Comments on: First Debate Reactions

By: Kick

Kick — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 16:23:12 +0000

Yea, hunny bun, you keep saying that. But you have NOTHING to back it up but what you read someplace.. You keep posting that about people like you have any idea what you're talking about. *LOL* You brought her up in an effort to condemn Trump.. That's condoning, sweet cheeks... :D I brought up the deplorables to condemn Trump also, and I can assure you that I don't condone their behavior. The GOP and their sycophants are "condoning" the rapist Julian Assange in an effort to condemn HRC, and if your theory is true, Trump/Pence and their ilk bringing up Vladimir and cheering Russia at rallies all the time in an effort to condemn Obama means they're all "backing" and "condoning" Putin and communism... so I guess NOT the "true American patriots" you keep saying they are, right asshat? :D

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 09:27:16 +0000

Sorry snowflake, you're just wrong about this.

Yea, hunny bun, you keep saying that. But you have NOTHING to back it up but what you read someplace..

I have neither condemned or condoned Alicia Merchado.

You brought her up in an effort to condemn Trump.. That's condoning, sweet cheeks... :D

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:14:17 +0000

it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch. Uh yes it is.. That is EXACTLY what "confirmation" means... Remember that time when Michale posted that "confirmation" means "EXACTLY" to "second-guess." Everyone points and everyone laughs. Sorry snowflake, you're just wrong about this. Confirmation of the Gold Code by the Secretary of Defense (or the person acting in his stead) is merely required to verify identity and not to second-guess the order. The Secretary of Defense cannot legally veto the order of the POTUS/CIC. Actually, it's you that is an embarrassment for backing that hooker.... Oh, how pathetic and ignorant of you that you have to assume that because I criticize Donald Trump {which I admit I do criticize Trump on a regular basis}, that this somehow automatically means that I am "backing" anybody else, with the exception of Hillary, which I've admitted before. I have neither condemned or condoned Alicia Merchado. Cue the resident troll saying that since I haven't slut shamed or condemned Alicia Merchado that it somehow means I have condoned her by omission... blah, blah, blah... which is also utter BULLSHIT. :D

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 07:04:15 +0000

it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch. Uh yes it is.. That is EXACTLY what "confirmation" means, sweet cheeks... Trump is an EMBARRASSMENT. Sad! #MachadoMeltdown Actually, it's you that is an embarrassment for backing that hooker.... Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:13:38 +0000

Michale,

No he cannot.. Because the launch codes are give to the SecDef and the SecDef ONLY...

*LOL* Now you're just embarrassing yourself, snowflake. The Secretary of Defense doesn't authorize (there's no veto authority whatsoever) but merely authenticates the Gold Code from the CIC {the POTUS or the VP in his stead}; it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch. If the Secretary of Defense is unavailable, authentication can be carried out by the Deputy Secretary of Defense or even the watch officer at NMCC, usually an on-duty general or admiral. The Gold Codes are generated daily and provided by the NSA to the POTUS, the VP, TACAMO, USSC, and The Pentagon.

I can see why you like Trump because you're both an embarrassment to yourselves. :)

When asked about First Strike during the debate, Trump appeared to argue for getting rid of the nuclear stockpiles with his statement: "I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it," he said, and "I would certainly not do first strike."

Okay, that would require policy change to multiple OPLAN 8010s.

Trump then went on to add: "At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table."

Trump is an EMBARRASSMENT. Sad! #MachadoMeltdown

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-tweets-alicia-machado/502415/

Check out Trump's Twitter rants at the link or at least check out the picture of Trump and Alicia Machado circa 1997 wherein Trump shows off his man boobs.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Trump really does look like Fat Bastard. Oh, behave! *LOL*

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:57:57 +0000

So, AGAIN, WHAT PART OF the President can FIRE the Secretary and replace him, and the Secretary has to approve the order, BUT CANNOT VETO IT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND MEANS that the ORDER IS NOT CANCELLED???

The part where the SecDef is the SOLE recepient of the nuclear launch codes...

Like I said, we'll never agree on this because you simply cannot admit you are wrong...

There is absolutely NO WAY that a President can launch a nuclear strike solely and completely on his own..

NO... WAY.... POSSIBLE....

Claims that a President Trump could do it is *nothing* more than hysterical fear-mongering by ignorant people who just don't know any better...

Michale

By: John M

John M — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:41:19 +0000

Michale wrote:

"Cite the part that says the order is not cancelled..."

FINE

"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 Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, BUT CANNOT VETO IT.

In the event whereby the Secretary of Defense refuses to second the order and is removed from office, the Deputy Secretary of Defense would then assume the office of Acting Secretary of Defense in accordance with the Secretarial order of succession."

NO VETO = NO CANCEL... YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:28:18 +0000

Presumably, by the time the POTUS got into that position, they gained the scruples not to launch a needless nuclear annihilation of another nation. That said, there's a chain of command that involves the Secretary of Defense who could refuse to relay the order (his codes —or those of the Asst. Sec. Defense in his absence— are required to launch) and then quickly call the Cabinet and Congress to report that the POTUS had gone crazy. The Cabinet can declare the President unfit in a letter to Congress.

Furthermore, there's a "must notify" part of the nuclear protocol that requires the DoD and whomever else inside the White House to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch. These leaders would include (and presumably not be limited to), Speaker of the House, President Pro Temp of the Senate, Majority/Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, the Chairperson of the various oversight committees that are tied to war (Appropriations, Defense, Intelligence, Energy). The chain of command, that requires the Secretary of Defense and others to relay such an order is robust enough to handle such a statistically-impossible scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-US-President-at-the-spur-of-the-moment-decided-to-launch-a-nuclear-missile-as-a-first-strike-attack-could-anyone-stop-him

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:26:00 +0000

"If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..

SEMANTICS

I would understand why you would think so, not having served and all..

But I can assure you that it's much more than semantics..

I will CITE your OWN LINK that you originally posted that started this whole silly argument in the first place, because it is RIGHT IN THERE.

Cite the part that says the order is not cancelled...

Michale

By: John M

John M — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:11:42 +0000

Michale wrote:

"Cite your source..."

I will CITE your OWN LINK that you originally posted that started this whole silly argument in the first place, because it is RIGHT IN THERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

By: John M

John M — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:08:30 +0000

Michale wrote:

"If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..

SEMANTICS

So in other words, YOU AGREE that I was CORRECT in the first place, the nuclear launch STILL goes ahead.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:04:16 +0000

NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.

The launch order is CANCELLED...

If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..

Give it up... You are wrong on this issue...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:02:08 +0000

NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.

Cite your source...

It is not cancelled because the President can relieve the SecDef from duty, have the Assistant SecDef step into his place, and the confirm the nuclear launch order.

No he cannot.. Because the launch codes are give to the SecDef and the SecDef ONLY...

Michale

By: John M

John M — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:36:53 +0000

Michale wrote:

"The FACT is, if the SecDef refuses to confirm the nuclear launch order, the launch order is cancelled...."

NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.

It is not cancelled because the President can relieve the SecDef from duty, have the Assistant SecDef step into his place, and the confirm the nuclear launch order.

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:27:32 +0000

There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.

No... Those are YOUR "facts" but they are not THE facts..

The FACT is, if the SecDef refuses to confirm the nuclear launch order, the launch order is cancelled....

THIS is *THE* fact.. THIS is *THE* reality...

I am also constrained to point out that there is a MUST NOTIFY of senior leadership who, guess what???, MUST BE NOTIFIED in the case of a strategic missile launch..

You people really need to face reality...

There is simply NO POSSIBLE way that Donald Trump could launch a nuclear strike on his own.

NO.... POSSIBLE..... WAY....

Like I said.. Leave military matters to the military experts... You'll embarrass yourseves less often..

Class dismissed...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:23:58 +0000

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-the-shallows-1475192583

That is a MUST read for those of you who think you are experts on a subject because you read web links...

Ironic, iddn't it? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 08:06:07 +0000

Okay, I'm making comments that are not posting. :)

It happens..

Try to keep on URL per comment..

If you DO have a single URL, use tinyurl.com to replace the URL to a tiny one.

The NNL filter mostly hangs up on URLs.. Mostly...

"They mostly come out at night... Mostly"
-Newt, ALIENS

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 04:58:33 +0000

Okay, I'm making comments that are not posting. :)

By: Kick

Kick — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 04:56:55 +0000

[180] Michale,

If you haven't served, you have no grounds to comment..

It's that simple, sweethart.. :D

Well, I have served so yipee ki yay! But that rule of yours is going to complicate things for Trump's ability to comment on anything since he hasn't served his country in any way. Well, unless of course you include the multiple millions of dollars in fines he has paid for breaking various assorted laws of the United States Code and the Statutes of the States of New York and New Jersey.... including, but not limited to fines for:

Racial Housing Discrimination
Illegal Hiring Practices
Trump University
Tenant Intimidation
Hiring Undocumented Workers
Violating Casino Rules
Antitrust Violations.... I could go on.

Yea.. Like I said.. Christopher Walken's Dead Zone..

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Stephen King's The Dead Zone is the name of the movie with Christopher Walken that you were referring to, snowflake:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085407/mediaviewer/rm3295152896

*LOL* OAO YOYO

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:04:24 +0000

You mean Stephen King's DEAD ZONE? Who hasn't? No.. If I had meant ALL of the Dead Zones, I would have said Stephen King's Dead Zone.. They are ALL Stephen King's Dead Zone.. HELLO MCFLY!! The one where President Bartlet was going to launch nukes except Nick from the Deer Hunter stopped him. Yea.. Like I said.. Christopher Walken's Dead Zone.. If ya'all think that Trump is a Greg Stillson, then shouldn't ya'all be advocating what Johnny did?? Right??? Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:45:34 +0000

[174] Michale,

Ever see Christoper Walken's DEAD ZONE?? :D

You mean Stephen King's DEAD ZONE? Who hasn't?

The one where President Bartlet was going to launch nukes except Nick from the Deer Hunter stopped him.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0000

because I said you were wrong about that statement you made there.

And, as I proved, YOU were wrong about me being wrong..

There is a 2-man rule with regards to the release of nuclear weapons.. This applies from the lowliest E-1 to the President himself..

This is what I stated...

This is what is factual..

I know because I have been there and done that.. You think because you read it somewhere..

If you haven't served, you have no grounds to comment..

It's that simple, sweethart.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:40:16 +0000

There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.

And what happens with the SecDef doesn't approve the order??

The order is not fulfiller...

Duuh.... :D

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:35:40 +0000

Michale, Bragging that Hillary is going to kick Trump's ass in New York is like bragging that Trump is going to kick Hillary's ass in Texas... :D Trump won't be voting in Texas, and I was wondering who Trump would be voting for since you said all the globalists are Clinton supporters. Bringing Texas into it just makes you look desperate and stupid and willfully ignorant and like you're changing the subject, and you wouldn't want the group to see you looking like that would you? Oh, right. Of course you would...... you do it every single day..... especially that willfully ignorant thing where you throw out straw man argument after straw man argument, arguing something no one except you ever said in order to avoid the actual subject. :D The release of nuclear weapons has a two man rule.. So Trump's temperament is not relevant to the release of nuclear weapons.. Hey, snowflake. All your BS fabricated straw man arguments about what we're actually saying notwithstanding, this discussion started because I said you were wrong about that statement you made there. We get that you guarded {your words} "nuclear ordinance," but you sound really stupid calling it that, and words do matter if you're trying to convince people about your knowledge. So you were physically at the bottom of the chain on the launch end of that two-man rule, but you somehow keep arguing that it makes you an authority on the President's role at the top of the chain. ---> "I have been there and done that, blah, blah, blah." *LOL* While none of us here would put it past you to argue to no end that you were... in FACT... the POTUS and you had been there and done that, you should know that you look silly as hell when you keep arguing that you have been there and done that while we're discussing the role of the POTUS/CIC at the top of the chain..... way up at the top of the chain from your ass end of things on the bottom. :) If we took a few poisoned skittles to represent the chances of Trump irresponsibly attempting a nuclear launch, and mixed them in a bowl of skittles, would you be willing to eat skittles from that bowl? If I said I would with the exception that I would avoid the orange ones, would everyone understand that I was kidding...... or would the troll start arguing about M&Ms and how they melt in your hand before they get to your mouth because he should know because he lives in the hot state shaped like a little prick and there's no such thing as global warming? Heh There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:00:37 +0000

Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that. My point is, if Donald Trump is even a QUARTER as bad as ya'all claim him to be... Then it's ya'all's DUTY to oppose him in every and any way possible, up to and including violence.... In the alternative, ya'all can just concede that it's all hysterical hyperbole and ya'all don't really mean it... Yer call... :D Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:51:04 +0000

Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that. So, you would acknowledge and affirm that President Trump is a legitimate leader, even though you believe him to be unstable enough to fire off nuclear weapons because he is pissed... Hmmmmmm As for his rhetoric vs his actions, he doesn't have any political actions to base an opinion upon, so his rhetoric, the things he says, are the only things we do have upon which make a judgment. OK... Now let's look at Clinton's ACTIONS.. She supported DOMA.. She supported the Crime Bill that put "Super Predators" behind bars... She was completely incompetent in Benghazi... Libya is a hell-hole due to her actions.. Syria is a quagmire due to her actions... You have a LOT of actual ACTIONS by Clinton that show beyond ANY doubt how incompetent she is.. And yet, you still support her... So, it seems to me that, on the one hand, you have Trump's rhetoric that you don't like, but his ACTIONS prove he is a success... On the other hand you have Clinton's actions that NO ONE could spin as "competent", yet you still support Clinton.. You see how someone who doesn't know you well might conclude that it's ALL about voting Democrat??? Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:30:03 +0000

Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that. If you mean support the things he decides to do while in power, then probably not, unless he suddenly displays a shocking change in policy upon being elected. I can say that I would harbor some anxiety for the future of the nation, and might seriously contemplate leaving if things appear to be going as I fear they would.

As for his rhetoric vs his actions, he doesn't have any political actions to base an opinion upon, so his rhetoric, the things he says, are the only things we do have upon which make a judgment. Throughout the campaign, he has repeatedly responded to goading when remaining silent would have been the wiser course. He did so repeatedly during the debate. He has also flip-flopped on numerous policies, sometimes within the same speech, demonstrating erratic behavior that is deeply concerning for someone looking to be president.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:08:34 +0000

Ever see Christoper Walken's DEAD ZONE?? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:06:54 +0000

Bleyd,

So, would you agree with Hillary that, if Trump is elected, you would support him as President??

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:01:46 +0000

I preferred the Ark of Truth a little more, but both were good.

Ark Of Truth was good in the sense that it completed the story arc...

I am always partial to TimeTrave/AlternateReality episodes...

Loved STARGATE ATLANTIS/ The Last Man :D

And it's not that we particular think he would use them, but that most of us here believe him to be so erratic and prone to being goaded that he MIGHT use them.

And yet, he has been a successful businessman for how many decades??

Ya'all are basing that assessment TOTALLY on his rhetoric and completely ignoring his actions..

If we took a few poisoned skittles to represent the chances of Trump irresponsibly attempting a nuclear launch, and mixed them in a bowl of skittles, would you be willing to eat skittles from that bowl?

Of course not...

But there is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to even THINK that ANY of the skittles are poisoned...

Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:17:52 +0000

Or, to put it in terms that Trumpists might understand:

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:14:01 +0000

I preferred the Ark of Truth a little more, but both were good.

And it's not that we particular think he would use them, but that most of us here believe him to be so erratic and prone to being goaded that he MIGHT use them. The potential damage to the world is too much of a risk for most of us here to even take that bet. Heck, even an aborted attempt, as you claim is the only real possibility, would be an invitation for any nuclear capable adversaries to launch a preemptive strike out of fear that the next instance would not be aborted. It would also give a new justification for near-nuclear states to press forward with development despite international agreements. It would irreparably damage our standing with the world by throwing our reputation of being responsible with nuclear weapons into question. So yes, no matter how things might play out, even the small chance that Trump would use (or attempt to use) nuclear weapons is enough to disqualify him in the minds of most here, and justifiably so IMO.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:54:32 +0000

If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship.

As an aside, it's nice ta see another SG-1 fan.. LOVED Continuum... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:54:31 +0000

If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship.

As an aside, it's nice ta see another SG-1 fan.. LOVED Continuum... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:53:48 +0000

I mean, honestly..

Take a step back and see what ya'all are arguing, fer christ's sake!

Ya'all are arguing that people shouldn't vote for Trump because he might launch a nuclear strike...

On the reasonable/rational/logical scale, such a discussion doesn't even register!!

On the hysterical/fear-mongering scale, it buries the needle..

How far has Weigantia fallen that discussing Trump launching a nuclear strike is what passes for reasonable and rational discourse...

This is DEFINITELY not the Weigantia of a decade ago, that much is certain...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:50:15 +0000

If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship. Actually, they DID travel back in time on that EXACT ship... But, it's Colonel Oniel we're talking about, so... :D "He's been busted for insubordination!!" "General, I've seen your personnel file. Please..." -STARGATE ATLANTIS :D So I guess, even with the proscription in place, they still found a way to do that which the order was intended to prevent them from doing... That's because the CAPABILITY was there... There is no CAPABILITY factor present in the scenario we're discussion... Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:33:29 +0000

""Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to use this ship to travel back in time... As god is my witness, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought I would have to give such an order.."
-General George Hammond, STARGATE SG-1"

If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship. So I guess, even with the proscription in place, they still found a way to do that which the order was intended to prevent them from doing...

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:13:39 +0000

You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?

So, what you are saying is that if the President ordered a nuclear strike on San Francisco, it would be a "legal" order....

In other words, in your opinion, if the President does it, it's not illegal... :D

The fact that we are even HAVING this discussion indicates how far off the reservation ya'all have gone....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:06:58 +0000

DON'T VOTE FOR TRUMP!!! HE MIGHT LAUNCH A NUCLEAR STRIKE!!!

:^/

Ya'all know what this means, right??

Ya'all just lost ANY moral foundation to complain about Right Wingery fear mongering....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:04:13 +0000

Bleyd,

Well, let me lay your mind at ease and your fears to rest..

Even if Trump were so inclined (which there is absolutely NO FACTUAL/RELEVANT EVIDENCE to suggest he is) he could NOT unilaterally and totally on his own, launch a nuclear strike....

So, you can rest easy my friend... Your safe....

Never in my wildest dreams would I thought I would have to reassure Weigantians that are REALLY afraid of Trump launching a nuclear strike... :^/

"Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to use this ship to travel back in time... As god is my witness, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought I would have to give such an order.."
-General George Hammond, STARGATE SG-1

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:59:57 +0000

You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?

A Platoon Commander has the authority to order people to be killed..

If a Platoon Commander orders non-combatants to be killed, it is an illegal order..

This is exactly what I am talking about. Ya'all are COMPLETELY ignorant of the issues involved here..

But ya'all feel qualified to claim TOTALLY BS crap because ya'all read it on a web site somewhere..

Saying that two are required to turn the keys wouldn't be much of a deterrent against a president who is intent on launching, as the president is the one who gets to choose the second person, and simply has to find someone who either agrees with the decision or is unwilling to disobey orders.

And if I were talking about the two keys requirement, you would have a point...

But I am not, so you don't..

So what you are saying is that it is PERFECTLY reasonable to be afraid that, if Trump were elected POTUS, that he could unilaterally and TOTALLY on his own, launch a nuclear strike..

Is THAT what you are saying???

Really???

Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:54:28 +0000

"It is illegal to obey an illegal order..."

You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?

If anyone is trying to argue technicalities here, it's you Michale. Saying that two are required to turn the keys wouldn't be much of a deterrent against a president who is intent on launching, as the president is the one who gets to choose the second person, and simply has to find someone who either agrees with the decision or is unwilling to disobey orders. The two keys function more as a redundancy to prevent an unintended or otherwise illegitimate launch than to prevent a president from being able to unilaterally order a launch.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:29:38 +0000

To put it into it's proper context, it would be like me saying you shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she would have the CIA assassinate Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broderick and Gennifer Flowers...

That's how ridiculous ya'all sound....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:57:50 +0000

JM,

Let me throw a bone to you and everyone else who postulated such a TOTALLY ridiculous and completely inane and impossible "What If" scenario....

If you want to claim that Trump, in a fit of pique, could *ORDER* a nuclear strike, then THAT is at least on the same planet as possible..

I think that's total bullshit as well, because that type of mentality doesn't jibe with Trump's obvious success in business...

But, at least, it has the attractiveness of actually being slightly VERY SLIGHTLY possible, however bigoted and moronic it's foundation....

But the idea that Trump, completely and unilaterally, could actually LAUNCH a strike???

Completely outside the realm of possibility and anyone who claims that it IS possible is a moron and displaying their COMPLETE and UTTER ignorance of reality...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:47:59 +0000

like the President does indeed have, whose orders MUST be obeyed.

Nuremburg...

It is illegal to obey an illegal order...

NO SINGLE PERSON can launch a nuclear strike...

This is fact..

Claiming that one should not vote for Trump because he might, in a fit of pique, launch a nuclear strike, is NOTHING but senseless fear mongering..

This is fact....

By all means, continue to debate what the definition of 'IS' is... :D

Michale

By: John M

John M — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:52:32 +0000

Michale wrote:

"The system is designed so that no SINGLE deranged individual can launch a nuclear strike.."

AND, as you CONSTANTLY NEED to have pointed out to you Michale, there is a difference between TURNING a key to launch a nuclear strike, and having the actual sole authority to order a nuclear strike, like the President does indeed have, whose orders MUST be obeyed. THOSE are the FACTS.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:45:22 +0000

Come on now, don't make assumptions. My sincerest apologies.. I'm an independent, not a democrat. I voted for Obama, but I also voted for Bush (to my eventual chagrin), Sounds like me except in reverse... I vote Democrat for my Senator and voted for Obama to my eventual chagrin. :D I've been largely a moderate for my whole life, and Clinton is BY FAR the most moderate (and competent) candidate in this election. I would argue the "competent" and have the facts to back it up... Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:17:41 +0000

M [149] "Then why vote for her?? Ahhhh, that's right. Because she has a '-D' after her name..." Come on now, don't make assumptions. I'm an independent, not a democrat. I voted for Obama, but I also voted for Bush (to my eventual chagrin), and supported Dole and Perot back in the 90s (though I wasn't old enough to vote for either). I've been largely a moderate for my whole life, and Clinton is BY FAR the most moderate (and competent) candidate in this election. No, I don't expect her to keep every campaign promise she makes, but I wouldn't expect that of any candidate, ever. I expect her to work towards many of them though, in moderation. As I see it, she won't likely push the country forward like Sanders would have tried to do or drag it down into the mud like Trump is trying to do, she'll just help the country move forward at the speed that it's willing to move, and that's what I think a president should do.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:55:05 +0000

Hmmmm. Based on your theory, I wonder if Trump is a Clinton voter? Doesn't really matter since HRC will kick his ass "big league" in New York anyway. With all respect (sincerely)..... Bragging that Hillary is going to kick Trump's ass in New York is like bragging that Trump is going to kick Hillary's ass in Texas... :D Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:04:14 +0000

Claiming one shouldn't vote for Trump because he might launch a nuclear strike in a fit of pique is utterly ridiculous and is the worst kind of fear mongering...

Such a completely laughable claim has absolutely NO PLACE in logical rational debate..

Which is why we see it all the time here in Weigantia... :^/

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:48:07 +0000

I NEVER said or even once IMPLIED that Trump WOULD.

But others did. And you did not correct them.. Ergo..... By omission you DID say it..

But ANY President CAN.

And I say they can't...

And *I* have practical experience and expertise in the area of safeguarding nuclear weapons...

You have weblinks..

In other words, I know what I know because I have been there and done that..

You THINK what you think because you read it somewhere...

The system is designed so that no SINGLE deranged individual can launch a nuclear strike..

It's that simple...

You can argue until the cows come home, but the facts are the facts..

Michale

By: John M

John M — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:47:00 +0000

Michale wrote:

"Claiming Trump can launch a nuclear strike is the worst form of fear-mongering..."

I NEVER said or even once IMPLIED that Trump WOULD. But ANY President CAN. For you to claim otherwise my friend, when the FACTS are just the opposite, simply means that you are in DENIAL.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:09:40 +0000

You're welcome. Remember, we're talking about campaign promises here, not necessarily what would actually happen. So, you don't really expect Hillary to keep any of her promises?? Then why vote for her?? Ahhhh, that's right. Because she has a '-D' after her name... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:08:16 +0000

Of course not, snowflake... It's not about ME; it's about Trump.

Exactly...

I am glad we agree...

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:01:09 +0000

[139] Michale, So, now you AGREE with Donald Trump??? :D Of course not, snowflake... It's not about ME; it's about Trump. You voiced your disdain for "those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries" and labelled them all with a broad brush as Clinton supporters, and I was merely pointing out that your candidate is one of them. Hmmmm. Based on your theory, I wonder if Trump is a Clinton voter? Doesn't really matter since HRC will kick his ass "big league" in New York anyway. Cue the pithy remark about New Yorkers... and I'll pre-respond to that with your candidate is one of them too and such an opportunist playing the uneducated sheeple. :)

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:51:43 +0000

" and Wall Street reform

BBWWWAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

You expect Hillary to reform Wall Street!!!???? :D

Thanx for the laugh.. :D"

You're welcome. Remember, we're talking about campaign promises here, not necessarily what would actually happen.

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:55:49 +0000

protecting rights in general(women, minorities, LGBT, etc.),

Yea, protect everyone's rights except for Trump supporters... :^/

drug and prison reform,

Bill Clinton did that in 1992.. Ya'all don't like it now...

and Wall Street reform

BBWWWAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

You expect Hillary to reform Wall Street!!!???? :D

Thanx for the laugh.. :D

Michale

By: Bleyd

Bleyd — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:26:49 +0000

CW [115]

Thanks, and I thought it would work as a good segue too. Being the candidate of justice wouldn't just have to refer to just racial issues either, but economic and social issues as well. It would be a way to tie together the ideas of raising taxes on high earners, improving the safety net, expanding (or at least fighting against restricting) voting rights, protecting rights in general(women, minorities, LGBT, etc.), drug and prison reform, and Wall Street reform. All of that could fall under the umbrella of "justice".

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:16:26 +0000

NOT REALLY. You've never HEARD of an INTERIM, ACTING Secretary???

Ya'all can tap dance all you want..

But if you HONESTLY believe that a SINGLE person, even the President, can launch a nuclear strike, completely ON THEIR OWN, then you are a few fries short of a happy meal.. :D

Or, more accurately, you are so consumed by Party ideology, you aren't thinking straight...

Face reality, my friend..

Claiming Trump can launch a nuclear strike is the worst form of fear-mongering...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:14:07 +0000

Don't get me wrong.. I am all for a One World Government..

We *HAVE* to create that before we can start the United Federation Of Planets... :D

But the way the Left Wingery is going about it is all wrong..

They want to subjugate countries, ignore personal liberties and national borders and consolidate all power in the hands of a few elites thru threats, violence, coercion and extortion...

That is NOT how to create a one world government..

Michale

By: John M

John M — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:14:27 +0000

Michale wrote:

"And you think Trump COULD find one who will??

Even if Trump could, the SecDef would have to be confirmed by the Senate.."

NOT REALLY. You've never HEARD of an INTERIM, ACTING Secretary???

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:56:47 +0000

Don't worry, Kick..

In growing trend, colleges offer ball pits for students seeking emotional satefy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/in-growing-trend-colleges-offer-ball-pits-for-students-seeking-emotional-satefy.html

If you get too stressed out from always having your ass handed to you by your's truly, there is a ball pit I am sure you can find at the local Democrat Party HQ.. :D

Howz Pennsylvania doing for ya?? :D hehehehehehe

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:08:56 +0000

Oh, dear.... Who's "pissy" now?

Not pissy at all.. Just a calm, rational and logical assessment of the facts.

The Left Wingery's hatred of America is well documented..

And this little nugget was written in 2013 by a Trump supporter named......... oh, dear..........

Donald J. Trump

So, now you AGREE with Donald Trump??? :D

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 02:28:10 +0000

[132] Michale,

It just occurred to me on the way home..

With your complete and utter disdain for honorable service to one's country, it made things perfectly clear for me.....

The true patriotic Americans are the ones that support Trump..

Those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries...... Those are your Clinton supporters...

It's all perfectly clear now...

Oh, dear.... Who's "pissy" now? Thanks for thinking of me, but I see you've decided that Trump supporters are somehow "true patriotic Americans"? You got yourself all worked up and came up with an "international globalist/no borders" theory... just for little old ME?

Well... I am flattered as hell, I tell you. It's like I always say:

What has been made clear by current events and financial upheavals since 2008 is that the global economy has become truly that -- global.

The near meltdown we experienced a few years ago made it clear that our economic health depended on dependence on each other to do the right thing.

We are now closer to having an economic community in the best sense of the term -- we work with each other for the benefit of all.

I think we've all become aware of the fact that our cultures and economics are intertwined. It's a complex mosaic that cannot be approached with a simple formula for the correct pattern to emerge. In many ways, we are in unchartered waters.

The good news, in one respect, is that what is done affects us all. There won't be any winners or losers as this is not a competition. It's a time for working together for the best of all involved. Never before has the phrase "we're all in this together" had more resonance or relevance.

My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear.

We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.

You can read the rest at this link.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/

And this little nugget was written in 2013 by a Trump supporter named......... oh, dear..........

Donald J. Trump

Heh

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:23:26 +0000

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. - Deputies found graffiti in Hillsborough County at two different locations.

One wall was hit along Gornto Lake Road in Brandon, with the phrase "kill white people" spray painted. Other tags read "black lives matter" and "BLM."
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-east-hillsborough/brandon/graffiti-on-busy-road-says-kill-white-people

THAT is what the Democrat Party stands for these days..... :^/

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:20:51 +0000

After debate, Trump visits with the Hispanics who seem to like him most

If Donald Trump got the sort of reception from all Hispanics as he did Tuesday in Miami, he might have the election in the bag.

Trump’s brief visit to Little Havana, billed as a town hall-style meeting with Latinos, turned into a lovefest in which no one asked a single question. Instead, one by one, five fervent supporters lavished Trump with praise the day after Hillary Clinton seemed to get under his skin at their first presidential debate. Preliminary Nielsen estimates Tuesday suggested 81.4 million people tuned in, making it the most watched presidential debate ever.

“Good job last night!” a woman in the audience hollered.

“We did very well,” Trump said of his debate performance, citing unscientific snap polls he said showed him having defeated Clinton. “It was an interesting evening, certainly, and big league. Definitely big league.”

His Miami fans assured him many more Hispanics share their admiration for him — even though polls show the Republican struggling mightily with the key electoral demographic.

“Mr. Soon-to-be-President!” attorney Roberto Gonzalez told Trump several times.

“Mr. President!” said Alberto Delgado, doing Gonzalez one better.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article104484896.html#storylink=cpy

LEGAL hispanics LOVE Trump... :D

Like I said, it's only the criminals and those who aid and abet criminals who don't like Trump...

And I can live with that.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:06:11 +0000

POLL: JUST 36% THINK HILLRY IS HEALTHY
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1fa5d876cd9e4d899b277574f84b9d96/ap-poll-voters-more-confident-trumps-health-office

Ya'all love polls, right??? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:04:38 +0000

Balthasar,

I notice you STILL haven't conceded you were wrong about the Charlotte shooting..

I guess we can lay the BS accusation that *I* never concede that I am wrong to rest...

As usual, ya'all accuse ME of what ya'all are guilty of..

's OK.. It's a bear I must cross... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:56:39 +0000

Your belief that I am uninformed and have no right to criticize either of the mainstream candidates because, like three quarters of the country I didn't watch the debate is pretty pathetic though.

I know, right??

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:56:11 +0000

And how did you serve your country??

None of your damn business, grunt..

Yea, that's what I thought..

It just occurred to me on the way home..

With your complete and utter disdain for honorable service to one's country, it made things perfectly clear for me.....

The true patriotic Americans are the ones that support Trump..

Those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries...... Those are your Clinton supporters...

It's all perfectly clear now...

Michale

By: Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:55:19 +0000

OK, everyone, new column up (kinda inconclusive, but talking more about the debate):

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/27/will-the-undecideds-decide/

enjoy.

-CW

By: Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:41:56 +0000

Steedo [126] -

Yep, that's pretty close to my take on it, too.

-CW

By: altohone

altohone — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:33:59 +0000

Balthy
81

Um. it took me less than ten minutes to read the transcript from a 90 minute debate... and no objects got thrown at my TV in the process.
A win-win.

Your belief that I am uninformed and have no right to criticize either of the mainstream candidates because, like three quarters of the country I didn't watch the debate is pretty pathetic though.

Interesting that you replied to the non-relevant portion of my comment to CW rather than the political portion (or my response to you).
A little ironic given that I was commenting on what the mainstream ignores.

By: Kick

Kick — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:28:44 +0000

Michale,

And how did you serve your country??

None of your damn business, grunt... But seriously, snowflake, I don't share your peevish neediness for praise and concession and therefore have nothing to prove regarding my service to my country.

Either you can learn something about which you've proven you know very little about or... WDIC? ... babble on in your ignorant state of bliss. OAO YOYO

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955#ixzz4LUmv6eQ2

There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.

If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon’s nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside). It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
But within these broad constraints there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president’s orders. That’s true even if the national security adviser, the secretary of defense (who along with the president makes up the “national command authority”) and other top appointees and advisers disagree with the president’s decision. It does not matter whether the United States has already come under attack by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her. Under the president’s open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority.
Indeed, the military commanders have prepared for this imperative moment. At the apex of the nuclear chain of command, the operators of the arsenal have trained, exercised and managed nuclear forces to respond dutifully to orders from the president, even an order that comes out of nowhere. Everything revolves around this one individual.

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:46:32 +0000

Definite momentum for HRC, the electoral advantage is still hers.

Despite all the polls to the contrary... :D

Other than that, an excellent assessment, Steedo...

Kudos..

Michale

By: Steedo

Steedo — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:37:43 +0000

The topic being debate reactions rather than servers or nuclear codes, I'll take a run. This is my 14th presidential campaign and I have as much expertise in assessing debate outcomes as the next guy. The unbiased third-party observer would conclude that it was pretty even for a while but DT started to lose his poise in the second half (lack of stamina, perhaps?) and HRC began to pound him like a piñata. He reverted back to his core mannerisms in a rather unflattering fashion and certainly lost a lot of undecideds. HRC was typically wonky but displayed solid grasp of all topics while jabbing DT in a manner designed to reveal his many flaws. Definite momentum for HRC, the electoral advantage is still hers.

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:09 +0000

The simple fact is, the ONLY hispanics who DON'T like Trump are the criminals and those that aid and abet criminals..

Don't really care what they think....

Which is why Hillary is losing the hispanic vote by the millions.... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:18:46 +0000

Balthasar,

(in case you scrolled past it, Michale asserts that he still hasn't seen the debate from last night)

Watch it and weep.

OK... OK.....

If I watch the debate and then declare that Trump won, will you accept that???

Of course you won't..

You have proven beyond ANY doubt that NOTHING matters but your Party loyalty..

So whether I watch it or don't watch it, you are going to say THE EXACT SAME THING...

So, why bother???

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:14:45 +0000

Which part??

The part where Hillary blew a double-digit lead and is now LOSING in many battleground states??? :D

Seriously, though..

I have talked to quite a few LEGAL hispanics.. They are quite plentiful in my area..

And *EVERY* one of them have said they are voting Trump..

You see, LEGAL hispanics dislike illegal immigrants MORE than Trump does...

The simple fact is, the ONLY hispanics who DON'T like Trump are the criminals and those that aid and abet criminals..

Don't really care what they think....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:12:12 +0000

Because we SAW it.

And it's your OPINION that Hillary won.. THAT's the point you refuse to acknowledge.. You only have ONE opinion... Yours..

Yet, there are millions and millions and millions of OTHER opinions that say Hillary lost..

So, who am I to believe??

YOU...

Or MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Americans???

For me, the choice is clear...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:10:45 +0000

Kick,

And how did you serve your country??

"Do you want fries with that??"

Yea, that's what I thought.

You think you know something because you read it on a website.. I *KN OW* because I have been there and done that...

Michale

By: Kick

Kick — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:07:07 +0000

[77] Michale,

Wrong. Learn about the two-man rule that applies in the missile silos and submarines, remove your head from your ass and let it sink in that there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.

I don't have to LEARN about it, sunshine.. I have been there and done that..

When you are in command of a security detail who actually GUARDS the nuclear weapons, the two-man rule is second nature..

As I said, you never having served your country, I can understand and don't blame you for your ignorance..

Where you deserve blame, however, is trying to pass off web-links as expertise and knowledge when it's nothing but parroting what you WANT to believe..

Oh, security.... well, why didn't you say so..... *LMFAO* Guarded that nuclear "ordinance," did you? *LOL*

It was your link, snowflake! You posted the Wikipedia link missing several citations in order to prove ME wrong, and you failed miserably in the process. What part of "unilateral authority" confuses you?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/26/first-debate-reactions/#comment-85361

You should in all seriousness read my links that aren't from Wikipedia and learn something about the POTUS/CIC's unilateral authority to order a nuclear launch and stop confusing it with the grunts who guard the ORDNANCE and turn the keys and carry out the damn UNILATERAL orders from the top of the chain from the CIC.

Gotta love those nuclear ordnance security snowflakes, even though they refer to ordnance as "ordinance," two totally different things, you know? No two of them security snowflakes are alike, but they're still all small and melt quickly upon hitting the pavement. Yeah, you can call it a typo and continue your bitching about spelling, but words matter, particularly when you're dealing with nuclear ORDNANCE. *LOL* :)

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:05:56 +0000

Just like ya'all keep telling yerselves Hillary won

Because we SAW it.

(in case you scrolled past it, Michale asserts that he still hasn't seen the debate from last night)

Watch it and weep.

By: Paula

Paula — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:59:32 +0000

[110] John: Yep!

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:47:58 +0000

Michale: what he said....

Which part??

The part where Hillary blew a double-digit lead and is now LOSING in many battleground states??? :D

Imagine yer lives under PRESIDENT Trump.. It will be easier to wake up on the morning of 9 Nov 2016 :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:45:33 +0000

Um, yeah. You just keep telling yourself Trump won. Maybe they'll even set up a "skewed polls" site so that you can believe that right up until the votes start coming in.

:-)

Just like ya'all keep telling yerselves Hillary won.. :D

Michale

By: Chris Weigant

Chris Weigant — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:43:40 +0000

Bleyd [34] -

I like it! Makes an excellent point, and good segue.

Michale [multiple comments] -

Um, yeah. You just keep telling yourself Trump won. Maybe they'll even set up a "skewed polls" site so that you can believe that right up until the votes start coming in.

:-)

Paula [58] -

Also do a news story search on "4chan" to see what else was going on...

:-)

JohnM [68] -

Saved me the trouble... thanks! Michale: what he said....

altohone [72] -

Seen the "old guys travel through Asia" summer series with Winkler, William Shatner, George Foreman, and Terry Bradshaw? Pretty hilarious, especially Kirk... Fonzie definitely won the dance contest, though...

:-)

-CW

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:40:59 +0000

I would ask you if you have seen the new GHOSTBUSTERS

And the answer is no, I haven't seen that yet. I'll keep my eyes open for scum..er..slime when I do..

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:35:03 +0000

Policy wonk vs vicious Twitter troll.

That's PRESIDENT Vicious Twitter Troll to you, Chicken Boy... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:29:53 +0000

. . . not to mention that it looked like the woman who has worked hard and studied and prepared and paid her dues

AND NOW THE FACT IS REVEALED!!

Despite all the denials and protestations....

It is confirmed...

Chicken Boy is a Clintonista!!! :D

It's nice ta have you out of the closet, Chicken Boy... :D

Michale

By: John From Censornati

John From Censornati — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:27:37 +0000

Policy wonk vs vicious Twitter troll.

By: John From Censornati

John From Censornati — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:26:10 +0000

Paula [106]

. . . not to mention that it looked like the woman who has worked hard and studied and prepared and paid her dues vs the guy who inherited a fortune and thinks he's just entitled to the job.

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:21:57 +0000

I would ask you if you have seen the new GHOSTBUSTERS, but I am sure you would say it wasn't "plausible" :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:21:21 +0000

When you invoked the loophole/movie trope of lawfully removing a president from office You ever hear of WATERGATE??? I think so, but that evades my point. Of course you think so.. Which PROVES my point... :D And I thought WHITE HOUSE DOWN had a far more plausible plot than OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN. And if I was talking about "plausible", you would have a point... But I wasn't, so you don't... :D Michale

By: Balthasar

Balthasar — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:17:34 +0000

Huh??? When did I invoke AIR FORCE ONE or WHITE HOUSE DOWN.. When you invoked the loophole/movie trope of lawfully removing a president from office (in your case, in order to prevent Trump from launching nukes - I still can't believe that you're arguing this). Obama has a LOT of independent thinkers in his inner circle. I think so, but that evades my point. If Trump wanted to launch, we'd only have Ivanka to stand in the way of it. Everyone else would nod like bobble-heads, like they did for BushCheney. So THAT, in your mind, is equal to WWIII? No but it is a modern example of a WH with too much hubris, and too little common sense. A good analogy to a potential Trump WH, without the solid gold toilets. And I thought WHITE HOUSE DOWN had a far more plausible plot than OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN. Used your trope/loophole, too.

By: Paula

Paula — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:10:48 +0000

I think yesterday's debate has a good shot at pulling a percentage wavering Republican women into Hillary's camp, as well as undecided women.

The interrupting -- it played badly in general, but I think it has some additional resonance for women. The loud, belligerent man trying to silence you by sheer aggression -- twangs a lot of nerve-endings for anyone, but I think women tend to get the brunt of that kind of behavior more than men.

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:08:05 +0000

Just as a nice little wrap-up:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/comey-no-obstruction-justice-clinton-email-case

Yea... They have "nice little wrap ups" on infowars.com too..

Some how, I just DON'T think you would accept them.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:56:37 +0000

Yeah, Republican scum.

You DID read the blurb that it's DEMOCRATS who are holding up the CR, right??

You see, that is EXACTLY my point...

No matter the FACTS, it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault..

Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:54:41 +0000

Just as a nice little wrap-up:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/comey-no-obstruction-justice-clinton-email-case

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:54:06 +0000

Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/hillarys-debate-lies-14759.html

This is why Clinton will lose the election.. She is full of scheisse....

Michale