First Debate Reactions
Well, the first presidential debate is a done deal, and as always I like to quickly type out my own personal reactions before reading everyone else's, to give you an opinion uninfluenced by the herd mentality of the rest of the media.
Because of this, I apologize in advance for any misquotes, since I am only using my hastily-scratched notes for what the candidates said. Each has at least the flavor of whatever the word-for-word transcript will say, but I may miss nuances of phrasing. Just to get that caveat out of the way... but enough of this debate prep (as it were), let's get right on to the debate itself.
Overall reactions
Did Lester Holt just leave the stage for large chunks of time during the debate? I mean, the cameras weren't on him, so he could easily have stepped out for a bite to eat or something. The absence of Holt, and his downright inability to take any sort of control of the debate, was noticeable, to put it mildly. We can argue about who won the debate, but Lester Holt definitely lost the debate, that's for sure.
Of course, with Donald Trump debating Hillary Clinton, the whole thing felt more like a cage match or a Roman gladiatorial bout in the Coliseum. I almost expected a boxing ring announcer to begin the proceedings: "In this corner, weighing it at...."
Clinton wore a power-red outfit, Trump had a subdued blue tie. For the most part, they were civil (well, civil enough) towards each other, dashing the hopes of late-night comics everywhere. Trump used both "Secretary" or "the Secretary" with an occasional "Hillary" thrown in, while Clinton mostly just stayed with "Donald" when she was addressing him directly. But there was no "Crooked Hillary" from Trump's lips during the entire evening. At one point, he even tried to be polite, asking her if "Secretary Clinton" was OK with her, "because I want you to be happy."
Clinton mostly had a pretty disdainful look for Trump the entire time (although she did break into laughter a few times). It's understandable -- if I was Hillary Clinton, I'd certainly be thinking: "How did this buffoon get on the stage with me?" if I had to stand next to Donald Trump for 90 minutes.
Trump had one strange affectation -- the loud sniffs that happened on a pretty regular basis, at least during the first half of the debate. This has led to much gleeful speculation (and the rejoicing of the late-night comics) about what exactly Donald Trump had been doing with his nose right before he appeared on stage. Tune in later tonight for the inevitable "doing lines?" jokes, that's for sure.
Kidding aside, though, while I'm not in the habit of saying "who won" debates, here are my reactions of how each candidate met the expectations set for them:
Overall, Trump mostly cleared the abysmally-low bar his team had set for him. He didn't use profanity. He didn't call Clinton ugly or a bitch or "crooked" to her face. He didn't storm off the stage in a snit. On these levels, Trump succeeded.
Clinton, overall, gave a pretty solid performance, which met the expectation everyone had for her. She drifted off into wonkiness at times, but also got emotional and passionate when she needed to. She got in a few zingers which will be on tomorrow's news, and at least for the first half of the debate, she rarely engaged when Trump tried to bait her (mostly by interrupting her). Clinton mostly ignored these eruptions from Trump, and just finished what she was going to say anyway. Of course, things got noticeably looser in the second half of the debate, but while it lasted it was a pretty good strategy for Clinton, and showed Trump's inability to stay within the debate format.
The debate play-by-play
Lester Holt, as previously mentioned, lost control of the debate, and he lost it very early on. After a first question about jobs, both candidates gave their philosophy in a nutshell. On trade, Clinton tried her first zinger of the night, and it fell pretty flat (of course, it was hard to tell what the eventual reaction will be, since the crowd had been told to remain silent). Clinton made the case that Trump was just rehashing failed Republican policies, saying: "I call it Trumped-up trickle-down." Thud. Even if laughter had been allowed, there probably wouldn't have been much of it.
Clinton hit Trump on how he got his start in business, with a "$14 million" loan from his father. Trump responded with a line that might work its way into a future Clinton ad, calling it a "small amount." Lester Holt tried valiantly to ask the question he had actually posed (which was how Trump would actually get jobs back to America), but Trump largely ignored it for a second time. Clinton then baited Trump by pointing out that he had actually rooted for the housing crisis to happen, to which Trump snapped back: "That's called business" -- another prime candidate for a new Clinton ad.
After a round of answers on climate change and green energy, Trump baited Clinton on her husband's legacy. Clinton ignored his noise, and powered through her answer, but eventually got into a back-and-forth with Trump (only the first of many to come). Clinton got off her second zinger, and this one was much more effective, since it applies to so many of the things Trump says: "I know you live in your own reality, Donald."
Lester Holt had apparently stepped out at this point, probably to buy a hot dog from a concession stand in the hallway, or something.
At approximately one half-hour in, Trump got shouty for the first time. Clinton countered back by inviting people to visit her site, where she was providing "real-time fact-checking" for everyone's edification.
Lester Holt wandered back in at this point, tried to take control of the proceedings, and failed.
Trump got even more shouty about his non-plan for defeating the Islamic State. Lester Holt finally got a word in edgewise, and asked about the two candidates' tax plans. I thought Clinton did well here, explaining her tax plan with just enough detail to show how comprehensive it is, whereas I could barely even understand Trump's meanderings on the subject of his "tremendous" tax plan. Lester Holt tried mightily to smack down Trump's constant interruptions, but without much notable success.
Towards the end of the tax plan back-and-forth, Trump got in a very funny line, although it wasn't directed at Hillary but rather the current president: "When Barack Obama goes off to the golf course for the rest of his life...." Astonishingly enough, this was just about the only time during the entire evening that Trump tried humor in his answers. He's known for being a lot more amusing at his rallies, that's for sure. But he was trying mightily to be Trump 2.0, I suppose.
Lester Holt then tried to get Trump to answer why he wasn't releasing his tax returns, and then utterly failed to ask the proper and obvious followup question (which, as I've said before, really should be: "OK, you're under audit, but audits only go back so far, so why not release a few years from before the time period the audit covers? Why not release your 2008 or 2007 tax returns, for instance?").
Trump then issued a challenge to Clinton, which was most likely his best soundbite of the whole night, promising that he'd release his tax returns -- against the advice of his lawyers -- if Clinton would release her 30,000 deleted emails first. Clinton responded that this was classic "bait and switch."
Clinton's answer to Trump's refusal to release his returns was my favorite moment from her of the whole night, because she made her case completely and quickly, and struck right to the heart of the matter: "What is Trump trying to hide?" She ran down a quick list of what this might be: Trump's not as rich as he says he is, he's not as charitable as he says he is, he owes more money that he's willing to admit, and/or he pays zero in actual federal income taxes (which is indeed the case on the only two tax returns ever made public from Trump). Clinton truly knocked this answer out of the park.
Lester Holt then asked her about Trump's email taunt, and Clinton gave the simple answer she should have given in the first place: that she made a mistake, wouldn't do it again, and takes full responsibility for her mistake.
Trump, at this point, started wandering all over the map in his answers. Well, truthfully he had been doing a bit of this all along, but it got noticeably worse as time went on. When Clinton got to speak, she pointed out that she had invited an architect to tonight's audience who had designed a building for Trump -- but then got stiffed for his efforts. She called on Trump to apologize. This was also very well-played. Trump, of course, refused to apologize, said the guy probably did bad work for him, and then claimed he has always paid everyone (which is not true, since he's gone through bankruptcy so many times).
At roughly the halfway point through the debate, Lester Holt essentially announced that he had lost all control of the debate. This wasn't exactly news to anybody. He then pivoted to a discussion about race.
Clinton got wonky for a while. Trump began by flatly stating: "Our inner cities -- African-Americans and Hispanics are living in Hell." He followed this up by leaning heavily on his Nixonian pledge to restore "law and order," and also strongly supported stop-and-frisk policies. Trump actually then fearmongered (during a section on racial relations, no less) about "bands of illegal immigrants roaming the streets." Nothing like Republican minority outreach, folks!
Lester Holt desperately tried to salvage himself at this point, by attempting a fact-check on how stop-and-frisk was actually ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Trump, true to form, said the judge was biased against good ol' law-n-order. Trump refused to admit there was any hint of racial profiling about the policy, which is patently not true.
Clinton pointed out that not all minorities live in Hell in our country, and that there were actually successful Black and Latino families everywhere. She agreed with Holt that stop-and-frisk was indeed ruled unconstitutional, and spoke out strongly against mandatory minimums and the practice of using private prisons. Also, a little later, pledged she'd put money in her first budget for better police training.
The two candidates then (gasp!) actually agreed on a policy. Clinton brought it up, but Trump agreed that people on the No-Fly List or Terrorism Watchlist should be banned from buying weapons. I've written before on how this idea -- while popular politically, to be sure -- is not exactly constitutional either, because it tramples all over the concept of "due process," but it certainly was interesting to see Trump and Clinton agree on anything tonight.
They then both returned to form, and had a squabble for the fact-checkers to referee on the murder rate in New York City. This was roughly an hour in to the debate, and this was the point where Trump began to lose control and revert to being shouty and all over the map on virtually every answer.
Clinton got in another excellent zinger at this point, after Trump sneered about how he had been travelling "all over," while Clinton "decided to stay home." In an obviously-rehearsed (but very well-delivered) line, Hillary responded: "It sounds like you just hit me for actually preparing for this debate. Well, I did prepare for this debate. You know what else I'm prepared for? To be president." [Editor's note: we know this quote isn't perfectly transcribed, but since it will be one of the most-quoted lines from the entire night, we're sure the real quote will be widely available.]
Lester Holt, returning from the hallway with a soft-serve ice cream cone and hastily getting back into his chair, then asked Trump directly what had changed his mind on the whole birther issue. Trump trotted out his "Hillary started it" defense, which fell mighty flat. He then tried to pivot quickly to ISIS, jobs, and his border wall, but Holt had been energized by the ice cream, and hit him again with a fact-check on Trump's birther history. Trump essentially repeated his answer, with a very bizarre "ah... the birth certificate" intonation (check the video -- this was just downright weird). Holt tried a third time, telling Trump the birther thing was insulting to African-Americans, and asking whether Trump owes them (or Obama) an apology. Trump, unsurprisingly, did not take the opportunity to do so, instead standing on his birther record.
Clinton, when asked to respond to Trump's refusal, quipped: "Just listen to what he said." She then launched into her own condemnation of Trump, stating quite accurately that he had "started his whole political career" with what she unflinchingly called a "racist lie," before also hitting Trump on getting sued by the Justice Department twice back in the 1970s for refusing to rent to minorities. Clinton summed up by stating Trump has "a long history of racist behavior," and that his birther crusade was downright insulting to Barack Obama.
Trump scored what might very well have been his best comeback of the night, pointing out some of her behavior on the 2008 campaign trail against Obama. Trump said he'd been reviewing her debate performances in preparation, and he saw Clinton "treat Obama with no respect" during them. He hit her for her campaign circulating a photo of Obama in African garb, something a lot of people have forgotten about. Trump was essentially admitting that while he was down in the mud, Hillary actually belonged right there beside him, rather than her being all "holier than thou." For anyone who remembers the 2008 campaign, Clinton is indeed a little weak on this issue.
Trump then blew it by admitting that he did have to settle the two cases from the Justice Department, using as his only defense the fact that a lot of other landlords were sued at the same time and that he managed to "not admit guilt" in the settlement. Not very convincing, to say the least. Trump also pointed out he doesn't actively discriminate at his Florida club, which also wasn't very convincing (the battles to get minorities admitted into country clubs are pretty old hat, these days).
Lester Holt then led us into some wonky territory on cyber attacks and Russia. Clinton responded in a wonky way (as is her wont, at times), then hit Trump for "publicly inviting Putin to hack America." Trump responded with his endorsements from admirals and generals, as well as ICE and the Border Patrol. He leveled probably the strongest words at Clinton of the evening, calling her a "political hack" (which, for him, barely even registers on the Trump insult-o-meter). He then sounded almost deranged, saying about the D.N.C. getting hacked: "Maybe it was Russia, maybe it was China, maybe it was a guy sitting on his bed who weighs 400 pounds." Um, what? We're under attack from obese hackers? Strange, I haven't seen that in the news....
Clinton responded with her stock line about how she has an actual plan to attack ISIS, and trots out her "I helped kill Bin Laden" line -- after an hour and a quarter, which is perhaps a new record for Clinton (for not deploying it earlier in the debate).
Trump responded with his wish to return to colonialism, saying we should have just "taken the oil" in Iraq, so ISIS never would have formed. Clinton, bizarrely, just let this one slide rather than taking it on directly. Instead, she focused in on Trump being "for the Iraq War, for what we did in Libya" and then pointed out that George W. Bush negotiated the American pullout from Iraq, not Obama. Hillary then got downright hawkish, speaking of an "intelligence surge" that sounded a lot like giving the N.S.A. the green light to do whatever it wanted (perhaps this was just my interpretation, though). We then had a little back-and-forth on NATO and the Iran nuclear deal, with both candidates saying predictable things.
Lester Holt took one last shot at relevance, and tried to get Trump to admit he had been for the Iraq War before it happened. Trump completely lost it, in response. He finally admitted the Howard Stern quote exists, but then repeated "Call Sean Hannity" for proof he was against the war before it started. One can imagine the researchers digging through Hannity's shows from 2002 and 2003, all night long, to fact-check this nugget. Holt absolutely hammered the question again and again -- his finest moment of the evening. He finally got out the original question, which was actually about temperament. Trump then (of course) said he had a wonderful temperament, that it was perhaps the most tremendous thing about him, and his temperament was better than Clinton's. I don't have this exact quote, because I was so busy rolling around the floor laughing, so my apologies for the omission.
Clinton responded in similar fashion: "Woo! OK...." She then debunked Trump's egotistical (and untruthful) claim to have woken NATO up to fighting terror, pointing out that NATO joined America to attack Afghanistan after 9/11. We then had some more back-and-forth over the Iran deal, with Clinton quoting Trump about Iranian ships "taunting our military" where he said we should have "blown them out of the water." Clinton quite rightly used Trump's own quotes to show how his temperament wasn't exactly presidential, and then got off her final great zinger at Trump: "A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not be anywhere near the nuclear button." This was well-delivered and entirely accurate.
Lester Holt tried to regain control to introduce the last segment, and after failing a few times, finally managed to ask Trump about first-strike nuclear policy. Trump said he wouldn't strike first, after rambling a bit about China and North Korea. He then ended by hitting the Iran deal again.
Clinton looked downright presidential in her response, which began with: "Words matter." She explained how our allies need to know that the United States is true to our word, defended the Iran deal, and ended with "Donald's secret plan to fight ISIS -- his secret is that he has no plan." This line's been working for her out on the campaign trail, so it wasn't surprising to hear it tonight.
Lester Holt then skewered Trump on a comment he made about how Hillary doesn't have a "presidential look." Trump tried to spin it that he was hitting Hillary's "stamina" instead, and Holt took another shot at reading Trump's own words to him (which Trump could not bring himself to admit he had actually said). Clinton had a good comeback for this one, stating that Trump can "talk about stamina" after he flies around the world and makes international agreements, or sits in front of a congressional committee "for 11 hours."
At this point the crowd realized that Lester Holt wasn't going to chuck them out on their ear, and there were loud cheers for Clinton's statement. The Trump fans also cheered his response, just to get in on the action.
Things at this point fell completely apart for Trump. Clinton, sensing the crowd's mood, hit Trump on how he's called women "pigs, slobs, and dogs," and told the story of one of his pageant contestants who Trump disparaged, "who is now a citizen and looking forward to voting." Trump was rattled by this entire line, you could tell, and he then displayed his "outreach to women" -- by stating baldly that "Rosie O'Donnell deserved it." Hoo boy. That one is definitely going to be in a Clinton ad coming soon!
Immediately afterwards, Trump complained that Clinton's ads about him "were not nice." I mean, the absolute chutzpah to say this right after blaming Rosie O'Donnell for what Trump called her -- it was just astonishing.
Holt had an interesting final question for both candidates (although obviously aimed at Trump): If the other person wins, will you accept the outcome and not challenge the result? Both Clinton and Trump said they would abide by the results, which is reassuring to hear from Trump (who, earlier, had flirted with calling the whole thing rigged, months before voting even started).
Conclusion
The first debate is now one for the history books. I'll be very interested to see how everyone else reacted to it, which I'm going to do right after I post this. As I said before, Clinton turned in a good performance. Maybe not her best debate of all time (she's done almost 40 of them), but certainly not her worst either, by a long shot. She didn't stumble or get caught out by Trump once during the evening, and she showed her verbal fighting mettle at several points. She did manage to get under Trump's skin (especially at the end) several times. The astonishing thing for Trump was that (except at the end), even when she rattled him, he was usually able to calm himself down after a few minutes of shouting. He's obviously been coached that the whole shouty thing doesn't really come across as very presidential, and you could see him forcing himself to shift gears away from it several times.
Trump kept it together more than he managed during some of the primary debates. He didn't become completely unhinged at any point during the evening, although he did dance up to the edge of doing so a few times. He insulted women, Rosie O'Donnell, Barack Obama, African-Americans, Hispanics, and many others during his performance -- which is all pretty much par for the Donald Trump course. Trump did manage to get some actual policy answers out, most notably in the earlier portions of the debate. But he doesn't do well after about the hour mark -- something that was already apparent during the primary debates and was also on full display this evening.
Who "won" the debate? Well, I'll leave that for the punditocracy to determine, without my help. I thought Clinton did a great job tonight, and looked pretty presidential for the entire evening. I thought Trump meandered all over the map and ignored many facts and truths he doesn't want to admit. But then I'm one of the roughly 85 percent of the public who knew who they were rooting for before the debate started, so you can call my conclusions biased if you'd like. That's how I saw the debate, but I'd be interested in hearing how everyone else reacted (down in the comments, as usual) as well.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Reposting from Friday Talking Points:
Watched the debate with a bunch of HRC volunteers -- have never done that before. Good time as the debate went very well from our pov!
I think Trump went in thinking he could do his usual thing and it didn't work. They had CNN on with a split screen -- is that what everyone saw? -- and she looked great throughout, while he grimaced and frowned and yelled. She was either serious looking or smiling, and sometimes laughing. But she never rolled her eyes, which is a testament to her self-control, or otherwise made any visual errors. His interruptions in the beginning were worrying because we didn't know how long she was going to be able to tolerate them without snapping in some way -- but Holt admonished him and he backed off -- although he threw in a few more here and there.
But the turning point was when she said his father had given him $14 million to get his business started and that was pretty early in the debate. You could see him getting angry, and then he felt compelled to defend himself on that -- she'd rattled him. And I think it went downhill for him from there. He had his moments, but he spent most of his time reacting to her versus getting her to react to him. He pretty much admitted he's paid no taxes, said something about people not doing good enough work to be paid fully, and reiterated his view that Rosie O'Donnell deserved to be called a pig. And we should have taken the oil. And he virtually never directly responded to a question -- he always went off into weird places and often descended into near word-salad. Not quite as badly as he did in the Town Hall -- but close.
The returns tonight are pretty solidly in her favor.
The interesting thing will be how he approaches Debate #2 -- if he shows. Because he's now learned he can't beat her, at least, not by doing his usual thing. In his mind he defeated everyone else that way and I think he felt she'd go down just like all the repubs in the primary. She didn't. Most people think she won in a big way. How does the Donald handle that?
Also reposting from Friday Talking points -
I watched the debate with my brother, an avid golfer, and his assessment was that Trump scored a disappointing +6 after a terrible back nine that included at least one triple-bogey. Hillary finished with an eagle putt for a solid 3-under to take the match and the purse(heh).
I have to admit that I was completely wrong in my earlier prediction of the night (that Trump would win the debate): Hillary started the debate with high expectations and met every one of them.
Trump, who only had to act presidential for ninety minutes or so, began the debate alarmingly serene (may I call you Secretary Clinton?), but became increasingly annoyed as the debate went on.
And perhaps we should be inquiring more closely into HIS health, as he's sniffling and grunting alot. She looked fine, never so much as cleared her throat for the whole time, and had a great answer on the subject of 'stamina'.
But Trump's worst moment came on the topic of Nuclear policy, where his lack of preparation and plain lack of knowledge overwhelmed him, and he fell into an uncanny valley of incoherence. It was both fascinating and deeply alarming.
I don't think he'll lose his base (he could stand on 5th avenue and shoot someone, etc., etc.), but he may have harmed himself irreparably with the College educated women that he's been a-courtin' lately, particularly with his remarks about Rosie O'Donnell. It could have been worse - he hasn't called Ellen names yet.
Paula -
I think every channel had the split screen this time around.
I also think you're right about the visuals. Clinton passed, but occasionally looked peeved to be on stage with such a clown (you can hardly blame her for that). Trump looked downright rattled, at times.
It's hard to conclude, but Clinton won the style portion of the debate. Never would have thought that would be so easy for her...
I also think you're right about the reactive statement. Trump was back on his heels for much of the night, Clinton only occasionally.
Think he'll show for debate #2? I do think he'll show up for #3, since it'll be hosted by a Fox News guy (Chris Wallace), but now I'd give even odds that he'll skip the second one (hosted by Anderson Cooper and an MSNBC reporter).
Balthasar -
Just wanted to remind everyone: plus scores in golf are bad. Minus scores are good. :-)
I have to admit I liked that "alarmingly serene" because I was impressed (for the first 20 minutes or so) about how calm Trump was. Maybe he was snorting lines of Xanax? Heh.
To everyone -
It will certainly be interesting to see the polling over the next week. And please remember, after an event, it takes a few days to sink in among the public, then a few days of polling, then a day of number-crunching. So any reaction to tonight's debate won't be apparent until (roughly) Friday or so. Just to keep it in perspective...
-CW
Maybe he was snorting lines of Xanax?
That would explain his persistent sniffling! But what explains his grunting?
Wait...wait...don't answer that.
Trump actually then fearmongered (during a section on racial relations, no less) about "bands of illegal immigrants roaming the streets." Nothing like Republican minority outreach, folks!
But, according to ya'all, illegal immigrants DON'T vote..
So why should insulting criminal immigrants be a blow against "minority outreach"??
Lester Holt took one last shot at relevance, and tried to get Trump to admit he had been for the Iraq War before it happened.
There is one measly "Yea, i guess so" on a Howard Stern show. Yet, there are a dozen quotes from Trump that show he was against it...
Of course, the Left Wingery ignores all those quotes and just looks at a measly "yea, I guess so" to "PROVE" that Trump supported the war.. :^/
"A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not be anywhere near the nuclear button."
While decent, it's easily countered.
"A woman who puts the entirety of the State Department on an unsecured, hackable and hacked, private, bathroom closet email server should NOT be anywhere near the nuclear button."
The release of nuclear weapons has a two man rule.. So Trump's temperament is not relevant to the release of nuclear weapons..
Hillary's totally STOOPID mistake IS relevant to National Security...
Holt had an interesting final question for both candidates (although obviously aimed at Trump): If the other person wins, will you accept the outcome and not challenge the result? Both Clinton and Trump said they would abide by the results, which is reassuring to hear from Trump (who, earlier, had flirted with calling the whole thing rigged, months before voting even started).
So.... Let me get this straight...
Hillary has called Trump a "Hitler"....
So that means Hillary will support Hitler as our President???
That right there is reason enough NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton...
Michale
So.... Let me get this straight...
Hillary has called Trump a "Hitler"....
So that means Hillary will support Hitler as our President???
That right there is reason enough NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton...
Of course, the converse is also true..
Trump has called Hillary a crooked lying criminal...
So Trump supporting a "crooked lying criminal" as President is a pretty good reason not to vote for Trump...
Michale
Well, I am not going to comment on the debate itself because I didn't watch it..
I WILL say that I am disappointed that Hillary is still in the running.
And I will concede that Trump has a bit more of an uphill climb than he did at this time yesterday...
But I am still convinced that Trump will be our next President..
Michale
Based on the reactions I am reading all over the web, it's apparent that neither Hillary nor Trump landed any knockout blows..
It's also obvious that no one's minds were changed...
So, now we look forward to round 2 :D
Michale
Things at this point fell completely apart for Trump. Clinton, sensing the crowd's mood, hit Trump on how he's called women "pigs, slobs, and dogs,"
Let's be factual here.. For just a moment anyways.
Trump called specific women "pigs" "slobs" and "dogs", not women in general..
And I think the group of people who LOVE to call Trump names and make fun of Trump's physical attributes have absolutely NO MORAL AUTHORITY to attack Trump for name-calling...
You people want to throw stones??
It's not a smart idea when ya'all are living in glass houses...
Michale
Choke artist Donald seemed very lost without his TelePrompTer to tell him what to say during the debate - like he's senile or something. He also seemed very annoyed that he followed KellyAnne's advice and didn't blame Hillary's husband's infidelities on Hillary. He won't make that "mistake" again. He really should go see a doctor about that sniffing and snorting. A real doctor, not a bootlicker.
He really should go see a doctor about that sniffing and snorting.
Iddn't it funny.. Trump has a cold and should "see a doctor"...
Hillary collapses due to her Parkinsons and she "is in perfect health"...
Hay Chicken Boy, what's the view from up there in Hillary's ass??? :D
Michale
Donald's obesity may be catching up with him. He was looking pretty well drained after just one hour. Very low energy and IQ. He looks more and more like The Biggest Loser. They should make Donald weigh in if he wants to participate.
They should make Donald weigh in if he wants to participate.
And they should give Hillary an neurological exam if she wants to participate...
What's yer point, chicken boy?? :D
Ach, look who I am asking for a point?? :^/
Heh
Michale
Every online poll I could find.. TIME, CNBC, DRUGE, FORTUNE, SLATE has Trump cleaning Hillary's chronometer.. :D
"Yes, Yes.. But Colonel, what if you precipitate an interstellar war??"
"Well, then Mr President.. We will clean their chronometers!"
-STAR TREK V, The Undiscovered Country
:D
Michale
[5] Michale,
There is one measly "Yea, i guess so" on a Howard Stern show. Yet, there are a dozen quotes from Trump that show he was against it...
Of course, the Left Wingery ignores all those quotes and just looks at a measly "yea, I guess so" to "PROVE" that Trump supported the war.. :^/
I surely won't speak for the "Left Wingery" like you do, but I'd be more than happy to read over those "dozen quotes" if you could give me links to them. Esquire says BS to Trump's claims, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever to back up Trump's claim that he was against the war BEFORE it started... NONE.
Trump said to Howard Stern: "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly."
There was his chance to oppose it, but Trump suggests that the US should have invaded during the Gulf War... "the first time." That's not exactly being against the invasion of Iraq.
"A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not be anywhere near the nuclear button."
While decent, it's easily countered.
"A woman who puts the entirety of the State Department on an unsecured, hackable and hacked, private, bathroom closet email server should NOT be anywhere near the nuclear button."
There you go again with your bullshit "entirety of the State Department" pathetic utter nonsense. First off, HRC did not decide what was deemed nonclassified for dissemination over the NIPRNET server, and you've already been schooled on JWICS (fka DSNET2/DSNET3), GWAN, READOUT, OPSNET, NSANET, and SIPRNET servers, yet here you are still insisting that the "entirety of the State Department" resided on an email server that linked to a NIPRNET server... nonclassified IP network, and you still sound just as clueless today as you did a few months ago.
The release of nuclear weapons has a two man rule.. So Trump's temperament is not relevant to the release of nuclear weapons..
*LOL* You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Repeat after me: There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it.
I surely won't speak for the "Left Wingery" like you do, but I'd be more than happy to read over those "dozen quotes" if you could give me links to them.
But will you acknowledge that I am right when they say exactly what I say they say??
No, of course not...
Trump said to Howard Stern: "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly."
Hardly the definitive HELL YEA ya'all want to make it out to be....
There you go again with your bullshit "entirety of the State Department" pathetic utter nonsense.
Hillary was THE Secretary of State.. So it's a fair conclusion that she had access to EVERYTHING...
Put another way, if it was a GOP administration and a GOP SecState, you would be making the EXACT same claim I am..
The only difference is that we would both be in complete agreement..
*LOL* You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Repeat after me: There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it.
Son, I have worked around nuclear weapons and am VERY familiar with with laws and regulations governing the release of nuclear ordinance.
Can you make the same claim??
Of course you can't..
Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP).[citation needed] While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
Do you EVER get tired of being wrong??
What part of THE EXECUTION OF A LAUNCH ORDER REQUIRES SECONDARY CONFIRMATION UNDER THE 'TWO-MAN' RULE
Don't question my expertise when it comes to military matters, cupcake.. You'll LOSE every time...
Repeat after me: There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it.
OK, I'll repeat after you..
YOU.... ARE.... FULL...... OF..... SHIT
:D
Michale
The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it.
What are you, 7???
If the SecDef doesn't confirm, then THAT is a de-facto veto....
Duuuuhhhhhhh....
Michale
I surely won't speak for the "Left Wingery" like you do, but I'd be more than happy to read over those "dozen quotes" if you could give me links to them.
Once you acknowledge that you were wrong regarding the laws governing the release of nuclear weapons and that I was right, I'll provide you the links that prove Trump was against the second Iraq War... The war that Hillary and the Democrats FULLY supported and voted for....
Michale
There was his chance to oppose it,
Yea.. The Howard Stern show is a REALLY big "chance to oppose it"... :D
Michale
Michale,
Son, I have worked around nuclear weapons and am VERY familiar with with laws and regulations governing the release of nuclear ordinance.
Wikipedia! Proceed governor!
Wikipedia! Proceed governor!
Ya'all have already established that my personal experiences is not sufficient evidence..
So, I have to move to other sources..
Which is completely irrelevant that you were wrong AGAIN......
I proved your wrong.. AGAIN......
Aand you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong...
AGAIN
:D
Michale
"Don't try to match brains with Spock. He will cut you to pieces every time!"
-Ensign Hikaru Sulu
:D
Michale
No one should have to suffer such a humliating defeat without a chance to recover..
I'll give you a chance to retreat to your "safe space" and lick your wounds before I give you the Trump quotes that "prove" Trump was against the second Iraq war. The war that Hillary and the Democrats FULLY supported and voted for...
:D
You probably would be better off, mentally speaking, if you started "ignoring" me now.. :D
Michale
The overall point still stands as valid..
A prissy, thin-skin'ed, arrogant Donald Trump is not really a threat to the launching of nuclear weapons...
But a person who is "extremely careless" in handling classified and top secret information is...
Michale
How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats
YOUNGSTOWN, Pa. – Ken Reed sat down at main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind, to dig into the tavern’s oversized cheese steak and watch the presidential debate.
“I am hungry and undecided in that order,” he said digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.
Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy sat beside him, at 28 she has never voted before, she is now thinking it might be a good idea.
Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration, her Dad she says is ‘extremely liberal’ her sister the opposite. “Trump had the upper-hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between her and Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman, “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said sitting at the same bar that had local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/
Hillary can kiss Pennsylvania good-bye...
Michale
But a person who is "extremely careless" in handling classified and top secret information is...
Forgot to finish my thought.. Apologies...
But a person who is "extremely careless" in handling classified and top secret information is a threat to National Security...
Michale
Here's what ya'all simply refuse to acknowledge..
Americans want CHANGE!!! 8 in 10 Americans are DESPERATE for change...
Clinton, by her own statements and admissions, concedes that she is simply 3rd Term Obama......
Americans are so desperate for change that they will accept ALL of Trump's faults and then some to avoid a STATUS QUO/NO CHANGE/ESTABLISHMENT candidate like Hillary Clinton..
It's CHANGE vs SAME OL, SAME OL
And CHANGE is going to win....
It's that simple....
Michale
Here are the things that stood out for me:
Holt was a dolt, at least for the first half hr, during which he did absolutely NOTHING that resembled moderating. Moderating is simply controlling how the candidates use the allotted time. Both candidates ran over their allotments, and Trump flat out stole time by interrupting. Holt should have admonished, and if that didn't work, he should have cut the mic.
Holt did offer up some minor fact checking about 1/2 hr into the debate, and chimed in intermittently during the remainder of the bout, but he was never in control. D+ for showing up and at least trying now and then.
This will hardly be news to anybody, but Trump simply cannot speak in complete sentences. He cannot complete a paragraph. His speech is a word salad, from an electric chopper, with the top missing. I can't help but think there is underlying mental pathology at work. ADHD? Bottom line, you get what he's feeling, but not what he is thinking. Nothing adds up. It's all about rage and contempt.
Trump lacked stamina. He was played out after about 45 min. No more interrupting, he seemed drowsy. A cold? Extra drowsy cold medication? Towards the end he seemed almost ready to nod off.
Hillary Clinton was prepared methodical and in control. You can almost see her thinking: opening move, mid game, end game. All the ducks are in line and she plays right up to the edge. (Example: Trump is stealing, I'm gonna steal some back). She has plenty of stamina, and has learned to smile now and then. She lacks her husband's common touch, but a candidate could do a lot worse. She basically demolished Trump in the final half of the match. Stood toe to toe and outlasted him.
Bottom line: Bad night for Trump. Very good night for Clinton when she desperately needed it.
Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
CNN's snap poll gave Clinton the win with 62 per cent to Trump's 27
But most of the others reported Trump was the winner by a landslide
The pair engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth at Hofstra University
Here, we present the results from snap polls conducted after the debate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
WOW
Hillary's..... Chronometer...... Cleaned...... MAJORLY....... :D
Michale
I forget to mention that the Prediction markets Betfair and PredictIt reacted sharply in Clinton's favor immediately after the debates. I expect a similar poll spike in about a week.
Bottom line: Bad night for Trump. Very good night for Clinton when she desperately needed it.
Apparently, Clinton sycophants are the ONLY ones who agree with you... :D
This will hardly be news to anybody, but Trump simply cannot speak in complete sentences. He cannot complete a paragraph. His speech is a word salad, from an electric chopper, with the top missing. I can't help but think there is underlying mental pathology at work. ADHD? Bottom line, you get what he's feeling, but not what he is thinking. Nothing adds up. It's all about rage and contempt.
We have this bogus baseless opinion..
And on the other side of the scale we have Trump's undeniable success in business...
Give the facts, I would say you have absolutely NO FOUNDATION for your opinion.... :D
Michale
“Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line. You must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”
-Michael Moore
Hehehehehehehehe
Now THAT is funny!! :D
Michale
I forget to mention that the Prediction markets Betfair and PredictIt reacted sharply in Clinton's favor immediately after the debates. I expect a similar poll spike in about a week.
And we know how credible THEIR predictions are... :D heh
Michale
Reposting from FTP:
I thought up a counter talking point that I think could work well for Clinton the next time Trump puts forth "Stop and Frisk" and the idea of him being the "law and order" candidate. Let me know how you folks think it would go over.
"Mr. Trump claims to be the candidate of "law and order". Well, I would prefer to be the candidate of "justice". Law and order is important, but without justice, law and order is nothing more than tyranny, and I see no justice in a law that allows innocent citizens to be harassed and treated as potential criminals simply due to the color of their skin."
And as always, feel free to use, as long as you do so responsibly!
Trump pulled off presidential..
Like Reagan in 1980, viewers saw a Trump who was better than the liberal talking points.
You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader.
In the run-up to the Hofstra presidential debate, the Clinton campaign mounted a concerted effort to make fact-checking the centerpiece of the event. Campaign manager Robby Mook argued that "it’s unfair to ask that Hillary Clinton both play traffic cop with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people." Mook said that if Trump “lied,” it was moderator Lester Holt’s responsibility to point that out.
Fact-checking has never been an accepted role for debate moderators. Janet Brown, head of the Commission on Presidential Debates, said that a moderator should not “serve as the Encyclopedia Britannica.” And moderator Candy Crowley’s ill-advised intervention against Mitt Romney in 2012 showed why fact checking on the fly is a bad idea.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/26/trump-clinton-debate-hofstra-1980-reagan-carter-james-robbins-column/91141618/
Trump is going to be our next president, people.
Ya'all better get used to the idea...
Michale
Presidential debate surprise: Clinton loses ground among some voters in North Carolina
CHARLOTTE -Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate.
By the end, they had both pulled away.
John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers.
By the end, they’d ruled her out.
Indeed, while polls said that Clinton won the first general election debate with Donald Trump Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.
In a focus group of 21 voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and the Charlotte Observer, four who were up for grabs before the debate moved away from her by the end.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article104382951.html#storylink=cpy
In addition to Pennsylvania, Hillary also lost votes in North Carolina...
Every where that Hillary NEEDED a win... She lost.....
Michale
Michale,
Hillary was THE Secretary of State.. So it's a fair conclusion that she had access to EVERYTHING...
You obviously can't grasp the concept that classified information is contained on multiple separate servers. While it is a fair assessment to accuse HRC of receiving email on a private server, it's most definitely NOT a fair assessment to accuse the SOS of taking highly classified information stored on separate servers and putting it on her nonclassified email server and certainly not "the entirety of the State Department."
Put another way, if it was a GOP administration and a GOP SecState, you would be making the EXACT same claim I am..
The only difference is that we would both be in complete agreement..
You just never get tired of that bullshit argument, now do you?
*LOL*
No I wouldn't be making that "EXACT same claim" because I can grasp the concept that classified documents are not generally stored on nonclassified servers. Having knowledge of classified information in your mind that exists on a server in another location under lock and key doesn't somehow make said classified information magically exist on the hard drive of your nonclassified server. :)
You obviously can't grasp the concept that classified information is contained on multiple separate servers.
And you obviously can't grasp the FACT that Hillary used her private, insecure and unsecured, hackable and hacked, bathroom closet email server for EVERYTHING...
it's most definitely NOT a fair assessment to accuse the SOS of taking highly classified information stored on separate servers and putting it on her nonclassified email server
It IS a fair assessment because that is EXACTLY what Comey said Hillary did...
You just never get tired of that bullshit argument, now do you?
Of course not, because I always go with what works..
And, based on the Left Wingery's total BS attacks on Bush during the Abu Ghraib college hazing issue, it's a bona fide fact that ya'all would be making the exact same argument I am making if it was a GOP administration and a GOP SecState...
But you can't concede that any more than you can concede you were wrong about the TwoMan rule with regards to the release of nuclear weapons..
You simply CANNOT admit that you are wrong and I am right...
Michale
'Sides..
Didn't you say you are going to ignore me?? :D
Michale
it's most definitely NOT a fair assessment to accuse the SOS of taking highly classified information stored on separate servers and putting it on her nonclassified email server
There is also an email from Hillary to Phillip Reines telling him to take information from a secure server, delete the CLASSIFICATION markings and then send it thru Hillary's insecure and unsecured email server..
In other words, Hillary told Reines to do EXACTLY what you claim Hillary never did...
Once again. You're wrong.. I'm not...
Michale
M [39]
Hard to ignore you when you flood comment sections. You account for over 2/3 of the comments on this section alone (as of this writing). But I guess you're just following the Trump strategy of getting attention, continue saying things incessantly and people will have to pay attention to you, if for no other reason than to ask you to stop.
Hard to ignore you when you flood comment sections.
Not hard at all. All it takes is a little self-control.. But if THAT is too much to handle, there is a filter the script-kiddies have put out there.. Personally, it's the ultimate in wussification and proves those who use care more about their selfish whinings than the do about a quality forum here, but THAT comes as no shock to me personally..
But yer welcome to use it and concede the wussification.. :D
You account for over 2/3 of the comments on this section alone (as of this writing). But I guess you're just following the Trump strategy of getting attention, continue saying things incessantly and people will have to pay attention to you, if for no other reason than to ask you to stop.
My comments do not prevent you from making your comments..
If you don't like the facts, then prove me wrong with facts of your own..
You can't because my facts are impeccable...
Basically, what ya'all are saying is "Waaaaaa We can't compete!!!! Please stop being correct and factual all the time!!!! Waaaaa!!!"
If ya want to play on my level.... Up yer game...
Whining that I won't slow down to your level simply shows me I am on a winning strategy... :D
Michale
But I guess you're just following the Trump strategy
You guys really know how to talk sweet to me!!! :D
"You DO know how to talk to me, John Shepard!!!"
-Todd, STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D heh
Michale
Bleyd-41
If you get tired of the endless clutter, try installing Tampermonkey. It basically does your scrolling for you.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/21/donald-ducking-the-press/#comment-84961
It's available as a Firefox add on, but just Google for other platforms.
Weigantian chaszzzbrown can help with installation (which is actually easy if you aren't as thick as I am).
If you get tired of the endless clutter, try installing Tampermonkey. It basically does your scrolling for you.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/21/donald-ducking-the-press/#comment-84961
It's available as a Firefox add on, but just Google for other platforms.
Weigantian chaszzzbrown can help with installation (which is actually easy if you aren't as thick as I am).
Like I said.. Wussification that does harm to chrisweigant.com.... But the scriptkiddies don't care about that.. They are only about their own selfish wants and desires....
Michale
[17] Michale,
If the SecDef doesn't confirm, then THAT is a de-facto veto....
Duuuuhhhhhhh....
So SIOP was phased out in 2003 and the current equivalent is called OPLAN. Nevertheless, you seriously actually think the Secretary of Defense can veto the orders of the Commander in Chief?
*LOL*
Not that it is a credible source, but if you follow your OWN stupid link in your OWN stupid [16] post from...... *LOL*....... Wikipedia, the part of the paragraph that you left off reads:
... secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense.[citation needed] If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.
The SOD can't veto a damn thing... "de-facto" or otherwise.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/theres-no-button-how-the-president-orders-nuclear-war/article/2599478
Once the order is given and authenticated, the National Military Command Center formats it into an emergency action message, then sends it to the command center to actually launch the weapons.
The speed of this whole process does not allow for a president to change his or her mind once the decision is made.
"The system is designed to take the president's desire to retaliate and render that decision into an actual law in a matter of minutes. If a president actually sends the order, there is no time to countermand it. If he says 'Go,' then two minutes later says, 'I'm an idiot what am I doing?' the I'm-an-idiot message will never catch up," Lewis said.
Lewis also stressed that while the president has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, he or she does not have the ability to physically launch weapons. It may be the president's decision, but the people who actually launch the weapons are at a lower level in the chain of command.
So like ANY military order of the POTUS, anyone down the chain could fail to carry out or launch the CIC's orders, but there's not a damn soul on earth that could veto that order without it being considered mutiny.
Trump is already complaining about how unfair the moderator was. If debate impacts his polling I suspect he will threaten to boycott the next debate. Follow thru would be unlikely (unless he is pure stupid). The complaining is intended to intimidate the next moderator.
If we have to have these debate circuses, why not put a sound barrier between the two candidates and simply switch one mic on, the other mic off, according to clock. Completely fair, keeps things moving, and prevents one candidate stealing time from the other.
Granted, the stage might look a bit like Hollywood Squares, but we could live with that.
So SIOP was phased out in 2003 and the current equivalent is called OPLAN. Nevertheless, you seriously actually think the Secretary of Defense can veto the orders of the Commander in Chief?
If the SecDef doesn't concur in the launch of nuclear weapons, what is the POTUS going to do?? Replace him???
Face it, sunshine... You were wrong...
As usual, you just can't admit it..
Michale
Trump is already complaining about how unfair the moderator was.
As opposed to ya'all complaining how unfair the moderator was...
And the difference is... what?? exactly???
Michale
So like ANY military order of the POTUS, anyone down the chain could fail to carry out or launch the CIC's orders, but there's not a damn soul on earth that could veto that order without it being considered mutiny.
And if I said that someone can veto the order, you would have an argument..
But I didn't, so you don't...
The two man rule is in effect with regards to nuclear weapons from the lowliest E-1 on up to AND INCLUDING the President Of The United States...
Being that you never served your country, I understand how you could not know that..
I don't blame you for your ignorance...
Michale
Let me put it this way, Kick...
If you honestly believe a President, ANY President, can launch nuclear weapons solely and completely on their own.....
Well, if you think that you are a bigger moron that I thought..
And THAT says something... :D
Michale
If you don't like the facts, then prove me wrong with facts of your own
Your 'facts', to the extent that you've provided any, are little more than cherry-picked opinions, mostly written by known conservative pundits. In one case, a USA Today article you cited was written by a former editorial writer for the Washington Times.
Alright then, cherry picked quotes are great snacks, but you're completely ignoring the admonition, rightly cited by CW, that snap polls and focus groups are not likely to yield accurate results this soon; that reliable numbers won't be available until at least Friday.
I'll remind you that at this time last week, you were willing to bet me that Clinton wouldn't physically make it to the debate. Not only did she get through the debate, she managed to look (and sound!) healthier than he is.
You said earlier that you didn't get around to actually watching the debate. I urge you, as I did just yesterday, to do your due diligence before throwing dozens of articles at us that reinforce your pre-determined opinion. Watch the debate. See for yourself the way that Trump melts down and becomes defensive and at times incoherent during the second half. Hear his obvious grunts, sniffs and snorts. Then we can discuss this debate intelligently.
Your 'facts', to the extent that you've provided any, are little more than cherry-picked opinions, mostly written by known conservative pundits.
Yea, that is always the CLAIM...
But it is NEVER backed up with any facts...
Alright then, cherry picked quotes are great snacks,
Yea, I know.. Because that's all you ever have... :D
I'll remind you that at this time last week, you were willing to bet me that Clinton wouldn't physically make it to the debate. Not only did she get through the debate, she managed to look (and sound!) healthier than he is.
Yea, I was wrong.. Which I conceded the VERY first thing.. Much like you did when you conceded you were wrong that Trump would win the first debate. Even though you weren't wrong, Trump DID win the first debate..
But here's the thing... You didn't concede you were wrong about the Charlotte shooting.. Even after LISTEN's awesome and totally devastating demolition of your position..
I don't have a problem with ya'all being wrong.. I mean, ya'all practically ALWAYS are...
My beef has always been that ya'all refuse to concede when you are wrong..
You said earlier that you didn't get around to actually watching the debate. I urge you, as I did just yesterday, to do your due diligence before throwing dozens of articles at us that reinforce your pre-determined opinion. Watch the debate. See for yourself the way that Trump melts down and becomes defensive and at times incoherent during the second half. Hear his obvious grunts, sniffs and snorts. Then we can discuss this debate intelligently.
Tell ya what.. I'll sit down and spend 90 minutes watching the debate if you concede that Hillary's 9/11 collapse and her cock-eyed eye issues indicate a VERY serious health problem.
Will you do that??
Of course you won't.. Because you simply CAN'T admit to the facts...
And so it goes and so it goes.. :D
Michale
Tell ya what.. I'll sit down and spend 90 minutes watching the debate if you concede...
Tell ya what.. You sit down and watch the debate, because otherwise you have no standing in this debate. Until then, we can safely ignore your uninformed opinion.
"What have you got to lose?" - Trump
"Dignity?" - Balthasar
Your 'facts', to the extent that you've provided any, are little more than cherry-picked opinions, mostly written by known conservative pundits.
Yea, that is always the CLAIM...
But it is NEVER backed up with any facts...
Like I said.. If you don't like my facts or don't THINK they are facts then provide FACTS of your own to counter..
But no one ever does... They just go with personal attacks and immature name calling....
I have PROVEN beyond any doubt that, if I am shown facts that prove I am in error, I will concede the error..
But very very VERY rarely does anyone here do the same.. The Charlotte incident is a perfect example..
The FACTS proved it was a Good Shoot... Did you concede that you were wrong and I was right??
No, you did not..
So, basically ya'all are doing EXACTLY what ya'all accuse me of doing.. Ya'all are confronted with stone cold bona-fide facts that ya'all are wrong.. And you refuse to concede..
This Two Man rule issue is another example.. Kick said there was no such thing as the Two Man rule with regards to the release of nuclear weapons.. I PROVED he was wrong..
Did he concede?? Of course not...
If ya'all want our discussions to be ruled by facts, then for christ's sake, BRING SOME!!!
Michale
Tell ya what.. You sit down and watch the debate, because otherwise you have no standing in this debate. Until then, we can safely ignore your uninformed opinion.
But I am not commenting on the debate..
I am commenting on what OTHERs are commenting on the debate...
As such, my opinion is VERY informed..
And THAT just chaps yer arse, because it's clear that, according to online polls left and right, Hillary bit the big one.. :D
Michale
"What have you got to lose?" - Trump
"Dignity?" - Balthasar
That presupposes that ya'all had any dignity to begin with... :D
Michale
Just FYI everyone: after the debates last night a KOS commenter noted that a list of online polls had been compiled and sent to scores of rightwing websites telling people to go and vote for Trump. Those web-based polls showing Trump "winning" are the result.
[53] Yea, that is always the CLAIM...But it is NEVER backed up with any facts..
This one is really easy. The USA Today article that you quote at [35] is written by James S. Robbins, a former Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at the Washington Times, former Deputy Editor of Rare (a conservative web site), and frequent contributor to the National Review. Wikipedia told me that.
Robbins is one of the few Republican Foreign Policy experts who has stuck with Trump. Most have endorsed Hillary.
Just FYI everyone: after the debates last night a KOS commenter noted that a list of online polls had been compiled and sent to scores of rightwing websites telling people to go and vote for Trump. Those web-based polls showing Trump "winning" are the result.
SUUUUUUUURRRREEEEEEE :D
Michale
Balthasar,
You see Paula's comment??
THAT is what passes for "facts" in ya'all's world....
Michale
This one is really easy. The USA Today article that you quote at [35] is written by James S. Robbins, a former Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at the Washington Times, former Deputy Editor of Rare (a conservative web site), and frequent contributor to the National Review. Wikipedia told me that.
Robbins is one of the few Republican Foreign Policy experts who has stuck with Trump. Most have endorsed Hillary.
And what does that PROVE about any of my facts???
Michale
Paula[58]: that was also mentioned elsewhere (Huffpost? I forget) last night. Web-based polls should carry the same weight as reddit trends.
Here's what I am looking for, Balthy...
Michale: "It's a bona fide FACT that the sky on planet earth is normally purple and there is no such thing as the TWO MAN rule when it comes to the release of Nuclear Weapons..."
Balthasar: "Michale, you are wrong.. Here is the link that shows that the sky on planet earth is normally blue.. http link link link... ANd here is the wikipedia link that proves there IS a Two Man rule here in the us with regards to the release of nuclear weapons. http wikipedia link."
Michale: "Well, i'll be dipped in shit. You were right Balthasar. I was wrong. Thank you for setting me straight!!!"
Balthasar: "Not a problem, Michale. And I must say, it's really enjoyable to debate with someone of your intelligence and verbosity and who is willing to admit when they are wrong."
:D
Is that so difficult???
:D
Michale
Paula[58]: that was also mentioned elsewhere (Huffpost? I forget)
You see your problem. HUFF POOP is what passes for "proof positive" around here.. :^/
last night. Web-based polls should carry the same weight as reddit trends.
Of course, they would carry a LOT more weight with ya'all if they overwhelmingly said that Hillary won... :D
Michale
And what does that PROVE about any of my facts?
a) those are his facts; you didn't see the debate.
b) His background predicts his bias, although generally, conservative foreign policy experts have deserted the Trump cause in droves. It's good to know the bias of the writer of an article like this, though that can manifest itself differently from one writer to another, as Robert Gates' recently written excoriation of Trump demonstrates.
What the hell does the 'two man rule' have to do with ANYTHING? You're confusing me with someone else. I'm arguing that, until you've watched the debate, you're just parroting what you've read and heard in the right-wing bubble.
Michale wrote:
"Trump actually then fearmongered (during a section on racial relations, no less) about "bands of illegal immigrants roaming the streets." Nothing like Republican minority outreach, folks!
But, according to ya'all, illegal immigrants DON'T vote..
So why should insulting criminal immigrants be a blow against "minority outreach"??"
1.) Because a lot of legal voting Latino citizens either know someone who is here illegally or have a family member who is here illegally, and those legal Latinos do vote in ever larger numbers.
2.) Even if they don't know someone who is illegally here personally, or are generally opposed to illegal immigration, they still don't like the idea of a whole group of people they belong to and identify with on an ethnic basis being demonized unnecessarily and unfairly.
Michale,
The release of nuclear weapons has a two man rule.. So Trump's temperament is not relevant to the release of nuclear weapons..
Move those goalposts.
If the SecDef doesn't confirm, then THAT is a de-facto veto....
Move those goalposts again.
The overall point still stands as valid..
A prissy, thin-skin'ed, arrogant Donald Trump is not really a threat to the launching of nuclear weapons...
Move those goalposts again.
And if I said that someone can veto the order, you would have an argument..
But I didn't, so you don't...
Now finish that off by saying something really stupid you know nothing about.
The two man rule is in effect with regards to nuclear weapons from the lowliest E-1 on up to AND INCLUDING the President Of The United States...
Wrong. Learn about the two-man rule that applies in the missile silos and submarines, remove your head from your ass and let it sink in that there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.
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/
Being that you never served your country, I understand how you could not know that..
I don't blame you for your ignorance...
Perhaps you've confused me with the "prissy, thin-skin'ed, arrogant Donald Trump" whom you actually think "is not really a threat to the launching of nuclear weapons." Don't blame Trump's ignorance on the fact that he didn't serve... Put that ignorant SOB in charge of the free world and bestow him with the powers you apparently have no clue that exist, snowflake {winter is coming}. *LOL* :)
Michale wrote:
"Based on the reactions I am reading all over the web, it's apparent that neither Hillary nor Trump landed any knockout blows..
It's also obvious that no one's minds were changed...
So, now we look forward to round 2 :D"
I watched the entire debate and my first impression is on a par with this one. Hillary did well, and Trump didn't completely destroy himself. So, overall, my first impressions was that Hillary will keep her supporters, Trump will keep his, and the undecideds will for the most part remain undecided.
Of course, [Web-based polls] would carry a LOT more weight with ya'all if they overwhelmingly said that Hillary won.
How quickly you forget, I was prepared for a Trump win last night, based on the impossibly high bar set for Hillary and the ridiculously low bar set before the debate for Donald.
As it turns out, I saw Hillary win that debate, hands down. You should watch it too. Trump's self-destruction was a thing to behold.
Hey CW
Funny thing how policies both candidates agree on aren't raised or discussed in establishment "debates". Then again, listing all the effed up crap that won't change due to the "monumental election" isn't the message they want to put out... and it would make for boring TV too.
Trumpon going to the left of Obama and Hillary by ruling out a nuclear first strike was a topic elsewhere.
But, all in all it seems I didn't miss anything.
I finished my book the night before, so I ended up watching Holes. Great cast, though the Fonz attempting a Texas accent didn't quite work out... but I thought I'd mention it due to your FTP reference.
A
As it turns out, I saw Hillary win that debate, hands down. You should watch it too. Trump's self-destruction was a thing to behold.
IN YOUR OPINION...
You see??
Once again, you are doing *EXACTLY* what you accuse me of doing..
Taking your opinion and treating it as a fact...
Michale
Balthy
66
"although generally, conservative foreign policy experts have deserted the Trump cause in droves"
I'm not sure that's something to boast about.
The neocons and status quo foreign policy "experts" endorsing Hillary is a negative in my mind.
Creating more terrorists than we kill only serves the war machine, not American interests or, y'know, basic morality.
It certainly doesn't help Hillary with the left.
A
I watched the entire debate and my first impression is on a par with this one. Hillary did well, and Trump didn't completely destroy himself. So, overall, my first impressions was that Hillary will keep her supporters, Trump will keep his, and the undecideds will for the most part remain undecided.
Thank you, JM.....
The acknowledgement is really appreciated..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Repeat after me: There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it.
OK, I'll repeat after you..
YOU.... ARE.... FULL...... OF..... SHIT"
"If the SecDef doesn't confirm, then THAT is a de-facto veto....
Duuuuhhhhhhh...."
"Once you acknowledge that you were wrong regarding the laws governing the release of nuclear weapons and that I was right."
ACTUALLY Michale, you are WRONG. The link that you yourself provided shows this. You are like the person at the grocery store who likes to quote the rules on the use of coupons, but FAILS to quote the ENTIRE set of rules including all of the relevant CAVEATS.
The LINK SAYS:
Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan. While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.
In the event whereby the Secretary of Defense refuses to second the order and is removed from office, the Deputy Secretary of Defense would then assume the office of Acting Secretary of Defense in accordance with the Secretarial order of succession. An Acting Secretary would, likely, face the same test: to countersign the Presidential order or be relieved from office.
IN OTHER WORDS, the Presidential decision to use nuclear weapons may be DELAYED, but it CANNOT be STOPPED, short of the actual removal of the President from office.
The Vice President and a majority of the heads of the Executive Departments could invoke section 4 of the Twenty-fifth amendment to the Constitution and have the President declared incapacitated. The Vice President would then become Acting President until the President submits a declaration to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that affirms his ability to discharge his duties.
Wrong. Learn about the two-man rule that applies in the missile silos and submarines, remove your head from your ass and let it sink in that there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.
I don't have to LEARN about it, sunshine.. I have been there and done that..
When you are in command of a security detail who actually GUARDS the nuclear weapons, the two-man rule is second nature..
As I said, you never having served your country, I can understand and don't blame you for your ignorance..
Where you deserve blame, however, is trying to pass off web-links as expertise and knowledge when it's nothing but parroting what you WANT to believe..
Michale
1.) Because a lot of legal voting Latino citizens either know someone who is here illegally or have a family member who is here illegally, and those legal Latinos do vote in ever larger numbers.
SO, in other words, aiding and abetting criminals.. again, I don't really care about criminals who aid criminals...
Most Americans don't either... :D
2.) Even if they don't know someone who is illegally here personally, or are generally opposed to illegal immigration, they still don't like the idea of a whole group of people they belong to and identify with on an ethnic basis being demonized unnecessarily and unfairly.
If it was unfairly, you would have a point..
But it's not so you don't.. :D
Illegal immigrants are criminals. Period...
I know that reality is a harsh mistress, but give 'er a hug anyways.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Americans want CHANGE!!! 8 in 10 Americans are DESPERATE for change...
Clinton, by her own statements and admissions, concedes that she is simply 3rd Term Obama......
Americans are so desperate for change that they will accept ALL of Trump's faults and then some to avoid a STATUS QUO/NO CHANGE/ESTABLISHMENT candidate like Hillary Clinton..
It's CHANGE vs SAME OL, SAME OL
And CHANGE is going to win...."
You WOULD have a point, IF the kind of change that Trump is offering, would be the kind of change that Americans Want, BUT it is NOT, so YOU DON'T.
IN OTHER WORDS, the Presidential decision to use nuclear weapons may be DELAYED, but it CANNOT be STOPPED, short of the actual removal of the President from office.
OK.. Explain to me how it can be allowed to go forward if the SecDef refuses to concur??
The Vice President and a majority of the heads of the Executive Departments could invoke section 4 of the Twenty-fifth amendment to the Constitution and have the President declared incapacitated. The Vice President would then become Acting President until the President submits a declaration to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that affirms his ability to discharge his duties.
SOunds to me like you just explained that the President's order to release nuclear weapons CAN be stopped.. :D
Michale
But, all in all it seems I didn't miss anything.
Variety reports that last night's ratings topped 80.9 million viewers, yet you and Michale, regular commenters on this political blog, can't be bothered to watch. If you're going to criticize the mainstream (from either side), you should at least know what you're criticizing, otherwise how can we take you seriously?
You WOULD have a point, IF the kind of change that Trump is offering, would be the kind of change that Americans Want, BUT it is NOT, so YOU DON'T.
That's just the point..
Americans want CHANGE....
They don't know that Trump's change is a change they will like or not, but because Americans so desperately want change, they are willing to give it a try....
How else do you explain that Trump is actually winning in the Battleground States??
Another one of those FACTS that I always have that ya'all claim I never do... :D
Michale
Variety reports that last night's ratings topped 80.9 million viewers, yet you and Michale, regular commenters on this political blog, can't be bothered to watch. If you're going to criticize the mainstream (from either side), you should at least know what you're criticizing, otherwise how can we take you seriously?
As I said, which I noticed you ignored..
If I were commenting on the debate performance, you would have a point..
But, since I am commenting on the varied media reports of the debate and the polls of the debate....
Well.... ya don't...
"If I had my gun, I'de shoot you!!!"
"Yea, well ya don't."
-The Simpons
:D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"But you can't concede that any more than you can concede you were wrong about the TwoMan rule with regards to the release of nuclear weapons..
You simply CANNOT admit that you are wrong and I am right..."
EXCEPT, YOU WEREN'T RIGHT, as stated previously above.
Michale wrote:
"If the SecDef doesn't concur in the launch of nuclear weapons, what is the POTUS going to do?? Replace him???"
YES, that is EXACTLY what he is GOING TO DO. It says so in the very link that you provided Michale.
Variety reports that last night's ratings topped 80.9 million viewers, yet you and Michale, regular commenters on this political blog, can't be bothered to watch.
As Liz pointed out to ya'all a couple days ago...
I *REALLY* need my beauty sleep... :D
Now, if Hillary had actually done a face-plant, THEN I would be pissed that I missed it.. :D
Michale
Balthasar,
"although generally, conservative foreign policy experts have deserted the Trump cause in droves"
Considering it's those same "experts" who totally frak'ed up the world, I would say it's a GOOD thing that those morons aren't backing Trump...
Wouldn't you??
I would ALSO point out that those morons who frak'ed up the world backing Clinton and Clinton BRAGGING about that backing....
Well, that tells any true patriotic American everything they need to know about Clinton....
Michale
Michale wrote:
"SOunds to me like you just explained that the President's order to release nuclear weapons CAN be stopped.. :D"
NOPE. FAIL. It can be DELAYED, but not STOPPED. Especially given the fact that there can be only MINUTES to make a decision, not hours or days. Even in the case that I cited, all the President has to do is send a declaration stating that he is in fact fit to command, and the decision to launch a nuclear strike on the President's SOLE AUTHORITY ALONE is BACK ON.
Michale wrote:
The neocons and status quo foreign policy "experts" endorsing Hillary is a negative in my mind.
Since I assume that you would also dismiss any foreign policy experts left of center, that leaves only a handful of foreign policy experts that agree with Trump. Of course, Putin can always be counted on to explain the world to him.
Creating more terrorists than we kill only serves the war machine, not American interests or, y'know, basic morality.
It would be nice if Trump would keep that in mind when he shoots off his mouth and alienates the entire muslim community.
As JohnM wrote about Trump's latino problem:
they still don't like the idea of a whole group of people they belong to and identify with on an ethnic basis being demonized unnecessarily and unfairly.
Your answer is: get used to it. My answer to that is: get used to them all voting against you. You could end up with a bowl of skittles dumped on your head.
Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of undecided voters in Pennsylvania. Sixteen said Hillary Clinton won. Five picked Trump, per CBS News.
In a Florida focus group organized by CNN, 18 of 20 undecided voters picked Clinton as the winner.
Not one of 29 undecided voters in an Ohio focus group organized by Park Street Strategies thought Trump prevailed, while 11 picked Clinton and the rest said neither. By a two-to-one margin, the group thought Clinton had the better tone and, by a three-to-one margin, they thought she came across as more knowledgeable candidate on the issues.
A CNN/ORC flash poll found that 62 percent said the Democrat won, compared to 27 percent who picked Trump. That’s on par with 2012, when Mitt Romney was seen as the winner of the first debate.
In a separate instant-poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling, 51 percent said Clinton won and 40 percent picked Trump.
Eight in 10 insiders in the key battleground states thought Clinton performed better, including 57 percent of Republicans, according to the Politico Caucus survey.
Looks BAD for TRUMP at this point.
NOPE. FAIL. It can be DELAYED, but not STOPPED.
You just explained how it could be stopped..
The Vice President and a majority of the heads of the Executive Departments could invoke section 4 of the Twenty-fifth amendment to the Constitution and have the President declared incapacitated. The Vice President would then become Acting President until the President submits a declaration to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate that affirms his ability to discharge his duties.
And a President who wishes to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons WITHOUT the confirmation that the 2-man rule requires is unfit to be president..
Hence, his order will be stopped..
. Even in the case that I cited, all the President has to do is send a declaration stating that he is in fact fit to command, and the decision to launch a nuclear strike on the President's SOLE AUTHORITY ALONE is BACK ON.
The president merely stating he is sane is not enough once the 25th amendment is invoked...
The fact that the POTUS wishes to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons is sufficient to remove him from office..
Ergo, the order is stopped...
Michale
Looks BAD for TRUMP at this point.
Where have I heard THAT before??
Oh yea that's right.. Every other day for the last year and a half...
:D
Ya'all have been WRONG each and every time..
Why do you think you are right now??
ESPECIALLY since Trump is winning in many battleground states. Trump is closing the gap in PA and is DECIMATING Clinton in Ohio...
:D
Michale
Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of undecided voters in Pennsylvania. Sixteen said Hillary Clinton won. Five picked Trump, per CBS News.
And then there is THIS group in PA...
How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats
YOUNGSTOWN, Pa. – Ken Reed sat down at main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind, to dig into the tavern’s oversized cheese steak and watch the presidential debate.
“I am hungry and undecided in that order,” he said digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.
Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy sat beside him, at 28 she has never voted before, she is now thinking it might be a good idea.
Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration, her Dad she says is ‘extremely liberal’ her sister the opposite. “Trump had the upper-hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between her and Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman, “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said sitting at the same bar that had local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/
Hillary can kiss PA good-bye... She has already blown a 10 point lead...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"And a President who wishes to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons WITHOUT the confirmation that the 2-man rule requires is unfit to be president..
Hence, his order will be stopped.."
AND what part of "The President can keep firing Sec. Of Defense and cycling thru them until he finds one who will agree with his order under the two man rule" DID YOU MISS????
Ya'all can argue what the definition of IS is until the cows come home..
But the simple fact is this...
No American President can, in a fit of pique, launch a nuclear strike...
Any more than a Boomer Commander could, in a fit of pique, launch a nuclear strike...
It is simply outside the realm of possibility and is the stuff of movies and Hollywood..
Ya'all are simply fear-mongering when you argue that Trump could do it..
That's all it is.. Fear mongering...
Michale
Congress hurtled Tuesday toward a government shutdown in a pivotal election year, after Senate Democrats led efforts to block a stopgap spending bill that provides flood relief for Louisiana but nothing for Michigan residents affected by lead-tainted water in Flint.
NOW look who is shutting down the Government... :D
I know, I know... It's OK when the Democrats do it..
Silly me...
Michale
“Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They’re getting a little bit tired of hearing ‘We’re going in, we’re not going in.’ Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don’t do it. Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
-Donald Trump On The Iraq War, 28 Jan 2003
See the problem with your "fact checkers".. They are politically biased in favor of Hillary
Michale
It is simply outside the realm of possibility and is the stuff of movies and Hollywood..
And yet you use the very same loophole invoked in movies from Air Force One to White House Down (why do action movies about presidents always have 3 names?) to make your point.
I'm not surprised to see you arguing that it doesn't matter how stupid the President is, he still can't start WWIII. That argument didn't prevent BushCheney from taking us into Iraq, in part because GOP presidents usually surround themselves with sycophantic loyalists - no 'team of rivals' in Republican White Houses, no sir.
It follows: Romney was the smartest guy the GOP has run for the presidency in 50 years, and y'all can't stand his ass.
AND what part of "The President can keep firing Sec. Of Defense and cycling thru them until he finds one who will agree with his order under the two man rule" DID YOU MISS????
And you think Trump COULD find one who will??
Even if Trump could, the SecDef would have to be confirmed by the Senate..
Give it up.. Ya'all have left the realm of fantasy land and have gone all ballz into moronic's ville...
Trump could no more launch a nuclear strike unilaterally than ya'all could actually quit being Party drones...
Quit the fear-mongering... It's so un-becoming...
Michale
And yet you use the very same loophole invoked in movies from Air Force One to White House Down (why do action movies about presidents always have 3 names?) to make your point.
Huh??? When did I invoke AIR FORCE ONE or WHITE HOUSE DOWN...
ESPECIALLY since WHD is a totally stoopid movie... OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN is the far superior action flick...
I'm not surprised to see you arguing that it doesn't matter how stupid the President is, he still can't start WWIII. That argument didn't prevent BushCheney from taking us into Iraq,
So THAT, in your mind, is equal to WWIII???
I rest my case regarding your Party slavery... :D
in part because GOP presidents usually surround themselves with sycophantic loyalists
Oh yea... Obama has a LOT of independent thinkers in his inner circle.. :^/
Yep.. Party Slave.. :D
Michale
https://vine.co/v/5rKMLV9l2JW
Hillary has to use both hands going up stairs.. Then when she realizes cameras are on, she covers and holds up her hands to say "See!? Hands free" :D Hehehehehe
Michale
NOW look who is shutting down the Government.
Yeah, Republican scum. They want the EPA to pay for Flint because they don't want to admit that their Republican governor was responsible for this unmitigated fk-up. Flint has been waiting for years for relief money, Louisiana, less than 6 months, and Democrats are willing to give them theirs if Flint can also get its relief.
So it's up to McConnell: does he play this game of rubber chicken until the debt ceiling is reached? I'm guessing he's looking for something to trade it for, maybe a withdrawal of the SCOTUS nomination, I don't know, he's that petty, but he's also one of the few GOP leaders who isn't willing to bring down the country for the sake of making a stupid partisan point. One hopes.
Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.
Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.
To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/hillarys-debate-lies-14759.html
This is why Clinton will lose the election.. She is full of scheisse....
Michale
Just as a nice little wrap-up:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/comey-no-obstruction-justice-clinton-email-case
Yeah, Republican scum.
You DID read the blurb that it's DEMOCRATS who are holding up the CR, right??
You see, that is EXACTLY my point...
No matter the FACTS, it's ALWAYS the Republicans fault..
Michale
Just as a nice little wrap-up:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/comey-no-obstruction-justice-clinton-email-case
Yea... They have "nice little wrap ups" on infowars.com too..
Some how, I just DON'T think you would accept them.. :D
Michale
I think yesterday's debate has a good shot at pulling a percentage wavering Republican women into Hillary's camp, as well as undecided women.
The interrupting -- it played badly in general, but I think it has some additional resonance for women. The loud, belligerent man trying to silence you by sheer aggression -- twangs a lot of nerve-endings for anyone, but I think women tend to get the brunt of that kind of behavior more than men.
Huh??? When did I invoke AIR FORCE ONE or WHITE HOUSE DOWN..
When you invoked the loophole/movie trope of lawfully removing a president from office (in your case, in order to prevent Trump from launching nukes - I still can't believe that you're arguing this).
Obama has a LOT of independent thinkers in his inner circle.
I think so, but that evades my point. If Trump wanted to launch, we'd only have Ivanka to stand in the way of it. Everyone else would nod like bobble-heads, like they did for BushCheney.
So THAT, in your mind, is equal to WWIII?
No but it is a modern example of a WH with too much hubris, and too little common sense. A good analogy to a potential Trump WH, without the solid gold toilets.
And I thought WHITE HOUSE DOWN had a far more plausible plot than OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN. Used your trope/loophole, too.
When you invoked the loophole/movie trope of lawfully removing a president from office
You ever hear of WATERGATE???
I think so, but that evades my point.
Of course you think so..
Which PROVES my point... :D
And I thought WHITE HOUSE DOWN had a far more plausible plot than OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN.
And if I was talking about "plausible", you would have a point...
But I wasn't, so you don't... :D
Michale
I would ask you if you have seen the new GHOSTBUSTERS, but I am sure you would say it wasn't "plausible" :D
Michale
Paula [106]
. . . not to mention that it looked like the woman who has worked hard and studied and prepared and paid her dues vs the guy who inherited a fortune and thinks he's just entitled to the job.
Policy wonk vs vicious Twitter troll.
. . . not to mention that it looked like the woman who has worked hard and studied and prepared and paid her dues
AND NOW THE FACT IS REVEALED!!
Despite all the denials and protestations....
It is confirmed...
Chicken Boy is a Clintonista!!! :D
It's nice ta have you out of the closet, Chicken Boy... :D
Michale
Policy wonk vs vicious Twitter troll.
That's PRESIDENT Vicious Twitter Troll to you, Chicken Boy... :D
Michale
I would ask you if you have seen the new GHOSTBUSTERS
And the answer is no, I haven't seen that yet. I'll keep my eyes open for scum..er..slime when I do..
Bleyd [34] -
I like it! Makes an excellent point, and good segue.
Michale [multiple comments] -
Um, yeah. You just keep telling yourself Trump won. Maybe they'll even set up a "skewed polls" site so that you can believe that right up until the votes start coming in.
:-)
Paula [58] -
Also do a news story search on "4chan" to see what else was going on...
:-)
JohnM [68] -
Saved me the trouble... thanks! Michale: what he said....
altohone [72] -
Seen the "old guys travel through Asia" summer series with Winkler, William Shatner, George Foreman, and Terry Bradshaw? Pretty hilarious, especially Kirk... Fonzie definitely won the dance contest, though...
:-)
-CW
Um, yeah. You just keep telling yourself Trump won. Maybe they'll even set up a "skewed polls" site so that you can believe that right up until the votes start coming in.
:-)
Just like ya'all keep telling yerselves Hillary won.. :D
Michale
Michale: what he said....
Which part??
The part where Hillary blew a double-digit lead and is now LOSING in many battleground states??? :D
Imagine yer lives under PRESIDENT Trump.. It will be easier to wake up on the morning of 9 Nov 2016 :D
Michale
[110] John: Yep!
Just like ya'all keep telling yerselves Hillary won
Because we SAW it.
(in case you scrolled past it, Michale asserts that he still hasn't seen the debate from last night)
Watch it and weep.
[77] Michale,
Wrong. Learn about the two-man rule that applies in the missile silos and submarines, remove your head from your ass and let it sink in that there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.
I don't have to LEARN about it, sunshine.. I have been there and done that..
When you are in command of a security detail who actually GUARDS the nuclear weapons, the two-man rule is second nature..
As I said, you never having served your country, I can understand and don't blame you for your ignorance..
Where you deserve blame, however, is trying to pass off web-links as expertise and knowledge when it's nothing but parroting what you WANT to believe..
Oh, security.... well, why didn't you say so..... *LMFAO* Guarded that nuclear "ordinance," did you? *LOL*
It was your link, snowflake! You posted the Wikipedia link missing several citations in order to prove ME wrong, and you failed miserably in the process. What part of "unilateral authority" confuses you?
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/26/first-debate-reactions/#comment-85361
You should in all seriousness read my links that aren't from Wikipedia and learn something about the POTUS/CIC's unilateral authority to order a nuclear launch and stop confusing it with the grunts who guard the ORDNANCE and turn the keys and carry out the damn UNILATERAL orders from the top of the chain from the CIC.
Gotta love those nuclear ordnance security snowflakes, even though they refer to ordnance as "ordinance," two totally different things, you know? No two of them security snowflakes are alike, but they're still all small and melt quickly upon hitting the pavement. Yeah, you can call it a typo and continue your bitching about spelling, but words matter, particularly when you're dealing with nuclear ORDNANCE. *LOL* :)
Kick,
And how did you serve your country??
"Do you want fries with that??"
Yea, that's what I thought.
You think you know something because you read it on a website.. I *KN OW* because I have been there and done that...
Michale
Because we SAW it.
And it's your OPINION that Hillary won.. THAT's the point you refuse to acknowledge.. You only have ONE opinion... Yours..
Yet, there are millions and millions and millions of OTHER opinions that say Hillary lost..
So, who am I to believe??
YOU...
Or MILLIONS and MILLIONS of Americans???
For me, the choice is clear...
Michale
Which part??
The part where Hillary blew a double-digit lead and is now LOSING in many battleground states??? :D
Seriously, though..
I have talked to quite a few LEGAL hispanics.. They are quite plentiful in my area..
And *EVERY* one of them have said they are voting Trump..
You see, LEGAL hispanics dislike illegal immigrants MORE than Trump does...
The simple fact is, the ONLY hispanics who DON'T like Trump are the criminals and those that aid and abet criminals..
Don't really care what they think....
Michale
Balthasar,
(in case you scrolled past it, Michale asserts that he still hasn't seen the debate from last night)
Watch it and weep.
OK... OK.....
If I watch the debate and then declare that Trump won, will you accept that???
Of course you won't..
You have proven beyond ANY doubt that NOTHING matters but your Party loyalty..
So whether I watch it or don't watch it, you are going to say THE EXACT SAME THING...
So, why bother???
Michale
The simple fact is, the ONLY hispanics who DON'T like Trump are the criminals and those that aid and abet criminals..
Don't really care what they think....
Which is why Hillary is losing the hispanic vote by the millions.... :D
Michale
The topic being debate reactions rather than servers or nuclear codes, I'll take a run. This is my 14th presidential campaign and I have as much expertise in assessing debate outcomes as the next guy. The unbiased third-party observer would conclude that it was pretty even for a while but DT started to lose his poise in the second half (lack of stamina, perhaps?) and HRC began to pound him like a piñata. He reverted back to his core mannerisms in a rather unflattering fashion and certainly lost a lot of undecideds. HRC was typically wonky but displayed solid grasp of all topics while jabbing DT in a manner designed to reveal his many flaws. Definite momentum for HRC, the electoral advantage is still hers.
Definite momentum for HRC, the electoral advantage is still hers.
Despite all the polls to the contrary... :D
Other than that, an excellent assessment, Steedo...
Kudos..
Michale
Michale,
And how did you serve your country??
None of your damn business, grunt... But seriously, snowflake, I don't share your peevish neediness for praise and concession and therefore have nothing to prove regarding my service to my country.
Either you can learn something about which you've proven you know very little about or... WDIC? ... babble on in your ignorant state of bliss. OAO YOYO
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955#ixzz4LUmv6eQ2
There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.
If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon’s nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside). It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
But within these broad constraints there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president’s orders. That’s true even if the national security adviser, the secretary of defense (who along with the president makes up the “national command authority”) and other top appointees and advisers disagree with the president’s decision. It does not matter whether the United States has already come under attack by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her. Under the president’s open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority.
Indeed, the military commanders have prepared for this imperative moment. At the apex of the nuclear chain of command, the operators of the arsenal have trained, exercised and managed nuclear forces to respond dutifully to orders from the president, even an order that comes out of nowhere. Everything revolves around this one individual.
Balthy
81
Um. it took me less than ten minutes to read the transcript from a 90 minute debate... and no objects got thrown at my TV in the process.
A win-win.
Your belief that I am uninformed and have no right to criticize either of the mainstream candidates because, like three quarters of the country I didn't watch the debate is pretty pathetic though.
Interesting that you replied to the non-relevant portion of my comment to CW rather than the political portion (or my response to you).
A little ironic given that I was commenting on what the mainstream ignores.
A
Steedo [126] -
Yep, that's pretty close to my take on it, too.
-CW
OK, everyone, new column up (kinda inconclusive, but talking more about the debate):
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/27/will-the-undecideds-decide/
enjoy.
-CW
And how did you serve your country??
None of your damn business, grunt..
Yea, that's what I thought..
It just occurred to me on the way home..
With your complete and utter disdain for honorable service to one's country, it made things perfectly clear for me.....
The true patriotic Americans are the ones that support Trump..
Those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries...... Those are your Clinton supporters...
It's all perfectly clear now...
Michale
Your belief that I am uninformed and have no right to criticize either of the mainstream candidates because, like three quarters of the country I didn't watch the debate is pretty pathetic though.
I know, right??
Michale
Balthasar,
I notice you STILL haven't conceded you were wrong about the Charlotte shooting..
I guess we can lay the BS accusation that *I* never concede that I am wrong to rest...
As usual, ya'all accuse ME of what ya'all are guilty of..
's OK.. It's a bear I must cross... :D
Michale
POLL: JUST 36% THINK HILLRY IS HEALTHY
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1fa5d876cd9e4d899b277574f84b9d96/ap-poll-voters-more-confident-trumps-health-office
Ya'all love polls, right??? :D
Michale
After debate, Trump visits with the Hispanics who seem to like him most
If Donald Trump got the sort of reception from all Hispanics as he did Tuesday in Miami, he might have the election in the bag.
Trump’s brief visit to Little Havana, billed as a town hall-style meeting with Latinos, turned into a lovefest in which no one asked a single question. Instead, one by one, five fervent supporters lavished Trump with praise the day after Hillary Clinton seemed to get under his skin at their first presidential debate. Preliminary Nielsen estimates Tuesday suggested 81.4 million people tuned in, making it the most watched presidential debate ever.
“Good job last night!” a woman in the audience hollered.
“We did very well,” Trump said of his debate performance, citing unscientific snap polls he said showed him having defeated Clinton. “It was an interesting evening, certainly, and big league. Definitely big league.”
His Miami fans assured him many more Hispanics share their admiration for him — even though polls show the Republican struggling mightily with the key electoral demographic.
“Mr. Soon-to-be-President!” attorney Roberto Gonzalez told Trump several times.
“Mr. President!” said Alberto Delgado, doing Gonzalez one better.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article104484896.html#storylink=cpy
LEGAL hispanics LOVE Trump... :D
Like I said, it's only the criminals and those who aid and abet criminals who don't like Trump...
And I can live with that.. :D
Michale
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Fla. - Deputies found graffiti in Hillsborough County at two different locations.
One wall was hit along Gornto Lake Road in Brandon, with the phrase "kill white people" spray painted. Other tags read "black lives matter" and "BLM."
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-east-hillsborough/brandon/graffiti-on-busy-road-says-kill-white-people
THAT is what the Democrat Party stands for these days..... :^/
Michale
[132] Michale,
It just occurred to me on the way home..
With your complete and utter disdain for honorable service to one's country, it made things perfectly clear for me.....
The true patriotic Americans are the ones that support Trump..
Those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries...... Those are your Clinton supporters...
It's all perfectly clear now...
Oh, dear.... Who's "pissy" now? Thanks for thinking of me, but I see you've decided that Trump supporters are somehow "true patriotic Americans"? You got yourself all worked up and came up with an "international globalist/no borders" theory... just for little old ME?
Well... I am flattered as hell, I tell you. It's like I always say:
What has been made clear by current events and financial upheavals since 2008 is that the global economy has become truly that -- global.
The near meltdown we experienced a few years ago made it clear that our economic health depended on dependence on each other to do the right thing.
We are now closer to having an economic community in the best sense of the term -- we work with each other for the benefit of all.
I think we've all become aware of the fact that our cultures and economics are intertwined. It's a complex mosaic that cannot be approached with a simple formula for the correct pattern to emerge. In many ways, we are in unchartered waters.
The good news, in one respect, is that what is done affects us all. There won't be any winners or losers as this is not a competition. It's a time for working together for the best of all involved. Never before has the phrase "we're all in this together" had more resonance or relevance.
My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear.
We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.
You can read the rest at this link.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/
And this little nugget was written in 2013 by a Trump supporter named......... oh, dear..........
Donald J. Trump
Heh
Oh, dear.... Who's "pissy" now?
Not pissy at all.. Just a calm, rational and logical assessment of the facts.
The Left Wingery's hatred of America is well documented..
And this little nugget was written in 2013 by a Trump supporter named......... oh, dear..........
Donald J. Trump
So, now you AGREE with Donald Trump??? :D
Michale
Don't worry, Kick..
In growing trend, colleges offer ball pits for students seeking emotional satefy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/in-growing-trend-colleges-offer-ball-pits-for-students-seeking-emotional-satefy.html
If you get too stressed out from always having your ass handed to you by your's truly, there is a ball pit I am sure you can find at the local Democrat Party HQ.. :D
Howz Pennsylvania doing for ya?? :D hehehehehehe
Michale
Michale wrote:
"And you think Trump COULD find one who will??
Even if Trump could, the SecDef would have to be confirmed by the Senate.."
NOT REALLY. You've never HEARD of an INTERIM, ACTING Secretary???
Don't get me wrong.. I am all for a One World Government..
We *HAVE* to create that before we can start the United Federation Of Planets... :D
But the way the Left Wingery is going about it is all wrong..
They want to subjugate countries, ignore personal liberties and national borders and consolidate all power in the hands of a few elites thru threats, violence, coercion and extortion...
That is NOT how to create a one world government..
Michale
NOT REALLY. You've never HEARD of an INTERIM, ACTING Secretary???
Ya'all can tap dance all you want..
But if you HONESTLY believe that a SINGLE person, even the President, can launch a nuclear strike, completely ON THEIR OWN, then you are a few fries short of a happy meal.. :D
Or, more accurately, you are so consumed by Party ideology, you aren't thinking straight...
Face reality, my friend..
Claiming Trump can launch a nuclear strike is the worst form of fear-mongering...
Michale
CW [115]
Thanks, and I thought it would work as a good segue too. Being the candidate of justice wouldn't just have to refer to just racial issues either, but economic and social issues as well. It would be a way to tie together the ideas of raising taxes on high earners, improving the safety net, expanding (or at least fighting against restricting) voting rights, protecting rights in general(women, minorities, LGBT, etc.), drug and prison reform, and Wall Street reform. All of that could fall under the umbrella of "justice".
protecting rights in general(women, minorities, LGBT, etc.),
Yea, protect everyone's rights except for Trump supporters... :^/
drug and prison reform,
Bill Clinton did that in 1992.. Ya'all don't like it now...
and Wall Street reform
BBWWWAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
You expect Hillary to reform Wall Street!!!???? :D
Thanx for the laugh.. :D
Michale
" and Wall Street reform
BBWWWAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
You expect Hillary to reform Wall Street!!!???? :D
Thanx for the laugh.. :D"
You're welcome. Remember, we're talking about campaign promises here, not necessarily what would actually happen.
[139] Michale,
So, now you AGREE with Donald Trump??? :D
Of course not, snowflake... It's not about ME; it's about Trump. You voiced your disdain for "those who want an international globalist cartel with no national boundaries" and labelled them all with a broad brush as Clinton supporters, and I was merely pointing out that your candidate is one of them.
Hmmmm. Based on your theory, I wonder if Trump is a Clinton voter? Doesn't really matter since HRC will kick his ass "big league" in New York anyway.
Cue the pithy remark about New Yorkers... and I'll pre-respond to that with your candidate is one of them too and such an opportunist playing the uneducated sheeple. :)
Of course not, snowflake... It's not about ME; it's about Trump.
Exactly...
I am glad we agree...
Michale
You're welcome. Remember, we're talking about campaign promises here, not necessarily what would actually happen.
So, you don't really expect Hillary to keep any of her promises??
Then why vote for her??
Ahhhh, that's right. Because she has a '-D' after her name...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Claiming Trump can launch a nuclear strike is the worst form of fear-mongering..."
I NEVER said or even once IMPLIED that Trump WOULD. But ANY President CAN. For you to claim otherwise my friend, when the FACTS are just the opposite, simply means that you are in DENIAL.
I NEVER said or even once IMPLIED that Trump WOULD.
But others did. And you did not correct them.. Ergo..... By omission you DID say it..
But ANY President CAN.
And I say they can't...
And *I* have practical experience and expertise in the area of safeguarding nuclear weapons...
You have weblinks..
In other words, I know what I know because I have been there and done that..
You THINK what you think because you read it somewhere...
The system is designed so that no SINGLE deranged individual can launch a nuclear strike..
It's that simple...
You can argue until the cows come home, but the facts are the facts..
Michale
Claiming one shouldn't vote for Trump because he might launch a nuclear strike in a fit of pique is utterly ridiculous and is the worst kind of fear mongering...
Such a completely laughable claim has absolutely NO PLACE in logical rational debate..
Which is why we see it all the time here in Weigantia... :^/
Michale
Hmmmm. Based on your theory, I wonder if Trump is a Clinton voter? Doesn't really matter since HRC will kick his ass "big league" in New York anyway.
With all respect (sincerely).....
Bragging that Hillary is going to kick Trump's ass in New York is like bragging that Trump is going to kick Hillary's ass in Texas... :D
Michale
M [149]
"Then why vote for her??
Ahhhh, that's right. Because she has a '-D' after her name..."
Come on now, don't make assumptions. I'm an independent, not a democrat. I voted for Obama, but I also voted for Bush (to my eventual chagrin), and supported Dole and Perot back in the 90s (though I wasn't old enough to vote for either). I've been largely a moderate for my whole life, and Clinton is BY FAR the most moderate (and competent) candidate in this election. No, I don't expect her to keep every campaign promise she makes, but I wouldn't expect that of any candidate, ever. I expect her to work towards many of them though, in moderation. As I see it, she won't likely push the country forward like Sanders would have tried to do or drag it down into the mud like Trump is trying to do, she'll just help the country move forward at the speed that it's willing to move, and that's what I think a president should do.
Come on now, don't make assumptions.
My sincerest apologies..
I'm an independent, not a democrat. I voted for Obama, but I also voted for Bush (to my eventual chagrin),
Sounds like me except in reverse...
I vote Democrat for my Senator and voted for Obama to my eventual chagrin. :D
I've been largely a moderate for my whole life, and Clinton is BY FAR the most moderate (and competent) candidate in this election.
I would argue the "competent" and have the facts to back it up...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"The system is designed so that no SINGLE deranged individual can launch a nuclear strike.."
AND, as you CONSTANTLY NEED to have pointed out to you Michale, there is a difference between TURNING a key to launch a nuclear strike, and having the actual sole authority to order a nuclear strike, like the President does indeed have, whose orders MUST be obeyed. THOSE are the FACTS.
like the President does indeed have, whose orders MUST be obeyed.
Nuremburg...
It is illegal to obey an illegal order...
NO SINGLE PERSON can launch a nuclear strike...
This is fact..
Claiming that one should not vote for Trump because he might, in a fit of pique, launch a nuclear strike, is NOTHING but senseless fear mongering..
This is fact....
By all means, continue to debate what the definition of 'IS' is... :D
Michale
JM,
Let me throw a bone to you and everyone else who postulated such a TOTALLY ridiculous and completely inane and impossible "What If" scenario....
If you want to claim that Trump, in a fit of pique, could *ORDER* a nuclear strike, then THAT is at least on the same planet as possible..
I think that's total bullshit as well, because that type of mentality doesn't jibe with Trump's obvious success in business...
But, at least, it has the attractiveness of actually being slightly VERY SLIGHTLY possible, however bigoted and moronic it's foundation....
But the idea that Trump, completely and unilaterally, could actually LAUNCH a strike???
Completely outside the realm of possibility and anyone who claims that it IS possible is a moron and displaying their COMPLETE and UTTER ignorance of reality...
Michale
To put it into it's proper context, it would be like me saying you shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she would have the CIA assassinate Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broderick and Gennifer Flowers...
That's how ridiculous ya'all sound....
Michale
"It is illegal to obey an illegal order..."
You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?
If anyone is trying to argue technicalities here, it's you Michale. Saying that two are required to turn the keys wouldn't be much of a deterrent against a president who is intent on launching, as the president is the one who gets to choose the second person, and simply has to find someone who either agrees with the decision or is unwilling to disobey orders. The two keys function more as a redundancy to prevent an unintended or otherwise illegitimate launch than to prevent a president from being able to unilaterally order a launch.
You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?
A Platoon Commander has the authority to order people to be killed..
If a Platoon Commander orders non-combatants to be killed, it is an illegal order..
This is exactly what I am talking about. Ya'all are COMPLETELY ignorant of the issues involved here..
But ya'all feel qualified to claim TOTALLY BS crap because ya'all read it on a web site somewhere..
Saying that two are required to turn the keys wouldn't be much of a deterrent against a president who is intent on launching, as the president is the one who gets to choose the second person, and simply has to find someone who either agrees with the decision or is unwilling to disobey orders.
And if I were talking about the two keys requirement, you would have a point...
But I am not, so you don't..
So what you are saying is that it is PERFECTLY reasonable to be afraid that, if Trump were elected POTUS, that he could unilaterally and TOTALLY on his own, launch a nuclear strike..
Is THAT what you are saying???
Really???
Michale
Bleyd,
Well, let me lay your mind at ease and your fears to rest..
Even if Trump were so inclined (which there is absolutely NO FACTUAL/RELEVANT EVIDENCE to suggest he is) he could NOT unilaterally and totally on his own, launch a nuclear strike....
So, you can rest easy my friend... Your safe....
Never in my wildest dreams would I thought I would have to reassure Weigantians that are REALLY afraid of Trump launching a nuclear strike... :^/
"Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to use this ship to travel back in time... As god is my witness, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought I would have to give such an order.."
-General George Hammond, STARGATE SG-1
:D
Michale
DON'T VOTE FOR TRUMP!!! HE MIGHT LAUNCH A NUCLEAR STRIKE!!!
:^/
Ya'all know what this means, right??
Ya'all just lost ANY moral foundation to complain about Right Wingery fear mongering....
Michale
You guys have been arguing the whole time about the law that states that the President does have authority to order a nuclear strike, so why would ordering one be an illegal order?
So, what you are saying is that if the President ordered a nuclear strike on San Francisco, it would be a "legal" order....
In other words, in your opinion, if the President does it, it's not illegal... :D
The fact that we are even HAVING this discussion indicates how far off the reservation ya'all have gone....
Michale
""Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are you to use this ship to travel back in time... As god is my witness, never in my wildest dreams would I have thought I would have to give such an order.."
-General George Hammond, STARGATE SG-1"
If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship. So I guess, even with the proscription in place, they still found a way to do that which the order was intended to prevent them from doing...
If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship.
Actually, they DID travel back in time on that EXACT ship...
But, it's Colonel Oniel we're talking about, so... :D
"He's been busted for insubordination!!"
"General, I've seen your personnel file. Please..."
-STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D
So I guess, even with the proscription in place, they still found a way to do that which the order was intended to prevent them from doing...
That's because the CAPABILITY was there...
There is no CAPABILITY factor present in the scenario we're discussion...
Michale
I mean, honestly..
Take a step back and see what ya'all are arguing, fer christ's sake!
Ya'all are arguing that people shouldn't vote for Trump because he might launch a nuclear strike...
On the reasonable/rational/logical scale, such a discussion doesn't even register!!
On the hysterical/fear-mongering scale, it buries the needle..
How far has Weigantia fallen that discussing Trump launching a nuclear strike is what passes for reasonable and rational discourse...
This is DEFINITELY not the Weigantia of a decade ago, that much is certain...
Michale
If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship.
As an aside, it's nice ta see another SG-1 fan.. LOVED Continuum... :D
Michale
If I'm not mistaken, they eventually ended up traveling back in time anyway, though not with that particular ship.
As an aside, it's nice ta see another SG-1 fan.. LOVED Continuum... :D
Michale
I preferred the Ark of Truth a little more, but both were good.
And it's not that we particular think he would use them, but that most of us here believe him to be so erratic and prone to being goaded that he MIGHT use them. The potential damage to the world is too much of a risk for most of us here to even take that bet. Heck, even an aborted attempt, as you claim is the only real possibility, would be an invitation for any nuclear capable adversaries to launch a preemptive strike out of fear that the next instance would not be aborted. It would also give a new justification for near-nuclear states to press forward with development despite international agreements. It would irreparably damage our standing with the world by throwing our reputation of being responsible with nuclear weapons into question. So yes, no matter how things might play out, even the small chance that Trump would use (or attempt to use) nuclear weapons is enough to disqualify him in the minds of most here, and justifiably so IMO.
Or, to put it in terms that Trumpists might understand:
If we took a few poisoned skittles to represent the chances of Trump irresponsibly attempting a nuclear launch, and mixed them in a bowl of skittles, would you be willing to eat skittles from that bowl?
I preferred the Ark of Truth a little more, but both were good.
Ark Of Truth was good in the sense that it completed the story arc...
I am always partial to TimeTrave/AlternateReality episodes...
Loved STARGATE ATLANTIS/ The Last Man :D
And it's not that we particular think he would use them, but that most of us here believe him to be so erratic and prone to being goaded that he MIGHT use them.
And yet, he has been a successful businessman for how many decades??
Ya'all are basing that assessment TOTALLY on his rhetoric and completely ignoring his actions..
If we took a few poisoned skittles to represent the chances of Trump irresponsibly attempting a nuclear launch, and mixed them in a bowl of skittles, would you be willing to eat skittles from that bowl?
Of course not...
But there is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to even THINK that ANY of the skittles are poisoned...
Michale
Bleyd,
So, would you agree with Hillary that, if Trump is elected, you would support him as President??
Michale
Ever see Christoper Walken's DEAD ZONE?? :D
Michale
Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that. If you mean support the things he decides to do while in power, then probably not, unless he suddenly displays a shocking change in policy upon being elected. I can say that I would harbor some anxiety for the future of the nation, and might seriously contemplate leaving if things appear to be going as I fear they would.
As for his rhetoric vs his actions, he doesn't have any political actions to base an opinion upon, so his rhetoric, the things he says, are the only things we do have upon which make a judgment. Throughout the campaign, he has repeatedly responded to goading when remaining silent would have been the wiser course. He did so repeatedly during the debate. He has also flip-flopped on numerous policies, sometimes within the same speech, demonstrating erratic behavior that is deeply concerning for someone looking to be president.
Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that.
So, you would acknowledge and affirm that President Trump is a legitimate leader, even though you believe him to be unstable enough to fire off nuclear weapons because he is pissed...
Hmmmmmm
As for his rhetoric vs his actions, he doesn't have any political actions to base an opinion upon, so his rhetoric, the things he says, are the only things we do have upon which make a judgment.
OK...
Now let's look at Clinton's ACTIONS..
She supported DOMA..
She supported the Crime Bill that put "Super Predators" behind bars...
She was completely incompetent in Benghazi...
Libya is a hell-hole due to her actions..
Syria is a quagmire due to her actions...
You have a LOT of actual ACTIONS by Clinton that show beyond ANY doubt how incompetent she is..
And yet, you still support her...
So, it seems to me that, on the one hand, you have Trump's rhetoric that you don't like, but his ACTIONS prove he is a success...
On the other hand you have Clinton's actions that NO ONE could spin as "competent", yet you still support Clinton..
You see how someone who doesn't know you well might conclude that it's ALL about voting Democrat???
Michale
Define "support him". Do you mean acknowledge that he won the election? I would do that.
My point is, if Donald Trump is even a QUARTER as bad as ya'all claim him to be...
Then it's ya'all's DUTY to oppose him in every and any way possible, up to and including violence....
In the alternative, ya'all can just concede that it's all hysterical hyperbole and ya'all don't really mean it...
Yer call... :D
Michale
Michale,
Bragging that Hillary is going to kick Trump's ass in New York is like bragging that Trump is going to kick Hillary's ass in Texas... :D
Trump won't be voting in Texas, and I was wondering who Trump would be voting for since you said all the globalists are Clinton supporters.
Bringing Texas into it just makes you look desperate and stupid and willfully ignorant and like you're changing the subject, and you wouldn't want the group to see you looking like that would you? Oh, right. Of course you would...... you do it every single day..... especially that willfully ignorant thing where you throw out straw man argument after straw man argument, arguing something no one except you ever said in order to avoid the actual subject. :D
The release of nuclear weapons has a two man rule.. So Trump's temperament is not relevant to the release of nuclear weapons..
Hey, snowflake. All your BS fabricated straw man arguments about what we're actually saying notwithstanding, this discussion started because I said you were wrong about that statement you made there. We get that you guarded {your words} "nuclear ordinance," but you sound really stupid calling it that, and words do matter if you're trying to convince people about your knowledge. So you were physically at the bottom of the chain on the launch end of that two-man rule, but you somehow keep arguing that it makes you an authority on the President's role at the top of the chain. ---> "I have been there and done that, blah, blah, blah." *LOL*
While none of us here would put it past you to argue to no end that you were... in FACT... the POTUS and you had been there and done that, you should know that you look silly as hell when you keep arguing that you have been there and done that while we're discussing the role of the POTUS/CIC at the top of the chain..... way up at the top of the chain from your ass end of things on the bottom. :)
If we took a few poisoned skittles to represent the chances of Trump irresponsibly attempting a nuclear launch, and mixed them in a bowl of skittles, would you be willing to eat skittles from that bowl?
If I said I would with the exception that I would avoid the orange ones, would everyone understand that I was kidding...... or would the troll start arguing about M&Ms and how they melt in your hand before they get to your mouth because he should know because he lives in the hot state shaped like a little prick and there's no such thing as global warming?
Heh
There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.
There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.
And what happens with the SecDef doesn't approve the order??
The order is not fulfiller...
Duuh.... :D
Michale
because I said you were wrong about that statement you made there.
And, as I proved, YOU were wrong about me being wrong..
There is a 2-man rule with regards to the release of nuclear weapons.. This applies from the lowliest E-1 to the President himself..
This is what I stated...
This is what is factual..
I know because I have been there and done that.. You think because you read it somewhere..
If you haven't served, you have no grounds to comment..
It's that simple, sweethart.. :D
Michale
[174] Michale,
Ever see Christoper Walken's DEAD ZONE?? :D
You mean Stephen King's DEAD ZONE? Who hasn't?
The one where President Bartlet was going to launch nukes except Nick from the Deer Hunter stopped him.
You mean Stephen King's DEAD ZONE? Who hasn't?
No.. If I had meant ALL of the Dead Zones, I would have said Stephen King's Dead Zone..
They are ALL Stephen King's Dead Zone.. HELLO MCFLY!!
The one where President Bartlet was going to launch nukes except Nick from the Deer Hunter stopped him.
Yea.. Like I said.. Christopher Walken's Dead Zone..
If ya'all think that Trump is a Greg Stillson, then shouldn't ya'all be advocating what Johnny did??
Right???
Michale
[180] Michale,
If you haven't served, you have no grounds to comment..
It's that simple, sweethart.. :D
Well, I have served so yipee ki yay! But that rule of yours is going to complicate things for Trump's ability to comment on anything since he hasn't served his country in any way. Well, unless of course you include the multiple millions of dollars in fines he has paid for breaking various assorted laws of the United States Code and the Statutes of the States of New York and New Jersey.... including, but not limited to fines for:
Racial Housing Discrimination
Illegal Hiring Practices
Trump University
Tenant Intimidation
Hiring Undocumented Workers
Violating Casino Rules
Antitrust Violations.... I could go on.
Yea.. Like I said.. Christopher Walken's Dead Zone..
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Stephen King's The Dead Zone is the name of the movie with Christopher Walken that you were referring to, snowflake:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085407/mediaviewer/rm3295152896
*LOL* OAO YOYO
Okay, I'm making comments that are not posting. :)
Okay, I'm making comments that are not posting. :)
It happens..
Try to keep on URL per comment..
If you DO have a single URL, use tinyurl.com to replace the URL to a tiny one.
The NNL filter mostly hangs up on URLs.. Mostly...
"They mostly come out at night... Mostly"
-Newt, ALIENS
:D
Michale
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-the-shallows-1475192583
That is a MUST read for those of you who think you are experts on a subject because you read web links...
Ironic, iddn't it? :D
Michale
There is no check on the POTUS/CIC's sole authority to order a nuclear launch. The SOD can approve the order but cannot veto it. Those are the facts.
No... Those are YOUR "facts" but they are not THE facts..
The FACT is, if the SecDef refuses to confirm the nuclear launch order, the launch order is cancelled....
THIS is *THE* fact.. THIS is *THE* reality...
I am also constrained to point out that there is a MUST NOTIFY of senior leadership who, guess what???, MUST BE NOTIFIED in the case of a strategic missile launch..
You people really need to face reality...
There is simply NO POSSIBLE way that Donald Trump could launch a nuclear strike on his own.
NO.... POSSIBLE..... WAY....
Like I said.. Leave military matters to the military experts... You'll embarrass yourseves less often..
Class dismissed...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"The FACT is, if the SecDef refuses to confirm the nuclear launch order, the launch order is cancelled...."
NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.
It is not cancelled because the President can relieve the SecDef from duty, have the Assistant SecDef step into his place, and the confirm the nuclear launch order.
NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.
Cite your source...
It is not cancelled because the President can relieve the SecDef from duty, have the Assistant SecDef step into his place, and the confirm the nuclear launch order.
No he cannot.. Because the launch codes are give to the SecDef and the SecDef ONLY...
Michale
NO IT'S NOT. IT is DELAYED. NOT CANCELLED. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. THE ONLY one who can cancel it is the President who ordered it.
The launch order is CANCELLED...
If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..
Give it up... You are wrong on this issue...
Michale
Michale wrote:
"If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..
SEMANTICS
So in other words, YOU AGREE that I was CORRECT in the first place, the nuclear launch STILL goes ahead.
Michale wrote:
"Cite your source..."
I will CITE your OWN LINK that you originally posted that started this whole silly argument in the first place, because it is RIGHT IN THERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
"If the POTUS attempts to replace the SecDef and have the lackey confirm the launch order, then the POTUS begins a whole new order..
SEMANTICS
I would understand why you would think so, not having served and all..
But I can assure you that it's much more than semantics..
I will CITE your OWN LINK that you originally posted that started this whole silly argument in the first place, because it is RIGHT IN THERE.
Cite the part that says the order is not cancelled...
Michale
Presumably, by the time the POTUS got into that position, they gained the scruples not to launch a needless nuclear annihilation of another nation. That said, there's a chain of command that involves the Secretary of Defense who could refuse to relay the order (his codes —or those of the Asst. Sec. Defense in his absence— are required to launch) and then quickly call the Cabinet and Congress to report that the POTUS had gone crazy. The Cabinet can declare the President unfit in a letter to Congress.
Furthermore, there's a "must notify" part of the nuclear protocol that requires the DoD and whomever else inside the White House to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch. These leaders would include (and presumably not be limited to), Speaker of the House, President Pro Temp of the Senate, Majority/Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, the Chairperson of the various oversight committees that are tied to war (Appropriations, Defense, Intelligence, Energy). The chain of command, that requires the Secretary of Defense and others to relay such an order is robust enough to handle such a statistically-impossible scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-US-President-at-the-spur-of-the-moment-decided-to-launch-a-nuclear-missile-as-a-first-strike-attack-could-anyone-stop-him
Michale wrote:
"Cite the part that says the order is not cancelled..."
FINE
"The President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion FIRE the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, BUT CANNOT VETO IT.
In the event whereby the Secretary of Defense refuses to second the order and is removed from office, the Deputy Secretary of Defense would then assume the office of Acting Secretary of Defense in accordance with the Secretarial order of succession."
So, AGAIN, WHAT PART OF the President can FIRE the Secretary and replace him, and the Secretary has to approve the order, BUT CANNOT VETO IT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND MEANS that the ORDER IS NOT CANCELLED???
NO VETO = NO CANCEL... YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH???
So, AGAIN, WHAT PART OF the President can FIRE the Secretary and replace him, and the Secretary has to approve the order, BUT CANNOT VETO IT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND MEANS that the ORDER IS NOT CANCELLED???
The part where the SecDef is the SOLE recepient of the nuclear launch codes...
Like I said, we'll never agree on this because you simply cannot admit you are wrong...
There is absolutely NO WAY that a President can launch a nuclear strike solely and completely on his own..
NO... WAY.... POSSIBLE....
Claims that a President Trump could do it is *nothing* more than hysterical fear-mongering by ignorant people who just don't know any better...
Michale
Michale,
No he cannot.. Because the launch codes are give to the SecDef and the SecDef ONLY...
*LOL* Now you're just embarrassing yourself, snowflake. The Secretary of Defense doesn't authorize (there's no veto authority whatsoever) but merely authenticates the Gold Code from the CIC {the POTUS or the VP in his stead}; it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch. If the Secretary of Defense is unavailable, authentication can be carried out by the Deputy Secretary of Defense or even the watch officer at NMCC, usually an on-duty general or admiral. The Gold Codes are generated daily and provided by the NSA to the POTUS, the VP, TACAMO, USSC, and The Pentagon.
I can see why you like Trump because you're both an embarrassment to yourselves. :)
When asked about First Strike during the debate, Trump appeared to argue for getting rid of the nuclear stockpiles with his statement: "I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it," he said, and "I would certainly not do first strike."
Okay, that would require policy change to multiple OPLAN 8010s.
Trump then went on to add: "At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table."
Trump is an EMBARRASSMENT. Sad! #MachadoMeltdown
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-tweets-alicia-machado/502415/
Check out Trump's Twitter rants at the link or at least check out the picture of Trump and Alicia Machado circa 1997 wherein Trump shows off his man boobs.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Trump really does look like Fat Bastard. Oh, behave! *LOL*
it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch.
Uh yes it is.. That is EXACTLY what "confirmation" means, sweet cheeks...
Trump is an EMBARRASSMENT. Sad! #MachadoMeltdown
Actually, it's you that is an embarrassment for backing that hooker....
Michale
it's not his job to second-guess the decision to launch.
Uh yes it is.. That is EXACTLY what "confirmation" means...
Remember that time when Michale posted that "confirmation" means "EXACTLY" to "second-guess." Everyone points and everyone laughs.
Sorry snowflake, you're just wrong about this. Confirmation of the Gold Code by the Secretary of Defense (or the person acting in his stead) is merely required to verify identity and not to second-guess the order. The Secretary of Defense cannot legally veto the order of the POTUS/CIC.
Actually, it's you that is an embarrassment for backing that hooker....
Oh, how pathetic and ignorant of you that you have to assume that because I criticize Donald Trump {which I admit I do criticize Trump on a regular basis}, that this somehow automatically means that I am "backing" anybody else, with the exception of Hillary, which I've admitted before.
I have neither condemned or condoned Alicia Merchado. Cue the resident troll saying that since I haven't slut shamed or condemned Alicia Merchado that it somehow means I have condoned her by omission... blah, blah, blah... which is also utter BULLSHIT. :D
Sorry snowflake, you're just wrong about this.
Yea, hunny bun, you keep saying that. But you have NOTHING to back it up but what you read someplace..
I have neither condemned or condoned Alicia Merchado.
You brought her up in an effort to condemn Trump.. That's condoning, sweet cheeks... :D
Michale
Yea, hunny bun, you keep saying that. But you have NOTHING to back it up but what you read someplace..
You keep posting that about people like you have any idea what you're talking about. *LOL*
You brought her up in an effort to condemn Trump.. That's condoning, sweet cheeks... :D
I brought up the deplorables to condemn Trump also, and I can assure you that I don't condone their behavior. The GOP and their sycophants are "condoning" the rapist Julian Assange in an effort to condemn HRC, and if your theory is true, Trump/Pence and their ilk bringing up Vladimir and cheering Russia at rallies all the time in an effort to condemn Obama means they're all "backing" and "condoning" Putin and communism... so I guess NOT the "true American patriots" you keep saying they are, right asshat? :D