2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
1. He 'allegedly' asked why the US can not use its nukes. Does that 100% mean that he intents on actually using them?
2. I guess that foreign policy expert would have then explained to Trump why the US can not use its nukes. Yet, Trump still spouts crap about considering the use of nuclear weapons even though he has likely been told why the US can not use them. There you go, it's for votes. It's that simple. In the IF-situation of him becoming US president, I have no doubt that he will not actually nuke someone.
@VorZakone
It's actually very simple: Trump would use nukes if it pleases him, full stop. Naive to think otherwise if you had followed him, his behavior and words throughout the last year or longer.
It's actually very simple: Trump would use nukes if it pleases him, full stop. Naive to think otherwise if you had followed him, his behavior and words throughout the last year or longer.
Great! So now the world dont has to be afraid. Thanks mate, that you explain to us why the whole planet has nothing to worry about. Logical.
And you don't think the powers that be in Washington and Big Business will stop him?
There's no if's here. You can explain something to Trump a million times, but his widely reported lack of an attention span, and inability to realise when he is wrong means he will never accept any view apart from his own. There are toddlers with more cognitive ability than this buffoon.
No thanks man, feel safe. You won't get nuked.
Ah yes, the powers that be and Big Business that were feckless enough to let him win nomination over their 17 preferred candidates. They will stop him alright.
Business interest have a veto on nuclear strikes, didn't you hear @VorZakone? He's not been paying attention to Trump or the election, but he knows for an absolute fact that no one can be this stupid. Not even a man who has been repeatedly shown to be among the dumbest, temperamentally unstable feckwits to ever seek the US presidential office.
When it comes to actually planning on starting World War 3, yes they'll stop him.
I truly don't know whether you are simply ill informed or just wumming at this point.
Anyway, opinions and assholes etc etc... He won't win so this is moot.
Anyway, opinions and assholes etc etc... He won't win so this is moot.
Through what mechanism? Business interest have sway over policy in congress and senate. They have zero sway on Trump's ability to use nukes.
Lizard people and their alien technology man.
Why on earth is it wumming when I'm saying that it's highly unrealistic to believe that the US would actually start NUKING countries? The US would start World War 3 and lose ALL its credibility.
And with that suggesting, its a clear PRO for Trump right?! Thats your argument to vote for him? A man how wants to nuke some country, just cause you imagine that if he wants to someone would stop him for sure? Your carreer as a fantasy girl of the caf is prospering greatly!
Where did I say I'll vote for Trump?
If, say, a rogue nation launched a nuke towards the US, they might have a few minutes to react. Trump won't have time to consult Big Business.
A rogue President will struggle to launch nukes alone - the Secretary of Defense can refuse and the President would have to fire them, possibly until a yes-man deputy is found or the 25th Amendment is invoked (time is of the essence, of course). But it's still possible if, say, the Secretary of Defense is an ardent Trump fan. The soldiers on the ground may refuse to launch too, although quite frankly if the President doesn't have the command of the military that's an issue in itself.
After the nuclear war is over, I can assure you that credibility means absolutely nothing...
I can't believe we have to keep repeating this. But we're talking about The Donald here. Despite your unwillingness to accept anyone can be this stupid, Donald. J Trump is actually far more stupid, dangerous and temperamental than you need to be to make that decision. There is zero evidence that he has the ability to be a constrained guardian of the nuclear option.
So throughout world history we haven't, like, ever, had a megalomaniac ruler who starts wars whimsically? Or rulers who went into conflicts based on false intels or based motives?
And btw: there is no "planning", Trump has a bad mood, grab the telephone and in 7minutes we are fecked. Why dont you want to get this? Seems that the break for nationalteams get worse and worse everytime, people dont watch football and their braincells stop working or i dont know...
Are you guys seriously using 'Trump > bad mood > grab the telephone > Nuke russia/iran/NK/Germany!' as an argument? And I'm the guy fantasizing? 
You're not just fantasizing, you're the kind of head in the sand ill-informed citizen that enables dangerous individuals to gain power.Are you guys seriously using 'Trump > bad mood > grab the telephone > Nuke russia/iran/NK/Germany!' as an argument? And I'm the guy fantasizing?
People arguing here with facts from over a great timespan to judge over Trump. You shoud read all the post with more attention, cause it seems you dont get all the arguments. And on the other side dont get the inconsisty of your own posts.Are you guys seriously using 'Trump > bad mood > grab the telephone > Nuke russia/iran/NK/Germany!' as an argument? And I'm the guy fantasizing?
No, because I don't want Trump as the US president either.
By the way, you haven't answered my question about where I said that I'm voting for Trump.
I've already told you that to Trump, nukes are just more powerful missiles. So anywhere where the US uses its military, nukes will be an option to Trump.Are you guys seriously using 'Trump > bad mood > grab the telephone > Nuke russia/iran/NK/Germany!' as an argument? And I'm the guy fantasizing?
Technically this is true in all cases, but the barrier to use nukes is a lot lower for Trump.
To vote for a evil thing is the same like to not vote against it.
But good, that you dont vote for him. I just cant understand that you dont understand that your crazy argumentary leads such evil to exist. Cause you dont fight against it and give excusses for him and his voters.
You don't have to vote Hitler to enable him. You just have to deny he will actually commit genocide, until it happens. You don't have to actually vote for Paul Pot to enable him, you just have to deny he will commit genocide, until it happens. You don't have to support Trump, you just have to deny he will commit genocide, or use nukes, or build a wall, until it happens. Every time a great evil is rising in the world, onlookers will say "No one is that stupid." "He will be moderate once in office." "Don't be silly, he'll never commit genocide." "He won't use the nuclear option." And then it happens. This is a story that has repeated itself often enough that burying your head in the sand is not an option. Donald Trump is another in a long line of historical arsonists, and trying to convince yourself he doesn't mean what he says is a great disservice to the danger the world faces.
Context is the key difference here. Germany was beaten in WW1 and felt humiliated by the sanctions imposed on them. It's more realistic to assume that Germany would retaliate than the US actually nuking anyone in the next 4-8 years.
If the US at this very moment was in the same physical and idealistic shape as Germany back when Hitler rose to power, I'll find it more realistic to expect the US going batshit crazy under a potential Trump presidency.
Plus even if he didn't literally start firing nuclear weapons around, there would still be a great risk of him committing some other form of war crime. Nuclear attack is the extreme end of a whole spectrum of terrible actions the POTUS can make.
The idea that some mysterious cabal of people who have the real will step in to stop him? Nonsense. The idea that Trump has a depth of judgement and intelligence we've yet to see? Even more so.
The idea that some mysterious cabal of people who have the real will step in to stop him? Nonsense. The idea that Trump has a depth of judgement and intelligence we've yet to see? Even more so.
Yeah, but those were "completely different situations"... like.. the dates are different and all. Rightttttt.....
Here's some context for you...
Make ________________ great again!
The ______________ are to blame for our problems.
If we get rid of the _______________ then we will solve many of our country's problems.
Our _____________ has been severely weakened. We need to build it back up to make ______________ great again!
The American far right considers America to be a beaten, dead in the water, state that is being dominated by Russia and China. They have a visceral hatred for non-whites. And their purest expression is the never-wrong, entitled, temperamental "we're going to bomb the shit out of them" moron that is Donald Trump. As has been mentioned here time after time, Donald Trump does not comprehend the damage that nuclear weapons do. He considers them as a legitimate and quick option. It is all his limited attention span and cognitive ability can handle. He will not make long term military decisions. He wants a quick knock out punch, and he sees nuclear weapons as a legitimate option. That anyone thinks otherwise, in the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence is frankly bewildering.
We've been over this a 100 times now. I refuse to believe Trump can start nuking countries whenever he pleases.
1) Germany's humiliation led to them electing a dangerous personality. In this scenario America would have skipped the need for that humiliation by electing Trump without that context. Once the dangerous personality is in power, the rest of the country doesn't really matter. In an emergency situation, the dangerous personality has a dangerous amount of power.
2. The context the POTUS make his decisions in can change rapidly. There's no telling what another terrorist attack like 9/11 would see Trump do, or a ramp up in aggression from other countries.
Nobody who understands the danger of nuclear weapons is in favour of their proliferation.
See, that's making the situation completely different. If a 9/11-esque terrorist attack happens in the US or if the US gets nuked first, then hell yes that makes it more likely that the US will nuke too. But in the current situation, I find the idea of the US nuking anyone highly unrealistic. What the feck is so controversial about that? I can't believe it's been described as wumming!
"In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...les-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955
In which case you're using a pretty short-sighted definition of "in the current situation". Basically you think he's fine as long as something that happened in America fifteen years ago and continues to happen all over the world doesn't happen again.
He wouldn't ride in your faggoty little bitch car.
- Status