Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,415
    Reputation
    5448
    Type
    enigmatic

    Is Presidential responsibility for nuclear war an election year topic?

    I'm conflicted. This is one situation where I can't easily evaluate like I usually can do. I'm trying not to take partisan sides in what I will say, so this isn't one of those times where people (like me, here) complain about politics and the listener tries to quickly discern which party is being talked about, to decide if they need to listen with a critical ear or with a benevolent ear. This isn't about that, so when you read this, you may sense twist and turns in my story that might puzzle you, if you thought I was only trying to stick up for one party over another.

    I'm first talking about the outrage afforded Trump's words about "grabbing by the pussy". His "locker-room talk". Talking about how many people in the public eye distanced themselves disingenuously from knowing that that stuff even goes on. Talking about how many women are to the point of outrage by his words and how they do not want someone "who commits sexual assault" in the White House. (This proves to me that such women cannot discern between braggadocio and the actual physical act. Oh, great.)

    I was at a dinner party the other day. The women were just all over Trump for his words. I then said to them that I can't see how (these women's) hurt feelings about overheard male banter is enough to worry about, in picking a president. One woman got really loud and said, "So, it's ok for a man to say it's ok to treat about half of the US population that way?" and she said it in that indignant way that would have held me up for major ridicule in front of everyone had I not been at the ready.

    I replied, just as loud, "No, it's not ok. OK? But your hurt feelings, and my sympathy for your hurt feelings, does not even begin to compare with the threat of nuclear war." Silence in the room. I went on, "Hillary said that Trump is too unstable to trust his finger on the nuclear button. Well, those words of hers hit home for me. But where are the political leaders (like the Bush family, and many others, active or retired) who kept silent as Trump was ascending? And where were the congressmen and other politicos who are closer to the truth of the matter than I will ever be, why are they not screaming loud and clear about the sense of what she said, this threat, to get it into our national awareness from coast to coast and in as fast as a few days? Is this not most important, if Trump is unstable for the threat of nuclear war? Why can't this concern, if so damn valid, be spread as fast as Trump's locker-room words spread, from coast-to-coast in a mere few days, and be on everyone's lips?"

    The woman replied, "The political leaders are speaking up, by saying they will vote for Hillary!" Another woman and a man at the party chimed in on this reply. They thought they were triumphant. Hoo boy, do they miss my point.

    I said, incredulously, "Vote? VOTE? Do you think a silly vote is proactive enough for nuclear war? When a nuclear warhead comes flying towards America, whether it lands or not, all you women will forget all about Trump's locker-room words! And when those of you who survive run to your politicians, will it be your consolation when they say, "Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary!" ? Why are (you) women not caring at all about our nation's security but only about how someone's words make you feel? Is that how women throw their vote away? Don't you care enough about national security to even notice it and talk about it?"

    So, this is what stumps me. I know there is national rank-and-file concern over Trump's instability as a person and a leader, but what about how his immature behavior specifically may affect him as the one who can unilaterally commence a nuclear war, or fails to evaluate a false alarm and commences a retaliatory nuclear attack to a false alarm? Isn't this the biggest concern of all? Shouldn't we gauge to that in a public discussion in place of grabbing pussy? Or do these congressman and politicos all know something about that specific point that I do not know, a something that makes Hillary's comment about "Trump's finger on the button" mere cheap fear-mongering? Did Hillary really need to say that? Or is a nuclear threat situation, false alarm or not, so dangerous and it's eventuality so probable that it doesn't matter whether the president's mental skills be that of a Dwight Eisenhower, or a Jimmy Carter, or a George W. Bush, or a Hillary, or a Trump?

    I went poking around online and found this June 2016 article:

    What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? A nuclear launch expert plays out the various scenarios.

    It had a lot to say. What I got out of it is that even the brainiest, most savvy guy might not have a chance to exhibit his brains and savvy if a nuclear threat presented itself. In the article, check out what almost happened in 1979 between President Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Perhaps no major public figure proactively screams loud and long enough during a presidential election about the nuclear war button to grab our excitable attention because they know there is no successful way for the rank-and-file to proactively care about nuclear war during an election, using our vote? Really? Sigh. Perhaps, the best nuclear deterrents happen in all the other ways that they happen: in between elections? Yet, pussy-grabbing certainly grabbed the attention of the nation's voting pussies at votin' time, that's for sure. Does a nuclear threat grab? Not so much. It disheartens me to think that talk of pussy-grabbing carries the priority that it does.

    If, then, I understand to believe that a nuclear threat makes a puppet out of a president, I now lean to that other slice of wisdom that they say to evaluate by. They say it's the Supreme Court appointments that a president will make while in office that decides the course of the nation and outlasts the president's effect. I found these articles, for starters:

    How a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Affect the Supreme Court

    The big picture on Trump and the Courts: Why constitutional originalists should be #NeverTrump all the way

    Comments welcome and appreciated on any of this. Thank you.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    You're better than any man you outlive.
    - me

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Chukhed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    408
    Reputation
    2419
    Type
    Happy Ghost

    Re: Is Presidential responsibility for nuclear war an election year topic?

    Trump made that remark how many years ago?

    Women are so fickle, and clit-ton knows it and plays off it constantly. Yeah, hillary could murder children right in front of some of these cunts, and they will still vote for her because trump said something bad once. Most of them are voting hillary just because she is a woman, and painting anyone else who wont vote for her as a misogynist {If some cunt accuses you of being sexist for not voting hillary, tell them you're voting for Stein and then ask them why they are so fucking retarded}. Women like to paint trump as a rapist because mentally they are still teenagers, just dying to rebel against some authoritarian figure and he fits the bill because he said something about the holy vag. If trump were perfect in every way, women would still vote for Cunton because.. vagina.

    The media has been playing everyone for quite some time with this, and i personally cannot wait till it's over. Campaign commercials for hillary are only bashing trump, and not saying ANYTHING about what she plans on doing when elected {I say 'when' elected because the electoral college and superpacs already decided who's going to be POTUS a long time ago}. As Confucius once said: Those who sling mud, lose ground. Bashing trump does not make hillary look any better, in fact.. it does the opposite.

    It's funny how most of us americans dont trust any politicians, yet they are the ones with the power to end it all when they decide to get emotional. I personally would rather have someone in office that can get along with putin, instead of defying him for some personal or SJW agenda.

    So, it's ok for a man to say it's ok to treat about half of the US population that way?
    This is standard man-hate nowadays. Butters from South Park said it best:
    "You get blamed for the group that you belong to, that's how it works now."

    Pick apart her retort. In this one sentence she assumes not only that you think it's ok to treat women like shit, but also that trump is somehow treating all women badly because he made some dumb locker room talk that everyone {including women} make. You can bet your ass though when hillary makes a comment dissing men, all the dumb cunts in the room will clap and cheer like the little fucking sheep they are {Double standard #342}.

    "Why are women so upset about something so trivial?" And "is that really how you're going to base your vote?" These are valid questions that we're not only dismissed, but also turned into insults towards you by women who are inherently sexist {Apologies if they are your friends, but not very good ones for using such tactics against you}. I avoid women such as her like the plague. If i cannot avoid, then i make sure to piss them off more with even worse banter so they'll go away.

    You cannot have logical conversations with them anymore. You cannot ask questions that make them consider facts or logic. All they see is hatred for men. Period. Whether men realize it or not, women are at war with you. Make sure you're on the right side, and stop giving them ammo {attention, conversation, consideration, etc.}.


    Hillary said that Trump is too unstable to trust his finger on the nuclear button.
    Women are the most emotionally unstable people in the world, and everyone knows it. Her opinion of trump means nothing. It's your opinion that matters, she's just using old fear tactics to get more votes. This election is so heated that everyone is pulling out every lame trick ever used.

    Vote Giant meteor 2016.
    I refuse to be a part of the Three Ring Circus: Engagement ring. Wedding ring. Suffer ring.

    You can't be king of the world if you're slave to the vag.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,529
    Reputation
    14849
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Is Presidential responsibility for nuclear war an election year topic?

    Clinton is part of the old aristocracies still playing the "great game" of europe, and is far, mar more likely to trigger a nuclear war than Trump is. Clinton has been provoking Russia; Trump has been painting Putin as a good old boy he can do business with.

    And America seems to have forgotten long ago that under your constitution wars are declared by congress, not by the president. The exception is "clear and present" danger, which obviously originally meant "troops landing on our soil". These days, "present" is treated very, very flexibly.

    If your fear, however, is that Clinton wouldn't press the button - don't sweat it. She already has the blood of tens of thousands on her hands. Women heads of state tend to be warlike, and perfectly ok with sending thousands of other people - people they personally don't know and care about - to their deaths. They have a sharply defined edge to their moral horizon.

    A Clinton presidency will be a grim, grey, deadly time to be alive on planet earth.

  4. #4
    Senior Member LastPriory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Physics Lab
    Posts
    592
    Reputation
    1647
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Is Presidential responsibility for nuclear war an election year topic?

    Hope my little "State of the Onion" address can clear things up a bit.

    In any case, this is how I talk in any given locker room when there are ostensibly
    "no women present." It is braggadocious, a little arrogant, intelligent if I
    do say so myself and utterly Pro-Masculine.

    Nobody here would believe what I have heard women say while those women
    do not know that I understand their language very well.

    Here goes:

    Hitlery has been provoking Putin because he won't "grab her by the pussy".
    Neither will anyone else, for less than $500,000. The party unboxxed attended was
    filled to the shoreline with the same kind of woman, over and over.
    Like a copy of a copy of a copy. Hitlerys' followers
    are sexually frustrated. They are INCEL, not MGTOW!

    MGTOW leave their options open. We do not need to use force, nor control-
    We ARE power. We do not wield power. Power wields us, so long as we as MGTOW
    remain Numerate and Logical. Emotions do not matter when finance is concerned.

    Spinsters is the old word for the unfortunate condition of frustrated, unfuckable women.
    These women plainly have not figured it out because they have burned
    all their bridges and are fresh out of options. Then they complain that no "White Knights"
    show up for them to back up their foul mouths by use of force.

    MGTOW do not burn bridges. We build them, just not in the direction unworthy women desire.
    Women remain frustrated, men become content. Women pretend to sell contentment while
    sowing the seeds of gossip, malcontentment and status seeking the whole time.

    Men work together to uphold life and provide it and for it.
    We can retain our options where women cannot-
    no matter the womans' claim upon any man.

    Why?
    Women want to claim control of ALL life, no matter who is the giver of the life which made her
    a mother. No terms. Unconditional surrender. The problem for women is this:
    All mammilian life comes out of a man first, then comes from a woman.
    Women can only claim life was given to them. They cannot claim to make it,
    they are the harbor for a ship, the brakes of a car, the anchor of a sailboat,
    or the shackles of a prisoner.

    So they curse the patriarchy for their perpetual ineptitude.

    Women run out of gametes. They go dry. Men do not.
    It is a fact of nature which will be expressed according to the notions of Darwin.
    It is what makes a woman desperate and gives a man control of his own life,
    no matter how women deny this, insult us, berate and abuse us as men-
    for not grabbing their pussy when they want us to do so.

    Men contain approximately billions of life forms (gametes, germs) daily.
    Women have but one reproductive cycle per month during which they might
    have a chance at enduring any mans' state of being which lasts only a few months.
    Then they give birth in this dramatic display of narcissism and claim dominion.
    Until they breast feed for the first time.
    Then they don't want the man who gave them the almighty vagina status of
    "Motherhood" any more, though they plotted and planned, competed and manipulated
    to obtain this status.

    Women are LUNATICS!
    So are their supplicants.

    This is what happens when women don't get their pussy grabbed enough or
    when they want it, from whom they want to grab it.
    I could call it a "Failed Barbie Complex".

    Once this unfortunate condition is realized in their life they mourn, punish
    and berate anyone who has the status they seek as disenfranchised women.

    They pick on the Alpha who grabs willing pussy and is known for it, and tear him and
    his audience down any way they can, because he grabbed willing pussy.

    We see this every day, gentlemen. Spoiled women who do the mating dance.
    Those women do it to each other too. Watch them, you'll see it.
    They have this attitude: "If I want it and can't have it, then nobody else can either.
    why, they shouldn't even want it if I have any say in the matter."

    And then they follow up with the notorious left hook of, "I'm gonna give him
    a piece of my mind. Maybe he'll grab my pussy after this!"

    And it still didn't work.

    If Putin continues to refuse Hitlerys' awkward advances at leadership, she will probably
    incinerate Smolensk in retaliation to their Russian "hackery", (which was pretty
    damn good work on both parts of the media wall.)

    She's not kidding.
    Neither am I.

    Clinton wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens here in the US,
    because the gunsmiths can barely keep up with the Non-US purchase orders.
    She should know, she oversaw and approved an $80,000,000 transaction
    to Saudi Arabia of weapons and got paid for selling bullshit.

    They are not going to destroy the guns they confiscate, on the contrary.
    They will refurbish them, with free education at a FEMA Camp near you.
    To make you believe the guns were destroyed, you will be shown convincing
    pictures, videos and cartoons.

    Don't take my word for it.
    http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2...inton-funders/

    Women who have already born children attain this so called, "status".
    Other women envy and are jealous of the "Matriarchy".
    They feel like their eggs are as good as any other eggs.
    Sadly, they are mistaken, so they attack the Patriarchy anticipating
    reparations which will not be forthcoming.

    This election has been very thought provoking, though I admit not
    caring much either way. I just like designing and creating things.


    I go my own way, and encourage others to do the same.

    Much love and respect to my brothers in solitude.

    A man is the flow of life. A woman is merely an empty vessel.
    The ancient word for vessel is; vassal, unless my etymology is
    off kilter.

    In any case, go your own way, and show other men how you went yours.
    LP
    Throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams.
    Specialization is for insects. Robert A. Heinlein.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,415
    Reputation
    5448
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: Is Presidential responsibility for nuclear war an election year topic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wombat View Post
    And America seems to have forgotten long ago that under your constitution wars are declared by congress, not by the president. The exception is "clear and present" danger, which obviously originally meant "troops landing on our soil". These days, "present" is treated very, very flexibly.
    Things have changed since the Constitution. Pre-authorization by Congress has been short-circuited by the minds of men. Here is an excerpt from an article dated March 1, 2016:

    Going it alone? The president and the risks of a hair-trigger nuclear button

    To be sure, a president is required by the War Powers Act of 1973 to seek congressional approval for any military action within 60 days of its inception. But most presidents consider that act unconstitutional. In any event, a nuclear war could easily devastate the planet within just days or hours—long before the 60-day stipulation would be binding. Even if a president had obtained congressional approval for a war that began using only conventional weapons, no provisions of the War Powers Act would require subsequent congressional action prior to nuclear escalation.
    And another article from August 6, 2016 (emphasis mine):

    The need to reform the nuclear weapons launch approval process

    In November, the American people will elect not just a President who signs and vetoes legislation, but the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. This distinction is critical because the checks and balances in the Constitution largely go away when the President acts as a military commander. That was an acceptable trade-off when weapons of war were muskets and cannons. Today, the President is vested with the unparalleled responsibility to order a nuclear strike without approval from Congress or the courts.

    When I served on active duty in the United States Air Force, one of my duties was to teach the Law of War. Under both international and domestic law, the United States is authorized to have nuclear weapons. To initiate a launch of weapons of mass destruction, it requires the approval of the National Command Authority (NCA). That’s an impressive sounding name, but the NCA consists of only two people: The President and his political appointee, the Secretary of Defense.

    Congress can reject a President’s use of force, but only two months later. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the President needs to obtain congressional authorization for the use of military force after 60 days of a military conflict. Published reports state an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a nuclear warhead can strike within half an hour. By the time Congress is even authorized to act after the President has launched nuclear weapons, there may no longer be a civilized world in which to do so.


    The hair-trigger aspect of our nuclear weapons system was aptly described in 2008 by Vice President Dick Cheney, who stated the President “could launch a kind of devastating attack the world’s never seen … He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”

    The Framers of the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances that limit the President’s authority. For example, if the President wants to fund and build a wall along our border, he would need Congress—which is vested with the Power of the Purse—to concur. If the President wants to deport people based on their religion, the judiciary would step in and apply the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

    The Framers also granted the authority to declare war to Congress—not wanting to leave matters of war and peace to the whims of any individual. The speed and mass lethality of warfare in the nuclear age has fundamentally changed that paradigm.
    The current lack of accountability in America’s nuclear launch approval process had not previously been cause for much alarm. Until now.
    For the last seven decades of our nuclearized world, the American public believed that our Commander in Chief was rational and would not act impulsively. Under our nuclear launch approval process, the only real check preventing nuclear Armageddon were the personal qualities of the Commander in Chief: temperament, judgment, and knowledge.

    The Republican nominee for President has exhibited behavior that should give every American great concern about handing him the nuclear launch codes. Donald Trump believes in conspiracies. He has thin skin and is impulsive. He has shown an incredible lack of knowledge about world affairs, including not knowing Russia had invaded Ukraine in 2014. He does not appear to understand the concept of America’s nuclear triad. And he reportedly asked a foreign policy advisor three times: “if we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them.”

    But the structural deficiency of America’s nuclear launch protocol extends beyond Donald Trump. There may be future presidential nominees who exhibit similar problematic qualities. Or an American President may become mentally ill while in office. Entrusting our entire nuclear launch approval process to just two people in the Executive Branch is simply fraught with too much risk.

    Congress must work to reduce the structural defects in America’s nuclear launch protocols. One reform would be to require more people—who are not beholden to the President—to concur prior to launching a nuclear strike, such as the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. It is time to put appropriate checks and balances on the one decision that could annihilate civilization as we know it.
    So, I ask, is this an election year issue for voters or is it just background management? Did talk of grabbing pussy do more to help Hillary than any real threat Trump might present to the nuclear option? Why don't American women give a shit about national defense, enough to make it known that they do? For that matter, what is distracting American men to also seemingly not care enough about this "non-issue" to talk about it nationally? At least we see how women can be operated. Where's the media calamity on this? Is that what I am really complaining about? What the fuck is this election about? A choice between great taste or less filling? A choice of sexist figureheads? If women do not want to be defined to the kitchen, in a weird way feminists have turned domestic politics into their "kitchen", while men still own the watch for international enemies. The women have made the entire USA into their kitchen, still depending on the men to head off to work in an international "office place".
    Last edited by Unboxxed; November 5, 2016 at 11:21 PM.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    You're better than any man you outlive.
    - me

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 3, 2016, 5:08 AM
  2. Carly Fiorina's presidential bid
    By Mr Wombat in forum Lounge
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 11, 2015, 3:37 AM
  3. What Happened In Alberta's Election?
    By Quarter Wave Vertical in forum Lounge
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: May 8, 2015, 11:35 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 22, 2015, 2:45 AM
  5. Bullshit can save you from nuclear radiation
    By cyberdude in forum Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 22, 2014, 10:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •