Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Slings and Arrows]

I can't wait for November. Hateful, sexist, pointless posts like this will come back to haunt you.

No need to wait for November. I'm already haunted by this frightening image:

 

[Foolmewunz]

No need to wait for November. I'm already haunted by this frightening image:

You never had a mom or grandmother? A wife who got older and put on some pounds.

Or is this a casting call for Shallow Hal 2?

 

[Tero]

Trump to spook and harass Hillary:

Donald Trump’s Potential Guest at Debate: Gennifer Flowers
By MAGGIE HABERMAN and MEGAN TWOHEY
Mr. Trump threatened to invite Ms. Flowers, who had a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton, and she wrote in a text message that she would attend the debate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No need to wait for November. I'm already haunted by this frightening image:

You prefer the slim 68 year old women?

 

[Tero]

It's a really hard issue, 60 plus age women. Best to apply just my general rule for women I would be interested in: they must have a smile and a waist.

 

[phiwum]

No need to wait for November. I'm already haunted by this frightening image:

What a remarkably insightful and subtle political insight you display. Totally with you, we should not vote for an elderly woman who shows her age. Let's vote for the vain (yet also overweight) candidate who takes the time to spray tan.

You do realize that such childish criticisms don't really convince anyone, yes? And that, of course, no one should be convinced by your silly insults?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you honestly think the people who actually have to sign it off would let Trump use nukes or anything equally stupid?

This is an incredibly naive black and white view of how a POTUS Trump might screw up the country, the economy and god knows what else.

 

[The Atheist]

Can Hillary actually stand up for an hour and a half without collapsing? Doubtful.

There's actually a good point in there - if she did happen to have a fainting fit during any of the debates, it'd be game over.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes. It has to go through the joint chiefs of staff and the Secretary of defence.

You are 100% incorrect.

As commander in chief, the president has ultimate and unbounded authority over the use of nuclear weapons. There is no veto power, no second opinion and there’s no turning back once the nuclear option is executed. Since 1945, when president Truman dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan in order to shorten the war, no other world leader has used these ultimate weapons of mass destruction. The president has the ultimate power to employ nuclear weapons, kill mass numbers of people and destroy life as we know it.

 

[sunmaster14]

You are 100% incorrect.

Is there some reason why we should believe the author of that whatever it is (guest blog post I guess) more than we should believe cullennz? He doesn't cite any authority at all for his claim.

 

[phiwum]

Is there some reason why we should believe the author of that whatever it is (guest blog post I guess) more than we should believe cullennz? He doesn't cite any authority at all for his claim.

Good point! Let's believe a New Zealand resident on how nuclear weapons policy works in the U.S., because the other guy is just a guest blogger or something.

You could look at the WP page on the football for details. It seems to suggest that the Secretary of Defense plays some role, which surprises me. It does not seem consistent with what I recently read (NY Times, perhaps).

Certainly the point of the football is to have a counterstrike in the air in 15 minutes if needed.

 

[Dog Town]

There's actually a good point in there - if she did happen to have a fainting fit during any of the debates, it'd be game over.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> Edited for rule 12.

 

[acbytesla]

There's actually a good point in there - if she did happen to have a fainting fit during any of the debates, it'd be game over.

And if Trump has a heart attack, game over.

 

[lionking]

And if Trump has a heart attack, game over.

But it will be a manly, excellent heart attack........

 

[The_Animus]

And if Trump has a heart attack, game over.

Has Trump had a heart attack recently? Or at all?

 

[Dog Town]

And if Trump has a heart attack, game over.

"And if wishes were horses, then dreamers would ride!"

 

[lionking]

Has Trump had a heart attack recently? Or at all?

If people see fit to post lies about Hillary's health in this thread, Trump is fair game.

But how far-fetched is a heart attack. Trump is overweight, if not obese (he's coy about his weight), he's 70, he has not divulged his medical records (I think we can discount that one page bit of ******** about his "excellent" health), if he does exercise, it's minimal and clearly not working.

No I'll call it. A heart attack is very much a possibility for Trump.

 

[Dog Town]

If people see fit to post lies about Hillary's health in this thread, Trump is fair game.

But how far-fetched is a heart attack. Trump is overweight, if not obese (he's coy about his weight), he's 70, he has not divulged his medical records (I think we can discount that one page bit of ******** about his "excellent" health), if he does exercise, it's minimal and clearly not working.

No I'll call it. A heart attack is very much a possibility for Trump.

LOL! Right up there with accusing HRC of dementia, for answering 38 times I can't remember, about things she was responsible for!
Hysterical!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Is there some reason why we should believe the author of that whatever it is (guest blog post I guess) more than we should believe cullennz? He doesn't cite any authority at all for his claim.

Again, 100% incorrect.

What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no second-guessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”—imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack.

 

[sunmaster14]

Again, 100% incorrect.

That article (and the part you excerpted) does not even say what you imply it says. The wiki page does claim quite clearly that the Two-Man Rule applies all the way down the chain. At the top, you need the Secretary of Defense to authenticate the order. In theory, he is only there for authentication, but in practice, of course he would function as a check.

Interestingly, the article, perhaps unwittingly, makes a good case for Trump being a reasonable steward of our nuclear deterrent. Trump doesn't drink, has good physical and mental stamina, and has, in the past, shown a healthy respect for the destructive power of nuclear weapons. After reading that article, I actually think that it would be far more dangerous to have Hillary in charge. Absolutely the only argument against Trump is that he sometimes tosses around juvenile insults or boasts, or just plain ********s his way through an interview or a debate. Is this really an indication of a mentally unstable person? He is 70 years old, and he speaks roughly the same as he has since he was quite young. If he were mentally unstable or self-destructive, we would have seen it by now. And there is no evidence that he has changed in any way due to age or illness. With Hillary, there is ample evidence that she is no longer the woman she was 20 years ago, or even 4. And, frankly, I wasn't too crazy about her stability 20 years ago either.