View Full Version : If it came down to it, which Demo candidates could push Nuke button?
If it came down to it, out of all of the Democratic candidates, which could push the Nuke button?
Maybe Biden.
All of the rest? I doubt it very much.
Trump though? No doubt about it.
tfurrh
06-11-2019, 09:40 PM
Good question. I always base my vote on a candidate's nuke button pushability. That and ability to assign cool nicknames.
nikcers
06-11-2019, 09:42 PM
Slow Biden can't beat trump, I guess he could press an imaginary nuke button.
Swordsmyth
06-11-2019, 10:36 PM
Swalwell.;)
Anti Globalist
06-12-2019, 06:48 AM
All of them.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 06:52 AM
All of the rest? I doubt it very much.
Why?
I see absolutely zero reason to think any of them are any less psychopathic than the typical politician at that level.
specsaregood
06-12-2019, 06:56 AM
Let's see, they all think that its ok to kill babies up until the moment of birth and even after. They all blame humans for destroying the world and seem to hate humankind. I think the problem might be keeping them from pushing the button.
Why?
I see absolutely zero reason to think any of them are any less psychopathic than the typical politician at that level.
Take Bernie (and many of the other candidates who think along the same lines) for instance. I just don't see him/them wiping out millions of people that he/they agree(s) with. They considers the other countries systems of government more legitimate than our own.
They care more for the welfare of other countries populations than our own. Like the politicians in CA who want to give medical benefits to illegal aliens by taxing american citizens who don't have insurance.
Beto has apologized for just about everything. I'm sure that the last thing he'd want to do is apologize for pushing the button, so why do it in the first place?
Let's see, they all think that its ok to kill babies up until the moment of birth and even after. They all blame humans for destroying the world and seem to hate humankind. I think the problem might be keeping them from pushing the button.
If they did, then I'm afraid that WE might be the target.
specsaregood
06-12-2019, 07:18 AM
If they did, then I'm afraid that WE might be the target.
That is what im saying.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 07:29 AM
Take Bernie (and many of the other candidates who think along the same lines) for instance. I just don't see him/them wiping out millions of people that he/they agree(s) with. They considers the other countries systems of government more legitimate than our own.
They care more for the welfare of other countries populations than our own. Like the politicians in CA who want to give medical benefits to illegal aliens by taxing american citizens who don't have insurance.
Beto has apologized for just about everything. I'm sure that the last thing he'd want to do is apologize for pushing the button, so why do it in the first place?
If you're talking about whether or not circumstances would likely develop that would make nuking some place advantageous for any president, then I see very little likelihood of that for anyone from either party, just from a cost benefit analysis from their own perspectives.
So it's all a big hypothetical.
But *if* any circumstances were to develop that they *did* believe made it personally beneficial for any of them to nuke anyone, then they'd do it.
War has always proven to be a powerful catalyst for regimes accruing more domestic power to themselves. And it's not hard for any of them to come up with foreign enemies, even if they have to make them from scratch, to pave the way for a war. But generally speaking, actually using nukes doesn't accomplish much for them, just like it doesn't do a dairy farmer much good to just kill off a bunch of his cattle.
That said, there are some who see the prospect of decreasing human population as a net positive and may want to cull the herd some Thanos-style. I don't really see this as a factor yet in presidential politics in 2019, but it could get there. And both parties have their own versions of this mindset.
If you're talking about whether or not circumstances would likely develop that would make nuking some place advantageous for any president, then I see very little likelihood of that for anyone from either party, just from a cost benefit analysis from their own perspectives.
So it's all a big hypothetical.
But *if* any circumstances were to develop that they *did* believe made it personally beneficial for any of them to nuke anyone, then they'd do it.
War has always proven to be a powerful catalyst for regimes accruing more domestic power to themselves. And it's not hard for any of them to come up with foreign enemies, even if they have to make them from scratch, to pave the way for a war. But generally speaking, actually using nukes doesn't accomplish much for them, just like it doesn't do a dairy farmer much good to just kill off a bunch of his cattle.
That said, there are some who see the prospect of decreasing human population as a net positive and may want to cull the herd some Thanos-style. I don't really see this as a factor yet in presidential politics in 2019, but it could get there. And both parties have their own versions of this mindset.
When I posted "If it came down to it", I was considering a response to a preemptive nuke attack against the U.S.
That is what im saying.
You said "humans" and "human kind". You didn't say "The United States".
Most of them (if not all of them) consider the U.S. to be the problem.
But if a foreign government (or terrorist organization) believes that they can get away with a preemptive nuke strike on the U.S., then that certainly removes the major disincentive that MAD provides.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 07:38 AM
When I posted "If it came down to it", I was considering a response to a preemptive nuke attack against the U.S.
I don't see why any of them would let a crisis like that go to waste.
I don't see why any of them would let a crisis like that go to waste.
By not responding, they wouldn't be.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 08:07 AM
By not responding, they wouldn't be.
I don't see where you're coming from. Why would any king want to kill off all his own loyal subjects and tax base? They thrive on our fear to get more control over us. A nuclear attack against us would be the greatest opportunity in history for them to compel the American people to give them more control.
I don't see where you're coming from. Why would any king want to kill off all his own loyal subjects? They thrive on our fear to get more control over us. A nuclear attack against us would be the greatest opportunity in history for them to compel the American people to give them more control.
In an all out preemptive attack, many if not most of "his loyal subjects" would already be dead or dying. What's left to control?
Why would any king want to kill off all his own loyal subjects?
Did I post that?
nikcers
06-12-2019, 08:37 AM
In an all out preemptive attack, many if not most of "his loyal subjects" would already be dead or dying. What's left to control?
Did I post that?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, its addictive- at the moment they don't control everything, people still have a free will. TPTB want to force their will onto us because they think they know whats best for us. They feel like they can make better choices for us than we can. They think of us like dogs.
PursuePeace
06-12-2019, 08:43 AM
Butt Gig. He seems to succumb easily to peer pressure:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8orotFWsAAYb45.jpg
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, its addictive- at the moment they don't control everything, people still have a free will. TPTB want to force their will onto us because they think they know whats best for us. They feel like they can make better choices for us than we can. They think of us like dogs.
...and?
nikcers
06-12-2019, 09:18 AM
...and?
The people left after any sort of disaster would be absolutely devoted to the establishment that keeps it safe, fear is the absolute power driver people cannot turn it off, the ones that do are crazy.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 09:21 AM
In an all out preemptive attack, many if not most of "his loyal subjects" would already be dead or dying. What's left to control?
Whoever is left would be what's left to control. The decision to retaliate with nukes would need to be made prior to knowing how many survivors there would be. There would be no opportunity for the president to take inventory and conclude that there's no point any more. Plus, any existing power in the world that did preemptively nuke the US would not have the means to wipe out our population or come anywhere close to that.
The foreign power that sent the nukes, who would then quickly become a conquered nation devoid of its former regime would also potentially be left for this president to control. Again, an opportunity hardly any US president of any party could pass up.
The people left after any sort of disaster would be absolutely devoted to the establishment that keeps it safe, fear is the absolute power driver people cannot turn it off, the ones that do are crazy.
I'm not sure what that has do with my OP.
Maybe I should re-state/re-ask the question.
If the U.S. were to be attacked in an all out preemptive nuclear strike, do you believe that ANY democratic candidate would respond with an equal and overwhelming nuclear attack against the attackers insuring mutually assured destruction?
My contention is that MAYBE there might be one.
Joe Biden. But only because he is from the old school.
Trump. No doubt about it.
Superfluous Man
06-12-2019, 09:30 AM
I'm not sure what that has do with my OP.
Maybe I should re-ask the question.
If the U.S. were to be attacked in an all out preemptive nuclear strike, do you believe that ANY democratic candidate would respond with an equal and overwhelming nuclear attack against the attackers insuring mutually assured destruction?
My contention is that MAYBE there might be one.
Joe Biden. But only because he is from the old school.
Trump. No doubt about it.
I think they all would.
But I think I may have misunderstood where you were coming from in the OP. Are you saying all this from the perspective of one who sees responding with a nuclear attack in those circumstances as a good thing, so that when you say Trump would do that and the Dems wouldn't, this is a selling point in Trump's favor?
nikcers
06-12-2019, 09:34 AM
I think they all would.
But I think I may have misunderstood where you were coming from in the OP. Are you saying all this from the perspective of one who sees responding with a nuclear attack in those circumstances as a good thing, so that when you say Trump would do that and the Dems wouldn't, this is a selling point in Trump's favor?
Fear is always the biggest selling point in presidential elections. Its like when that guy on the news in 2015 said Rand would have to say he would nuke a middle eastern country to win the presidency, he wasn't being dishonest.
Are you saying all this from the perspective of one who sees responding with a nuclear attack in those circumstances as a good thing?
I see it as a good thing that any country even thinking about attacking the U.S. with a preemptive nuclear first strike, understand that their country will suffer a similar fate.
So that when you say Trump would do that and the Dems wouldn't, this is a selling point in Trump's favor?
In a really fucked up sort of way... yes.
I see it as a good thing that any country even thinking about attacking the U.S. with a preemptive nuclear first strike, understand that their country will suffer a similar fate.
Preserve the Imperialistic Socialist Order?
Preserve the Imperialistic Socialist Order?
So then if it were up to you, you wouldn't respond?
Do you want to be nuked?
So then if it were up to you, you wouldn't respond?
If it was up to me, we would have a completely different country. One based upon accurate history, quality education to provide truth and understanding, and allow the people to respond to threats, not corporatist bureaucrats.
If it was up to me, we would have a completely different country. One based upon accurate history, quality education to provide truth and understanding, and allow the people to respond to threats, not corporatist bureaucrats.
On that I couldn't agree with you more.
But that wasn't the question.
On that I couldn't agree with you more.
But that wasn't the question.
I do not want to be nuked. If I was that position, I would avoid preemptive strikes, due to the NAP. Only when all other options fail would I push the button.
I do not want to be nuked. If I was that position, I would avoid preemptive strikes, due to the NAP. Only when all other options fail would I push the button.
We are in agreement.
Do you believe that the Democratic candidates believe the same?
Because I don't.
We are in agreement.
Do you believe that the Democratic candidates believe the same?
Because I don't.
I do not subscribe to "democrat" and "republican" labels. They are merely labels to keep people happy in choosing "sides".
That said, I believe some democrats, some republicans, some independents do believe as I do. I also believe that most do not believe as I do and would do what is in their own best interest and for TPTB.
sparebulb
06-12-2019, 10:35 AM
https://live.staticflickr.com/2486/3812795249_8ef3d60020_b.jpg
POTUS is irrelevant.
"War is too important to be left to politicians" Gen Jack Ripper
devil21
06-12-2019, 10:38 AM
Gearing up for 2020, I see.
But but but (insert Dem or Rep name here) will get us all nuked!
Same old tired blueprint again..
https://live.staticflickr.com/2486/3812795249_8ef3d60020_b.jpg
POTUS is irrelevant.
"War is too important to be left to politicians" Gen Jack Ripper
Great point.
Warrior_of_Freedom
06-12-2019, 11:32 AM
plot twist: after eating each other alive Hillary declares candidacy
nikcers
06-12-2019, 11:34 AM
plot twist: after eating each other alive Hillary declares candidacy
That would be entertaining. Like a giant WWE royal rumble and than Hillary comes in last and smashes a chair over Joe Bidens head.
Warrior_of_Freedom
06-12-2019, 11:48 AM
That would be entertaining. Like a giant WWE royal rumble and than Hillary comes in last and smashes a chair over Joe Bidens head.
"You hate America. No, you do!"
THEME SONG PLAYS
"I HATE AMERICA THE MOST!"
*applause*
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.