The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

What, and hillary isn't? Obama has been doing much the same thing since year 3 - trying to establish a 'legacy' worth remembering for the history books. It's pathetic and transparent as all get out. Hell, Bill C did the same bullshit too back with the '90s bombing of the Baltics and the half assed attempt at universal health care.

I think anybody will be more hands-on then Trump.
In case of Trump I think this is a good thing bye the way.
All I was trying to say is, that we shouldn't look too much to Trumps sayings when ultimately he'll just do what his VP is saying. So better to start comparing Hillary to Mike Pence.
Whoever you guys going to pick I don't think there will be much difference in the end. Don't really care anymore.

Actually no. Trump is doing it for the money, and he already won in that regard.

If he loses he can go around speeching and writing more books and cashing in hard. He's created some name recognition via free media coverage.

If he wins he's going to lower trillions' worth of taxes including his own, and can still do the above.

If you think "hes a billionaire he doesn't need money", yea that never stopped any rich person from getting richer.

I love how you make it look as though politics and, as it happens, this choice of capital importance can be summarized to one word.

if that's the size you need the funnel exit to be to understand things then :

Trump: Nuclear Armageddon
Hillary: ...


.........


......WTF WHO CARES about hillary, you're still HESITATING ???!??

Not even considering the downsides of both sides seems shortsighted as well.

Although if I had to vote between those two, glad I don't, I guess Hillary is the smaller evil.

that's what I've been saying!

none of the conservatives get it

Never heard that threat before. Cool. Yeah. Doesn't seem reasonable. Very little evidence. Talking **** about nukes didn't end life as we knew it between 1950-1990. Given that, I think I'm likely to ignore you entirely on this. Good luck voting on the election, from where I am assuming good and well out of the States. If it makes you feel any better, with Electoral College, I'm already voting for Trump no matter who I'm voting for because I live in Texas, I have as much a vote as you do. I eagerly anticipate finding out who Ohio and Florida decides to be my President for me again.

Do you have any concept of how close we actually got to nuclear war? As in, finger_on_the_button close?

nukes not going of was due to a balance. people caring about preventing nuclear war vs. nuclear war.

don't you think you no longer/not caring about preventing nuclear war as are more and more people is bound to tip the scales?

I think making a guy who's threatened on several occasions to use nukes granted presidency and who owns the world cup for thin skin, president of the most heavily nuclear armed country on the planet is bound to have some sort of major effect on the scale.

once again this is another one of those "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

post-nuke Armageddon is a reality that we can't be there to witness and gauge and enter into the statistics which is why in a manner similar to caring about the ecosystem is still important despite it being cold that one time, caring about nuclear holocaust is still important despite it never having happened.

as to the vote not mattering; this is an issue that needs to be taken into hand. and something can be done about it...

...if you'd just enact your second amendment rights instead of dipping a toe into it calling it the whole and making the whole thing into a goddamned new-new testament to preach about.

No, you do NOT get to both "heckle him about his comment on the second amendment", and then do it yourself. That is "highly offensive" and someone should "throw you in jail". Besides, you don't think us Americans need that, so in the process of getting rid of it, we no longer have the power. Do something yourselves. Declare war with America and change it yourselves.

Ask for the nukes, still not convinced. You say "oh he wants to use them he wants to use them", but talk is cheap, and both sides were threatening to use them during the Cold War. We have the same balance then, as we do today. He won't use them just because he says he will. The only thing more stupid than the bullcrap he says, is the people taking it 100% serious. I can't see how you're fun at parties if offensive jokes actually offend you and make you "afraid" and "need a safe space".

Don't worry, they had that 0000 security code on them.

Benghazi.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37025198

TFW you lose all hope and need to sue to bring the wicked witch down

And next those parents of a fallen US soldier will sue Trump.

Fun time in the US. It's presidential elections mud fighting, constantly lowering the bar.

Wait, that response makes me think that I need to explain the scandal to non-americans

is "non-american" a new slur that I'm unaware of?

I don't think it's working...

?
So Do you or do you not have guns? this is getting confusing. I thought guns were under no thread and wouldn't be going away ever?

see this is the kind of demand that's typically non-non-american.

....



and that's for this :

although I will level with you here I'm not fun at parties. Moving on :

The law of nuclear holocaust prevention will is akin to the law of uranium radioactivity loss and decay:

uranium looses no radioactivity. ever.


I bow out for tonight

I'll have you know that uranium does decay to nothing after a few tens of billions years. Which is well within the supposed life of the universe.

We have the same nuclear balance today as we did during the Cold War. The difference is that the Russians aren't yelling it as loudly as they were in the 70s and the Islamic Fascist Jihadi morons are instead.

So no, the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation hasn't gone away or gotten more or less important. It's just not the thing the government uses to create the next crisis right now. Now it's global warming (ooooh soo scarrry) and the Chinese (somewhat sarcastic, since it will only take the US government one competent president and legislature to clobber China in the economic war).

I'll do that one. No sources, just the summaries. Ready, non-americanos?

Islamic Jihadist Morons attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, killing/capturing a bunch of Americanos. Including the Ambassador to Libya. Multiple calls for help were made to the CIA and other folks in the area during the attack, but Hillary and crew didn't want to *rile the locals* and they wanted *a diplomatic solution*. So, they didn't send any meaningful forces to help in a meaningful amount of time. Basically, too little, too late, and they didn't believe the reports coming from the Embassy. After this, the administration blamed the whole thing on a video on youtube, saying the Muslims had been riled by this moviemaker guy in California (who was later arrested for something else which was definitely political). The very idea that this video guy had somehow provoked a group of primitive muslim tribesmen to attack a US Embassy is so far fetched as to be unbelievable.

Basically, Hillary and Obama lied on national television in a lame attempt to butter up to the Muslim world. That may not be how everyone sees it, but that's how it was perceived. The families of the deceased, especially the ones Hillary met personally, were beyond offended at her reaction, lies, and feigned ignorance.

The position is, either she was complicit in the decision to delay the reinforcements, or she was not. There is quite a lot of evidence that she was, but nothing concrete (because, politicians, amiright?). She claims she didn't know until it was too late anyway. Something about being woken up in the middle of the night I think. Problem is, if she was complicit, then she's a liar and a cold hearted, ruthless woman who will do anything for her career. If she wasn't, then she's an idiot and really shouldn't be elected to the Presidency. Either way should raise some serious questions about her candidacy.

I... can't even tell what you're trying to say?

The statement "uranium looses no radioactivity" isn't true, but if you mean that we don't have the same balance today as we have had before, we do. We still have enough nukes to end the world multiple-fold. We still simply don't use them. Despite the fact we don't have "as many" as we did during peak years.

I mean, way to leave on such a confusing note. I guess that's just what llamas do in the rain on the ides of August though.

I know stuff happend there. I don't specifically see any problem with it. The usual clusterfuck that kills people.
Horrible events, but stuff like that happens on a daily basis in some form. Yes Hillary is probably a horrible person. So is Trump. You really fucked up your whole election by bringing it down to those two.

If you're bringing up the nuke argument, you've been duped by people who think you're dumb enough to believe it. Either that, or those people are incompetent enough to not understand the role of controls, checks, and balances. Which doesn't surprise me when it comes Hillary's stupidity surrounding her emails.

Nuclear strategy is pretty laid out at this point and presidents have hardly any influence in their actual use unless you get an independance day scenario where aliens are attacking you and you gotta choose whether you wanna nuke SF or not. Otherwise, the nuclear football is just a dog and pony show.

Offensive strikes
If Kim jung un got voted into the whitehouse and ordered a strike on x random country, the military will refuse to carry out the orders or sabotage their own ability to do so. The smart guys over in the Pentagon aren't so stupid as to rest the fate of the world in the hands of one man. /smh

Defensive strikes
All strategies between two nuclear powers hinge upon the ability to take out the enemy before they are able to respond with their own nukes. This is the only circumstance in which nukes will ever be actually launched in hostility and may involve under the radar missiles coming in low off the coast from SSBNs.

All such strategies involve decapitation strikes which seek to destroy central command and control in order to prevent retaliation. Again, the pentagon and the russians ain't dumb. Both have dead hand systems in place that ensure de-centralised control and counter launch in the event of such. Once those SSBNs out at sea lose contact with command, a whole series of procedures start ticking away automatically eventuating in control of launch falling into the discretion of the Captain and XO.

If you really are genuinely worried about the use of nuclear weapons, then you should be worried about who gets vetted to be captain and XO of nuclear submarines.

Accidental strike
These are statistically bound to happen, and when they do they will be on home soil under no influence from the office of president.

I sincerely hope we stop talking about nuclear codes as some presidential deciding factor. It's disingenuous, retarded, and stinks of political point scoring.

*As for balance of powers, for a long time Russia relied on the cheaper strategy of spamming enough nukes to keep up with the more expensive US 'anti missile' approach. That only goes so far though and we're seeing the viability of that strategy breaking down as the US gets better and better at it. Putin has voiced openly his strong concerns about US 'anti-missiles' having more and more range.

If he sees an opportunity to destabalise nato, he will take it. Mass immigration of people who fail to integrate and then literally bankrupt and explode the welfare state of European countries is favourable for him. Places like Sweden and Germany are already buckling.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/...ermany-of-1-million-migrants-54-got-jobs.html

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...will-suffer-workers-dwindle-working-age-shift


These immigrants were supposed to plug the demographic hell hole that was opening up in the working age population and it has failed spectacularly. ECB is increasingly buying up bonds from blue chips and rates look like they are staying negative. Basically debt is so worthless i have to pay you to take any.

A stronger Russian/Chinese alliance of necessity to counter balance the US is already forming. China is baring its teeth in the south china sea in some sort of military poker game of who has the better cards, and Russia has been making show of force moves for a while now. The Australian parliament being the retards that they are decided to get into that game and threaten china with pocket aces (America), even though we have like 0 capability and still rely heavily on the Chinese to buy all our crap.

For submarine junkies:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russia-may-revive-its-ultra-high-performance-alfa-class-1761291246

Nope

Trump is an egomaniac. He does not want money for money - he wants money for ego. There are many other ways of expanding ones ego and one such way is presidency of the most powerful country on Earth. It's incredibly naive to think the best way to go down in historical consciousness is simply to stay in the private sector and make a lot of money.

Trump is not an idiot. All eyes will be on him scrutinising every action for corruption. If he gets in, Trump will be one of the most hated and blocked presidents, more so than Obama was to the republicans in his time. One wrong step and he will be held in disgrace and his ego will be gone.

Hillary has concretely shown time and time again that she doesn't care about her public image beyond what she can trick people into thinking. So far, she doesn't think much of her voter base.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...inton-hires-debbie-wasserman-schultz-n2197269

She is so corrupt I wouldn't put it past her to have pulled strings somewhere along the line to help Trump become an 'easy to beat' republican nominee that forces people to look past all her crap and vote purely based on an anti-vote. If you can't compete, sabotage the competition.