Oh my.......I hope to God she has some sort of mental r****dation to explain this video. That was about the most embarrassing thing I've seen in a long time.
as if the republican party holds no responsibility for our continued involvement throughout the middle east...get real... the republican neo-cons were the some of the biggest proponents for war. hillary is no angel, but lets not forget who got us into this mess either.
Your words speak pretty loudly here: mom left her computer out but her p*rn blocking software on. Sad face.
Just checked her wikipedia page. I thought she was younger (her looks + the fact that she didn't seem to remember 2004), but she is about my age. I also had not idea that she is bi-racial-- not that it matters, but anyhow. Not just Pierson, but the folks that Trump has on TV talking in support of him are not all that effective.
I do agree rocketsjudoka, there is a high probability that officers would refuse to obey a command to fire nuclear weapons under the circumstances of silliness we have discussed, such as a mean tweet. However, more concerning is the more subtle situation where trump wants to use nuclear weapons as first strike or preemptive attack. What happens in that situation? I'm less concerned about him being literally baited by a tweet and more concerned about him Just being recklessly ignorant but interested in nukes
Trump didn't vote for the first war because he wasn't in office. He did however support it. The video evidence is out there for anyone who isn't blindly loyal to him
Yes I addressed that in my response to justtxyank. That said as in the example with Schlesinger and Nixon Schlesinger was essentially engaging in mutiny but hasn't faced any legal consequence. Ultimately it is humans and not computers that launch nukes and in the case of a President deciding on a whim to engage in a nuclear strikes very likely that order might not be followed. It very well could be illegal but I doubt anyone who did would be convicted while the President gets impeached.
Except Trump wasn't in a position to vote for or against the war. His actions have as much meaning as my actions regarding the congressional vote to authorize the President to use military force. Very little.
Sorry, Judo, but your highly optimistic view about the reaction of the US military in the case of a lunatic, say someone like Trump, deciding to use nukes in a cavalier way simply doesn't add up. They have to obey the Commander in Chief. That's the system. Assuming they wouldn't is an exercise in fiction, combined with a forlorn hope.
Not sure what you mean, man. As an aside though, I haven't watched p*rn for three years since trying the NoFap (feel free to bump the great p*rn experiment, it's a great thread imo). NoFap reddit is now more of ego stroking, but the idea is solid. Guys I say this from experience. Quitting p*rn was one of the best things I've done. More energy, more confidence...More sexual energy. Real life is just so much better than a virtual world. Politics be politics. Stop watching p*rn and you can go out and make your life awesome.
Also, weren't you the guy that called me a non-college white guy? You're just swinging and missing, eh. Tough.
There is a bit of madness around the whole nuclear thing. The madness is such that "practicality" of the situation isn't practical. If you asked me how concern I'm about a President launching a nuke strike... I would have said it is close to 0%. 0.1%. With Trump, it's 1%. That's 1% too much. You can play all kind of games of possible scenarios, but that's all it is is hope of someone stepping in and stopping some madness. The real scenario that WOULD more likely stop a nuke launch is this - it's WELL KNOWN that the ONLY time you SHOULD launch a nuke strike (on both side by the way) is to retaliate. The military is the one that initially detect such a situation and report it up, but will it disobey an order if it has not detected such a strike? The simple unavoidable answer is it can be an easy NO. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.html However, the detection of a strike itself isn't fool proof and there has been a number of false alarms (over one thousands false alarms), one of which were "critically" close. There is therefore enormous time pressure on the President to REACT (the real 3AM call). How would a President react? I already was concern, but with Trump - it's just that more concerning. And to be clear - there is NO "2nd" person involved in the decision. The decision is the President and no one else (although the President could delegate - but that's another complex, unclear, unknown procedure). The "2nd" or more men involvement is only for the purpose of independently verifying that the order is indeed from the President, but not to question to the order. And yes, prior to the decision, there could (and should) be more heads involved - but again, that's a mute point. Once the decision is made, it is done. And there lies the craziness of how awesome destructive power lies in one person (or multiple head of states). Side note - initially, Trump was in the 0.1% bracket to me. He elevate himself to 1% recently. The possible good news is he is going to lose and there is more awareness of the craziness of nuke that I hope further policy changes to reduce the chance of wiping out civilization. Related for ref: Interactive timeline to understand how little time the President has to react after a detection of a strike: http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/ False alarms (and craziness of nuke policies): Our Nuclear Procedures Are Crazier Than Trump - U.S. presidents are currently given a four-minute window to decide whether or not to initiate an irreversible apocalypse Nuclear command and control from Congress 1975 - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015078698720;view=1up;seq=1
the obama administration was built on lies and did nothing for blacks. Sure he was a president for ALL the people, but he had no problem advancing homosexuals. Sure he was a president for all the people, but he had no porblem advancing white women and latinos. It was we african-americans who voted for him at 95% rate. And you could make the case blacks are worse off now than when he got in office. What is Obama doing about black on black violence especially in his home state, what about police on black shootings. NOTHING This guy Obama is a fraud, Hillary is worse than Obama so that might mean the end of blacks as we know it. She has been on record saying that she would like to cut off aid to africa unless the continent fully accepts homosexuality. SICK, WHY DONT ANYBODY EVER PUSH THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA TO ISRAEL. Stop forcing this type of behavior on us, its not natural As for Khan, i agree with Trump and his ban on Muslims. Look at what muslim refugees have done to europe, and are doing in in africa( specifically Nigeria). The american people can not be tricked this easily, so because one muslim american is offended we should open our borders and let these terrorists operate in our country. FOOLISHNESS Also stop looking at reuters and 538 for polling that have #crookedhillary ahead, studies have shown they have polled 30% more democrats than conservatives. Thats the only way hillary is leading, Trump recieved the largest amount of black votes a conservative has recieved in many years during the primaries. I predict Trump will beat Hillary in November, and finally we can start looking after this country instead of everybody else
How can Trump camp think they can get away without apology here?? what am I missing. why are they even talking war and everything..that is irrelevant here. When Khan questioned trump, he responded by asking why his wife was silent. Its pretty clear what he was insinuating. Doesn't this necessitate an apology however way we look at it?
It might be optimistic but as I noted in the one example where there was real fear that a President might use nukes for personal reasons steps were taken by others to make it more difficult.
That was the very article that I cited the Schlesinger story from. As I stated before I agree at the moment there is no legal basis to prevent the President from launching nukes. As the Schlesinger case though shows that when such a situation has arisen at the risk of breaking the law people have taken steps to prevent such a possibility. From that I just don't think that sane people would blindly follow an insane order from a president that could lead to the extinction of humanity.
You don't understand this "mess" if you think it began with our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It started long before 2003 or 9/11/01. There are plenty of people to blame. That being said, of the last 30 or so years, I don't believe either party had nefarious reasons for meddling in the Middle East. We have legitimate reasons to be concerned about that region, both from an economic and a security standpoint. But the world is a complicated place, and often times there are unintended consequences that may take years or even decades to truly show.
