Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

Overheal

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah the Nukes are the real fear. He's touted their power before.

Honestly the rules of using nuclear weapons HAS to be changed now. You can't give one person like that the power to end the world

No nukes are going anywhere.

This presidency is nuts but - no.

8-10

Overheal wrote: »

No nukes are going anywhere.

This presidency is nuts but - no.

The fact that nothing could stop him doing so if he gets destroyed in the election and thinks f it I'm dying soon anyway is why it needs to change

Call Me Jimmy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I hope all this isn't forgotten after the election.

If I am wrong about this then I am massively wrong and will be on here recanting and praising the polls once again.

If you are wrong then you have to remember that the mainstream media simply didn't write negative Biden stories and aggregators didn't present any (i.e. google news).

Thing is, the most negative news story about Biden was something that amounted to the same quality of journalism that the National Enquirer pushed about Clinton having hit squads. The Trump campaign tried to get dirt that didn't exist.

Overheal

8-10 wrote: »

The fact that nothing could stop him doing so if he gets destroyed in the election and thinks f it I'm dying soon anyway is why it needs to change

No.

I get there’s a lot of anxiety about nuclear launches but the President can’t just unilaterally let fly a nuke to Scranton or somewhere. It takes a village to launch one of these weapons:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v74d7a/how-the-president-launches-a-nuclear-bomb

Call Me Jimmy

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, the most negative news story about Biden was something that amounted to the same quality of journalism that the National Enquirer pushed about Clinton having hit squads. The Trump campaign tried to get dirt that didn't exist.

Right, we all know where we stand on the Biden laptop story, no need to rehash that.

It's unlikely that Biden is the first presidential candidate in history for whom there just aren't any negative articles that could be written of him or his campaign.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

Thing is, the most negative news story about Biden was something that amounted to the same quality of journalism that the National Enquirer pushed about Clinton having hit squads. The Trump campaign tried to get dirt that didn't exist.

who would you vote for in an Irish general election ? Im genuinely curious as I can absolutely understand not wanting to vote for trump, or reluctantly choosing Joe Biden, but you full on defend the guy and keep asserting that he's never done anything wrong, but I have a feeling that if he were in Ireland you wouldn't touch him with a barge pole as he'd be to the right of FG.

Id like to think most people can acknowledge that Biden has said a lot of dodgy things, flipflopped a lot on issues and has a long standing career in politics thats dotted with racist soundbites, inappropriate touching of women and girls and policies that would hurt a lot of working class communities. A lot of people would say 'so trump is a lot worse because x reasons' and thats fine, but can we be accurate on Biden even if you'd still vote for him because you hate Donald more.

Overheal

Well Biden certainly wouldn’t have his chief of staff tell the world they’ve given up on controlling the virus as it hits its highest number of daily new cases since it began.

https://twitter.com/joenbc/status/1320380285737979904?s=21

I don’t know if you caught it but Meadows also undid Trumps entire spiel against Biden and H1N1.

timsey tiger

suicide_circus wrote: »

Who will be the world's bogeyman when Trump loses? So many people are utterly obsessed with him and use him as a scapegoat for all the world's ills.

The organ grinder, Trump is but the monkey. Putin was, is and will be the world's bogey man.

The thing is Eric, I don't actually think he's a perfect candidate. He is far superior to Trump and he's not particularly corrupt (which seems to be the latest effort of smearing). I do think the US is not particularly ready for a left wing candidate so he possibly is one of the better choices for this point in time. He's also has a level of bipartisan respect which is advantageous for this election. So I and many others think he might stand a chance of dragging the country off the course that Trump has set.

Overheal

Obama back on the campaign trail and pushing some solid buttons

8-10

Overheal wrote: »

No.

I get there’s a lot of anxiety about nuclear launches but the President can’t just unilaterally let fly a nuke to Scranton or somewhere. It takes a village to launch one of these weapons:

He absolutely can unilaterally let fly. Scranton however is a ridiculous example as that's in America. But there's predefined targets in Russia for example that he can go ahead with.

As your link shows, it only takes minutes. Everybody involved is highly trained. He owns the order, he has the codes and he doesn't need to inform Congress, Chiefs of Staff or anybody.

There's little in the way of fail-safe along the way because the entire process wouldn't work if you had an easy way for someone involved to ignore the order of something.

You are naïve if you think it would be hard for him to do.

And again, I don't think he would, not at all, all I'm saying is that fact that it is this easy is the reason to change policy.

Overheal

8-10 wrote: »

He absolutely can unilaterally let fly. Scranton however is a ridiculous example as that's in America. But there's predefined targets in Russia for example that he can go ahead with.

As your link shows, it only takes minutes. Everybody involved is highly trained. He owns the order, he has the codes and he doesn't need to inform Congress, Chiefs of Staff or anybody.

There's little in the way of fail-safe along the way because the entire process wouldn't work if you had an easy way for someone involved to ignore the order of something.

You are naïve if you think it would be hard for him to do.

And again, I don't think he would, not at all, all I'm saying is that fact that it is this easy is the reason to change policy.

Sorry but in no way would the nuclear launch go forward in any event even if trump ordered one, just because he was upset at losing an election. These people at the Pentagon who actually receive and relay the launch codes watch the news.

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

The fascinating thing is you guys never seem to realise that Trump's treatment has been as a result of his own behaviour. Like he literally inspired the Maga bomber. He walks out of interviews because they ask him difficult questions. He's focused on dividing the nation for his entire presidency and rarely goes a day without a scandal of his own creation. Now you guys seem to have reached a point where you'll view him as a martyr if he doesn't win rather than viewing his presidency for what it is.

Are you sure the poster you quoted is talking about viewing Trump as a martyr? Certainly not what I understood.

8-10

Overheal wrote: »

Sorry but in no way would the nuclear launch go forward in any event even if trump ordered one, just because he was upset at losing an election. These people at the Pentagon who actually receive and relay the launch codes watch the news.

Nobody has the authority to stop it

That's my point that you keep missing - I'm not saying he will do it, I'm saying he can, and that's an issue

If your fail-safe is someone trained to follow an order specifically refusing to execute that order then fine - but should it have to come to that?

The policy should change so that US can't fire first. They suggested it before but never agreed to do it. Now is the time

Overheal

8-10 wrote: »

Nobody has the authority to stop it

That's my point that you keep missing - I'm not saying he will do it, I'm saying he can, and that's an issue

If your fail-safe is someone trained to follow an order specifically refusing to execute that order then fine - but should it have to come to that?

The policy should change so that US can't fire first. They suggested it before but never agreed to do it. Now is the time

Authority to stop nuclear launches doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I hope you read the link I shared earlier citing examples of this, including from Russian counterparts.

8-10

Overheal wrote: »

Authority to stop nuclear launches doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I hope you read the link I shared earlier citing examples of this, including from Russian counterparts.

I did and was already familiar with some of it. Remember Petrov was only covering a shift that night for a lower ranked officer and restarted the system twice and still didn't believe the warning sirens because he was one of the engineers who designed the system and knew it's limitations. If he hadn't been on shift who knows what would have happened.

Nothing in your link makes me think the policy doesn't need to be changed

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Are you sure the poster you quoted is talking about viewing Trump as a martyr? Certainly not what I understood.

There's pretty clearly an implication that he does so poorly because of the media rather than his conduct. So post election, I'd suspect his biggest supporters on here will blame a defeat on the media rather than his atrocious presidency.

Phoebas

There isn't going to be any neuclear confrontation; that's just ridiculous thinking.

If Trump loses the election he might challenge the result in the courts, and he might call the people he has on 'standby' out onto the streets, but that's about it. He will talk about a stolen election and the deep state, but he will go.

The Republican party aren't stupid - they will see that he is a busted flush and we'll see them abandon him like rats abandoning a sinking ship. His most sycophantic supporters will swear that they were always against him.

MoonUnit75

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

Gruffalux

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

:pac: It's quite mad.

Chris_Heilong

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

You would have to be very stupid and ignorant to believe stuff like that. So I dont think any poster here would say that unless they were joking. Trump might lose on Voter fraud and in that case he will contest it in court.

salmocab

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

Not sure you are reading it right, it’s one of those discussions where one person suggests something and pretty much everyone else say it won’t happen. I know you’ve seen what you want to see but the people saying it won’t happen are the people you’ve been arguing with about Trump so are certainly not his supporters. What you’ve done here is create fake news.

Chris_Heilong

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

You would have to be very stupid and ignorant to believe stuff like that. So I dont think any poster here would say that unless they were joking. Trump might loose on Voter fraud and in that case he will contest it in court.

Who exactly is running this national voter fraud conspiracy? Have you ever considered he might lose without any voter fraud?

Eric Cartman

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

its full circle, he was going to start all the wars, nuke Russia, nuke Iran, he won't accept the outcome of the election.

that was 2016, here we are again.

hometruths

Phoebas wrote: »

There isn't going to be any neuclear confrontation; that's just ridiculous thinking.

If Trump loses the election he might challenge the result in the courts, and he might call the people he has on 'standby' out onto the streets, but that's about it. He will talk about a stolen election and the deep state, but he will go.

The Republican party aren't stupid - they will see that he is a busted flush and we'll see them abandon him like rats abandoning a sinking ship. His most sycophantic supporters will swear that they were always against him.

Exactly right. Even if Trump was inclined to defy the election result (and there is no evidence he intends to), if he did the Republican party would do the heavy lifting of hauling him out of office pretty pronto. The party will respect the result, no ifs, no buts.

However if Biden loses a close election, can the same be said of the Dems? Will he concede graciously, will the party accept the result, will they encourage their voters/supporters to accept the result peacefully?

I'm not so sure they would.

8-10

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Am I reading this right, there's a serious discussion on whether Trump will launch a nuclear attack on his own country if he loses the election? At least it goes some way to explain why you can't have a rational discussion on Trump here.

No, the discussion is specifically that nobody thinks he would do that, but the fact that he can should be a reason to now look at changing the nuclear policy.

He is not going to do it. But he can. Different premise.

Chris_Heilong

8-10 wrote: »

No, the discussion is specifically that nobody thinks he would do that, but the fact that he can should be a reason to now look at changing the nuclear policy.

He is not going to do it. But he can. Different premise.

Well Obama did not do it when he left office so I do not think this is a thing, he could of but he didnt:rolleyes:.

Phoebas

schmittel wrote: »

Exactly right. Even if Trump was inclined to defy the election result (and there is no evidence he intends to), if he did the Republican party would do the heavy lifting of hauling him out of office pretty pronto. The party will respect the result, no ifs, no buts.

However if Biden loses a close election, can the same be said of the Dems? Will he concede graciously, will the party accept the result, will they encourage their voters/supporters to accept the result peacefully?

I'm not so sure they would.

Let's be clear here - there is no prospect of Trump conceding graciously. None.
I'm not saying he will not try to defy the will of the American electorate - I'm saying he will not succeed.

If the result is close then both sides will go to the courts, both with the support of their parties. If, after that process, Biden is the loser, he will concede graciously. Trump will not be gracious, because he doesn't know what that is.

ebbsy

Phoebas wrote: »

There isn't going to be any neuclear confrontation; that's just ridiculous thinking.

If Trump loses the election he might challenge the result in the courts, and he might call the people he has on 'standby' out onto the streets, but that's about it. He will talk about a stolen election and the deep state, but he will go.

The Republican party aren't stupid - they will see that he is a busted flush and we'll see them abandon him like rats abandoning a sinking ship. His most sycophantic supporters will swear that they were always against him.

Not me. I will be a Trump man no matter win or lose.

#Champthatrunsthecamp

hometruths

Phoebas wrote: »

Let's be clear here - there is no prospect of Trump conceding graciously. None.
I'm not saying he will not try to defy the will of the American electorate - I'm saying he will not succeed.

If the result is close then both sides will go to the courts, both with the support of their parties. If, after that process, Biden is the loser, he will concede graciously. Trump will not be gracious, because he doesn't know what that is.

I get that.

What I am saying is the Republican party will concede graciously and deal with Trump, and his voters/supporters.

Will the Democrat party do the same if Biden loses?

I don't think so.