A nuclear armed Trump

[arepo]

Every American should read this article and think about this before entering a voting booth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... tid=902817


cliftwood

[karlhenning]

[John F]

Every American should read this article and think about this before entering a voting booth.

There are plenty of good reasons relating to foreign policy why Trump should be defeated, but does Dueck really believe even he would unilaterally start a nuclear war? That implication is hype. I see no chance that "he could easily lose the fall election on this issue alone" - Nobody on either side has even raised that issue, other than Dueck, and they don't need to, as Trump has provided plenty of ammo in his own words that can be turned against him in attack ads and TV spots. If the Democratic candidate tried another "Daisy" ad, as LBJ did against Goldwater at the height of the cold war, it wouldn't work.

[arepo]

John..

The man is rash, volatile and unstable and if he's the only button pusher, with no one to stop him, I fear the possible could happen. To disregard this potential horror would be a grave mistake.It's not the only negative aspect of his election, certainly, but it's a subject for American voters to consider.

He scares the hell out of me.

cliftwood

[John F]

Actually, there are many who can stop him - not from pushing the button, of course, but by not executing such a command if it is given. We're not talking "Dr. Strangelove" here. Wikipedia spells out the elaborate procedure, of which the president's issuing the command is only the first step:

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense.

If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Deputy Secretary of Defense would then assume the office of Acting Secretary of Defense in accordance with the Secretarial order of succession. An Acting Secretary would, likely, face the same test: to countersign the Presidential order or be relieved from office. This potential cycling of Acting Secretaries of Defense could be reminiscent of the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre" at the Department of Justice in 1973.

However, the Vice President and a majority of the heads of the Executive Departments could invoke section 4 of the Twenty-fifth amendment to the Constitution and have the President declared incapacitated. The Vice President would then become Acting President until the President submits a declaration to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that affirms his ability to discharge his duties.

Once the NCA has authorized a launch order under the proper procedures, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will in turn direct a general officer on duty in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at The Pentagon to execute the SIOP.

[arepo]

JF..

Thanks for the update.

I am still very uncomfortable with this guy. Let's hope the majority of Americans will see to it that he never gets to the White House. I had this fantasy, or rather nightmare that he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and actually won the election.

As flawed as Hillary may be, she must win this November or we're in for big trouble.

cliftwood

[John F]

Oh, I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of Donald Trump as commander in chief of the armed forces, or as chief executive of the U.S., or much of anything else. Nor with Ted Cruz either. We'll know better after today's primaries what's what. But I don't see any of the current crop of Republican wannabe presidents actually winning the election, and though I'm not a betting man, I don't think it will be a cliff-hanger on election night.

[rwetmore]

He scares the hell out of me.

And you don't seem the slightest bit scared that ISIS is expanding their reign, routinely chopping off people's heads, drowning people in cages, has publically sworn to exterminate us and all of Western civilization from the face of the planet, and who knows how many other atrocious horrors they've committed or pledged to commit.

You don't seem scared that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, is seeking long range missiles that can reach the US, and has threatened to nuke us with them.

No, no...the greatest and scariest threat to the world, second to global warming of course, is Donald Trump's *potential* to become president.

[rwetmore]

Oh, I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of Donald Trump as commander in chief of the armed forces, or as chief executive of the U.S., or much of anything else.

Fair enough.

We'll know better after today's primaries what's what. But I don't see any of the current crop of Republican wannabe presidents actually winning the election, and though I'm not a betting man, I don't think it will be a cliff-hanger on election night.

What are you basing this on? The generic conditions favor the Republican in this election for President. I don't know who's going to win, as it's just way too early, and we don't even know who the Republican nominee is going to be yet. If it is Trump, perhaps he won't be able to overcome his super high negatives, or maybe he will. I really have no idea, frankly.

[John F]

We'll know better after today's primaries what's what. But I don't see any of the current crop of Republican wannabe presidents actually winning the election, and though I'm not a betting man, I don't think it will be a cliff-hanger on election night.

What are you basing this on? The generic conditions favor the Republican in this election for President. I don't know who's going to win, as it's just way too early, and we don't even know who the Republican nominee is going to be yet. If it is Trump, perhaps he won't be able to overcome his super high negatives, or maybe he will. I really have no idea, frankly.

I don't know what you mean by "generic conditions." Would you explain?

You aren't really interested in my thinking, you never have been, but for what it's worth: Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans substantially. Whoever the GOP nominates, the split beween its ideology-driven conservative base and the rogue elephant that is Trump will leave many Republicans without a candidate they can bring themselves to vote for in November, so the Party will have trouble getting out their voters in sufficient numbers. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's primary results so far show strong support not only from rank and file Democrats but also from the Party establishment (those superdelegates); the only chink in the armor has been the strong preference of under-30 college-educated white first-time voters for Sanders, and I'm assuming even they will vote for Clinton rather than let Trump or Cruz become president. Of course it may not turn out like that - this political year has been full of twists and turns, and they aren't over yet. But I believe it will.

[Chalkperson]

We'll know better after today's primaries what's what. But I don't see any of the current crop of Republican wannabe presidents actually winning the election, and though I'm not a betting man, I don't think it will be a cliff-hanger on election night.

What are you basing this on? The generic conditions favor the Republican in this election for President. I don't know who's going to win, as it's just way too early, and we don't even know who the Republican nominee is going to be yet. If it is Trump, perhaps he won't be able to overcome his super high negatives, or maybe he will. I really have no idea, frankly.

I don't know what you mean by "generic conditions." Would you explain?

You aren't really interested in my thinking, you never have been, but for what it's worth: Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans substantially. Whoever the GOP nominates, the split beween its ideology-driven conservative base and the rogue elephant that is Trump will leave many Republicans without a candidate they can bring themselves to vote for in November, so the Party will have trouble getting out their voters in sufficient numbers. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's primary results so far show strong support not only from rank and file Democrats but also from the Party establishment (those superdelegates); the only chink in the armor has been the strong preference of under-30 college-educated white first-time voters for Sanders, and I'm assuming even they will vote for Clinton rather than let Trump or Cruz become president. Of course it may not turn out like that - this political year has been full of twists and turns, and they aren't over yet. But I believe it will.

Randall is the CMG Troll, he is not interested in anyone's thinking, just his own.

Even that's not original, he just posts links he thinks might be worthy, if he read his own links he;d realize they are not close to factual most of the time, just like Trump.

Please note, if you post a link here, Randall, you had better read it carefully before posting it. That's from the Management.

Two of your threads have been removed because of their incendiary content, be careful if you intend starting a new one on Trump.

You are being watched very carefully.

[rwetmore]

Even that's not original, he just posts links he thinks might be worthy, if he read his own links he;d realize they are not close to factual most of the time,

And who determines whether they are 'factual' or not? This is ridiculous, especially in any kind of political discussion.

Two of your threads have been removed because of their incendiary content, be careful if you intend starting a new one on Trump.

The Trump thread was your doing -- not mine. The incendiary content in it came from you and your posts -- not mine. I remained civil and never used profanity despite it being thrown at me. That is, I took the high road when the low road was thrown at me.

You are being watched very carefully.

IF you're determined to convince Lance ban me, I'm not going to put up any resistance. In fact, I'll consider it my victory, because 1) I have not violated the rules of use, 2) I have always remained civil, and 3) I was arbitrarily held to a different standard due to my views and even complied numerous times to this double standard with little complaint. It's pure censorship on your part, and people who have the weight of the facts, logic and evidence on their side never need to censor opposing views when nos. 1) and 2) are complied with.

As I've said before, the reason why it looks like (at times) that my posts and topics are over-dominating the board, is because there is so little activity here. If it was done by someone who was posting things you agreed with you wouldn't care in the slightest, and you certainly wouldn't be trying to ban them.

You've had a vendetta against me ever since the cloud feedback thread, and I still maintain that you've never gotten over it and that's what this is all about. Prior to that I don't recall there being any problem.

[Chalkperson]

The Trump thread was your doing -- not mine. The incendiary content in it came from you and your posts -- not mine. I remained civil and never used profanity despite it being thrown at me. That is, I took the high road when the low road was thrown at me.

Your comments on Obama were incendiary.

You were called a Troll in each one by John Francis, Lance felt that enough of a reason to pull the Threads.

I read him comments for and against you, as promised. So we spent two hours discussing things.

John, on Jan 2nd gave an impassioned comment that you were NOT a Troll, I read that out, then I read the two from march where he did feel you were a Troll.

My comments are my own, I have the same right as anyone to voice my opinion. If I call you a Troll it's within the rules, the board members have indicated they agree, 7-2, there is nothing wrong in me letting the lurkers know how I feel.

If I speak as the Moderator I say so.

I got complaints about the Climate Change Thread, we dealt with them together, despite protest from senior members I did not go to Lance. In my opinion, except pushing your posts back up the ladder you had done nothing wrong.

However, once you began Trolling Trump, especially the Muslim and Transgender links and comments, Lance decided the Threads should be removed.

Those comments were incendiary.

I made it very clear that as a non political person i'm not against free speech, but you manipulate the threads, post links you have not studied, and you post unfactual information.

I also told Lance that this is all in the open, if you think it's personal you are wrong.

I feel you are wrong for the Site, should I need to discuss this with Lance again I will do so.

Getting you banned a victory?

No, getting you to think about your contributions, to take care not to post incendiary links, and to contribute to both Boards would be a victory.

This is, after all a Board about Classical Music, not a buffoon called Trump.