first two times he didnt seem to comprehend the answer. Do you think that the GOP and his campaign managers havent pulled him aside telling him to stop tweeting stupid stuff multiple times? Again, its one a huge wager that hes going to comprehend this basic fact of nuclear strategy when in office. If not, the results are catastrophic.

[Greyblades]

He can keep firing people until he gets an answer he likes. We can hope that his cabinet would enact the 25th but lets be real here, he will fill his cabinet with yes-men.

I do not think there are that many men who both can do the job and would say yes to trump pressing the button.

That is one hell of a wager. I trust Hillary a lot more because she has shown that she doesnt make rash decisions, whether or not you actually like those decisions.

I will grant hillary more patience than trump, but I do not trust her judgment is sound when it comes to strategy or proportionate response.

If the report is true, he asked three times, which means that the first two times he didnt seem to comprehend the answer. Do you think that the GOP and his campaign managers havent pulled him aside telling him to stop tweeting stupid stuff multiple times? Again, its one a huge wager that hes going to comprehend this basic fact of nuclear strategy when in office. If not, the results are catastrophic.

It wasnt multiple times it was thrice in the same hour long breifing, which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

[CrossLOPER]

which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

This is what you sound like:

"HE'S A GOOD BOY! HE CAN FIGURE OUT ANYTHING!"

You sound like a father trying to get his NEET son to work at the IT department at his work because "he's good with computers". Trump is a business opportunist. The presidency is nothing more than a business opportunity. He will say anything to the tune of "making things work" to get an election. He has not presented a single comprehensive policy before or during this election cycle that can even be discredited due to the fact that it is retarded, much like everything that came out of Dr. Ben Carson's mouth.

[Greyblades]

This is what you sound like:

"HE'S A GOOD BOY! HE CAN FIGURE OUT ANYTHING!"

You sound like a father trying to get his NEET son to work at the IT department at his work because "he's good with computers". Trump is a business opportunist. The presidency is nothing more than a business opportunity. He will say anything to the tune of "making things work" to get an election. He has not presented a single comprehensive policy before or during this election cycle that can even be discredited due to the fact that it is retarded, much like everything that came out of Dr. Ben Carson's mouth.

If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.

[CrossLOPER]

If this is what you believe I am saying I think you need to turn off the internet and take a break.

You're right, it's much worse. You are using the tired logic that "Hillary is worse" and "everything will work out" if Trump is elected. Everything regarding Trump with you is an endless string of ifs. None of them will come to pass because the man involved is incapable of accepting criticism, or even disagreement, of any kind.

[Hooahguy]

I do not think there are that many men who both can do the job and would say yes to trump pressing the button.

It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet.

It wasnt multiple times it was thrice in the same hour long breifing, which doesnt tell us anything beyond an idea that it had/would take at least an hour of conversation for nuclear strategy to sink into Trump's head.

More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

[Greyblades]

It seems like the only people who Trump keeps around for any length of time who arent yes-men are his kids. Look at the huge turnover in staff in his campaign, that should give you a pretty clear indication how he would run his cabinet.

When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.

More than once = multiple times. Even if it was in the same conversation. If anything this is worse because because it means he didnt comprehend the answer the first two times in such a short time span. Makes sense though, his mind does seem to wander considering how often he goes off message in his speeches.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.

[Hooahguy]

When his options are limited by both qualification and senate approval I think that turnover rate with drop sharply.

So you are placing all your faith in the Senate then? That's gutsy.

In my country 1 in 5 of our politicians think giving up nuclear weapons while everyone else keeps thiers is a good idea. I talked to a fellow recently who had come to the conclusion that, because the 2000 test detonations in remote locations over 65 years since 1945 hadnt made the world less habitable, all out nuclear war couldnt actually do more long term damage than a conventional war.

That fellow sounds quite daft.

It does not surprise me that trying to explain the multitude of complex reasons the United States of America generally doesn't nuke people who cannot fire back, in under an hour, resulted in trump repeating the question three times in confusion. I will become suitably worried if this such conversations become a habit.

What? He is not a child nor does he have a learning disability that we know of. I've had classes in university which went three times as long where I had to comprehend just as difficult material as this and my classmates and I were fine. This shouldn't be an issue for a normal person. Plus a president needs to learn and comprehend information quickly so he can made effective and rational decisions about a situation. Its part of the job and he might not even have an hour. Carson had this same issue and it torpedoed him.

[Pannonian]

Earlier, I referred Greyblades to the documentary The Wilderness Years, with the recommendation that it's extremely highly rated. My guess is he's not taken time to watch it, and looking at Idaho's comment, Idaho certainly hasn't taken time to watch it, as anyone who's done so would know exactly why it's highly rated (it's a collection of primary sources from the people closest to the subject). Contrast with the video Beskar posted just a few posts back, which is an opinion, not even an open opinion at that, but from a comedian in character. While the former, classically respected historical source is dismissed by Corbyn supporters, the latter, which would hardly rate as a source by historiographical standards, is used by the same to support their man.

FYI, one of the sources in The Wilderness Years is Jeremy Corbyn, who explains what he and others did at council level to support his mentor, Tony Benn, who's another of the sources. Just about every significant Labour figure in the 1979-95 period, with the exception of John Smith (dead), gets to explain their actions and reasoning. As well as lesser figures like Corbyn.

Here's the first episode. Note the list of participants: 6 Labour leaders including 3 PMs, and a dozen other cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers.

Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSZtlT6Xsqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6q9LOubfc

[Ironside]

"I'm going to win the war quickly" does not translate to "I'm going to start new wars", nor does complaining about chinese trade deals.

He didnt show any opinion on nukes in Hooahguy's article but an ignorance of nuclear strategy, one that is concerning but becomes somewhat less worrying knowing that the president cannot actually launch a nuke without the approval of the Secritary of Defense.

None of these are exclusively hawkish behavior and past actions indicate otherwise. Now I do not think Trump is peaceful but I think he is an isolationist; he is not interested in stepping into another middle east quagmire for no real gain back home. On the other hand Hillary has been straining at the leash to jump in headfirst since Obama appointed her Secritary of State.

So in response I say: do not try to paint him into some villiany he is for once undeserving. In addition Hillary is really, really bad news if she is president.

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

You haven't thought about this much have you?

Just because Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush 41, he is suddenly blacker than black. As if a lower class lifestyle is what defines black lives (hint: lower class whites still have privilege).

His presidency is a series of half measures and back room deals to pass politically rewarding but socially devastating polices like War on Drugs, Tough on Crime and Welfare Reform.

Did you read the parts about it also being because he was (still is) popular among the black community? Let me put it this way. Whatever he did, he's still remembered as the second best president for blacks (Obama being the first of course). That might be because of lack being given anything else, but it still means that laws requested at the time and turning sour with time is the best anyone has ever offered them without it being empty platitudes.

Like I said, concerning, hence why I'm hoping to god you "Checks and balances" guys can pull off this check, partially because I dont actually trust Hillary with the nuke either.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).



He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.

[Greyblades]

He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).

The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.

And the Republican party hates him and thus will not give him a bunch of yes man who wont stop him nuking, in both circumstances of republican and democrat majority senates Donald trump he will be incapable of using nukes outside of approved circumstances.

As for a conventional war, it seems inevitable for both but Trump's is the most optimistic; he wants to win the war so he wont attack china and he likes russia so that rules out triggering a potential world ending nuclear war. He's going to go after whichever tin pot tyrant who looks at him funny, he's going to kick him in the teeth with the US Army Boot and then leave. If we are lucky it will be a falkands or desert storm.

With Clinton however she's stuck in the bush/obama mindset where she wants to go into the middle east again and do Iraq right this time. There the best you can hope for is a Lybia.

When the choice appears to be between Donald's quick war and Hillary's quagmire the choice seems one sided.

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).

He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.

Which makes it all the sadder that the american left failed to nominate a better person.

Mrs Clinton is worse for several reasons; firstly she is a liar, not only major lies in the email scandal or in the benghazi matter, but also minor lies such as the landing under fire in bosnia or being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, lies with no benefit that was easily disproven and at a rate far beyond the pale of a normal politician and giving the impression of compulsion. Hillary's numerous lies exhibited here:



Do I need to tell you how having a bad liar both in application and believability as head of state is a detriment? This feeds into my general dislike of her character, a dislike based on stories such as this where she assassinated a twelve year old girl's character, stating she was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing" and had "made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body" without actually stating who had told her that. Along with exploiting the reputation of an expert to intimidate the prosecution into abandoning a piece of physical evidence, all to help a paedophile she knew was guilty reduce his sentence to a year in prison.

Transcript of that trial here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084...iliate&irgwc=1

Now I would admit that there is an argument that a competent evil is preferable to an incompetent good (let alone the dubious buffon that is trump) but she isnt competent; her previous job was stained with incompetence.

Russia and Ukraine, Lybia and Syria all notches under the sub par reaction tab but the highlights of incompetence is that which couldnt be blamed on uncontrollable circumstances, namely that she implicitly allowed the first US ambassador in thirty years to be killed overseas after denying 600 requests for security upgrades, even after the neighbouring british ambassador had evacuated:


Oh and she put classified information in the secrity equivalent of a sock under the bed:


Here's the thing, I dont think Trump is a good idea but I see him as the best choice america is left with. You have a decision between a blustering angry idiot and a lying evil screwup. The "skeletor face" has been hovering in the american vision for a good 8 years and saying otherwise is just denial.

She's deplorable, a liar with dubious morals and worst of all bad at her job and the sad thing is that so many wont see it because of the grand spectre of Trump.