Who you going to vote for between Trump and Hillary?

norton9478 said:

The VP can'd do shit if the Sec. of Defense passes the order.

As I said in the edit, the people in the control room can't and won't refuse. Refusing an order it is almost as dangerous. They have to have faith the president to "turn the key".

They don't have the time to decide if the command is "out of it's mind" or not. We could be under attack for all they know. This is the US defense apparatus. The whole structure is top to bottom.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the system of checks and balances that exist over the executive branch and their appointments.

Assuming a madman is sworn into office, if congress has reason to believe he's a danger to the country, they can impeach him.
If Congress thinks the Secretary of Defense is a poor choice, or is a madman, they can veto the appointment, or impeach the secretary if it become later apparent that he is unfit for his appointment. Beginning the impeachment process requires only a simple majority vote.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/Federalism/PresidentialPowers.asp

You're also running off the idea that because Trump said some mean things that he's going to nuke some country he disagrees with.

That's so far out of the realm of probability I don't even know where to begin.
You don't run a multi-national conglomerate of dozens of corporations and make deals with people across the world by being petty or stupid. Trump's entire history has been on of a negotiator and deal maker.

norton9478 said:

And ohh yeah, that Sec. of Defense check.... I'm under the impression that it only applies outside of the situation room.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan

A president can order a strike all they want, the procedure still requires a 2-Man Authentication.
There is a huge line of succession to insure that there is always SOMEONE to authenticate and has possession of one half of the code.

Trump has also said dumb things about nukes.


The whole system is designed to act fast and without hesitation. Because that is exactly what you need in order to ensure that other countries won't nuke you.
The only "Check and Balances" on the use of nukes is authenticating the command. That is the check. To make sure the code actually came from the top.



You are naive and delusional to think otherwise and should not admonish others for being naive.

norton9478 said:

Trump has also said dumb things about nukes.


The whole system is designed to act fast and without hesitation. Because that is exactly what you need in order to ensure that other countries won't nuke you.
The only "Check and Balances" on the use of nukes is authenticating the command. That is the check. To make sure the code actually came from the top.



You are naive and delusional to think otherwise and should not admonish others for being naive.

Click to expand...

You truly are an idiot.
Checks and balances happen through the entire life of someone being appointed to those positions. They're not just at the moment of decision.

I cannot fathom how you could honestly believe that someone would be appointed to the presidency and appoint a Secretary of Defense that would be complicit in an un-provoked nuclear strike, and nobody in the room would attempt to stop them.

You must have a severe distrust of humanity as a whole, including decorated military officers.

I really like the saying by Stephen R. Covey - "seek first to understand, then to be understood"

You don't get decorated as a military officer by refusing an order from a commander. Once again, the system is designed to be fast and reliable. Every potential enemy has to be assured that if it uses nuclear weapons on us or [possibly] our allies, we will be able to retaliate in-kind. IN fact, one trainee was discharged for questioning how he knows that the valid order was from a sane president.

There is actually one possible check and balance to keep an unfit person from being able to launch nukes. And it is to use the ballot box to prevent someone like Donald Trump from ever being president.

But once he gets the biscuit, god help us all.

DNSDies said:

A president can order a strike all they want, the procedure still requires a 2-Man Authentication.
There is a huge line of succession to insure that there is always SOMEONE to authenticate and has possession of one half of the code.

Click to expand...

Authentication is the key word. You are depending on a system of authentication to act in the capacity of consent. All in the military where you don't refuse orders. That is like depending on a notary to keep you from signing a document with shitty mortgage terms.

Anyone voting for this fucking serial killer saying Trump is the dangerous one is just fucking LOL at this point

"Man Who Leaked Clintonç—´ Medical Records Found Dead"

http://yournewswire.com/man-who-leaked-clintons-medical-records-found-dead/

See, Norton, you're also arguing from this insane perspective that once Trump gets POTUS, he's going to appoint a yes-man SoD, and that Congress is not going to notice his blood-lust for Nuclear Warfare in time to impeach him, and won't object to his appointment of a poor SoD.

Your very premise is flawed, and relies on so many things happening that would go unchallenged. It's preposterous on its face.

You're grasping at straws and pushing the goalposts all over the place.

You're also falsely assuming that the Military is full of brainwashed idiots, and that they didn't all take an oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

That oath supersedes ANY authority the president thinks he has. The vast majority of servicemen and women pride themselves on upholding that oath. This is why so many are ardent supporters of the Second Amendment.

I don't think you understand.

There are no checks and balances to prevent the president from using nukes. There are only checks and balances to prevent people other than the president from using them.

And the president can't be impeached for being crazy. It's only for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. So unless he is nuking Atlanta, then nada.

He could be conceivably removed from office for mental defect, but that would take time and invoke a constitutional crisis.

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the president from nuking another country. It's his role as commander in chief. As for the Secretary of Defense, it is his constitutional duty to follow the order of the president . To refuse to nuke another country would be breaking that oath (and possibly treason in a time of war).

Your entire fail safe is premised on someone breaking the chain of command and doing the opposite of what they are programmed and trained to do.

Damn Pasky 2 in less than a week, they must really be getting nervous over the clinton run, clinton foundation, and the dnc shenanigans trifecta to need to gun down people that quickly and it's still only August.

norton9478 said:

I don't think you understand.
There are no checks and balances to prevent the president from using nukes. There are only checks and balances to prevent people other than the president from using them.
And the president can't be impeached for being crazy. It's only for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. So unless he is nuking Atlanta, then nada.
He could be conceivably removed from office for mental defect, but that would take time and invoke a constitutional crisis.
There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the president from nuking another country. It's his role as commander in chief. As for the Secretary of Defense, it is his constitutional duty to follow the order of the president . To refuse to nuke another country would be breaking that oath (and possibly treason in a time of war).
Your entire fail safe is premised on someone breaking the chain of command and doing the opposite of what they are programmed and trained to do.

Click to expand...

No, you really do not understand how the nuclear launch system works.
The POTUS can issue an order for a launch, BUT THIS DOES NOT ACTUALLY LAUNCH ANYTHING. THERE IS NO BIG RED BUTTON.
The SoD needs to CONFIRM THE ORDER. IF HE DOES NOT, THE LAUNCH CANNOT HAPPEN.

You're still laboring under the delusion that sole launch ABILITY lays with the president. It does NOT.
You also have a misunderstanding of the terms of impeachment:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment

"high Crimes and Misdemeanors" does not mean what you think it means.

impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.

Click to expand...

Now, if we're at WAR, then it's considered acceptable that nukes can be used. They exist TO BE USED.
Every single administration since 1950s has had plans drawn out to use our nukes to DECISIVELY end wars with any nation, even those without nukes.
http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/2.6/NPR2001leaked.pdf

We don't maintain an arsenal of over 4000 nuclear devices for deterrence alone.

*cough*

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-noonan-trump-nuclear-weapons-twitter

DNSDies said:

We don't maintain an arsenal of over 4000 nuclear devices for deterrence alone.

Click to expand...

It's hard to believe, that any nation doesn't. All drawn out plans, the fact, that it is considered acceptable to use them and you knowing that it's 4000+ heads are part of this deterrence. As is the figurative Red Button. Dr. Merkwuerdigliebe had amplified that idea already.

I can't trust Hillary. At the same time, I'd be a lot less worried about her if she didn't want to let a bunch of unvetted war torn people in with a system that can't even work here since we don't and cannot have Sharia. If Hillary declines mass migration, I'll vote for her. If this issue was about amnesty for our south American illegals, I'm totally for that. They contribute beautifully, and I'd love to see them pay into the system and get fair output.

I CANNOT in good faith vote for her with the Syria bullshit on the radar. I was heavily unhinged with brexit, jumped all over the place. The brexit probably happened due to the Islam migration. Sweden is a nightmare to. European sensibility has a major feeling of wanting to be defeatist out of this fear they may be racist for criticizing a religious and political ideology that has nothing to do with race.

I seriously worry she's gonna be the Merkel of the USA, with this 'we can make it work' mentality, living in fantasy land of the real world outside of our culture, which is SO EASY to live in compared to others.

Who really wants to go to France anymore? This stuff can harm tourism and other factors to. Last thing we need is one really bad apple out of tons blowing up our monuments or other history. People can't just approach this issue liberally.

This is the crux of our modern times, and it goes beyond both these joke like parties who run the show. Neither candidate can properly deal with this, and this isn't something you can 'hug out'. Even if 1 in 1000 are bad news, the nature of that one person can do so much damage, it is ridiculous.

I get Hillary's idea of wanting to give these people a chance, and she is not wrong, but it is naive, and I am telling you and I'll call this, we will see events and random Jihad, major and minor attacks here like in Europe. I also cannot allow or in good conscience invite Islam, which condemns gays, jews, and makes women submit to men.

Islam is submission, and Sharia and Allah are tied together. This ideology at best can't assimilate or at worst, can establish no go zones or other stuff. This stuff is brazenly ignored by Hillary who is the figure head of liberalism, yet her invitation of a ideology that is incompatible with western culture is 100% the reverse. Honestly, I'm not even convinced she likes gays.

How can she be a liberal president, then invite people in who are dangerous to gay's, women and jews? I mean c'mon.

Average Joe said:

*cough*

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-noonan-trump-nuclear-weapons-twitter

Click to expand...

from same article :

Conservative national security hawk and former Jeb Bush adviser John Noonan used a Wednesday tweetstorm to sound off on his concerns about a report that Donald Trump had repeatedly asked an unnamed adviser why the United States could not use nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

Only idiots would buy into this crap.

oliverclaude said:

It's hard to believe, that any nation doesn't. All drawn out plans, the fact, that it is considered acceptable to use them and you knowing that it's 4000+ heads are part of this deterrence. As is the figurative Red Button. Dr. Merkwuerdigliebe had amplified that idea already.

Click to expand...

http://usawatchdog.com/u-s-has-plans-for-preemptive-nuclear-attack-paul-craig-roberts/
To expand on this, 4000 is about three times as many nukes as we would need to pacify THREE of our largest targets COMBINED.
US Policy has ALWAYS had plans for first strikes. The Minuteman operator Noonan is a naive FOOL if he didn't know that the US keeps launch plans on hand for first strikes against EVERY SINGLE NATION ON THE EARTH.
The plans need to be drawn up in advance so they can execute a strike in under an hour.

Minuteman Operators do not actually know what they're targeting. It's built into the code they get which targeting plan is used.

does this mean trump wants to blow up the whole planet cuz mexicans?
do i vote hillary?

I feel guilty troll posting in front of Average Joe.

I guess I'll make one serious post about this election.

Just one.

Quick recap of my political memory, dating from around high school when I started caring:



So now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is neoconservative trash.

If you put her politics and her style in another person, that person would have had a real chance at getting the Republican nomination, at least back in 2008.

She believes that the presidency belongs to her. She believes it was already stolen from her once before.

American blood and treasure will be burned on the altar of her ego and her ambition.

She will be an enemy to transparency and accountability.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There will be more economic and law-related riots in her first term than in Obama's eight years.

And she's going to be the next president because a Donald Trump is completely unacceptable.

Donald Trump is worse than useless. The world is already poorer for his having lived in it.

Donald Trump's bona fides for the presidency are poor on their face and collapse under scrutiny.

Donald Trump could have dumped his inheritance in mutual funds and played golf for the last 40 years. He'd be just as rich, if not richer, than he is (?) today.

His businesses are better at ruining contractors than producing jobs.

Donald Trump can't even manage his own campaign. He'd be doing better in the polls if he'd been in hiding since the convention. Katrina fucking Pierson is still his national spokeswoman.

Donald Trump defines "delegating responsibility" as offering to let John Kasich run everything.

Julian Assange knows that American standing in the world will be so utterly fucked under Trump that he'll finally be able to set foot outside the Ecuadorian embassy without being disappeared.

He's decided to make a base out of people so entitled, emotionally stunted, and insecure that they consider Special Snowflakes, Black Lives Matter, and ISIS to be the top three threats to the nation, in that order.

He's such a piece of fucking garbage that his supporters are forced to embrace inane conspiracy theories and unskewed polls in order to convince themselves he's more palatable than Hillary Clinton, when she should be horrible enough to beat based on the history she owns up to.

And those are the nicest things I can say about him.

"OBJECTIVELY HISTORICALLY FACTUAL" - 32bitGod aka SonofAirraid

Every decision we make is meaningless because somewhere, on a parallel Earth, we have already made the opposite choice. We're nothing. Less than nothing.



It doesn't matter.

SML said:

I feel guilty troll posting in front of Average Joe.

I guess I'll make one serious post about this election.

Just one.

Quick recap of my political memory, dating from around high school when I started caring:

Spoiler:

Didn't care about the blowjob.

Hated (Bill) Clinton's bombing campaigns.

Wanted GWB to beat Al Gore (Texas!)

Didn't start living in a new world on 9/11.

Didn't want to go into Iraq.

Didn't believe Iraq was a scam to enrich Haliburton. Couldn't stand Michael Mooreites.

Hated insular GWB administration. Didn't like John Kerry.

Eligible to vote in 2004. Couldn't bring myself to vote for either one once I got into the booth. Punted for Badnarik.

Registered Republican in 2007. "Paulbot." Started lurking on Sean Hannity forums.

Really became aware of the extent to which people, all people, are willing to choose narratives over facts.

Preferred Obama to McCain. Had no faith that Obama would be what he pretended to be, or allowed people to pretend he was, but maybe losing big would provide a reality check and some needed soul-searching for the Republican Party (l o fucking l)

Voted for Bob Barr in the booth. This is the one third-party vote that I'm not proud of, not that the alternatives were better. Barr is worthless.

Saw the Tea Party "created" (hijacked) by Rick Santelli. Knew that republican reform was going to be a joke.

Voted L in the 2010 midterms and Paul in the 2012 primaries. Johnson in the General.

Crossed over to vote Sanders in this year's primaries.

Saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.

So now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton is neoconservative trash.

If you put her politics and her style in another person, that person would have had a real chance at getting the Republican nomination, at least back in 2008.

She believes that the presidency belongs to her. She believes it was already stolen from her once before.

American blood and treasure will be burned on the altar of her ego and her ambition.

She will be an enemy to transparency and accountability.

The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There will be more economic and law-related riots in her first term than in Obama's eight years.

And she's going to be the next president because a Donald Trump is completely unacceptable.

Donald Trump is worse than useless. The world is already poorer for his having lived in it.

Donald Trump's bona fides for the presidency are poor on their face and collapse under scrutiny.

Donald Trump could have dumped his inheritance in mutual funds and played golf for the last 40 years. He'd be just as rich, if not richer, than he is (?) today.

His businesses are better at ruining contractors than producing jobs.

Donald Trump can't even manage his own campaign. He'd be doing better in the polls if he'd been in hiding since the convention. Katrina fucking Pierson is still his national spokeswoman.

Donald Trump defines "delegating responsibility" as offering to let John Kasich run everything.

Julian Assange knows that American standing in the world will be so utterly fucked under Trump that he'll finally be able to set foot outside the Ecuadorian embassy without being disappeared.

He's decided to make a base out of people so entitled, emotionally stunted, and insecure that they consider Special Snowflakes, Black Lives Matter, and ISIS to be the top three threats to the nation, in that order.

He's such a piece of fucking garbage that his supporters are forced to embrace inane conspiracy theories and unskewed polls in order to convince themselves he's more palatable than Hillary Clinton, when she should be horrible enough to beat based on the history she owns up to.

And those are the nicest things I can say about him.

Spoiler:

Everyone on this planet likes cock except me.

Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...orsing-hillary-clinton-the-devil-we-know.html

So you're voting HRC?

Or are you going third party again?

I'm voting for Owlman.

Which is just my name for Gary Johnson. It has nothing to do with FAT$TACKS's post.

That said, I hope Trump loses by at least ten points. If the American right has any future, his supporters need to be brought to heel like they were super predators.

NVM ... this thread is waste of time. The blind and stupid will always be blind and stupid no matter what happens.

SML said:

I'm voting for Owlman.

Click to expand...

do you have health insurance?

who's paying for it you or your employer?

have the rates changed more than once in the last 8 quarters? by how much?

do you pay property tax? when was the last time your property tax got a reduction?

do you live near gov subsidized housing? how about within 100 miles of a major city?

do you receive public assistance of any kind?