12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except that, if Trump loses, lots (most?) of his supporters will claim that the elections were fraudulent and that he really won.

Get used to it. If HRC loses by a small margin, expect the same from her supporters.

I fully expect that if he loses he will make it his mission in life to destroy the GOP establishment ( because they lost it for him ) and will do his best to sabotage everything she does as president.

I could be completely wrong of course, and he might concede graciously and go back to making even more billions.

2 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

No it's a banana republic

 

The bananas grow on the right.

 

Anywhere one goes in the Constitutional republic, they're all growing on the right and on the right only.  

 

Right next to the ground nuts.

 

In eleven or so dayze they're gonna get peeled and shelled. The whole bunch of 'em.

 

Hope you're ready over there.

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Get used to it. If HRC loses by a small margin, expect the same from her supporters.

I fully expect that if he loses he will make it his mission in life to destroy the GOP establishment ( because they lost it for him ) and will do his best to sabotage everything she does as president.

I could be completely wrong of course, and he might concede graciously and go back to making even more billions.

Really? Expect the same from her supporters?  Maybe someone somewhere is a Hillary supporter who would claim this but I haven't heard of it..  This is you just trying to assert a false equivalence.

So if Trump wins he can say something like: "You see, the election was rigged in my favor".

2 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

Agreed. The emails do appear first on RT, but not before Wikileaks has released them if that is what you mean. That suggestion  seems to be a LW conspiracy theory unless you can supply evidence of such with time lines.

 

Good to have you back wherever you'd gone to for a while there (inspecting or vetting bananas and ground nuts maybe in advance of the Trump Transition...)

 

You're the one talking about the 'LW' and your image of a conspiracy, while others among us over on this side are talking about the Czarist-Chekist Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, throw in Edw. Snowden and of course Donald Trump and His Deplorables of the 2016 Republican Party.

 

I'd posted an article today from Foreign Affairs zine about Putin's busted October Surprise -- y'know, the Foreign Affairs journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, founded in 1921. Check 'em out now plse thx before anyone over there might go peeling off about a LW conspiracy. 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/about-foreign-affairs

2 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Good to have you back wherever you'd gone to for a while there (inspecting or vetting bananas and ground nuts maybe in advance of the Trump Transition...)

 

You're the one talking about the 'LW' and your image of a conspiracy, while others among us over on this side are talking about the Czarist-Chekist Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, throw in Edw. Snowden and of course Donald Trump and His Deplorables of the 2016 Republican Party.

 

I'd posted an article today from Foreign Affairs zine about Putin's busted October Surprise -- y'know, the Foreign Affairs journal published by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, founded in 1921. Check 'em out now plse thx before anyone over there might go peeling off about a LW conspiracy. 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/about-foreign-affairs

 

Ok will do. I've had a break from the forum. It gets time consuming! Then one gets drawn in again....

27 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Expect the same from her supporters?  Maybe someone somewhere is a Hillary supporter who would claim this but I haven't heard of it..  This is you just trying to assert a false equivalence.

Yes, the ones that caused riots outside Trump rallies.

1 hour ago, Linzz said:

 

Then why am I not 50 points ahead? - HRC

 

Recommended for the living room or the bathroom whichever might be preferred...

 

Rhetoric is not just empty words or fine political speeches. Rhetoric is the study and art of writing and speaking well, being persuasive, and knowing how to compose successful writing and presentations.

 

https://clas.uiowa.edu/rhetoric/about/why-is-rhetoric-required

 

I'm not going to Google "literal" for you however so you'll have to do that yourself. I can only hope I may have inspired something here from the obvious mess. 

6 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Ok will do. I've had a break from the forum. It gets time consuming! Then one gets drawn in again....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

just when you think you're out they pull you back in

1 hour ago, Morch said:

not very conductive to a stable global environment

Which would serve Putin's control of the American government.

When you understand what strings to pull on a personality like Trump ( as Hillary has discovered) to achieve an intended response, you control the person's behavior. Having an erratic behavior only furthers his vulnerability to being manipulated.

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Which would serve Putin's control of the American government.

When you understand what strings to pull on a personality like Trump ( as Hillary has discovered) to achieve an intended response, you control the person's behavior. Having an erratic behavior only furthers his vulnerability to being manipulated.

I don't think presidents can do whatever they like.

There are 2 other branches of government to prevent insane presidents causing problems for the country. Even Nixon got stopped.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't think presidents can do whatever they like.

There are 2 other branches of government to prevent insane presidents causing problems for the country. Even Nixon got stopped.

 

the other two branches have no power to stop a madman from ordering a nuclear strike

18 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

the other two branches have no power to stop a madman from ordering a nuclear strike

 

The Secretary of Defense could refuse to relay the order. His codes are required to launch. The nuclear protocol requires the Department of Defense to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch.  The chain of command would stop the scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Secretary of Defense could refuse to relay the order. His codes are required to launch. The nuclear protocol requires the Department of Defense to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch.  The chain of command would stop the scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.

 

B.S.  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/03/01/going-it-alone-the-president-and-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/

No fraud, eh?

 

CITIES PUSH FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE...
DEAD CAST BALLOTS IN CHICAGO...
FROM THE GRAVE IN PHILLY...
VOTE FLIPPING MARYLAND...
FRAUD FLORIDA...
FAKE REGISTRATION VIRGINIA... 

A president could launch a nuclear strike if he picked a secretary of defense and vice president who would both rubber-stamp his orders, but short of that, a president cannot order a nuclear strike in a unilateral manner.

 

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't think presidents can do whatever they like.

There are 2 other branches of government to prevent insane presidents causing problems for the country. Even Nixon got stopped.

A POTUS working in cooperation with Putin can breach national security by simply providing backdoors to US electronic communication systems, covert access to defense information and R&D. As Commander in Chief the POTUS can manipulate the military (as was done under Bush in promugating the Iraq war) using doctored Russian intelligence "leaks"). So far as a Republican majority congress, offer them control of the government for the next 8 years and future presidencies - political greed will do the rest. The USSC is not a procative branch of government to oppose the POTUS and can be stacked over the course of the next 8 years to deliver hard right rulings supporting a POTUS agenda.

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

A president could launch a nuclear strike if he picked a secretary of defense and vice president who would both rubber-stamp his orders, but short of that, a president cannot order a nuclear strike in a unilateral manner.

 

 

 

if he has been informed there has been an enemy launch he certainly can

1 hour ago, AYJAYDEE said:

if he has been informed there has been an enemy launch he certainly can

 

Sure, but that is different from a lunatic launching a nuke for no good reason.

Edited October 29, 20169 yr by Ulysses G.

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Sure, but that is different from lunatic launching a nuke for no good reason.

 

it still takes a certain type of person to be able to operate in an environment like that and decide if a false alarm has happened. Trump is totally ill equipped for such responsibility.

 

Don't trust either one of them.

28 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Sure, but that is different from a lunatic launching a nuke for no good reason.

So your earlier statement " A president could launch a nuclear strike if he picked a secretary of defense and vice president who would both rubber-stamp his orders, but short of that, a president cannot order a nuclear strike in a unilateral manner. " is not correct.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

So your earlier statement " A president could launch a nuclear strike if he picked a secretary of defense and vice president who would both rubber-stamp his orders, but short of that, a president cannot order a nuclear strike in a unilateral manner. " is not correct.

 

Wrong. It IS correct. However, the secretary of defence would provide his codes in the case of an ememy attack.Hopefully, he would refuse to do it to appease a lunatic.

33 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Wrong. It IS correct. However, the secretary of defence would provide his codes in the case of an ememy attack.Hopefully, he would

refuse to do it to appease a lunatic.

 

they dont need his codes

58 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Don't trust either one of them.

clinton  has a much more stable personality than trump.

 

7 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

they dont need his codes

 

Yes they do. The nukes cannot be launched without them.

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Yes they do. The nukes cannot be launched without them.

 

you are wrong

 

6 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

clinton  has a much more stable personality than trump.

 

 

Ask the secret agents who have guarded her over the years. They would not agree. They called her a "monster".

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

 

 

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

Ask the secret agents who have guarded her over the years. They would not agree. They called her a "monster".

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

 

 

 

i know lots of monsters who are cool as a cucumber under stress. trump is a loose cannon who cant even control himself on twitter

 

5 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

you are wrong

 

 

Nope. You are.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority