PDA

View Full Version : Trump's current momentum



pjohns
09-15-2016, 11:15 AM
Given that Hillary Clinton's post-convention bounce has subsided--and given, also, that she has had a very bad week (what with her "deplorables" comment, and some questions concerning her health)--she is now in a virtual tie with Donald Trump, as regarding the popular vote. (Actually, she holds a slight lead--46 percent to 44 percent--but within the margin of error, in the latest CBS/New York Times poll of likely voters. This includes both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, as third-party candidates; so it is actually more realistic: https://www.scribd.com/document/324094160/CBS-NYT-AM-presidential-poll-toplines-Sept-15-2016#from_embed)

More importantly, perhaps, Donald Trump is doing rather well in some important battleground states. A new CNN/ORC poll shows him ahead by three points in the major swing state of Florida: Donald Trump's national gains extend to Florida, Ohio - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/cnn-orc-poll-florida-ohio-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html)
(Note: Another poll--by a less-well-known outfit--had him ahead by four points there, about a week ago: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/JMC_FL_Sept_2016.pdf)

A Bloomberg poll shows him ahead in the swing state of Ohio by an enormous five points: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r2.771xfmKOI/v0 And this is hugely important, since Ohio is a bellweather: No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. (And no Democrat has done so since 1960.)

Even in the rather tiny state of Nevada (population-wise), Trump has taken a small lead, according to a very recent Monmouth University poll.

Of course, things may still swing the other way--there are 54 more days until the election--but the momentum is clearly in Donald Trump's favor, for the moment.

The Xl
09-15-2016, 11:16 AM
It will come down to the debates. We'll see if Clinton is healthy enough to handle the stress.

Common Sense
09-15-2016, 11:18 AM
Trump will destroy himself in the debates. The less he says, the better he'll do. I doubt he can restrain himself.

Peter1469
09-15-2016, 12:03 PM
Hillary won't be able to cover up fainting live during a debate.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 01:09 PM
It will come down to the debates. We'll see if Clinton is healthy enough to handle the stress.

I concur.

Green Arrow
09-15-2016, 01:14 PM
I don't care much either way. We are screwed no matter the outcome.

Subdermal
09-15-2016, 01:24 PM
I find it really interesting that so many leftists truly believe that Hillary is going to do well in a debate. She couldn't even win a debate against Bernie.

exploited
09-15-2016, 01:29 PM
Clinton is notoriously bad when making off-the-cuff remarks. She is also notoriously bad during the first debate, but tends to pick up stream.

If Trump can get her flustered and angry, while saying very little about his terrible and deluded political philosophy, he will win handily.

If she can stay calm and stick to the script, Trump will be destroyed.

nathanbforrest45
09-15-2016, 01:29 PM
Trump could read quotations from the Bible and the left would claim he was out of control and a bully.

valley ranch
09-15-2016, 01:30 PM
You'll come out pretty good unless Clintons wife takes the office.

She'll do fine in the debates, she can be propped up well for that, she feels good and does fine when Lying.

Donald trump will do fine too, he wins ether way, he has a great life going, if he is chosen he'll do a good job for us, if she gets the job, she'll do what she's always done, and Donald Trump will continue building hotels and draw under a million dollars wages, just enough to live like we'd like to get used to, the Clinton Foundation will have a bumper decade. Almost all will go as it has been, until the plug is pulled out of the tub.

Common Sense
09-15-2016, 01:33 PM
Trump could read quotations from the Bible and the left would claim he was out of control and a bully.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joq9zvITVhk

nic34
09-15-2016, 01:36 PM
I find it really interesting that so many leftists truly believe that Hillary is going to do well in a debate. She couldn't even win a debate against Bernie.

That's funny, Bernie is a leftist.... :pointlaugh:

Subdermal
09-15-2016, 01:38 PM
That's funny, Bernie is a leftist.... :pointlaugh:

:biglaugh:

:facepalm:

nathanbforrest45
09-15-2016, 01:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Joq9zvITVhk


I rest my case.

nathanbforrest45
09-15-2016, 01:40 PM
That's funny, Bernie is a leftist.... :pointlaugh:


OH NO, we all know that Bernie Sanders is really a Born Again Christian Free Market Capitalist

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 02:02 PM
I don't care much either way. We are screwed no matter the outcome.

I care. As I've said before I'm not a big Hillary fan but we will be much more screwed with Trump IMO. He's dangerous.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 02:03 PM
Clinton is notoriously bad when making off-the-cuff remarks. She is also notoriously bad during the first debate, but tends to pick up stream.

If Trump can get her flustered and angry, while saying very little about his terrible and deluded political philosophy, he will win handily.

If she can stay calm and stick to the script, Trump will be destroyed.

I think this is an accurate analysis. I would only add that I think the bar is lower for Trump. I can't wait.

Boris The Animal
09-15-2016, 02:05 PM
I don't care much either way. We are screwed no matter the outcome.Have a little faith there. Trump may yet surprise you ;)

nathanbforrest45
09-15-2016, 02:10 PM
I care. As I've said before I'm not a big Hillary fan but we will be much more screwed with Trump IMO. He's dangerous.


Explain the danger you feel from a President Trump? What has he said or done specifically that would cause you this fear?

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 02:23 PM
Explain the danger you feel from a President Trump? What has he said or done specifically that would cause you this fear?

Well there are numerous specific comments he has made about nukes, breaking the Geneva convention etc. etc. but its his overall level of impulsivity that I think is the real danger. He often appears to speak without thinking. The POTUS cannot do that. The world listens and the words the POTUS uses can cause market meltdowns and wars just to name a few.

nic34
09-15-2016, 02:30 PM
Explain the danger you feel from a President Trump? What has he said or done specifically that would cause you this fear?


Does he know why we don't use nukes even tho we have them?

Mac-7
09-15-2016, 02:57 PM
Does he know why we don't use nukes even tho we have them?

If using nukes is out of the question no matter what there is no reason to have them

Just cede the free world to the worst examples of humanity and be done with it

MisterVeritis
09-15-2016, 04:26 PM
Does he know why we don't use nukes even tho we have them?What answer would you give President Trump?

Beevee
09-15-2016, 04:50 PM
Hillary won't be able to cover up fainting live during a debate.

Probably right. She will be the closest to his verbal farts, so I wouldn't be surprised if she does.

texan
09-15-2016, 04:51 PM
Trump will destroy himself in the debates. The less he says, the better he'll do. I doubt he can restrain himself.

You hope because that is becoming your only hope! You have the worst professional candidate ever representing your party.

Green Arrow
09-15-2016, 04:53 PM
I care. As I've said before I'm not a big Hillary fan but we will be much more screwed with Trump IMO. He's dangerous.

Why's that?

texan
09-15-2016, 04:53 PM
BTW I love the Bu!! Hurt I am seeing from the dems. LOL! You people were everywhere including here talking about how the race was over the first week of August............Now the spin has started...............So fun to watch.

Beevee
09-15-2016, 04:57 PM
You hope because that is becoming your only hope! You have the worst professional candidate ever representing your party.

It must be your education that caused you to write that. Unless you were referring to the GOP, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you.

pjohns
09-15-2016, 06:39 PM
I care. As I've said before I'm not a big Hillary fan but we will be much more screwed with Trump IMO. He's dangerous.

I am just the opposite: Although I am really no fan of Donald Trump, I do feel that his SCOTUS picks would be more in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia; whereas Hillary Clinton's picks would probably be more in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg...

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 06:52 PM
I am just the opposite: Although I am really no fan of Donald Trump, I do feel that his SCOTUS picks would be more in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia; whereas Hillary Clinton's picks would probably be more in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg...

Thats a legit point of view. I don't agree or rather I don't see that as the primary issue. My friend DGUtley will be glad to see your response as this is his point of view and the primary distinction between the candidates. Thanks for a reasoned post as opposed to the typical eye pokes that go on here.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 06:55 PM
Why's that?

I addressed this in post 20.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 06:56 PM
if using nukes is out of the question no matter what there is no reason to have them

just cede the free world to the worst examples of humanity and be done with it

mad

MisterVeritis
09-15-2016, 08:21 PM
mad
What does mad mean to you?

Peter1469
09-15-2016, 08:31 PM
I assume mutually assured destruction.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 08:50 PM
I assume mutually assured destruction.

yep

MisterVeritis
09-15-2016, 09:46 PM
yep
And what must be true before mutually assured destruction is possible?

This is not a trick question.

ripmeister
09-15-2016, 09:48 PM
And what must be true before mutually assured destruction is possible?

This is not a trick question.

i assume you are referring to,the fact that both or all sides be armed and that sane , steady people are at the helm.

Bethere
09-16-2016, 01:31 AM
i assume you are referring to,the fact that both or all sides be armed and that sane , steady people are at the helm.

Europe was involved in a virtually constant regional/world war for 400 years. Our very independence is largely a product of one of these world conflicts between France and England.

All of a sudden all of that malthusian nationalistic slaughter stopped. Why?

The case can be made that it's the existence of the bomb.

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 08:20 AM
Well there are numerous specific comments he has made about nukes, breaking the Geneva convention etc. etc. but its his overall level of impulsivity that I think is the real danger. He often appears to speak without thinking. The POTUS cannot do that. The world listens and the words the POTUS uses can cause market meltdowns and wars just to name a few.

You mean like Hillary calling Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables"?

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 08:26 AM
i assume you are referring to,the fact that both or all sides be armed and that sane , steady people are at the helm.

You aren't awfully far away, but what I believe he is referencing in specific is the prerequisite that the opposition doesn't like the notion of dying.

nathanbforrest45
09-16-2016, 08:35 AM
Well there are numerous specific comments he has made about nukes, breaking the Geneva convention etc. etc. but its his overall level of impulsivity that I think is the real danger. He often appears to speak without thinking. The POTUS cannot do that. The world listens and the words the POTUS uses can cause market meltdowns and wars just to name a few.

Other than some vague reference to breaking the Geneva convention and or nukes (and I will lay odds what you think he said is not what he actually said) all you have is a "feeling" that he will be a threat to the United States. How many wars has he voted for in the last 20 years versus how many wars has Clinton condoned or even voted for? In my mind Hillary Rodham Clinton is a far greater threat to the peace and stability of the United States than Trump by many magnitudes. I base this on her past actions. Every progressive Democrat since Woodrow Wilson has ultimately led us into a major conflict on an international scale.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:26 AM
You mean like Hillary calling Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables"?

I've already criticized her for that but that's not even in the same ballpark as this issue.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:36 AM
You aren't awfully far away, but what I believe he is referencing in specific is the prerequisite that the opposition doesn't like the notion of dying.

Well of course. I assumed anyone who wanted to discuss MAD and new what they were talking about would know that. That's the lynchpin of MAD, self-preservation.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:45 AM
Other than some vague reference to breaking the Geneva convention and or nukes (and I will lay odds what you think he said is not what he actually said) all you have is a "feeling" that he will be a threat to the United States. How many wars has he voted for in the last 20 years versus how many wars has Clinton condoned or even voted for? In my mind Hillary Rodham Clinton is a far greater threat to the peace and stability of the United States than Trump by many magnitudes. I base this on her past actions. Every progressive Democrat since Woodrow Wilson has ultimately led us into a major conflict on an international scale.

Ok. Well the reference was to his statement about killing the family members of ISIS combatants, a clear war crime and his numerous statements of Just Nuke em that I refer to. Yes, his lack of a record only leaves one to have an impression of how he would handle things so I'm left to look at his recent statements and demeanor to make that judgement. His impulsivity and thin skin don't engender a lot of confidence in his ability to be commander in chief. That's my opinion though.

Regarding your last statement, while Clinton certainly voted for it and since expressed regret saying she was wrong, the invasion of Iraq was based on a pack of lies put forth by Vader, Rummy and the rest of the neocons, probably the biggest policy blunder in the history of our country in the opinion of many, including me.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 09:45 AM
And what must be true before mutually assured destruction is possible?

i assume you are referring to,the fact that both or all sides be armed and that sane , steady people are at the helm.
Each combatant must be armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy most or all of the opponent's cities (larger than about 100,000 population), most or all of an opponents industry and industrial capacity, transportation hubs (Ports: air, sea and land), rail stations, rail switching yards, and rolling stock. Most or all of their opponent's food creation and distribution systems, power creation and distribution systems, and, of course, political infrastructure.

Given that, other than the US and Russia who else has this capability?

Why can't we use the nuclear weapons we have? MAD is not an answer.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 09:47 AM
Europe was involved in a virtually constant regional/world war for 400 years. Our very independence is largely a product of one of these world conflicts between France and England.

All of a sudden all of that malthusian nationalistic slaughter stopped. Why?

The case can be made that it's the existence of the bomb.
Do you believe that France and England, today, threaten each other with nuclear weapons?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 09:50 AM
You aren't awfully far away, but what I believe he is referencing in specific is the prerequisite that the opposition doesn't like the notion of dying.
Assured destruction is quantitative and qualitative. Only two nations have the ability to assure the destruction of another country.

We are not likely to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Nor they against us. Out of 195 countries, that leaves 193 incapable of assuring our destruction.

So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 09:53 AM
Well of course. I assumed anyone who wanted to discuss MAD and new what they were talking about would know that. That's the lynchpin of MAD, self-preservation.
Great. We won't fight a nuclear war with Russia. What about the other 193 countries?

Not one of them can assure our destruction. So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:53 AM
And what must be true before mutually assured destruction is possible?

Each combatant must be armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy most or all of the opponent's cities (larger than about 100,000 population), most or all of an opponents industry and industrial capacity, transportation hubs (Ports: air, sea and land), rail stations, rail switching yards, and rolling stock. Most or all of their opponent's food creation and distribution systems, power creation and distribution systems, and, of course, political infrastructure.

That assumes that you can use nukes in a limited, targeted way say at North Korea for example. The problem is one does not know how Russia would react to that, hence I would hope, causing some pause in the decision to go that route.

Given that, other than the US and Russia who else has this capability?

Why can't we use the nuclear weapons we have? MAD is not an answer.

That assumes that you can use nukes in a limited, targeted way say at North Korea for example. The problem is one does not know how Russia would react to that, hence I would hope, causing some pause in the decision to go that route.

Let me ask the opposite. Why can we use nuclear weapons and not have these concerns?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:55 AM
Great. We won't fight a nuclear war with Russia. What about the other 193 countries?

Not one of them can assure our destruction. So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

Because it has the potential of opening Pandoras Box.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 09:58 AM
Ok. Well the reference was to his statement about killing the family members of ISIS combatants,
In WWII we killed the families of lawful combatants. Was that a war crime?

I, not Trump, believe it should be our national policy that anyone who harms an American citizen, anywhere in the world, for terroristic reasons, should have every member of their family hunted down and slain. No exceptions. Every one of them. But that is me, not Trump. It would essentially end terrorism against Americans. Worldwide.

Some of you prefer to continue the slaughter of dozens of Americans per year forever rather than kill a few hundred people now to end it.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:00 AM
That assumes that you can use nukes in a limited, targeted way say at North Korea for example. The problem is one does not know how Russia would react to that, hence I would hope, causing some pause in the decision to go that route.

Let me ask the opposite. Why can we use nuclear weapons and not have these concerns?
Do you believe Russia would risk termination on behalf of North Korea? Are there any other countries of the 193 that you believe Russia would willingly end itself for?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:01 AM
In WWII we killed the families of lawful combatants. Was that a war crime?

I, not Trump, believe it should be our national policy that anyone who harms an American citizen, anywhere in the world, for terroristic reasons, should have every member of their family hunted down and slain. No exceptions. Every one of them. But that is me, not Trump. It would essentially end terrorism against Americans. Worldwide.

Ok. Well, we know where you stand. I just don't think we should stoop to their level.

Some of you prefer to continue the slaughter of dozens of Americans per year forever rather than kill a few hundred people now to end it.

Ok. Well, we know where you stand. I just don't think we should stoop to their level.

Some of you prefer to continue the slaughter of dozens of Americans per year forever rather than kill a few hundred people now to end it

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:03 AM
That assumes that you can use nukes in a limited, targeted way say at North Korea for example.
Why do you believe using one, two, or a dozen nuclear weapons is an assumption? Do you believe we must use every nuclear weapon we have or use none at all? We can do whatever we want. We "target" every weapon we use.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:03 AM
Do you believe Russia would risk termination on behalf of North Korea? Are there any other countries of the 193 that you believe Russia would willingly end itself for?

Not in and of itself of course not. The real danger IMO is the misinterpretation of intent and a reaction to it. Like I said, Pandoras Box.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:04 AM
We won't fight a nuclear war with Russia. What about the other 193 countries?

Not one of them can assure our destruction. So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

Because it has the potential of opening Pandoras Box.
What do you believe is in the box?

We know it cannot be assured destruction. So what is it? Do you fear a strongly worded letter?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:06 AM
Not in and of itself of course not. The real danger IMO is the misinterpretation of intent and a reaction to it. Like I said, Pandoras Box.
How would one misinterpret the use of say, a dozen nuclear strikes on ISIS strongholds?

What do you believe is in the box?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:09 AM
Why do you believe using one, two, or a dozen nuclear weapons is an assumption? Do you believe we must use every nuclear weapon we have or use none at all? We can do whatever we want. We "target" every weapon we use.

I'm not really sure what you mean, but no I don't think we would have to use every one. Perhaps I should have ended that sentence with something like "without larger collateral consequences."

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:14 AM
We won't fight a nuclear war with Russia. What about the other 193 countries?

Not one of them can assure our destruction. So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

What do you believe is in the box?



We know it cannot be assured destruction. So what is it? Do you fear a strongly worded letter?

Misinterpretation and escalation is what I fear. You apparently think nukes can be used in a limited way. I fear that is folly. Having said all of that we haven't even discussed the moral aspects of the use of an indiscriminant nuke on the innocents.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:17 AM
I'm not really sure what you mean, but no I don't think we would have to use every one. Perhaps I should have ended that sentence with something like "without larger collateral consequences."
Okay. We can use just one weapon or a very large number of weapons.

What consequences do you foresee if we use one or a dozen nuclear weapons against an enemy?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:20 AM
In WWII we killed the families of lawful combatants. Was that a war crime?

I, not Trump, believe it should be our national policy that anyone who harms an American citizen, anywhere in the world, for terroristic reasons, should have every member of their family hunted down and slain. No exceptions. Every one of them. But that is me, not Trump. It would essentially end terrorism against Americans. Worldwide.

Some of you prefer to continue the slaughter of dozens of Americans per year forever rather than kill a few hundred people now to end it.

Ok. Well, we know where you stand. I just don't think we should stoop to their level.

You messed up the quote. You gave me credit for this but I did not say it: Ok. Well, we know where you stand. I just don't think we should stoop to their level.

If your position is that it is moral to allow an enemy to slaughter Americans forever instead of destroying their will to fight today, that is on you. In my opinion, it is evil to allow it.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:25 AM
Misinterpretation and escalation is what I fear. You apparently think nukes can be used in a limited way. I fear that is folly. Having said all of that we haven't even discussed the moral aspects of the use of an indiscriminant nuke on the innocents.
Yes. We know nuclear weapons can be used in a limited way. We used two weapons against Japan in a limited way.

So we can dismiss assured destruction as a reason why we cannot use the nuclear weapons we have. We can eliminate the distinction between a limited use and an unlimited use. And now you claim that using nuclear weapons would be indiscriminate. Is that your newest argument? Can you give an example?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:28 AM
In WWII we killed the families of lawful combatants. Was that a war crime?

I, not Trump, believe it should be our national policy that anyone who harms an American citizen, anywhere in the world, for terroristic reasons, should have every member of their family hunted down and slain. No exceptions. Every one of them. But that is me, not Trump. It would essentially end terrorism against Americans. Worldwide.

Some of you prefer to continue the slaughter of dozens of Americans per year forever rather than kill a few hundred people now to end it.

You messed up the quote. You gave me credit for this but I did not say it: Ok. Well, we know where you stand. I just don't think we should stoop to their level.

If your position is that it is moral to allow an enemy to slaughter Americans forever instead of destroying their will to fight today, that is on you. In my opinion, it is evil to allow it.

Not sure what you mean by messing up the quote. My position is not what you state. You are attributing something to me that I did not say in your next to last statement and then arguing against it. You are a dishonest debater.

Edit: I guess by messing up the quote you were referring to me accidently placing my response inside the quote. I went back and fixed it after I realized what happened.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:34 AM
Yes. We know nuclear weapons can be used in a limited way. We used two weapons against Japan in a limited way.

So we can dismiss assured destruction as a reason why we cannot use the nuclear weapons we have. We can eliminate the distinction between a limited use and an unlimited use. And now you claim that using nuclear weapons would be indiscriminate. Is that your newest argument? Can you give an example?

That was a very different time. Where did I say indiscriminate? Once again you've gone the straw man route. I shan't play that game.

Bethere
09-16-2016, 10:49 AM
Do you believe that France and England, today, threaten each other with nuclear weapons?

No, nor did I imply that. However, they huddle together under a common nuclear shield to protect themselves from a fellow European country--Russia.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:50 AM
Not sure what you mean by messing up the quote. My position is not what you state. You are attributing something to me that I did not say in your next to last statement and then arguing against it. You are a dishonest debater.

Edit: I guess by messing up the quote you were referring to me accidently placing my response inside the quote. I went back and fixed it after I realized what happened.
LOL.

Yes. You put your response inside your quote of what I said.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:53 AM
That was a very different time. Where did I say indiscriminate? Once again you've gone the straw man route. I shan't play that game.
So message 59 was not "penned" by you?

Did you intend something else?

Having said all of that we haven't even discussed the moral aspects of the use of an indiscriminant nuke on the innocents.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 10:55 AM
LOL.

Yes. You put your response inside your quote of what I said.

Guilty. Brain fade.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 10:58 AM
Your message #38:
Europe was involved in a virtually constant regional/world war for 400 years. Our very independence is largely a product of one of these world conflicts between France and England.

All of a sudden all of that malthusian nationalistic slaughter stopped. Why?

The case can be made that it's the existence of the bomb.

No, nor did I imply that. However, they huddle together under a common nuclear shield to protect themselves from a fellow European country--Russia.

France and England fought for 400 years. Now they don't. Both have nuclear weapons.

And now you raise a more likely reason. They are somewhat joined in defending themselves against a greater threat to both of them.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:02 AM
So message 59 was not "penned" by you?

Did you intend something else?

Having said all of that we haven't even discussed the moral aspects of the use of an indiscriminant nuke on the innocents.

I see where you could have interpreted what I wrote that way so I'll withdraw my straw man charge. However my use of the word indiscriminate was in reference to the innocents not the use of the weapon. You could have a targeted, discriminating use of a nuke yet the killing of innocents in the use of that nuke is indiscriminant. Your example of Japan would be an example. Doing such in the ME would even be more so because with ISIS we are not fighting a nation. To that end you've questioned me so I'll reiterate. Would you propose nuking Mossl (sp?) since it is the "capital" of ISIS' caliphate? What about all the innocents that live there?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 11:09 AM
I see where you could have interpreted what I wrote that way so I'll withdraw my straw man charge. However my use of the word indiscriminate was in reference to the innocents not the use of the weapon. You could have a targeted, discriminating use of a nuke yet the killing of innocents in the use of that nuke is indiscriminant. Your example of Japan would be an example. Doing such in the ME would even be more so because with ISIS we are not fighting a nation. To that end you've questioned me so I'll reiterate. Would you propose nuking Mossl (sp?) since it is the "capital" of ISIS' caliphate? What about all the innocents that live there?
Okay. I see where we are.

When we use a 2,000 pound bomb to destroy a building used by fighters is that indiscriminate?

ISIS. Islamic State. They claim to be a state in Iraq and Syria.

Is there any weapon we can use against our enemies that does not have the risk off harming civilians?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:18 AM
Okay. I see where we are.

When we use a 2,000 pound bomb to destroy a building used by fighters is that indiscriminate?

ISIS. Islamic State. They claim to be a state in Iraq and Syria.

Is there any weapon we can use against our enemies that does not have the risk off harming civilians?

Its a matter of scale and aftermath. Obviously conventional bombing and warfare in general has its collateral damage so to use your 2000 pound bomb example the answer is no its not indiscriminate. Ratcheting it up to the nuclear level is an entirely different thing. They are not equivalent in either their scope or the post bomb environmental impact.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:21 AM
Okay. I see where we are.

When we use a 2,000 pound bomb to destroy a building used by fighters is that indiscriminate?

ISIS. Islamic State. They claim to be a state in Iraq and Syria.

Is there any weapon we can use against our enemies that does not have the risk off harming civilians?

Regarding the ISIS "state". Sure they claim that but they are interlopers. The vast majority of people in that city are not a part of the "state" or do they want to be. They are innocents.

pjohns
09-16-2016, 11:24 AM
i assume you are referring to,the fact that both or all sides be armed and that sane , steady people are at the helm.

I really do not know what you mean by "sane" and "steady"; but I would consider the correct threshold for war (even with a major power), in 2016, to be no different than the threshold was in 1916; or even 1816...

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:27 AM
I really do not know what you mean by "sane" and "steady"; but I would consider the correct threshold for war (even with a major power), in 2016, to be no different than the threshold was in 1916; or even 1816...

I mean that you don't want a cowboy or a madman with their finger on the nuclear trigger. One need look no further than North Korea to see the danger in that. Not sure what your point is regarding threshold of war.

pjohns
09-16-2016, 11:33 AM
Because it has the potential of opening Pandoras Box.

Sadly, there has grown up in the West, post-WWII, a deep aversion to nuclear weapons.

In fact, a real phobia...

pjohns
09-16-2016, 11:38 AM
[W]e haven't even discussed the moral aspects of the use of an indiscriminant nuke on the innocents.

Why is the bombing of "innocents" with non-nuclear weapons (as, for instance, in Dresden, near the end of WWII) morally different than the bombing of innocents with nuclear weapons?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:54 AM
Sadly, there has grown up in the West, post-WWII, a deep aversion to nuclear weapons.

In fact, a real phobia...

Well I don't want to insult you but anyone who doesn't have an aversion or phobia to nuclear weapons is simply not rational.

nathanbforrest45
09-16-2016, 11:54 AM
Assured destruction is quantitative and qualitative. Only two nations have the ability to assure the destruction of another country.

We are not likely to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Nor they against us. Out of 195 countries, that leaves 193 incapable of assuring our destruction.

So why can't we use nuclear weapons?


Because it woudn't be nice

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 11:57 AM
Why is the bombing of "innocents" with non-nuclear weapons (as, for instance, in Dresden, near the end of WWII) morally different than the bombing of innocents with nuclear weapons?

That's a good point because in the legalistic sense its not. War has a certain level of the involvement of innocents which is unavoidable. As I said earlier when comparing conventional to nuclear its a matter of scale as well as the post use environmental effects. There is a huge difference IMO. If we need to strike but also want to prevent as much collateral damage as possible the use of a nuke is magnitudes more worse than conventional.

nathanbforrest45
09-16-2016, 11:59 AM
Well I don't want to insult you but anyone who doesn't have an aversion or phobia to nuclear weapons is simply not rational.


Why? Are "conventional" weapons saner than nuclear weapons? Is there some threshold of deaths that tips it over the edge into the realm of the "insane"

You seem like a learned person so I assume you are aware that the Japanese killed more people in Nanking China than both atomic bombs did in Japan. How many people died in the firebombing of Tokyo?

I do not have an aversion or a phobia of nuclear weapons, just a very healthy respect for the damage that could be done.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:18 PM
Its a matter of scale and aftermath. Obviously conventional bombing and warfare in general has its collateral damage so to use your 2000 pound bomb example the answer is no its not indiscriminate. Ratcheting it up to the nuclear level is an entirely different thing. They are not equivalent in either their scope or the post bomb environmental impact.
One ton of explosives delivered on a building is acceptable no matter how many civilians are wounded or killed. That is progress. Isn't it a military target if the military/fighters are using it to wage war from? If so, and if we strike that target with sufficient force to eliminate the fighting that occurs from it, is that an acceptable target?

What if it is a group of buildings, a compound? Some of the smallest nuclear weapons I used in targeting would be just about right for a dug in compound.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:19 PM
Regarding the ISIS "state". Sure they claim that but they are interlopers. The vast majority of people in that city are not a part of the "state" or do they want to be. They are innocents.
Are family members of ISIS fighters innocent?

I have not mentioned cities.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:21 PM
I mean that you don't want a cowboy or a madman with their finger on the nuclear trigger. One need look no further than North Korea to see the danger in that. Not sure what your point is regarding threshold of war.
North Korea has been run by communist dictators since the 1950s. And yet we still live.

Do you understand there is no nuclear trigger?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:23 PM
Well I don't want to insult you but anyone who doesn't have an aversion or phobia to nuclear weapons is simply not rational.
LOL. Why? A munition is just a munition. The 9mm round I have in my Glock will kill you just as dead as the 0.2KT warhead I drop on you from on high.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:26 PM
That's a good point because in the legalistic sense its not. War has a certain level of the involvement of innocents which is unavoidable. As I said earlier when comparing conventional to nuclear its a matter of scale as well as the post use environmental effects. There is a huge difference IMO. If we need to strike but also want to prevent as much collateral damage as possible the use of a nuke is magnitudes more worse than conventional.
Really? What is the lasting, environmental effect of an airburst over an airport? Can you compare and contrast that with 10-20 2,000 bombs?

I do not believe you can.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 01:31 PM
LOL. Why? A munition is just a munition. The 9mm round I have in my Glock will kill you just as dead as the 0.2KT warhead I drop on you from on high.

Because that warhead will take out me as well as everyone around me. Your Glock round won't.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 01:32 PM
Because that warhead will take out me as well as everyone around me. Your Glock round won't.
I can use the other rounds to kill your nearby friends.

A munition is just a munition.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 01:33 PM
Really? What is the lasting, environmental effect of an airburst over an airport? Can you compare and contrast that with 10-20 2,000 bombs?

I do not believe you can.

Think half-life and don't be so obtuse.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 01:34 PM
I can use the other rounds to kill your nearby friends.

A munition is just a munition.

But you said a single round out of your Glock. You can't win this argument so you are just being obtuse.

pjohns
09-16-2016, 02:40 PM
I mean that you don't want a cowboy or a madman with their finger on the nuclear trigger.

In 1980, many people accused Ronald Reagan of being a mere "cowboy," or a "madman." So that line of attack is rather trite, it seems to me.

Moreover, I believe strongly in the Reagan doctrine of Peace Through Strength--not the Chamberlainesque doctrine of Peace Through Appeasement...


Not sure what your point is regarding threshold of war.

My point is that I really do not think that the threshold for war going to war should be subject to change, according to the weapons available at the time...

pjohns
09-16-2016, 02:43 PM
Well I don't want to insult you but anyone who doesn't have an aversion or phobia to nuclear weapons is simply not rational.

You are certainly free to claim that I am not "rational," if you wish. I am not especially thin-skinned.

But the increase in killing power from non-nuclear bombs to nuclear bombs is surely less than, say, the increase in killing power from the crossbow to the rifle...

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 03:12 PM
Think half-life and don't be so obtuse.
Half-life of what, exactly? What happens in an airburst? What happens in a deep underground burst?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 03:20 PM
But you said a single round out of your Glock. You can't win this argument so you are just being obtuse.
I am trying to get you to think. I am not doing very well.

I have already won the arguments. You said we could not use nuclear weapons because of MAD. That was wrong. Then because of whatever makes you afraid that is inside Pandora's box. That was wrong. Then because it would be indiscriminate. That was wrong.

Now you say we cannot use nuclear weapons because they will kill more than my single round of 9mm ammunition. But you already agreed that dropping one ton of high explosives on a building to kill the fighters is acceptable.

I am trying to help you to see that nearly everything you believe about nuclear weapons is wrong.

So why can't we use the nuclear weapons we have?

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 03:21 PM
In 1980, many people accused Ronald Reagan of being a mere "cowboy," or a "madman." So that line of attack is rather trite, it seems to me.

Moreover, I believe strongly in the Reagan doctrine of Peace Through Strength--not the Chamberlainesque doctrine of Peace Through Appeasement...



My point is that I really do not think that the threshold for war going to war should be subject to change, according to the weapons available at the time...

I don't necessarily disagree with that. The primary point of the nuclear arsenal is to act as a deterent ie: it projects strength. Considering its use to be equivalent to conventional weapons is simply silly for the aforementioned reasons.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 03:25 PM
You are certainly free to claim that I am not "rational," if you wish. I am not especially thin-skinned.

But the increase in killing power from non-nuclear bombs to nuclear bombs is surely less than, say, the increase in killing power from the crossbow to the rifle...

Well I disagree. Non-nuclear bombs have a blast and its over. Nuclear have a blast, an initial wave of lethal radiation and heat followed by the lingering effects of the fallout. No comparison IMO so to talk about their use in the cavalier manner that Trump has I view as dangerous.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 03:30 PM
I am trying to get you to think. I am not doing very well.

I have already won the arguments. You said we could not use nuclear weapons because of MAD. That was wrong. Then because of whatever makes you afraid that is inside Pandora's box. That was wrong. Then because it would be indiscriminate. That was wrong.

Now you say we cannot use nuclear weapons because they will kill more than my single round of 9mm ammunition. But you already agreed that dropping one ton of high explosives on a building to kill the fighters is acceptable.

I am trying to help you to see that nearly everything you believe about nuclear weapons is wrong.

So why can't we use the nuclear weapons we have?

You don't need to be condescending. That's no substitute for an argument. I said nothing of the sort about MAD. You've mischaracterized once again. You are not an honest debater. Adios.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 03:45 PM
Well I disagree. Non-nuclear bombs have a blast and its over. Nuclear have a blast, an initial wave of lethal radiation and heat followed by the lingering effects of the fallout. No comparison IMO so to talk about their use in the cavalier manner that Trump has I view as dangerous.
Blast, thermal and radiation. For an airburst, there may be a very small spot on the ground (ground zero) where neutron induced gamma activity occurs. Beyond that, there is essentially no fallout.

Is it your opinion that conventional weapons leave behind no debris?

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 03:50 PM
You don't need to be condescending. That's no substitute for an argument. I said nothing of the sort about MAD. You've mischaracterized once again. You are not an honest debater. Adios.
I see. So there are two people with your identity on this forum?

someone else: Why can't we use nukes?
You (or someone with your identity): mad.
Me: What does mad mean to you?
You (or someone with your identity): mutually assured destruction.

I wish you did not feel a need to run away. but I understand it.

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 04:37 PM
I've already criticized her for that but that's not even in the same ballpark as this issue.

Sure it is. It is exactly as you said you do not want in a candidate: someone who says stupid stuff and shoots their mouth off.

So - if that's your standard - why do I have double vision looking at what you write?

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 04:38 PM
Well of course. I assumed anyone who wanted to discuss MAD and new what they were talking about would know that. That's the lynchpin of MAD, self-preservation.

Yes, of course.

Do Islamists have that?

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 04:39 PM
Assured destruction is quantitative and qualitative. Only two nations have the ability to assure the destruction of another country.

We are not likely to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Nor they against us. Out of 195 countries, that leaves 193 incapable of assuring our destruction.

So why can't we use nuclear weapons?

It is certainly possible that such a nuclear confrontation will ally a number of nations. I was strictly focusing on one enemy: one which doesn't at all mind the notion of dying, which handily defeats the ideology of MAD regardless.

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 04:50 PM
You don't need to be condescending. That's no substitute for an argument. I said nothing of the sort about MAD. You've mischaracterized once again. You are not an honest debater. Adios.

Funny. Bethere uses this same phrase as well. It's funny how many new posters showed up at the exact same time: posters who sound the same and act the same.

Peter1469
09-16-2016, 04:53 PM
Funny. Bethere uses this same phrase as well. It's funny how many new posters showed up at the exact same time: posters who sound the same and act the same.

You don't say....

nic34
09-16-2016, 04:54 PM
You don't need to be condescending. That's no substitute for an argument. I said nothing of the sort about MAD. You've mischaracterized once again. You are not an honest debater. Adios.

What, you don't like his penchant for declaring himself the winner and everyone else "wrong"?

yeah, funny, lol

Subdermal
09-16-2016, 04:55 PM
What, you don't like his penchant for declaring himself the winner and everyone else "wrong"?

yeah, funny, lol

With scintillating counter arguments like yours, it is fully understandable why he would.

MisterVeritis
09-16-2016, 05:37 PM
What, you don't like his penchant for declaring himself the winner and everyone else "wrong"?

yeah, funny, lol
Why do you believe he/she ran? I was very polite.

pjohns
09-16-2016, 06:29 PM
Well I disagree. Non-nuclear bombs have a blast and its over. Nuclear have a blast, an initial wave of lethal radiation and heat followed by the lingering effects of the fallout. No comparison IMO so to talk about their use in the cavalier manner that Trump has I view as dangerous.

This is an interesting site: http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm

Although it does state that a war between Russia and the US "would be the worst catastrophe in history," it also debunks the idea that it would amount to "the end of human life on earth."

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:21 PM
It is certainly possible that such a nuclear confrontation will ally a number of nations. I was strictly focusing on one enemy: one which doesn't at all mind the notion of dying, which handily defeats the ideology of MAD regardless.


You make a good point here, one that is unique about the radical Islamists and their desire to die and become martyrs. That is a very different equation where the rational desire of self preservation does not apply.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:33 PM
Funny. Bethere uses this same phrase as well. It's funny how many new posters showed up at the exact same time: posters who sound the same and act the same.

I think Bethere and I revealed our prior association on a different board when I first cam to this one. We were on a board that shut down and Bethere and I and several others ended up here. Actually it was one of the conservatives on the old board that invited me to this one. You are correct about the "dishonest debater" label. We had a poster on the old board who was notorious for straw man arguments taking something one would claim, flipping it and then arguing against it when it had nothing to do with what the other poster had said. Bethere labeled this poster the dishonest debater, it stuck an we continued to use it. For me it was a good concise way to point out posters who play those games. I'll certainly continue to use it for the likes of Veritas and his/her ilk. In fact Veritis reminds me so much of this other poster that it may be one and the same.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:36 PM
You don't say....

Why does that matter?

exploited
09-16-2016, 09:40 PM
I think Bethere and I revealed our prior association on a different board when I first cam to this one. We were on a board that shut down and Bethere and I and several others ended up here. Actually it was one of the conservatives on the old board that invited me to this one. You are correct about the "dishonest debater" label. We had a poster on the old board who was notorious for straw man arguments taking something one would claim, flipping it and then arguing against it when it had nothing to do with what the other poster had said. Bethere labeled this poster the dishonest debater, it stuck an we continued to use it. For me it was a good concise way to point out posters who play those games. I'll certainly continue to use it for the likes of Veritas and his/her ilk. In fact Veritis reminds me so much of this other poster that it may be one and the same.

Don't bother explaining yourself. You are an excellent poster.

In my opinion, Subdermal and Veritas sound basically identical. I'm not conspiracy-minded, though, so I don't suspect they are the same person. They just happen to have many of the same views, which isn't particularly noteworthy. Some people even think that Docthehun, Bethere and myself are the same person - we have taken to calling ourselves the Trinity.

ripmeister
09-16-2016, 09:50 PM
Don't bother explaining yourself. You are an excellent poster.

In my opinion, Subdermal and Veritas sound basically identical. I'm not conspiracy-minded, though, so I don't suspect they are the same person. They just happen to have many of the same views, which isn't particularly noteworthy. Some people even think that Docthehun, Bethere and myself are the same person - we have taken to calling ourselves the Trinity.

Oh that's ok. I believe in transparency when it's called for hence the explanation. I've got my big boy pants on.

Bethere
09-16-2016, 10:10 PM
Oh that's ok. I believe in transparency when it's called for hence the explanation. I've got my big boy pants on.

Bethere values your opinion, as he does exploited's.

Bethere
09-16-2016, 10:18 PM
Funny. Bethere uses this same phrase as well. It's funny how many new posters showed up at the exact same time: posters who sound the same and act the same.

There are more of us here than you think there are. You would be surprised.

16169

nic34
09-19-2016, 10:22 AM
Don't bother explaining yourself. You are an excellent poster.

In my opinion, Subdermal and Veritas sound basically identical. I'm not conspiracy-minded, though, so I don't suspect they are the same person. They just happen to have many of the same views, which isn't particularly noteworthy. Some people even think that Docthehun, Bethere and myself are the same person - we have taken to calling ourselves the Trinity.

Trinity? Careful there....

MisterVeritis
09-19-2016, 10:37 AM
Bethere labeled this poster the dishonest debater, it stuck an we continued to use it. For me it was a good concise way to point out posters who play those games. I'll certainly continue to use it for the likes of Veritas and his/her ilk. In fact Veritis reminds me so much of this other poster that it may be one and the same.
My screen name, MisterVeritis, ought to give you some gender clue.

I believe I have used this same name across all of the political boards I have been on over the last decade.

I am sorry you take defeat so poorly.