1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Mar 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,524
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    I agree on the cakewalk. I disagree on the winner.

    I think you would be surprised. You vastly underestimate Trump if you think he draws only crowds of angry whites. Cruz has a very different sort of following, but it is a very loyal one. Demographics is my area. I am appalled by how many people throw them out in this fashion. The Democrats are dependent on getting 95% of the black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote. How is that going to improve for them?

    In any event, I expect the Donald to sign off after one term, so four years, not eight.

    J
     
  2. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,591
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    No kidding? After 7246 random unsupported spoutings that Hillary just can't win, I thought this time would be different.

    Okay, I lied. It's just so boring that I thought I'd try to stir up some sort of drama.

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

    Meanwhile...

    Good lord, has there ever been a politician as strong as Bill Clinton? I mean, like him, hate him, agree with him or think he's so wrong that the country would have been better off without him...his instincts and ability to work a room are just phenomenal.
     
  3. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    Although the president is technically the final authority on whether or not we use our nuclear arsenal, there is still a chain of command in place that can stop the use of our nukes in the event we get a president that has gone completely bonkers. The Secretary of Defense could refuse to relay the order (his codes are required for launch) and then quickly call the Cabinet and Congress to report that the POTUS had gone crazy. The Cabinet can declare the President unfit in a letter to Congress.

    Furthermore, there's a "must notify" part of the nuclear protocol that requires the DoD and whomever else inside the White House to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch. These leaders would include (and presumably not be limited to), Speaker of the House, President Pro Temp of the Senate, Majority/Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, the Chairperson of the various oversight committees that are tied to war (Appropriations, Defense, Intelligence, Energy). The chain of command, that requires the Secretary of Defense and others to relay such an order, is robust enough to handle such a statistically impossible scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,249
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Well... funny you ask, because Trump is polling ZERO% among blacks in OH and PA... so there is your improvement on 95%:D...which BTW is also why I keep trying to explain to you guys he has no chance to win PA.

    And you really think Trump cracks 25% among Hispanics???:dubious:... I don't think so.:nope: He's at 14% so that leaves 86% on the table for Democrats.
    Again... the fact that you are outlining all the safeguards against Trump nuking us into WWIII, just illustrates why rather than have to rely on all that, we should just not vote for the guy.
     
  5. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    I get that, and he probably won't get elected. I'm just saying that in the unlikely event he does get elected, it will be very hard for him to do all the wackadoodle things he wants to do. He'll learn that being president of a nation isn't like owning a business. I think he really believes he would have absolute authority over the military, when that couldn't be further from the reality of situation. The president is granted a lot of authority over the military, but even the president has bosses to answer to.
     
  6. Takhisis

    Takhisis Free Hong Kong

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    49,996
    Location:
    up yours!
    I've already posted about safeguards in the Republican nomination thread (mostly about the other two branches having checks and balances against the executive's excesses) but I didn't know about the nuclear deployment checks. I can always learn something new, Commodore. :hatsoff:
     
  7. Archbob

    Archbob Ancient CFC Guardian

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    11,774
    Location:
    Corporate USA
    No, see you only have to get more than 50% to actually win an election. As the proportion of Non-white voters grow, the required % of blacks and hispanics will come down. Its not looking good for the GOP in the future. In 2 decades when whites are no longer the majority, what are the republicans going to do?
     
  8. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd Rest in Peace Black Panther

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    18,249
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    Make America Great Again... Again
     
  9. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    There's a big difference between authorizing pilots to shoot down individual craft behaving in an erratic or hostile fashion, and enforcing a no-fly zone over an ally and their military bases.

    Consider, for point of comparison, the Hainan Island Incident, versus if the PRC decided to bomb the Republic of China's airforce and air defense, and ground all flights over the region. After asking the U.S. politely to join them in that effort.

    I think the willingness to discuss it at least isn't a bad sign. The Trump camp is at least willing to acknowledge a nuclear exchange is possible. It's not the people contemplating worst case scenarios that start world wars. Nobody was contemplating the worst case scenario in the lead up to Pearl Harbor, no one was contemplating it at Marco Polo Bridge, no one (except maybe Goering) was contemplating the worst case scenario in the Danzig corridor. And no one was contemplating a worst case scenario during Barbarossa. That's when we hear the familiar rhetoric. Don't worry, the Russians are a house of cards, they won't put up a real fight if we attack! 12 weeks, and it'll all be over.

    Looking for Russia to "cooperate" in shutting down their own air force, and conduct the bombing of an ally. Yeah, that's reasonable.

    No it wouldn't. The United States does not need the UNSC to impose a no-fly zone.

    I agree entirely. I'm not a Trump booster because I have any faith in the man or think he's a qualified candidate. But you've identified exactly the point: No coherent policy proposal.

    This is in contrast to a certified, definite war proposal. I give it an outside chance that Trump has a constructive foreign policy, maybe 5, maybe 10 percent. It depends on him accidentally appointing really good advisers who will shield him from numerous figures in Washington and control the flow of information to him. But with Hillary, there is a 0% chance. She is going to knowingly and deliberately appoint the people we wouldn't want getting near Trump.

    I won't be surprised if Trump starts a major war, but I can at least be disappointed. No one will in good conscience be able to say the same about Hillary's wars. People are making doom and gloom warnings about WWIII, but they'd march lockstep into WWII to keep dangerous riffraff like Rohm and Thallman out of office.
    #NeverThallman


    Given the generally flippant attitude on this board about murdering brown people, I wouldn't be rolling my eyes.

    And of course, what "the safe side" doesn't need to be stated, and best of all, doesn't need to be examined.

    That's because a 'no fly zone' is a friendly euphemism. In order to actually enforce a no fly zone, you need to actually attack a nations air facilities and air defenses. You can't have a no fly zone where they can shoot down your planes and scramble their own in minutes.
     
  10. Mouthwash

    Mouthwash Escaped Lunatic

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    9,359
    Location:
    Hiding
    What exactly is so warmongery about Hillary? I keep hearing this, but I can't really understand how people come to the conclusion.
     
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,525
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    While there might be safeguards protecting Americans against Trump, let's be assured that they're both slow and partisan. The level of damage that can be done is really high. But the level of damage that would be done by enacting the safeguards would be really, really high. A coup? A military revolt 'protecting' the US from Trump's idiocy? You don't want that precedent. Trump's candidacy run set enough of a bad precedent that we'll see this as a turning point in the quality of the process ...
     
  12. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Wait, I'm confused. Are you a Trump booster?
     
  13. Gori the Grey

    Gori the Grey The Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    6,993
    I loved Madeline Albright's point last night: we don't have to wait for a Trump presidency to cause problems abroad: the primary run alone has already done so!
     
  14. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,591
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Today's theme is: Presidential candidate invites Vladamir Putin to interfere in American election on his behalf. Clearly whatever damage was done in the primary run will be nothing compared to what he will accomplish with his general election campaign.
     
  15. Kaitzilla

    Kaitzilla Lord Croissant

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    America!
    Every 4 years when a Republican runs for President, the media suddenly discovers how racist they are and no one ever noticed before.
     
  16. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    At the very least they need NATO approval. They likely need UN approval as well, given that they would be carrying out a military operation against another UN member state. The UN charter is quite explicit on the point of needing a resolution to carry out military operations against another member state.

    Hillary's no-fly zone proposal was a bit half-baked, I'll grant you, but it's silly to assume she meant she'd impose one unilaterally, or that she'd go so far as to shoot down Russian planes. That's just adding things into what she said that simply aren't there.
     
  17. jackelgull

    jackelgull An aberration of nature

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,238
    Location:
    Within the realm of impossibility
    The US doesn't exactly "need" approval. We can just go ahead and do it. International norms and regulations only exist as far as nations are willing to follow them/ enforce them.
     
  18. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    13,066
    In the last 20 years, the US started at least 3 military operations against UN member states without UNSC approval. Current presence of US and NATO troops in Syria wasn't approved by UN, neither by Syrian government.

    That's actually very logical thing to assume, because the only military planes operating over Syria now, are either US (and allies) or Russian (and allies). Since ISIS doesn't have air forces, against whom this no-fly zone suppose to work?
     
  19. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,591
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Unless we bring back a GWBush the chances of repeating the "FU world we do what we please" approach is extremely limited. Note, Trump is certainly a possibility in that regard.
     
  20. Gucumatz

    Gucumatz JS, secretly Rod Serling

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,181
    Easily to be frank - Minority voter turnout is typically far below white voter turnout. Democrats might be increasing their already high margins with minority voters, but the bigger factor is the increase in turnout projected among minority voters - that ultimately coupled with changes in demographics over the last 10 years ensures favorable Dem maps in key swing states.

    Let me link you the 538 demographic map for reference

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

    If you move the uneducated whites to the right, it does improve the Republican demographic map - but most models expect a whole 10% of the total Hispanic population more of voters withing the Hispanic demographic, this offsets and actually reinforces the Democratic path to victory in most states. The decrease in educated whites in the Republican party also makes the math and map more favorable on a general election level for the Dems
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page