The Next US President

[Mr. Charts]

"I'm afraid Richard that we'll just have to 'agree to disagree' on this one!"

Yes, well, Black Swan events do happen 🙂

 

[Splitlink]

Because of an infection? And Trump's personality disorder gets a pass?

No, Trump does not get a pass from me! But that does not lessen the fact that, now, it has been rubbed into the American voter that Hilary is not a well woman and she has been ill for some time. The Presidency is for the healthy, wouldn't you say?

As I said before, I am not into US politics, I have enough to think about with our lot. You nominated them--you get on with them! 😀

 

[sminicooper]

Interesting exchange between Timsk & Richard here and I take Richard's viewpoint. If I may (politely) say so Timsk, - I think you mis-understand how, when & why nuclear weapons would be used/useful but I won't elaborate - let's just agree to disagree!

I was very reassured by May's statement - just like 007's "M" we need a female PM who's got balls. Roosevelt said: "speak softly, and carry a big stick" - it was good then and it's good now.

 

[counter_violent]

No, Trump does not get a pass from me! But that does not lessen the fact that, now, it has been rubbed into the American voter that Hilary is not a well woman and she has been ill for some time. The Presidency is for the healthy, wouldn't you say?

As I said before, I am not into US politics, I have enough to think about with our lot. You nominated them--you get on with them! 😀

The anti establishment vote will carry the day for Trump. He even had our Nige flown over, to show the voters what a winner looks like!
Americans love a winner you know.🙂

 

[Splitlink]

Hi Richard,
Yes, I understand the message and the logic behind it. However, my personal view is that the sort of person or group that would attack us and thereby cause Mrs May to respond are the likes of IS who - by (my) definition - are as mad as a box of frogs and wouldn't give a toss about whether or not we retaliated. I know I'm something of a lone wolf on this topic here on T2W, but one area in which I'm in 100% agreement with Jem Corbyn is his view on nuclear weapons. Utterly pointless and an appalling waste of money, IMO.
Tim.

But they have kept the Russians and Chinese at bay for 60 years. That we,all, have too many, is another thing. At least they are kept safe. If they were dismantled God knows where it would all end up. We could, of course, rely on Donald Trump to keep us safe.

 

[Mr. Charts]

And we have a tiny army, navy and a small air force so how else could we stop Belgium from invading us without nuclear weapons? Although we'd only need a small bomb.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Cost? MOD says £25 billion
Corbynistas say £100 billion
Life of new subs, missiles , warheads maintenance running costs etc approx 40 years.
Govt expenditure 2017 is £784 billion.
So even if govt expenditure was flat (and of course it's extremely likely to rise every year) then over 40 years that's £31360 billion
Cost of nuclear deterrent according to Corbynistas £100 billion divided by £31360 billion = 0.31 % of govt spending over the lifetime of the system.
Fragments of peanuts imho.

 

[Splitlink]

And we have a tiny army, navy and a small air force so how else could we stop Belgium from invading us without nuclear weapons? Although we'd only need a small bomb.

Yes, I had forgotten that we are, all, skint, but we must keep up appearances. where's your patriotism, man!

 

[dbphoenix]

No, Trump does not get a pass from me! But that does not lessen the fact that, now, it has been rubbed into the American voter that Hilary is not a well woman and she has been ill for some time. The Presidency is for the healthy, wouldn't you say?

Actually it's been rubbed into the American voter by the right. Having an infection does not mean that one has one foot in the grave.

 

[timsk]

Interesting exchange between Timsk & Richard here and I take Richard's viewpoint. If I may (politely) say so Timsk, - I think you mis-understand how, when & why nuclear weapons would be used/useful but I won't elaborate - let's just agree to disagree!

Hi sminicooper,
Like I say, I realise I'm in a minority of one on this topic on T2W. And I hope you're right that I've just misunderstood how, when and why nuclear weapons would be used. I've followed the debate for 30+ years and, in all that time, I've never once heard a plausible explanation. That said, I'm glad to hear there is one, even if it requires cleverer folk than me to understand it!
😉

 

[Atilla]

Stats on number of nuclear war heads!

Believe it or not there is enough to blow the world up several times over and the UK account for 1.5% at last count.

That's going to make naff all difference if another nuclear power attacks us.

As before I'd try and reach a mutual agreement with US or France and join a party to reduce costs.

Probability of a dirty bomb is greater than a nuclear attack and thus a counter nuclear strike is out of the question without knowing who sanctioned it. Then would anyone consider using it to toast millions of people to get one or two?

No brainer. Dump the old school way of conducting war and think of more intelligent and time relevant response strategy. :idea:

 

[Splitlink]

Well, I don't think that I shall be around long enough to find out about the pros and cons of nuclear bombs so I am going to put myself on the side of the smart guys.:smart:

 

[sminicooper]

Hi sminicooper,
Like I say, I realise I'm in a minority of one on this topic on T2W. And I hope you're right that I've just misunderstood how, when and why nuclear weapons would be used. I've followed the debate for 30+ years and, in all that time, I've never once heard a plausible explanation. That said, I'm glad to hear there is one, even if it requires cleverer folk than me to understand it!
😉

In the end I suppose it just comes down to one's outlook on human nature. I think the nuclear debate is a bit like Brexit and traders' TA – you can make it represent whatever you like! 🙂

 

[TexasRangersFan]

Stats on number of nuclear war heads!

Believe it or not there is enough to blow the world up several times over and the UK account for 1.5% at last count.



No there is not. Let's pretend the chart is correct are there are about 30k nuclear bombs in the world. If each bomb destroys everything within a 1 mile diameter then that would basically be 30K square miles...some bombs are larger and some are smaller. But that is basically 170 x 170 square miles. There are trillions of square miles of surface area in the world. Although that does not help if you are in one of the effected areas. And that does not include Africa. Because that place is a sh*thole anyhow and does not need destroying. A nuke would probably clean the place up.

You need thousands of missiles to deter an attack on any single asset and have them distributed in different areas to ensure survival in the event of a surprise attack. Besides, some missiles may not work, some may miss their target some may get shot down in flight and some targets may need to be hit twice. Redundancy is necessary.

Nuclear weapons are the greatest weapon of peace that has ever been created.
No nation that has possessed them has ever been attacked or invaded.




Probability of a dirty bomb is greater than a nuclear attack and thus a counter nuclear strike is out of the question without knowing who sanctioned it. Then would anyone consider using it to toast millions of people to get one or two?




Yeah, it is. Because the developed nations realize that if you attack us , we attack you. The greatest threat to peace are the loose cannons like Iran and North Korea. And stateless, terrorist organizations like ISIS that want to destroy the West and establish an Islamic Caliphate. Dirty bombs are much cheaper as well. No missiles required. Get some radioactive plutonium and throw it out of a car window in NYC and there goes the stock market, banking industry and comfortable lives of millions of people. Manhattan would be a ghost town and trillions of dollars would be lost in one day.


No brainer. Dump the old school way of conducting war and think of more intelligent and time relevant response strategy.

Well, that is a rational response to civilized societies but not everyone in the world is progressive like this. It's hard to rationalize with China when they are annexing large areas of air space and water rights that have been recognized as sovereign territory of other nations for decades. And, it's hard to rationalize with nations like North Korea when their people are starving and Kim Jung Un has a thriving nuclear missile program and threatens to nuke every nation in its range. Iran has a nuke program and threatens to destroy Israel once a week. If that happens, here comes WW3. If ISIS acquired a nuke or a dirty bomb they would use it ASAP, and there is a reasonable chance that HAMAS would do the same. Putin has dreams of restoring the glory of the USSR.

If the U.S. and other Western nations did not have nukes, we would be invaded or nuked ourselves within weeks. We need nukes now, more than ever.

 

[TexasRangersFan]

Hillary Clinton's illegal activities are well know, Whitewater, her foray into corn futures, Bill and Hillary's pay for play Clinton Foundation and the sudden, expected deaths of numerous people around Bill and Hillary.

Her health problems are well known and another health catastrophe was recorded on video when she left an event for 9-11 this weekend and was not even able to stand on her own.

Now, it is suggested that she does not have the capacity to tell the truth.
---------


Diagnosis: Clinton Suffers from Reflexive Urge to Lie


We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Whenever the Clintons are accused of wrongdoing or unethical conduct, they deny it vigorously, then deflect blame or demonize whoever is asking the questions. They will not relent in this cynical, tedious exercise until or unless physical evidence emerges — or a court order is issued — to vividly and completely contradict their narrative.

We saw it with the Lewinsky scandal — Clinton accused the “vast right wing conspiracy” of ginning up the controversy. We saw it with Benghazi — when Mrs. Clinton blamed a video for causing the terrorist attack she didn’t prevent. We saw it with the private email server she used as secretary of state — when besides lying about almost every salient fact, she went as far as to point a finger at Colin Powell for giving her bum advice.

Now we see the Democratic nominee pull the same predictable stunt again in an effort to stymie questions swirling about her health. In recent weeks, she mocked those concerned with her stamina by appearing on comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show on ABC, opening a pickle jar to show her strength.

more....

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hillarys-allergy-to-transparency/

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/diagnosis-clinton-suffers-reflexive-urge-lie

 

[dbphoenix]

The stack of paperwork included a letter from a court psychologist who had ruled him a clinical sociopath and not fit for custody. It described him as "immature, self-indulgent, hostile, manipulating others to his own end, and resentful of any situation that requires him to take personal responsibility." It went on for another two pages: "Long-term relationships will tend to be superficial and unsatisfying. Suspiciousness, hostility, and a feeling that he is being mistreated can be expected. In response to increased stress, he is likely to exhibit violent outbursts of tempter and threats of punishment."

Reminds me of somebody . . .

 

[Pat494]

The stack of paperwork included a letter from a court psychologist who had ruled him a clinical sociopath and not fit for custody. It described him as "immature, self-indulgent, hostile, manipulating others to his own end, and resentful of any situation that requires him to take personal responsibility." It went on for another two pages: "Long-term relationships will tend to be superficial and unsatisfying. Suspiciousness, hostility, and a feeling that he is being mistreated can be expected. In response to increased stress, he is likely to exhibit violent outbursts of tempter and threats of punishment."

Reminds me of somebody . . .

Just another wannabe Napoleon.

Once Daish is terminally paid off in lead the world may improve again.
China should help get rid of Kim in N. Korea before that loony starts nuclear bombing folks.

 

[TexasRangersFan]

Bill Clinton had a 70th Birthday party. Hillary was not there.


I wonder if Hillary's absence is a reflection of her poor health or a bad marriage.
I honestly can't find a reasonable excuse for her not being present at her husband's birthday party.

Running for election is not valid because she could have used it to give attention to her campaign.


And it doesn't seem appropriate to be charging people $500k to attend. I wonder how much of that money will buy access to the WH if she wins?

The money does not go to non profits, it goes to enrich the Clintons and Chelsea.


These are the people that will be in the WH if Trump loses.

But it seems like we lose regardless of who wins.

I wonder if other nations have this problem or if it is specific to the U.S.

-------------------


The Clinton Foundation is throwing former President Bill Clinton a lavish 70th birthday bash in New York City on Friday, where he will also raise funds for the charity.


His wife, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton , does not plan to attend the event, a Clinton campaign source confirms to PEOPLE. The Clintons' daughter, Chelsea , who has said she will stay on the foundation's board if her mother is elected president, will attend, a spokesperson confirms to PEOPLE.


Another source close to the planning confirms to PEOPLE that the party will be held at the Rainbow Room, an iconic venue overlooking the New York skyline. Barbra Streisand and Wynton Marsalis are slated to perform, as well as Jon Bon Jovi , who also performed at a Clinton fundraiser in the Hamptons late last month.
Hillary and Bill Clinton Have a Great Time On Stage at the DNC


Attendees are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party/fundraiser, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair, Politico reports.

The fundraiser event comes as the Clintons have pledged to distance themselves from the Clinton Foundation, which has faced criticism during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The foundation told Politico that Bill Clinton has in the past had birthday parties that doubled as fundraisers for the foundation. His 60th birthday party raised $12.6 million for the Clinton Foundation.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-not-planning-attend-204820218.html

 

[Splitlink]

The stack of paperwork included a letter from a court psychologist who had ruled him a clinical sociopath and not fit for custody. It described him as "immature, self-indulgent, hostile, manipulating others to his own end, and resentful of any situation that requires him to take personal responsibility." It went on for another two pages: "Long-term relationships will tend to be superficial and unsatisfying. Suspiciousness, hostility, and a feeling that he is being mistreated can be expected. In response to increased stress, he is likely to exhibit violent outbursts of tempter and threats of punishment."

Reminds me of somebody . . .

Is it possible that that is, probably, all true but that the Republican party think that they can control him? How wrong they may be!

A classic example is that of Hitler. The Germans thought the same. Once in, though, they found out, too late, how wrong they were because he catered to the crowd and led it by the nose until, it, too, realised that it was too late.

Stalin was another one.

All these people are nut cases, but highly dangerous nut cases when in power.

 

[TexasRangersFan]

Is it possible that that is, probably, all true but that the Republican party think that they can control him? How wrong they may be!

A classic example is that of Hitler. The Germans thought the same. Once in, though, they found out, too late, how wrong they were because he catered to the crowd and led it by the nose until, it, too, realised that it was too late.

Stalin was another one.

All these people are nut cases, but highly dangerous nut cases when in power.

Trump may not be controlled by the Republican party but he can work with them and he can mature as a president.

Trump has no similarities to Stalin or Hitler.

Hitler and Stalin were two very unique individuals but very dissimilar. Hitler rose to power through persuasion and charisma. Stalin acquired power through violence and deception.