I'm 90% sure he's been sued numerous times for sexual misconduct. Also he has a rape case in court right now. So okay...
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Does anyone know what the process would be if Trump stood down? I'm not asking about the likelihood of it, just what would happen if he did. Could the GOP run with Pence as the de facto nominee?
Guys guys, where on earth am I argueing that Trump is fine?! I don't like him at all.
Ayotte and Roby (Alabama rep.) have unendorsed in the last hour.
1) reconvene the national convention
2) each state nominates 3 people who represent their delegate count. All of them convene at a meeting and vote on the new nominee.
It's interesting that people seem to have forgotten just how scary nuclear weapons are. Back in the 80's the thought of using them was terrifying and horrifying. Now a lot of us seem to think that the tactical nuke is something to be considered.
That sounds uncomfortably doable.
NV, NC and one other swing state I can't for the life of me remember now don't allow changing the ballot anymore.
It'll be a shitshow for them either way.
The actual election would the real logistical nightmare. The ballots are already printed, and the election process varies from state to state, from county to county. So if Trump did indeed feck off, the resources the GOP would need to even come close to finding a workable solution aren't there. The electoral loss would probably be bigger than if Trump remained the nominee. That's without even mentioning that early voting has already begun.
The GOP is pretty much saying that unless Trump volunteers to drop out, they are stuck with this ticket.
Yes you are. You continuously refuse to accept that Trump's brain is NOT functioning healthy and that he has ultimate power over nuclar weapons. To say your head in the sand is a far too nice way to describe your attitude but I don't want to get thread-banned so I'll leave it there.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?
That's all more reassuring. The idea of White Knight Pence coming in and nabbing it was irking me.
Trump staying in would I think be better as it fecks them up downballot as well.
Trump staying in would I think be better as it fecks them up downballot as well.
I meant you think he's fine in terms of not launching a nuclear attack.
"There's no way he'd use nukes. Unless something really bad happens obviously, in which case he might use nukes."
Depends on how fervent Trumpites are, and how many they number. If they make up a substantial enough section of the GOP (and I think they do) then Trump's sudden removal from the ticket may have a greater impact on the downballot.
I think they hate Crooked Hillary too much to stay home. But the betrayal will not go unnoticed next time round.
I dont believe for a second that one man has the power to blow up the world.
Yeah because nothing really bad will happen with Trump as POTUS that might lead to a nuclear escalation on his part.
So you're basically depending on Trump facing no major FP challenges during his tenure, certainly nothing on the scale of, say, 9/11, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc.
How do you think Trump would have handled those particular situations?
I do think that. I'm not implying otherwise am I? I'm only saying that in the case of another 9/11, it'll be more likely to expect the US nuking. Still not likely enough for me to genuinely believe the US would start nuking. They have enough conventional military power to get their point through without nuking.
So...you're agreeing with me?
I find that to be more realistic than Trump creating a situation where the US would genuinely consider to use nukes. I'm not saying he won't use conventional military power, I'm saying I don't expect him to use nukes.
Not 100% sure but it could have been covered a bit in an article on politico.com, AFAIR. They quoted a Republican (?) lawyer on the possibility of Trump not running, and he explained the scenarios in which circumstances a candidate can be replaced, quoting a certain rule (could have been rule #9). As I recall it, the rules how a new candidate is going to be selected are vague, but you better check if I got this right.
I know you didn't ask for likelihood but will address it anyway because I think it matters: According to this lawyer, it's too late for Trump to quit - because a five- if not six-digit number of early votes have already been made with Trump's name on the ballot, and logistically that cannot be reverted and set back.
I hope I got the gist of the article right, information overdose, you know ...
They can't, simple as that.
A terrorist attack like 9/11 shouldn't really increase the chances of using nukes. I mean these terrorist groups hide in civilian areas...are you just going to nuke a whole city?
It happened in that Tom Clancy novel.
It's really simple. In the event of another 9/11, you think it's more likely that the US will use nukes. That's bad. That's so unbelievably bad that nobody should vote for Trump at all. Hillary would not use nukes if there was another 9/11. The fact that you think another 9/11 will increase the US likelihood of using nukes under Donald Trump is terrifying.
The last 3 or 4 pages in this thread have been surreal 
He may use it..
No, he won't. Big business won't let him.
But he may...
LOL, are you joking, of course he won't.
But he said..
He's just a bullshit artist.
Well, we can only go by what he said..
C'mon you guys
He's clearly unstable..
But not to the extent he'll use nukes
But how can you be so sure...
Well, how can you not
Repeat
He may use it..
No, he won't. Big business won't let him.
But he may...
LOL, are you joking, of course he won't.
But he said..
He's just a bullshit artist.
Well, we can only go by what he said..
C'mon you guys
He's clearly unstable..
But not to the extent he'll use nukes
But how can you be so sure...
Well, how can you not
Repeat
Yees, yeeeees.
It's not just about whether the attack directly results in nuclear retaliation. It would also ramp up tensions in America in a way that would contribute to an increased likelihood of extreme action.
Also, it's not impossible that a terrorist attack could draw that response either:
"During his early years in office he seemed to favor a no-first-use policy, reflecting the view that the sole purpose of nuclear forces is to deter their use against us by our adversaries. The penultimate draft of his “posture review” still retained this view, but in the end one of his senior bureaucrats in his national security council talked him into preserving the first-use option. This adviser presented a scenario in which a quick U.S. nuclear strike offered the only available tool to eradicate an unfolding terrorist operation meant to spread deadly biological pathogens from a makeshift production laboratory in a remote location to cities worldwide."
I already argued that I don't believe the US would genuinely nuke anyone in case of another 9/11. It would make the situation a bit more likely because the country would be tense as and emotional as feck and Trump's voters might raise the point of 'hey you said you'd nuke, why the feck havent you nuked yet?'. People might try to demand Clinton on using nukes as well but like you said, she won't. And neither would Trump, I think.
By the way, I am not implying that people should vote for Trump either. I agree that nobody should vote for Trump.
Last edited:
What do we reckon he's on about then?
Judging by the rest of his tweets, it's an assumption based on timing and that worse stuff is usually released closer to election time. Which makes sense if it's Clinton's camp feeding it to the press, but that's unknown at this point.
I guess at that time nukes owuld only ever be used against the USSR, which would mean MAD. Against Iran there will never be retaliation.
Not immediately, but a demonstrated willingness to use nuke will inevitably heighten the tension and lead to others developing nukes as deterrent.
Timing is very convenient if the Clinton camp isn't behind it. Plus even if the Clinton camp wasn't behind it, this would just be a bonus on top of whatever attacks they do have planned for the coming weeks. Given Trump's past I think it's quite likely they've found some strong stuff to hit him with.
Also, the Trump bubble seems to have burst. I think things that he might have brushed off a few weeks ago will now hit a lot harder. Whatever comes out next might not be worse but it might do more damage.
Yeah it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Clinton/NBC have tons more ammunition they plan to strategically drop till election day to inflict maximum damage. Donald is a long time sleaze pit with a loud mouth and no self control. This won't be the only time he slipped up and got caught on camera.
Pence:"Offended by Trumps words and actions"
Withdrawn from that GOP event too.
Hmmm. OTOH, if the US says the strike is for Iran's developing WMDs, that could be an effective stay-in-line warning for everyone else.
- Status