Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To add to the last post, if anyone is interested in the DNC emails leaked by Wikileaks.

Wikileaks hits DNC ahead of convention, competes with Kaine VP nomination

No lookin' good...

Michael

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1435

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man, did this backfire on CNN

That was funny.  I loved watching the media turn and run off... all that was missing was a "No Comment" from the reporter.

On a similar theme.... I just saw the Dinesh D'Souza movie, "Hillary's America" - it was a very hard hitting indictment of the Democrat Party, and Hillary.  The focus on the democrats and slavery, democrats and segregation, democrats and the horrors of the major big city ghettos... devastating.  It was fascinating to watch as they locked up D'Souza - put him in prison - just after his movie on Obama.  Given an unprecedented sentence for making a campaign contribution to the campaign of a friend, a contribution that was larger than was allowed.  An American political prisoner.  The cameras show him court being sentenced, then show him in the lock up, then it goes on to talk about gangs and stealing and the democratic part as the largest most powerful of gangs.  Given Dinesh's background it is from more of conservative than libertarian perspective, not deeply intellectual, and too much flag-waving for me, but I'd recommend it, especially to anyone not familiar with the history of progressivism.  Cast of characters includes Jackson, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Margret Sanger, FDR, LBJ, Saul Alinsky, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

the unassailable superstate we face after that.

 

You over rate my participation. I am for something other than the perceived hard choices. 

Any win or loss will have a subtle affect on life here although Ive got no problem imagining a government dr holding sway over treatment in health choices. Agita stems from these kinds of conversations.

There is no all or nothing in this realm. There is standing up for and taking action in pursuit of ones personally meaninngful objective and emotional needs and wants. Im virtually convinced casting a vote is a minimal action one can take to achieve that outcome. 

Ive made more moral personally impactful decisions in the last 2 yrs than ever in 62 yrs. Outside of these exchanges I actually live ok with those Ive taken. Its the relative freedom Im ok with and how its affected me day to day. This is funnier to me than you, because Ive freed myself of lingering life long unhealthy behavior, ridding myself of some unsavory relatives. Thats given me more personal satisfaction than I could hope to get from concerns for who will be president! ) The yin to that yang is I'll make many more choices attaining personal peace of sorts, I hope, in striving towards that. 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have a question. How do people who don't like Trump reconcile their fear that he has the competence to get all kinds of bad things done with Congress (and others) to become a dictator, etc., but the certainty that he is not competent enough with Congress (and others) to get good things done? Doesn't that create any cognitive dissonance at all on how these people define competence?

:)

Michael

I'll chew on it Michael, to the extent it bothers me. But for now, if he becomes president he wont be a dictator nor achieve every proposal hes made.

Im not sold on the perception hes got among voters that hes a master negotiator. Especially upon hearing from bankers who negotiated terms on his behalf. I may be slow to realize marvelous contrarian opinions expressing differences on that. As CEO of an enterprise and the money and power necessary to revoke building alterations he possesses just what it takes in that realm but even that assumes the condition of the underlying economy. He may get the power the pen provides but 2/3 of highly technical means to the ends of ACA and tax reform (something every candidate was for) put a damper on the success he envisions. He'll push walls and boundaries. Those are good attributes in a CINC that are in abundance where he will go to live. Im sure it is not enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a new question:  If Donald Trump is elected he gets the nuclear launch codes.  Is anyone uncomfortable with that????

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is a new question:  If Donald Trump is elected he gets the nuclear launch codes.  Is anyone uncomfortable with that????

Not uncomfortable, I think he'll ask Newt, Pence, Giuliani, Ryan, more, "what do you think?"---Trump values other people's advice and knowledge when making decisions..

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is a new question:  If Donald Trump is elected he gets the nuclear launch codes.  Is anyone uncomfortable with that????

I am uncomfortable with anyone having that much power.

But the others with that much destructive power are not nice, so I don't want someone who is nice. And I don't want some character who is still deliberating what to do as I am turning to vapor, either.

I am comfortable with the not nice very powerful others worrying a lot about the importance of not fucking with my guy.

Thats important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Trump values other people's advice and knowledge when making decisions..

We have seen evidence of Trump ignoring advice when it comes to launching verbal attacks.  We'll have to hope that doesn't apply to military attacks. 

One problem we have right now is that Trump supporters are too often willing say what they think he really means, or what they think he would do, when the fact is that we simply don't know and are guessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

We have seen evidence of Trump ignoring advice when it comes to launching verbal attacks.  We'll have to hope that doesn't apply to military attacks. 

One problem we have right now is that Trump supporters are too often willing say what they think he really means, or what they think he would do, when the fact is that we simply don't know and are guessing.

There's plenty of evidence about Trump valuing advice and knowledge by looking at his business record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is a new question:  If Donald Trump is elected he gets the nuclear launch codes.  Is anyone uncomfortable with that????

Just what does it mean for a President to have the nuclear launch codes and when does he get them and why does he get them and who gives them to him?

Whoever gives them to him has them prior--no?

I believe someone follows him around with them. Do we fear that guy too? Does the President say give me those codes so I can start thermonuclear war because I feel like it today?

There has to be an elaborate protocol involved in the launching of nuclear weapons hinged on the country being under nuclear attack. Being in control of those codes likely means the President can decline to use them if the country is under attack. It's hard to imagine an enemy attacking this country with nuclear tipped missiles on the assumption he would decline to authorize a retaliatory strike, even President Trump. Now--Hillary? Let's worry about President Hillary. Or, this present day--Obama.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

We have seen evidence of Trump ignoring advice when it comes to launching verbal attacks.  We'll have to hope that doesn't apply to military attacks. 

One problem we have right now is that Trump supporters are too often willing say what they think he really means, or what they think he would do, when the fact is that we simply don't know and are guessing.

What are you talking about?

He did not ignore his advice to launch verbal attacks, but followed it, and it got him the nomination.

He speaks over and over in a hundred contexts of less conflict, less war making. Yet you reference hope and guessing.

Confident proclamations about his supporters and unshakable skepticism about Trump's stated positions you conveniently don't expose yourself to.

We can't KNOW for certain, so we're guessing. Tell us another one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Here is a new question:  If Donald Trump is elected he gets the nuclear launch codes.  Is anyone uncomfortable with that????

Bob,

That's an old question going back to when Trump first started winning primary polls, not a new one. I've even answered it on this very thread more than once. But here goes again.

Give me the anti-war dude (Trump) over the war-for-profit lady (Clinton) anytime--you know, the one who makes sure Russia gets all the uranium it needs by depleting America's (and she can make a buck).

In fact, I'm not all that comfortable with President Obama, a community organizer and law professor, having the nuclear launch codes. If his buttons are pushed just right, I can see him launching nukes out of sheer incompetence.

I am certainly not comfortable with Clinton having them for the same reason.

Look at the mess these folks made in the Middle East through sheer incompetence. Launching nukes is just a step away from that. 

These people are too cowardly to use nukes when attacked with nukes, but stupid enough to use them when they shouldn't. And they wouldn't know how to deter others from using nukes through strength if it were a snake and bit them.

Trump builds large-scale construction projects all the time. Think demolition. He knows what big explosions are and mean--the good, the bad and the ugly--because it's his job to know. I trust that man with mass explosion codes over amateurs anytime.

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gold Codes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This article is about authentication codes used to command a launch of nuclear weapons. For the binary codes used in telecommunications and GPS, see Gold code.

The Gold Codes are the launch codes for nuclear weapons provided to the President of the United States in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces.[1] In conjunction with the nuclear football, the Gold Codes allow the president to authorize a nuclear attack.[2] Gold Codes, as well as a separate nuclear football, are also assigned to the Vice President in case the president is incapacitated or otherwise unable to discharge the duties of office pursuant to the 25th Amendment.[3][4][5] Gold Codes are arranged in a column and printed on a plastic card, nicknamed "the biscuit".[6]

The card is similar to a credit card, and the president carries it on his person. Before it can be read, an opaque plastic covering must be snapped in two and removed.[7]

Gold Codes are generated daily and provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) to the White House, The Pentagon, United States Strategic Command, and TACAMO. For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located. The concept behind the codes is that they permit the president to positively identify him or herself as the commander-in-chief and thereby authenticate a launch order to the National Military Command Center (NMCC).[8][9]

Protocol

Should the president decide to order the launch of nuclear weapons, they would be taken aside by the "carrier" of the nuclear football and the briefcase opened.[3] Once opened, the president would decide which "Attack Options", specific orders for attacks on specific targets, to use. The Attack Options are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010, and include Major Attack Options (MAOs), Selected Attack Options (SAOs), and Limited Attack Options (LAOs). The chosen attack option and the Gold Codes would then be transmitted to the NMCC via a special, secure channel. As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons;[10] however, the two-man rule still applies. The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[7] The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.[citation needed]

Other items in the football include plans for continuity of government, and letters the president signs delegating authority to the vice president should that need to happen. The satchel also includes a secure satellite phone and is always near the president, carried by a uniformed, armed military officer of the O-4 pay grade or above (Major in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps or Lieutenant Commander in the Navy or Coast Guard). All American nuclear weapons are subject to the same protocols, including land-based Minuteman III ICBMs, nuclear weapons carried by B-52 and B-2 aircraft, and Trident missiles carried by U.S. Navy submarines.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

That's an old question going back to when Trump first started winning primary polls, not a new one. I've even answered it on this very thread more than once. But here goes again.

Give me the anti-war dude (Trump) over the war-for-profit lady (Clinton) anytime--you know, the one who makes sure Russia gets all the uranium it needs by depleting America's (and she can make a buck).

In fact, I'm not all that comfortable with President Obama, a community organizer and law professor, having the nuclear launch codes. If his buttons are pushed just right, I can see him launching nukes out of sheer incompetence.

I am certainly not comfortable with Clinton having them for the same reason.

Look at the mess these folks made in the Middle East through sheer incompetence. Launching nukes is just a step away from that. 

These people are too cowardly to use nukes when attacked with nukes, but stupid enough to use them when they shouldn't. And they wouldn't know how to deter others from using nukes through strength if it were a snake and bit them.

Trump builds large-scale construction projects all the time. Think demolition. He knows what big explosions are and mean--the good, the bad and the ugly--because it's his job to know. I trust that man with mass explosion codes over amateurs anytime.

Michael

 

I was just asking a question.  I think if President Trump looked like he was going bananas with the Nukes the word would go out to the military to belay any order to launch a first strike.  I don't think our military is quite ready to start World War III.  So I am not worried about Trump with his hands on the Nuke codes. Our military does not consist  of robotic   yes men who are only following orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was just asking a question.  I think if President Trump looked like he was going bananas with the Nukes the word would go out to the military to belay any order to launch a first strike.  I don't think our military is quite ready to start World War III.  So I am not worried about Trump with his hands on the Nuke codes. Our military does not consist  of robotic   yes men who are only following orders.

Bob,

True.

Then there's this.

Hillary Clinton has blood all over her, lots and lots of blood, and it trails back decades.

Trump has golf courses...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Trump may not even have to campaign.

Check this out (from The Gateway Pundit):

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump

This article has links to the emails themselves, but descriptions were given and some of them were sorted into categories that were compiled on Reddit by Bernie supporters and Trump supporters. A few of these categories and descriptions are below:

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
DNC making fun of black womans name.
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s office.
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
DNC is upset that their “allies” didn’t send in protestors so they sent out interns.
“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.”
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”

Who needs to campaign? Just drip out articles, videos and social media of this stuff in the DNC's own words...

Dayaamm!

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It looks like Trump may not even have to campaign.

Check this out (from The Gateway Pundit):

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump

This article has links to the emails themselves, but descriptions were given and some of them were sorted into categories that were compiled on Reddit by Bernie supporters and Trump supporters. A few of these categories and descriptions are below:

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
DNC making fun of black womans name.
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s office.
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
DNC is upset that their “allies” didn’t send in protestors so they sent out interns.
“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.”
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”

Who needs to campaign? Just drip out articles, videos and social media of this stuff in the DNC's own words...

Dayaamm!

Michael

Will the Faithful believe these leaks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Will the Faithful believe these leaks?

They'll just employ the "blank-out".

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Backlighting said:

They'll just employ the "blank-out".

Yeah, these is a lot of "blank-out" going around.  But one of the most prevalent errors I see in looking at politics is mistaken something for binary when it isn't.  There may only be a tiny fraction of the 'faithful' that believe those leaks, but there will be a decrease in enthusiasm, blank-out or not, and as a result some will stay home.  Too often people argue a point back and forth, like will former Bernie fans go to Trump or will they go to Hillary.  I'd say that some will stay home - politics isn't all binary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Will the Faithful believe these leaks?

Maybe not this guy (Robby Mook).

The Russians did it! The Russians did it! 

:) 

This doofus doesn't realize that telling people the Russians got these emails to use in a dastardly manner to help elect Trump not only sounds dumb, it also prompts people to think the Russians got all the emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, all thirty-some thousand that were deleted. And that makes her look stupid, not cunning.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

his doofus doesn't realize that telling people the Russians got these emails to use in a dastardly manner to help elect Trump not only sounds dumb, it also prompts people to think the Russians got all the emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, all thirty-some thousand that were deleted. And that makes her look stupid, not cunning.

:) 

Michael

A conclusion which you drew.   You don't know if or how many others drew that conclusion.   You probably can't read the minds of other people.   I know that I can't.  I am mind blind.  (Please forgive my passive-aggressive surliness, or don't forgive it).

If someone asked you what color as that car parked across  the street.  You would probably answer  blue or green or some such. If I were asked that question I would say blue or green or whatever  -on the side facing me-.    You appear to jump to conclusions.  I don't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now