1 minute ago, barmatt said:

Did real people vote for this guy??

 

Over 60 million people voted for the guy. 

 

To put that in context for the simpletons, its equivalent to the entire population of the UK. The entire population. 

 

Thats the entire population of Australia almost 3 times over. 3 Times over. 

26 minutes ago, mike324 said:

 

US and Russia has 90% of the world nuclear stockpile. There is a treaty to continue to decrease the number of nuclear weapons each hold. Stockpile is outdate? yes many are but that doesn't mean they can't still use it, its just in a less effective way to be deployed.

 

I think Trumps always speaks before he thinks, so his words can be interpret in many ways. The US still has the most advance capabilities, and it would take another decade for Russia or China to catch up. So in the mean time, Trump does not need to mislead people with words and get off of the damn social media.

http://fortune.com/2016/10/05/russia-suspends-nuclear-agreement/

 

Quote

 

Russia said on Wednesday it was suspending its nuclear and energy research agreement with the United States as a countermeasure against Washington for imposing sanctions on Russia over Ukraine.

The government also said it was terminating for the same reasons an agreement between its nuclear corporation Rosatom and the U.S. Department of Energy on feasibility studies into conversion of Russian research reactors to low enriched uranium.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

 

Over 60 million people voted for the guy. 

 

To put that in context for the simpletons, its equivalent to the entire population of the UK. The entire population. 

 

Thats the entire population of Australia almost 3 times over. 3 Times over. 

Scary stuff

Just now, barmatt said:

Scary stuff

 

It is. Clearly illustrates how bad the other candidate was. 

She was a bad candidate.  Horrible, in fact.  That doesn't mean that she doesn't have a better temperament for the job.  The words, "let there be an arms race" wouldn't have crossed her lips. 

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by up-country_sinclair

13 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

 

Over 60 million people voted for the guy. 

 

To put that in context for the simpletons, its equivalent to the entire population of the UK. The entire population. 

 

Thats the entire population of Australia almost 3 times over. 3 Times over. 

Almost as many people who voted for the other candidate.

1 minute ago, up-country_sinclair said:

She was a bad candidate.  Horrible, in fact.  That doesn't mean that she doesn't have a better temperament for the job.  The words, "let there be an arms race" wouldn't have crossed her lips. 

A majority of the voters didn't like either candidate.  Terrible choices, again.

5 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Almost as many people who voted for the other candidate.

 

Close, but no cigar. Luckily we don't operate like that. 

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by Aggressive

1 minute ago, up-country_sinclair said:

She was a bad candidate.  Horrible, in fact.  That doesn't mean that she doesn't have a better temperament for the job.  The words, "let there be an arms race" wouldn't have crossed her lips. 

 

Actually there is a bit more to the quote and a ton more context, but regardless, she wouldn't be taken seriously by any perceived threat of the US anyway. PC or not. 

39 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

 

He didn't tweet on strategic nuclear weapons policy lmao. Taking that to a bit of an extreme yourself. I agree he shouldn't have said anything but its a tweet & a sensationalized report from pajama wearing idiots. 

 

Not just my or the media's opinion, but people who specialise in nuclear weapons policy. To attempt to denigrate such people is, IMO, somewhat foolish as is Trump in his communications to date during the Transition Phase.

 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/international/2016/12/23/trump-s-nuclear-tweets-alarm-experts.html

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by simple1

1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

How has he been reckless?

This is posturing and part of the negotiation process.

First the stick, then the carrot.

Watch and learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Hahahaha...watch and LEARN?  From a man who has absolutely no idea what he's doing, and is WAY out of his league being anywhere near the office of President?  It's the leader of the frigging country, it's not an entry level job!  And "learn" what exactly?  What can rational, mature adults learn from a pouting, tantrum-throwing boy-man whose major mode of communication is angry, ranting tweets sent in the middle of the night?

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Not just my or the media's opinion, but people who specialise in nuclear weapons policy. To attempt to denigrate such people is, IMO, somewhat foolish as has Trump in his communications to date during the Transition Phase.

 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/international/2016/12/23/trump-s-nuclear-tweets-alarm-experts.html

 

The experts sited are not experts on 'policy' at all. They are merely organizations with an agenda. 

 

Quote

"It is completely irresponsible for the president-elect or the president to make changes to US nuclear policy in 140 characters and without understanding the implications of statements like 'expand the capacity,'" said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a leading proponent of arms control based in Washington.

 

https://www.armscontrol.org

 

Quote

If Trump and Putin both want to expand nuclear weapons, that would effectively end arms control efforts underway since the Nixon administration, said Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a foundation that works to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons.

 

http://www.ploughshares.org

 

You can not like nuclear weapons all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they are the only thing that will keep us from being attacked with nuclear weapons. The logic is that its never a worry of one country, but a worse case scenario of several countries bombin the US simultaneously. Thats the reason having so many is required. The US must be able to keep that safeguard as it will keep countries from 'ganging up' as it were. 

 

Its extreme of course, but its true. 

 

Regardless, its a freakin Tweet and pajama wearing news anchors. 

 

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by Aggressive

9 minutes ago, Saastrajaa said:

 

Hahahaha...watch and LEARN?  From a man who has absolutely no idea what he's doing, and is WAY out of his league being anywhere near the office of President?  It's the leader of the frigging country, it's not an entry level job!  And "learn" what exactly?  What can rational, mature adults learn from a pouting, tantrum-throwing boy-man whose major mode of communication is angry, ranting tweets sent in the middle of the night?

 

Whereas Hilary would have known exactly what she was doing, following her own agenda, for her, her family and her cronies benefits?

 

More Libya lies, more own server lies, more money from the Saudis, the Germans and whoever else wanted a few "favor", etc etc etc

 

Trump isn't even the POTUS yet. But hey, don't let that stop you. 

 

Just hope he turns out different because it seems a Western phenomena that people are getting pissed off with professional politicians especially the left liberal PC brigade who deliver little apart from for themselves.

6 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

 

The experts sited are not experts on 'policy' at all. They are merely organizations with an agenda. 

 

 

https://www.armscontrol.org

 

 

http://www.ploughshares.org

 

You can not like nuclear weapons all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they are the only thing that will keep us from being attacked with nuclear weapons. The logic is that its never a worry of one country, but a worse case scenario of several countries bombin the US simultaneously. Thats the reason having so many is required. The US must be able to keep that safeguard as it will keep countries from 'ganging up' as it were. 

 

Its extreme of course, but its true. 

 

Regardless, its a freakin Tweet and pajama wearing news anchors. 

 

 

We have a difference of opinion, arms control specialists have a deep knowledge of nuclear deterrence policy. However, exactly what is Trump suggesting that is an improvement upon the current nuclear weapons modernisation program? Yet again he is just mouthing off destabilising rhetoric.

there's no appreciation at all that the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act expires in March 2017.... and that Medicare and Medicaid spending is exploding as we always knew it would....

the idea that we can "outmatch them at every pass" is preposterous. forget what the military needs are..... it's like another big issue, which now is too big for politics.... reality will prevail and a GOP Congress won't be at all helpful for Trump even in his first 100 days.

March 2017. by summer the US would otherwise be in default.



  

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by maewang99

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

We have a difference of opinion, arms control specialists have a deep knowledge of nuclear deterrence policy. However, exactly what is Trump suggesting that is an improvement upon the current nuclear weapons modernisation program? Yet again he is just mouthing off destabilising rhetoric.

 

Fair enough, but personally I won't take those organizations like oath & expose the US to attack because some 'feel good' group thinks the world is a big PC happy-place. 

 

Trump Tweeted basically nothing but whats already going on + possibly expansion. The destabilizing rhetoric is clearly coming from MSNBC. 

 

Agree he should stop trolling the MSM. 

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Yep and funding has already been allocated & estimated at approx US$1 trillion over 30 years to modernise and maintain the nuclear arsenal. As your link quite correctly  highlighted it is utmost recklessness to tweet on strategic nuclear weapons policy that can be open to misunderstanding / misinterpretation / mis.... / mis...

 

If this is the future standard for a US Administration to communicate with the world on such important matters, not a good look and frankly undermines US credibility.

"....US credibility."

US has credibility??

14 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

The destabilizing rhetoric is clearly coming from MSNBC. 

 

LOL

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

LOL

 

I know right? MSNBC Should put on some adult clothes and report stuff in their entirety instead of the little <snip>'s they do now. 

 

49 minutes ago, Aggressive said:

 

The experts sited are not experts on 'policy' at all. They are merely organizations with an agenda. 

 

 

https://www.armscontrol.org

 

 

http://www.ploughshares.org

 

You can not like nuclear weapons all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they are the only thing that will keep us from being attacked with nuclear weapons. The logic is that its never a worry of one country, but a worse case scenario of several countries bombin the US simultaneously. Thats the reason having so many is required. The US must be able to keep that safeguard as it will keep countries from 'ganging up' as it were. 

 

Its extreme of course, but its true. 

 

Regardless, its a freakin Tweet and pajama wearing news anchors. 

 

Whose scenario is this?  And even if they did, we have ICBMs in nuclear submarines all over the globe.  How would such a lunatic coalition prevent massive retaliation?  Spending hundreds of billions to address a problem that is vanishlingly small is nuts.  And I tried to do a google search to see if anybody out there supports your contention and came up with zip. This sounds like a methedrine fueled prognostication.

Edited December 24, 20169 yr by ilostmypassword

1 hour ago, Aggressive said:

 

Over 60 million people voted for the guy. 

 

To put that in context for the simpletons, its equivalent to the entire population of the UK. The entire population. 

 

Thats the entire population of Australia almost 3 times over. 3 Times over. 

And 63 Million voted for his opponent.

 

So lets just undo all the work of everybody over the last 30 years to reduce Nuclear stockpiles. Cant wait to see how he reduces taxes while engaging in a pointless trillion dollar nuclear arms race. Hey though, drop a few nukes and imagine the real estate opportunities for his 3 little piggies.

3 hours ago, Aggressive said:

 

The Full quote for more context:

 

 

And of course the ridiculous 'morning joe' skit with the anchors in their pajamas feigning shock. Beyond dumb. 

 

 

The response was coming from this tweet:

 

 

And Mika Brzezinski from MSNBC asked him to clarify this tweet, privately, over the phone, in a conversation for witch we have no context and only get this one 'soundbite' from some news anchors in their pajamas.

 

 

So the headline is an out and out lie.  Even the AP wouldn't create a fake quote like this. American news again through the filter of the people who know nothing about America at "EuroNews." Can TVF start filing news stories from the Nacogdoches Sentinel when it comes to European matters?

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whose scenario is this?  And even if they did, we have ICBMs in nuclear submarines all over the globe.  How would such a lunatic coalition prevent massive retaliation?  WSpending hundreds of billions to address a problem that is vanishlingly small is nuts.  And I tried to do a google search to see if anybody out there supports your contention and came up with zip. This sounds like a methedrine fueled prognostication.

 

Think what you want, if you are happy with the status quo or reduction then by all means thats up to you 

1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:

And 63 Million voted for his opponent.

 

So lets just undo all the work of everybody over the last 30 years to reduce Nuclear stockpiles. Cant wait to see how he reduces taxes while engaging in a pointless trillion dollar nuclear arms race. Hey though, drop a few nukes and imagine the real estate opportunities for his 3 little piggies.

 

And the Trillion dollar arms race is where exactly? Drawing some far out conclusions from some news anchors wearing pajamas. 

4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

‘let it be an arms race,’‘

Goodbye trillion dollar infrastrucure budget.

US will have bridges to nowhere because they collapsed from lack of renovation, repair and maintenance.

1 hour ago, Aggressive said:

 

Over 60 million people voted for the guy. 

 

To put that in context for the simpletons, its equivalent to the entire population of the UK. The entire population. 

 

Thats the entire population of Australia almost 3 times over. 3 Times over. 

 

Thankfully they are a lot smarter than the 60 million who voted for "The Donald"

4 hours ago, Roadman said:

Trump and Putin...like two little kids trying to see whose got the biggest dick...and an equal level of intelligence.

I beg to differ, Putin is way way cleverer but they are both ruthless.

9 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

 

Thankfully they are a lot smarter than the 60 million who voted for "The Donald"

They didn't have the chance so let us be a little doubtful about that.

Trump"s troops, full bags of competence.

4 hours ago, Roadman said:

Trump and Putin...like two little kids trying to see whose got the biggest dick...and an equal level of intelligence.

 

Putin must be a bit of a horse then... pretty switched on so I hear.

 

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The one good thing about a nuclear battle is:  Less humans = a respite for the many species which are being wiped out by humans (most notably, the Chinese with their insatiable lust for exotic animal parts).

 

I hear ya, boomerang... a billion fewer from both China and India would be a start. I mean, why do they need so many? Gets a bit silly after 500M, no?