Question for Trump supporters

[acbytesla]

Not everyone who is very religious is prone to succumb to apocalyptic sentiments. Mainstream Catholicism as well as mainstream Protestantism has no place for obsession with the End Times. AFAIK, that applies to Ike as well as Carter. Bush the Lesser, I'm not so sure.

Jews don't promote an apocalyptic ending. Religion is such crap.

 

[Ladewig]

In my assessment, I do not believe that Trump is crazy enough to use nukes inappropriately. I think he is crazy enough to take policy positions which are politically risky, but not which put the continued existence of humanity in mortal danger. He does have a five children, by the way, including a 10 year old son, as well as five grandchildren.

Yes. One would hope a president would not select a nuclear solution to a difficult problem. I am doubtful that he has a firm grasp on impulse control (he has not displayed any up to now), but I will concede the point and say that Trump would look at the pictures of his kids on the Oval Office desk and say, "I must not harm their future, therefore I need sober reflection before I make this irreversible decision."

But I would still be worried, because Trump might say to himself, "yes, I am escalating a situation far beyond what others might think is appropriate; but I am Trump. I am quintessentially a winner. I always win. So I will win this time as well. Launching this nuke will make my children safer because I will be eliminating a threat to the US. I know that History will be kind to me because I had the fortitude to put this solution into action. Plus, no one will ***** with the US and me if they see what the very pinnacle of US firepower looks like in action."

Let's hope someone can talk him out of that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Everything we know about Trump's character and judging by his presidential campaign failfest (history and current state), it is not "extremely low probability". It is baseless assertion and handwaving away actual concern.

And btw isn't that great endorsement of Trump. Vote for him, he will be not able to nuke us all to oblivion! Possibly. Probably. Maybe. Yay!

Similar "endorsements" have been made of other conservative front-runners several times in the past. "They really can't do what they say they want to do."

That argument works the opposite for liberals.

 

[DavidJames]

Similar "endorsements" have been made of other conservative front-runners several times in the past. "They really can't do what they say they want to do."

That argument works the opposite for liberals.

Yup.

Trump says he would use nukes, apologists say he really wouldn't
HRC says she won't take away all the guns, HDS'ers say she really would.

Not sure how these people function in real life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yup.

Trump says he would use nukes, apologists say he really wouldn't
HRC says she won't take away all the guns, HDS'ers say she really would.

Not sure how these people function in real life.

Every day is opposite day for them....

 

[sunmaster14]

Yup.

Trump says he would use nukes, apologists say he really wouldn't
HRC says she won't take away all the guns, HDS'ers say she really would.

Not sure how these people function in real life.

Did I ever say that HRC would take away people's guns? I don't think that's remotely possible in the near future. She might be able to restrict gun rights a bit, and future Presidents might succeed in slicing a bit more from the salami, but it would take decades to get to the point where guns could be confiscated by the Federal government.

That being said, we are just one or two Supreme Court nominations from a court which might overturn Heller and McDonald, which would allow local jurisdictions to ban handguns.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

From what I've read, the President would need to have his order confirmed by the Secretary of Defence - a person who would be a Trump appointee. If the SecDef refuses, the President can fire him and his Deputy assumes the position. If he refuses to confirm the order Trump could repeat the process until he finds a SecDef willing to confirm the order.

Secretary of Defense is a cabinet position, and therefore anybody he nominates needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

Allow me to cite a relevant example from US history.

The US Attorney General is a member of the President's cabinet, and must be confirmed by the US Senate, but serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time.

On the evening of 20 October 1973, a Saturday, US President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused, choosing to resign instead.

Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.

Nixon then had Solicitor General Robert Bork sworn in as acting Attorney General, and ordered Bork to fire Cox. Bork did so.

All of that happened in a single evening, without any action by the Senate. Almost a month later, a federal judge ruled the firing of Cox was illegal. Under pressure from the judiciary, from congress, and from the American people, Nixon allowed Bork to appoint a new special prosecutor.

If a US President orders the use of nuclear weapons, and dismisses cabinet members until he can promote a toady willing to support that action, a federal judge might well rule the action illegal a month after the damage has been done, the House of Representatives might well impeach the President, and the Senate might well convict the President, removing him from office.

What you seem to be saying, therefore, is that the existence of safeguards that would close the barn door long after the horses have left give you a compelling reason to vote for Trump.

 

[DavidJames]

Did I ever say that HRC would take away people's guns? I don't think that's remotely possible in the near future. She might be able to restrict gun rights a bit, and future Presidents might succeed in slicing a bit more from the salami, but it would take decades to get to the point where guns could be confiscated by the Federal government.

That being said, we are just one or two Supreme Court nominations from a court which might overturn Heller and McDonald, which would allow local jurisdictions to ban handguns.

Are you taking rhetorical tips from Trump? First you say HRC wouldn't then lay out a plan where she effectively would. Donald would give you a double

 

[sunmaster14]

Allow me to cite a relevant example from US history.

The US Attorney General is a member of the President's cabinet, and must be confirmed by the US Senate, but serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time.

On the evening of 20 October 1973, a Saturday, US President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused, choosing to resign instead.

Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.

Nixon then had Solicitor General Robert Bork sworn in as acting Attorney General, and ordered Bork to fire Cox. Bork did so.

All of that happened in a single evening, without any action by the Senate. Almost a month later, a federal judge ruled the firing of Cox was illegal. Under pressure from the judiciary, from congress, and from the American people, Nixon allowed Bork to appoint a new special prosecutor.

If a US President orders the use of nuclear weapons, and dismisses cabinet members until he can promote a toady willing to support that action, a federal judge might well rule the action illegal a month after the damage has been done, the House of Representatives might well impeach the President, and the Senate might well convict the President, removing him from office.

What you seem to be saying, therefore, is that the existence of safeguards that would close the barn door long after the horses have left give you a compelling reason to vote for Trump.

Nope, there are more effective and faster-acting safeguards than impeachment or court rulings. I refer you to the 25th Amendment, Section 4. It was actually used to remove President David Palmer from office during Season 2 of 24.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If a US President orders the use of nuclear weapons, and dismisses cabinet members until he can promote a toady willing to support that action,

while the fact that he's willing to launch nuclear weapons becomes increasingly public

...a federal judge might well rule the action illegal a month after the damage has been done,

like worldwide rage against the United States

the House of Representatives might well impeach the President, and the Senate might well convict the President, removing him from office.

and it would be well deserved after he or she becoming the laughing stock of the world

What you seem to be saying, therefore, is that the existence of safeguards that would close the barn door long after the horses have left give you a compelling reason to vote for Trump.

You build peculiar barns.

I'm sure that tons of safeguards exist and most of them are not public because of obvious reasons.

A "cheget-happy Trump" is just another strawman that hating democrats and bleeding republicans keep trying to parade here without even trying to conceal its boogeymany nature.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Nope, there are more effective and faster-acting safeguards than impeachment or court rulings. I refer you to the 25th Amendment, Section 4. It was actually used to remove President David Palmer from office during Season 2 of 24.

Had you read the text of that section and the background information provided within that Wikipedia article, you would have known section 4 of the 25th amendment applies only when a president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". That section would not prevent a President Trump from firing a principled cabinet member and replacing him/her with an acting secretary who would comply with his orders.

In particular, the twenty-fifth amendment, which became law in 1967, did not prevent the Saturday Night Massacre of 1973.

I'm sure that tons of safeguards exist and most of them are not public because of obvious reasons.

What we do know is that neither of the two safeguards mentioned by sunmaster14 (the requirement for Senate confirmation of cabinet members and the twenty-fifth amendment) would prevent a President Trump from installing an acting Secretary of Defense who would go along with any impulsive mistake Trump might insist upon making.

Although I seldom bother to correct sunmaster14's mistakes, I was amused by his apparent ignorance of the fact that the scenario whose possibility he was denying had already happened. I'd like to say I had no idea he would compound his error by citing an irrelevant amendment to the US Constitution, but I can't say I was entirely surprised by that either.

A "cheget-happy Trump" is just another strawman that hating democrats and bleeding republicans keep trying to parade here without even trying to conceal its boogeymany nature.

You may not be aware that Trump's ignorance of nuclear policy, apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons, and enthusiasm for proliferation of nuclear weapons are uncommon among US presidential candidates who have won the nomination of a major political party.

It's a legitimate issue in this election.

 

[logger]

I like his idea of lowering corporate taxes.

Isn't this nuclear snafu all hearsay?

He was against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake. His policies on making war are going to be far more cautious than the current admin and certainly Killery.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You may not be aware that Trump's ignorance of nuclear policy, apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons, and enthusiasm for proliferation of nuclear weapons are uncommon among US presidential candidates who have won the nomination of a major political party.

It's a legitimate issue in this election.

Disregard of nuclear policies, the big mouth of Trump extending to nuclear topics, and nuclear proliferation -not sure I'm much against- are legitimate concerns.

But depicting Trump as "cheget-happy" is just campaign manipulation. There are certainly tons of legislation and regulation covering all the process that ends in that cheget, and only the tip of the iceberg is publicly known. Safeguards are expected to be everywhere in the process. And the topic is a double-edged sword, as Clinton may be also portrayed under unfavourable light with any excuse.

Don't expect sunmaster14 not to vote for Trump. Who is he going to vote? Clinton? Jonhson, a vote for Clinton? This election is pretty simple: people will vote for the candidate that disturbs them the less, and for conservative leaning people Trump is it. A lot of people is talking of Johnson -up to 10% of the electorate- just because they don't want to be pegged as Trump supporters -and some, as Clinton supporters-. But in the end at least a half of them will consider a vote for Johnson or Stein to be a waisted vote, and they'll vote for the less annoying in their mind, for most of them, the orange clown with the cotton candy hair.

Clinton is gonna win because of the peculiar mix of battle states, not because of a landslide.

And when both main candidates are under par, I don't understand why anyone has to justify their vote intention in such rational detail. My darwiness! What do you chose? fish or chicken? there's no caviare in the menu.

 

[acbytesla]

Clinton is gonna win because of the peculiar mix of battle states, not because of a landslide.

And when both main candidates are under par, I don't understand why anyone has to justify their vote intention in such rational detail. My darwiness! What do you chose? fish or chicken? there's no caviare in the menu.

I can't remember a Presidential election when both candidates weren't considered by a great many voters as "under par".

As someone with lots of very liberal friends, I've always found it amusing how people despise the Republican party and all that it stands for end up voting for the Green Party. Every damn one would have taken AL Gore over George W. But still they had to vote for Nader.

The results of that election make them and me sick. So when I see liberals thinking about doing that again I get queasy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like his idea of lowering corporate taxes.

Isn't this nuclear snafu all hearsay?

He was against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake. His policies on making war are going to be far more cautious than the current admin and certainly Killery.

1. Finally a legitimate policy position. I don't agree with hit, but it is legitimate.

2. It's only as snafu as Trump's lies. The guy says lots of nonsense, so we don't know if he would use nuclear weapons. He is thin skinned and as expressed that he wished he had the power to use violence against those that insult or criticise him.

3. He wasn't a vocal opponent of the war until a couple of years after it had started.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I can't remember a Presidential election when both candidates weren't considered by a great many voters as "under par".

As someone with lots of very liberal friends, I've always found it amusing how people despise the Republican party and all that it stands for end up voting for the Green Party. Every damn one would have taken AL Gore over George W. But still they had to vote for Nader.

The results of that election make them and me sick. So when I see liberals thinking about doing that again I get queasy.

Let's be fair to Ralph: if gore had been less of a Nilla Wafer candidate the middle leaning democrats would have seen him as preferable to bush in greater numbers. Nader only attracted the percentage of greens he did because gore was as exciting as a new two-pack of white paper towels. After Clinton he was like a weak opening act trying to get an audience back after the headline rock star played two sets.

Sorry, I just really hate for gore and the DNC to be given a slip on that one by throwing Ralph under the bus. Gore was a fine Vice President. He was a terrible candidate for the big chair.

 

[Ladewig]

1. Finally a legitimate policy position. I don't agree with hit, but it is legitimate.

2. It's only as snafu as Trump's lies. The guy says lots of nonsense, so we don't know if he would use nuclear weapons. He is thin skinned and as expressed that he wished he had the power to use violence against those that insult or criticise him.

But, on the other hand, he also thinks that publicly signaling a range of options prevents opponents from knowing what you want to do and what you are capable of doing. He sees this approach as a very useful way to enter into negotiations and to deal with hostiles. His adherence to this philosophy is why he claimed that the press cannot figure out what he is really doing - it because he is bamboozling them.

 

[Babbylonian]

But, on the other hand, he also thinks that publicly signaling a range of options prevents opponents from knowing what you want to do and what you are capable of doing. He sees this approach as a very useful way to enter into negotiations and to deal with hostiles. His adherence to this philosophy is why he claimed that the press cannot figure out what he is really doing - it because he is bamboozling them.

It's not crazy to think that making opponents think you're crazy can make them more cautious in how they deal with you. Unfortunately, in the modern world it means your allies and constituents will also think you're crazy. If you then try to correct that perception among your allies and constituents, you'll just end up looking stupid to everyone.

Thus, crazy or stupid, I'll pass on supporting Trump.

 

[sunmaster14]

Had you read the text of that section and the background information provided within that Wikipedia article, you would have known section 4 of the 25th amendment applies only when a president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office".

Well, I had read it, and I did know that. I also know that such words are as meaningless as the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the part of the Constitution governing impeachment. Impeachment is a political act, and is therefore subjective. So is invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. All that matters in the end is what the guys with guns, i.e. the Secret Service, in the most immediate case, will do. I believe they will follow the vote by the Cabinet and the Vice President. Even if such an action were reviewed by the Supreme Court (which would take days or weeks as you've indicated), the Supreme Court would probably defer to the judgment of the Cabinet. Being willing to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately is a rather strong indication of being so mentally unbalanced as to be "unable to discharge the power and duties ..." of the Presidency.

That section would not prevent a President Trump from firing a principled cabinet member and replacing him/her with an acting secretary who would comply with his orders.

Look, there would be a power struggle. Other Cabinet members would push back and warn the President that he was acting in such a way that he could be removed from office. Ultimately, the guys with guns will have to make a decision. I have confidence that a crazy President would be restrained. The federal bureaucracy, of which the guys with guns are a part, is very entrenched and very stable. Actually, I think a President Trump will find that federal bureaucracy extremely frustrating because he'll realize the President doesn't have quite as much power as most people think.

In particular, the twenty-fifth amendment, which became law in 1967, did not prevent the Saturday Night Massacre of 1973.

You know, the Saturday Night Massacre isn't called a "massacre" because a nuclear weapon was dropped which killed hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, nobody was killed. It was hardly an earth-shattering crisis. It was also, ultimately, an ineffective and counterproductive exercise of Presidential power.

What we do know is that neither of the two safeguards mentioned by sunmaster14 (the requirement for Senate confirmation of cabinet members and the twenty-fifth amendment) would prevent a President Trump from installing an acting Secretary of Defense who would go along with any impulsive mistake Trump might insist upon making.

We don't know that. In fact, I strongly disagree with this claim.

Although I seldom bother to correct sunmaster14's mistakes, I was amused by his apparent ignorance of the fact that the scenario whose possibility he was denying had already happened. I'd like to say I had no idea he would compound his error by citing an irrelevant amendment to the US Constitution, but I can't say I was entirely surprised by that either.

I like the gratuitous swipe at me. It doesn't really fit in with the spirit of this thread, but I guess it's kind of par for the course for liberals here.

You may not be aware that Trump's ignorance of nuclear policy, apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons, and enthusiasm for proliferation of nuclear weapons are uncommon among US presidential candidates who have won the nomination of a major political party.

It's a legitimate issue in this election.

It's a legitimate issue for some people. It's not for me, and I gave my reasons. It is certainly reasonable for you to be concerned, and I don't doubt your sincerity. It simply isn't a risk that rises to the level of materiality for me. And it's not like I don't care about the future of humanity.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I can't remember a Presidential election when both candidates weren't considered by a great many voters as "under par".

As someone with lots of very liberal friends, I've always found it amusing how people despise the Republican party and all that it stands for end up voting for the Green Party. Every damn one would have taken AL Gore over George W. But still they had to vote for Nader.

The results of that election make them and me sick. So when I see liberals thinking about doing that again I get queasy.

Maybe your party should run liberal enough candidates to earn their votes.