Nope. The SecDef can refuse to confirm the order of the president, but upon refusal to confirm, the president has the authority to fire him and replace himon the spot.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
"Basically consent, say arseholes on the internet"
I can't believe some of you genuinely think Trump would use nukes. Yes by law he is probably allowed to use them but you can bet your ass that Big Business has enough power to influence Trump. And once again, Trump is not that stupid.
He's an egotistical, unpredictable arsehole. I wouldn't give him the keys of my car let alone nukes.
Every time this sentiment pops up something comes out to prove it wrong. I eagerly await that next piece of the puzzle.
It's not probably. It is definitely. By law the POTUS is the only person in the country that can order a nuclear strike. Why you keep insinuating otherwise is beyond me.
And the man is crazy. I don't care how "smart" he may seem. He's nuts.
The only reason he is still in the race is because people pick the thing they want to hear from what he says, nothing suggests he is bsing so this defense is just the worst.
Up until this story broke I think he was going to win it. Surely now it's game over. Thankfully.
Common sense does. Nuking countries, building an actual wall among the Mexican border, give me a break.
The guy is bs'ing everyone including his voters who are bizarrely stupid.And that kinda thought is how a certain someone won an election in 1933.Common sense does. Nuking countries, building an actual wall among the Mexican border, give me a break.
I admittedly don't know loads about the election, but I have maintained the entire time that Trump is going to win the election. I am still leaning towards this slightly although recent events (as well as the debate IMO) have certainly harmed his chances a lot. The fact that he came out and addressed this on Twitter shows that he has been hit hard and is trying to salvage something.
Common sense does. Nuking countries, building an actual wall among the Mexican border, give me a break.
He's apparently managed to successfully BS you well.
I'm watching the bill Maher show. I thought Trump was a cnut. Now I know now he's a cnut.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evangelicals-trump_us_57f83051e4b068ecb5de95fb?
Just in case anyone doubted these charlatans are amoral, money grabbing dipshits.
Just in case anyone doubted these charlatans are amoral, money grabbing dipshits.
If you think he will nuke countries and build an actual wall I think he BS'ed you to be honest.
Yeah and 2016 is a whole different situation than 1933.
Politicians run on the things they say. That's their bargain with the public.
I'm wondering, do you think that he is able to build the wall, hand the bill to Mexico and then declare war when they refuse to pay? It's a serious question.
Sure, history may not "repeat" itself... But it sure as hell knows how to rhyme.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-and-hitlers-rise-to-power.html
I can't believe that's true. Surely even the president must touch off.
Am nuclear strike must be more than even two people.
Am nuclear strike must be more than even two people.
Come on Raoul, don't you think it is a bit naive to think politicians will actually do everything they said they'd do? I mean, we're talking about nuking countries here.
No I don't think it's remotely feasible. But it's not the feasibility that is in question when Trump says things - it's the temperament of the individual. Likewise the same with nukes - it's not about whether or not he may or may not nuke anyone - its about the temperament and judgement of someone who even talks like that.
Come on Raoul, don't you think it is a bit naive to think politicians will actually do everything they said they'd do? I mean, we're talking about nuking countries here.
See my last post about temperament.
I'm personally finding the outrage from Republicans hilarious. I could have sworn they stifled wage gap legislation and were on a mission to close down Planned Parenthood across the country for years. Now all of a sudden Jeb "my brother fought terr'r" Bush has 2 granddaughters. Bitch if you don't get the feck out...
See I'm not saying he is not, but are you really not seeing the risk just in case there's a 1% chance he is really saying the truth about nukes? It's crazy man, how did America come to thise?Common sense does. Nuking countries, building an actual wall among the Mexican border, give me a break.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons/485504/
The problem is that Trump has absolutely no idea about nukes. He simply thinks they're more-powerful missiles. To him, launching a nuke is like launching a bunch of drones in Iraq or Syria.
He's a deluded narcissist who has wafer-thin patience and skin. So combined with his lack of knowledge of nukes, the slightest insult will cause him to jump to the nuclear launch codes.
I think he will try to use nukes, but I think he's going to cause a Saturday Night Massacre and/or a Constitutional crisis (the troops refusing to carry out the order) to do so. And that's pretty bad too.
To add to Raoul's temperament stuff, we're talking about the first nominee in history with such a low attention span and grasp of complex issues that he need a second security briefing, which is unheard of in Presidential politics. And a man who repeatedly asked "if we have them, why can't we use them?" in relation to nuclear weapons. He is dangerously stupid and doubting his ability to do the worst things humanly possible is akin to dropping your pants and windmilling for a honey badgerCome on Raoul, don't you think it is a bit naive to think politicians will actually do everything they said they'd do? I mean, we're talking about nuking countries here.
This comparison gave me a laugh. Its so true.I see, your problem is that he is the type of people who thinks that these suggestions are reasonable and there is a high risk that he uses the same lack of common sense on other matters?
On who do you think he'd actually use nukes?
Syria's fecked for a start. Maybe Iran too.
Someone gives this man a medal.
There's no such thing as decent, righteous Republicans. They've been in this whole thing balls deep. The Flaming Dumpster is the symptom, the culmination or their policies, not an aberration.
What on earth would he gain by nuking Syria and Iran?
Iran or North Korea jump to mind. He might use one in the Middle East (heck, even Ted Cruz wanted to make the sand glow and he got cheered for it).
Like I said previously, to him, a nuke is nothing more than just a more powerful missile. So if there was ever a scenario where Syria needed to be attacked in some way, a nuke would be a logical weapon to use.What on earth would he gain by nuking Syria and Iran?
North Korea. EastSyria/Northwest Irak Area, despite its a non-state war and we have to rescue the people there from the evil. Russia also.
Man i even would consider he would nuke germany if some saussage doesnt tastes like he want... or we are demonstrating in front of the US embassy to show our disgust of him (he will remember "they were gentle to Obama, but are hating me, so nuke them, at least scare them with that).
He even got zero clues about politics in the world, no clue about conections the things have with each other,and causalities, he got not the slightest idea what is happening in the world.
Wouldn't going to war be more expensive than paying for the wall themselves
Spot on!
- Status