Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Murika, Aug 3, 2016.
3 times in a one hour period Trump kept asking that question during a foreign policy brief.
The only thing i noticed was the head of the interviewer. WHAT THE HELL. Who thought it was a good idea to let that cartoon character on tv?
because diplomacy and cowardice solve everything? Let's see your friend Obama released terrorists:
I am not even mentioning the bowe bergdahl swap
What a shame
That Nooman guy gets it
And I think (hope!) Trump made statements about nukes such as these because he actually does get it too... Surely everyone knows not using nukes is the whole point of having them (and not using them in fact is using them, as you don't mess with a country that has them). It's like knowing somebody has a gun in his pocket in an alleway, you wouldn't do things to provoke him, amirite? That I really hope these things were said to keep the threat real, rather than really meaning to actually use them on a whim as some reporters try to imply.
edit: I also hope this anonymous source of Scarborough has twitter to shed some light on this matter
'we hope he doesnt mean what he says!' - this kind of stuff gets said by trump apologists way too often
yes lets put our nuclear weapons in the hands of a guy who we hope doesnt mean all the shit he says
because if he really meant it, boy, would we be in trouble lol
For real, this guy should be on the Radio not on tv
To that end, I think the British nuclear system is a relevant anecdote here. The other four Security Council members, the United States, Russia, China, and France, all use Permissive Action Links in their nuclear systems: cryptographic devices that ensure that an individual rogue servicemember or a mutinous crew cannot possibly arm a nuclear weapon. The civilian powers, such as the famous Nuclear Football, are required to provide cryptographic codes to arm weapons. The British do not use such devices. As the 'Senior Service', the United Kingdom accords a vast respect and places a huge burden of trust into the officers of the Royal Navy, and Trident submarines have the physical (if not legal) power to launch nuclear weapons without the permission of civilian authorities.
Instead, each Trident submarine houses a vault containing a single sealed manila envelope. The first action of every new Prime Minister upon assuming their office is to write their Letters of Last Resort to be sealed aboard the submarines, instructing her Commanders as to their nation's last official acts, that they are to carry out, in the event that Her Majesty's Government has ceased to exist. When a Prime Minister leaves office, the envelopes are destroyed unopened. Nobody knows what any rendition of the Letters of Last Resort have ever said, although it's known that the Ministry of Defense provides the Prime Minister with a few suggestions: submitting the submarine to the command of an allied nation, should any exist; retaliating with maximum lethality; deferring the choice of action to the commander's own judgement; or perhaps most curiously, to do nothing. To be in a situation befitting a second strike means that the entire policy of deterrence has already failed. At that point, what would be the point of more death?
Perhaps the British way, possessing only the ability to retaliate, repudiating offensive acts, and forcing her leaders to consider their actions as posthumous ones, provides some well-needed perspective.
I think he means it's better to say, yeah I'd use them as needed versus, I won't use them ever.
No I hope he does mean it, because someone who's like "never gonna do it" kind of undermines the purpose of the nuclear deterrent, but that I also hope he realizes it's a bluff game to keep the threat alive. I'd say any sane person giving it thought understands this.
You're on a mind reading role today m8
Why would he ask this question - three times no less - to a foreign policy advisor in a private meeting if he was bluffing?
It doesn't make sense, which at least is consistent for the man.
Saw an interview of him with Mike Pence from a couple of weeks ago on 60 Minutes. Funny how he attached himself to someone who is simply really good at saying things to mellow Trump's nonsense. Also at saying a lot without actually saying anything. It's an art.
It's a prisoner swap and it happens all the time in war. The Afghan Taliban are NOT on the State Department terrorist list, and thus it was not illegal. In fact, the Afghan government has been in and out of peace talks with them.
Perhaps you consider every brown person who does bad things to be a terrorist, but that's not how the law works.
Let give second chances to all the possible scum, yeah so typical of a liberal
For all I know it was a funny catchphrase everytime the topic became Iran. I don't know this, nobody does.
I mean, seriously, all we have here is a phrase, not directly from him, not even directly from someone he said it to, completely out of context. We don't know if it was an official meeting or a private meeting just chatting at a golf course. I don't see how any side (pro-clinton, pro-trump, anti-clinton, anti-trump, anti-both, pro-whatever) could possibly be sure how he meant this. We won't be able to prove each other right or wong on this matter until either Trump or this foreign policy guy/lady speaks out about it.
I personally would assume any grown up (that isn't rabid anti-bomb protesting hippie) would and should know the role of nukes.
Are you really arguing wartime prisoner swaps are a liberal thing?
We could really narrow this down to only two possibilities.
Given the context of the session and trumps questions about why we can't use nukes, either:
1: The foreign-policy expert was genuinely concerned, therefore we should also be concerned.
2: He's deliberately taking it out of context to smear Trump, which would be a dereliction of his duty as a foreign-policy adviser.
Considering Trump's unpredictable bombastic behavior, his weak grasp of foreign-policy in general, and his tendency to believe every crazy ridiculous thing "because they're saying it on the Internet" I tend to believe it's the first one.
Yeah, see, that's the thing I just said. We didn't get it from who said it directly to him, but a 3rd person. Even if the foreign policy advisor meant well, with both Trump ánd wasn't concerned and thought they were just amusing situations, then there's still Scarborough who could use it to smear him. There are more than 2 options.
edit: it could've been like Reagan's radio funny for all I care
It's normal practice in all media outlets to use anonymous sources. Otherwise important informants and insiders couldn't come forward. They're all third-party.
By the way, Joe Scarbough is a Republican and a former Republican congressman.
Also there's something about journalist duties and Scarborough, because even the prin
But even neglecting the holy audi alteram partem? Here that's kind of important in journalism, you know...
edit; without it, newspapers would be glossies, even more than they already are
Oh and finally that he's Republican isn't very important.. for as far as I know even the Bush family doesn't endorse Trump
Your first post is all broken up I don't understand it.
You do agree that partisanship makes people take sides, and even at times defend the indefensible right?
The very fact that so many Republicans are turning against Trump should tell you something.
Now I'm not saying I know for a fact that Donald Trump said things in that meeting that should alarm us. But based on everything I know and what I've seen so far I would bet a very large sum of money on it.