Biden vs. Trump Debates

[Trell]

I've had the same thought. A lot of what he can do would be his decision alone, and other than a fast joint impeachment process to remove him, I don't think there's anything Congress could do. For example, he can raise tariffs with just a signature. He can also expel diplomats. I'm sure there is a long list of nefarious actions he could take. [my bold]

 

[Irvrobinson]

View attachment 40347

Nuclear launches he can't do without provocation.

 

[Trell]

Nuclear launches he can't do without provocation.

This is Trump we're talking about, and I wonder what is not a provocation? I'm sure he'll can manufacture one, in any case.

As for safe guards, hopefully it's better than when President Nixon was about to resign, but is the moral character of the people around him better than at that time? I doubt that.

The Madman and the Bomb:

"...
Moreover, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger recalled years later that in the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders: If the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them. Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon. Nixon himself had stoked official fears during a meeting with congressmen during which he reportedly said, “I can go in my office and pick up a telephone, and in 25 minutes, millions of people will be dead.” Senator Alan Cranston had phoned Schlesinger, warning about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”
..."

 

[Mikado463]

Sadly I think Trump is a 'looser' canon than Tricky lord helmet..........

 

[Irvrobinson]

This is Trump we're talking about, and I wonder what is not a provocation? I'm sure he'll can manufacture one, in any case.

As for safe guards, hopefully it's better than when President Nixon was about to resign, but is the moral character of the people around him better than at that time? I doubt that.

The Madman and the Bomb:

"...
Moreover, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger recalled years later that in the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders: If the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them. Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon. Nixon himself had stoked official fears during a meeting with congressmen during which he reportedly said, “I can go in my office and pick up a telephone, and in 25 minutes, millions of people will be dead.” Senator Alan Cranston had phoned Schlesinger, warning about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.”
..."

The law says the President indeed has unilateral launch authority, but the US uses a two-man rule for launch approval. Assuming he's available, I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State has to be present and agree. While I can picture Trump being a madman, I have trouble picturing any member of his cabinet agreeing. Also, if he appears to be irrational in official matters, like ordering an unprovoked nuclear launch, there are protocols for relieving him.

Edit: it looks like I'm incorrect. I thought there was a two-man rule even for the President.

Can the president launch a nuclear strike on his own?

www.pbs.org

 

[lovinthehd]

Even better than Joe Rogan?

 

[Trell]

The law says the President indeed has unilateral launch authority, but the US uses a two-man rule for launch approval. Assuming he's available, I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State has to be present and agree. While I can picture Trump being a madman, I have trouble picturing any member of his cabinet agreeing. Also, if he appears to be irrational in official matters, like ordering an unprovoked nuclear launch, there are protocols for relieving him.

I know nothing what safe guards there are against a madman like Trump ordering a nuclear launch, but to rely only on what's left of the cabinet when the "grown ups" has been pushed out is not much of a comfort.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I know nothing what safe guards there are against a madman like Trump ordering a nuclear launch, but to rely only on what's left of the cabinet when the "grown ups" has been pushed out is not much of a comfort.

You caught my post before I edited it. I was wrong. Trump alone can order a launch, and it takes informal coercing to walk it back.

 

[Trell]

You caught my post before I edited it. I was wrong. Trump alone can order a launch, and it takes informal coercing to walk it back.

What do you mean by "informal coercing"?

 

[Irvrobinson]

What do you mean by "informal coercing"?

His staff tries to talk him out of it. See the article I posted a link to.

 

[Trell]

His staff tries to talk him out of it. See the article I posted a link to.

You have the following part of the article in mind with your "informal coercion" to not launch? To me it reads like a "feel good, don't worry, trust us" article.

"...
But what critics worry about, and when you hear them talking about particularly what I call the bar man scenario, when you're talking to folks over a drink at a bar, to say, what if the president wakes up in the middle of the night, gets angry, gets in a tweet storm, and then tries to launch a nuclear weapon — the system is not designed to respond quickly in that case. He would issue the order, but as he is issuing the order, he would also be alerting the chain of command that he's just come up with this crazy decision. And that chain of command, while not legally required and while not technically required to agree with the president, in practice, the chain of command would have ample opportunity to walk that decision back.

If the president is banging on the table in anger with no provocation, I don't think the system would respond the way the critics worry about. If the president reaches the decision after conferring with his advisers and then makes the decision, then the system will carry out the order.
..."

 

[Irvrobinson]

You have the following part of the article in mind with your "informal coercion" to not launch? To me it reads like a "feel good, don't worry, trust us" article.

"...
But what critics worry about, and when you hear them talking about particularly what I call the bar man scenario, when you're talking to folks over a drink at a bar, to say, what if the president wakes up in the middle of the night, gets angry, gets in a tweet storm, and then tries to launch a nuclear weapon — the system is not designed to respond quickly in that case. He would issue the order, but as he is issuing the order, he would also be alerting the chain of command that he's just come up with this crazy decision. And that chain of command, while not legally required and while not technically required to agree with the president, in practice, the chain of command would have ample opportunity to walk that decision back.

If the president is banging on the table in anger with no provocation, I don't think the system would respond the way the critics worry about. If the president reaches the decision after conferring with his advisers and then makes the decision, then the system will carry out the order.
..."

Yup. If the person being interviewed wasn't a retired general I wouldn't have believed it. I find the thought rather frightening, frankly.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I like where you're going with this, but my suggestion would be a cream pie in the face if the person keeps talking.
...

Do they make enough pies to last the whole debate?

 

[mtrycrafts]

A real concern of mine assuming Trump loses the election, is what that idiot is able to further screw up before the third week in January of next year .............

Well, if the senate falls to democrats, he would have a tough time after Jan 3?

 

[Swerd]

I like where you're going with this, but my suggestion would be a cream pie in the face if the person keeps talking.
View attachment 40342

I suggest a more drastic revision to the debate format. Drop the lip service to any idea of a debate over politics and policies, and go straight to one of two formats. A name calling contest.

Or, an all out pie fight

 

[lovinthehd]

My favorite moment was when Joe pulled out the injecting bleach comment and the expression on drumphy's face as he said you know that was sarcastic. So all his press conferences and public statements are sarcastic? Kinda makes sense....

 

[HTnewb]

What a freaking debacle it was

 

[highfigh]

For the longest time I defended the Electoral College. Like our founding fathers I feared a dictatorship of the masses, like the French revolution of Robespierre and his ilk that followed over the years; National Socialism, Communism, call it what you may.

But I see now that it’s been perverted to serve one party or another to gain power in this country, along with gerrymandering and voter suppression.

It’s time to go back to the drawing board and revisit what it means to be a ‘true’ democracy, while protecting the rights of minorities.

I’ve stated this quite often but it bears repeating, the system is broken as is. Times have changed since the late 1700’s in a million ways. Culturally and scientifically, and information technology for all its benefits is also dividing us and enriching fewer and fewer of us, not to mention how it’s used as a propaganda tool by us and our enemies.

George Orwell’s 1984 isn’t a precautionary tale anymore, it’s slowly becoming reality.

 

[highfigh]

What do you mean by "informal coercing"?

Bitch slap?

 

[highfigh]

You have the following part of the article in mind with your "informal coercion" to not launch? To me it reads like a "feel good, don't worry, trust us" article.

"...
But what critics worry about, and when you hear them talking about particularly what I call the bar man scenario, when you're talking to folks over a drink at a bar, to say, what if the president wakes up in the middle of the night, gets angry, gets in a tweet storm, and then tries to launch a nuclear weapon — the system is not designed to respond quickly in that case. He would issue the order, but as he is issuing the order, he would also be alerting the chain of command that he's just come up with this crazy decision. And that chain of command, while not legally required and while not technically required to agree with the president, in practice, the chain of command would have ample opportunity to walk that decision back.

If the president is banging on the table in anger with no provocation, I don't think the system would respond the way the critics worry about. If the president reaches the decision after conferring with his advisers and then makes the decision, then the system will carry out the order.
..."

If anyone lets a POTUS press the button without it being a retaliatory strike, I would be surprised. Making that possible without going to some kind of command center would be stupid and I hope they installed some kind of fail-safe mechanism.