2016 Presidential Debate III

Garrison said:
This is supposed to be classified? From Hollywood movies and TV I thought it was common knowledge.
Click to expand...


When I was in college 25 years ago, I took a class in US defense in which we discussed the problems inherent in having 20 minutes from detection of a Soviet missile launch to a response. There's nothing classified about mutually assured destruction. It doesn't work if the enemy doesn't know about it.
 
Loss Leader said:
When I was in college 25 years ago, I took a class in US defense in which we discussed the problems inherent in having 20 minutes from detection of a Soviet missile launch to a response. There's nothing classified about mutually assured destruction. It doesn't work if the enemy doesn't know about it.
Click to expand...
Except no one apart from the yanks are naive and paranoid enough to think any other country would do it
 
cullennz said:
Yeah. But it isn't the 60s anymore.

ANYONE. Including the yanks would be going to war with the rest of the world if they first striked.
Click to expand...

Please inform Mr. Putin of that. He's saber-rattling like the good ole days of the cold war.
 
cullennz said:
Yeah. But it isn't the 60s anymore.
Click to expand...


Yes but our technology wouldn't have gotten worse since the 1960's. If it took 4 minutes from Presidential order to launch in 1963, it wouldn't take longer today. It should, if anything be shorter.

In any case, this is all public knowledge and has been for 60 years.
 
cullennz said:
He isn't that dumb.

That is the point
Click to expand...

He's playing a dangerous game though. As illustrated by the links above, if someone else had been in those situations, say someone inspired by Putin's rhetoric, the results may be different the next time.
 
When you are the most powerful country in the world other powers dick wave to try to show relevance.

To promote paranoia about it is stupid in my opinion

Are Russia going to nuke the US?

No.

Are China

Obviously no because the yanks owe them so much money
 
cullennz said:
When you are the most powerful country in the world other powers dick wave to try to show relevance.

To promote paranoia about it is stupid in my opinion

Are Russia going to nuke the US?

No.

Are China

Obviously no because the yanks owe them so much money
Click to expand...

Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Can the Russians nuke the US? Yes
Can the Chinese nuke the US? Yes

You defend against what someone can do, not what you hope they won't do.
 
cullennz said:
Mate. Trump is a freakazoid who shouldn't be trusted with a box of matches.

But to deny Clinton isn't a bit dodge is ignoring the obvious.

Clinton is just the vastly better of two evils
Click to expand...

Nah, she has just been the victim of a successful (though to their horror not successful enough) decades long smear campaign by Republicans.
 
Tony Stark said:
Nah, she has just been the victim of a successful (though to their horror not successful enough) decades long smear campaign by Republicans.
Click to expand...

She comes across as very insincere and a bit stiff and squawky (though much less so in one-to-one interviews than when speaking publicly). With a normal opponent, that would make things difficult even without the effects of the smear. And given those qualities, accusations of deceit tend to stick.
 
Tony Stark said:
Nah, she has just been the victim of a successful (though to their horror not successful enough) decades long smear campaign by Republicans.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this Tony. When I look at Hillary, I'm reminded a bit of how Amanda Knox was portrayed by her attackers. The case against her was pathetic yet so much of the world was convinced that she was a sexed up killer. We know that to be false today, but it's incredible just how many people believed it. Hell, some people believe it still.

You repeat lies long enough eventually a lot of people believe there is truth to them. It was a basic tenet of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. Just as Amanda Knox's detractors continue to suggest that Knox was somehow involved, Hillary's detractors say she is not trustworthy.

Knox was compared to Jessica Rabbit by her lawyer. Jessica said "she isn't bad, she's just drawn that way. The same is true about Hillary. Her enemies have exaggerated her flaws.

She is not the lesser of two evils. She is and has been a dedicated public servant and has done nothing that could be described as evil.
 
Stacko said:
The most bizarre part about the nasty woman interjection is that it came during an answer about the Social Security Trust Fund.
Click to expand...

At the suggestion that Trump would have to pay more taxes. Anyone taking money out of Trump's pocket would be nasty in his view.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm with you on this Tony. When I look at Hillary, I'm reminded a bit of how Amanda Knox was portrayed by her attackers. The case against her was pathetic yet so much of the world was convinced that she was a sexed up killer. We know that to be false today, but it's incredible just how many people believed it. Hell, some people believe it still.

You repeat lies long enough eventually a lot of people believe there is truth to them. It was a basic tenet of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. Just as Amanda Knox's detractors continue to suggest that Knox was somehow involved, Hillary's detractors say she is not trustworthy.

Knox was compared to Jessica Rabbit by her lawyer. Jessica said "she isn't bad, she's just drawn that way. The same is true about Hillary. Her enemies have exaggerated her flaws.

She is not the lesser of two evils. She is and has been a dedicated public servant and has done nothing that could be described as evil.
Click to expand...

Evil? No, but I would have preferred someone with less baggage. Given the current political environment, unless she has majorities in both houses, the Republican will look like they were downright buddies with Obama as compared to how they stonewall everything she tries to do. They will not try to compromise, they will double down on the obstructionism. The Republican scorched earth policy will continue.

If she had a congress she could work with, I really think she could be a great president. But the Republicans will not allow that to happen even if they have to complete the destruction of their own party in the process.
 
Spindrift said:
Evil? No, but I would have preferred someone with less baggage. Given the current political environment, unless she has majorities in both houses, the Republican will look like they were downright buddies with Obama as compared to how they stonewall everything she tries to do. They will not try to compromise, they will double down on the obstructionism. The Republican scorched earth policy will continue.

If she had a congress she could work with, I really think she could be a great president. But the Republicans will not allow that to happen even if they have to complete the destruction of their own party in the process.
Click to expand...

The Republicans would do that to any Democrat.
 
Tony Stark said:
The Republicans would do that to any Democrat.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. The Republican leadership knows they are in trouble and that they have to cooperate in order to survive. If the Democrat wasn't someone who has been a lightning rod of right wing vitriol for two decades then they could work with them. But with Hillary there is no chance whatsoever.
 
Tony Stark said:
The Republicans would do that to any Democrat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they really dislike Hillary. Trump has done the unthinkable, amazingly, by uniting democrats and republicans alike in saying "you know, she actually sounds okay." But not McConnell or Ryan.

I've been saying for years that running Hillary would be a mistake, not because she's unelectable, but because she has such a gigantic target for idiological ******** painted on her back. And now the GOP congresscritters will have their anger and frustration about Trump ruining everything, but no Trump to take it out on.

She'll be in for a rough 8 years.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Top or bottom?
Click to expand...

Usually top, but hard to tell sometimes.

trumpangryemail-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom