Freeman,

I will admit to you that for the first time since 4th grade when the sisters made us pray the rosary for the conversion of Russia and then afterwards, stop, drop an droll under our desks in case of a strike on Boeing (didn't even know what that was in 4th grade), I find myself more and more concerned with the very real possibility of a nuclear strike.

Let me be clear. I have been having a certain intuition about all of this before the election. And now that Trump is in, the feeling has not abated nor increased. It's just there.

Why? Because mores than every before, the world has become a powder keg waiting to go off and anything and everything seems possible.

I suspect that when and if such a strike takes place it will be due to lunatic Muslims or this nutter in North Korea. I don't suspect the Chump or Putin will make the first move.

I really do see this happening sooner rather than later and like I said, it's been a strange intuition for awhile now.

I hope it's just gas.

tom

Again Ricky fails to realize the US is a Republic and, like most liberals, wants to undermine the power of the individual states and give the federal government more power.

Tom think real hard. If nothing else changes about the US constituion except that presidential elections were by popular vote rather than electoral college ...how would that affect the "power of a state"?
The electoral college was not designed to protect states powers anyway. It was designed to protect the appointment of a President by the elites (at the time).
The electoral college greatly increases the power of a state like Wyoming, and greatly decreases the power of California... So it is very selective in how it "protects power" no?

Wyoming, the nation's lowest population state, has just over 560,000 people. Those people get three electoral votes, or one per 186,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 37 million people. Those Californians have 55 electoral votes, or one per 670,000 people. Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California. Put another way, if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would have about 200 electoral votes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tates.html

This doesn't protect the power of the states. It [u]promotes the power of certain states and diminishes[/u] the power of other states. (Like New York, our state). Do you think its right that your vote is worth roughly 1/4 of what a voters is in Wymoing?
This is an anachronistic, anti-democratic mechanism that distorts the will of the people.
And it gave you Trump.A president who lost the popular vote by more votes than any other winning candidate. Unwanted.
Putins boy now will have the same finger on the nuclear button that he uses to push his phones buttons when Tweeting at 3 in the morning... Thanks to the electoral college.
Helluva thought.

rickyp wrote: (The Electoral College) is an anachronistic, anti-democratic mechanism that distorts the will of the people.

It distorts the campaign, for sure. Whether or not it distorts the will of the people is unclear. You can assert whatever you like, but you cannot prove the EC changed anything.

And it gave you Trump.A president who lost the popular vote by more votes than any other winning candidate. Unwanted.

Again, this is an argument of brute force. Clinton won the popular vote. So what? The goal was to win the Electoral College. If it had been about popular vote, the whole campaign would have been different and that would have affected the turnout model. No one can predict what changes that would have brought about.

Putins boy now will have the same finger on the nuclear button that he uses to push his phones buttons when Tweeting at 3 in the morning... Thanks to the electoral college.
Helluva thought.

This is so dumb. "Putin's boy." Have mercy.

Please cite ANY reason Putin should not have preferred Clinton. Did Russia not roll her when she was Secretary of State? Why would he be afraid of her as President?

Gee, if you ask me, maybe Clinton should have campaigned in Wyoming more than she did? Since their votes are so much more important. Maybe going to Wisconsin would have helped, even ONE trip?

Both paid attention to the EC, Trump did pretty much zero advertising in states like New York and California, Clinton ignored Texas for the most part. Both hammered swing states,they both knew the way the game had to be won and Trump did a far better job of focusing on what he had to have.

To claim Clinton should have won because she had more popular votes is a joke. A soccer game is won by scoring more goals than the other team. It does not matter how many shots on goal were made, if your team had 10 shots to my one but I won 2-1, you can't complain that you deserve to win or maybe I would have played a different style game. If this were decided by popular vote then you know damned well Trump would have hit new York and California real heavy and guess what, those big Dem wins might have been far smaller. We just don't know.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Putins boy now will have the same finger on the nuclear button that he uses to push his phones buttons when Tweeting at 3 in the morning... Thanks to the electoral college.
Helluva thought.

This is so dumb. "Putin's boy." Have mercy.

Forget the "Putin's boy" comment, and it's really not dumb at all. It is an essential reason we should all be concerned. The guy has the emotional maturity of a nine year old.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Putins boy now will have the same finger on the nuclear button that he uses to push his phones buttons when Tweeting at 3 in the morning... Thanks to the electoral college.
Helluva thought.

This is so dumb. "Putin's boy." Have mercy.

Forget the "Putin's boy" comment, and it's really not dumb at all. It is an essential reason we should all be concerned. The guy has the emotional maturity of a nine year old.

C'mon! Be fair!

He's got the emotional maturity of an eleven year-old.

It's still dumb.

In the 80's, Sting had a stirring song about the Russians loving their kids (and so not being willing to participate in a nuclear war). During the negotiations with Iran, we were told the mullahs are too sensible for nuclear war.

Somehow, Trump hates his kids and has no use for the current world. I find it curious that he is given so much less "credit" than godless communists or theocrats who are trying to usher in their apocalyptic vision of the end times.

Doctor Fate wrote:
C'mon! Be fair!

He's got the emotional maturity of an eleven year-old.

It's still dumb.

It is not dumb to be concerned that the most powerful man in the world (in less than 1 month!) has the emotional maturity of a child.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
C'mon! Be fair!

He's got the emotional maturity of an eleven year-old.

It's still dumb.

It is not dumb to be concerned that the most powerful man in the world (in less than 1 month!) has the emotional maturity of a child.

Concerned is fair.

Frightened or worse is stupid. I have plenty of liberal Facebook friends who act like a nuclear winter is inevitable in the next three months.

C'mon people! I thought Obama was terrible (and I think he IS objectively so), but I never predicted nuclear war. Settle down just a bit.

There were a good many Republicans that expressed doubts about the fitness of Trump until he won the presidency. Once he won--and they saw the goodies that could be had from a Trump presidency--it was a volte face on Trump. But the risks associated with a Trump presidency have stayed the same. I don't think anyone had much of a worry with regard to Obama's temperament that he would do something crazy. Republicans are just so giddy with having the levers of power that the actual control will be in the hands of a narcissistic, manipulative con man suddenly does not concern them.

not so fast there spartky...

I do agree Trump may have a short fuse, I am still no fan of his. I am willing (kinda have to be) to give him a short leash and see what he does. So far it's so-so but not horrible by any means just yet.
So I can mostly agree with the Trump criticism but you went too far with your "no worries about Obama" statement. I think that's pretty far off base. Obama went and did that really stupid Iran deal, he even managed to subvert Congress because he is a bit of a "narcissistic, manipulative con man". He went and screwed over Israel, he drew lines in the sand that were continually moved. Obama showed himself to have very much that same egotistical and manipulative personality you want to pain on trump. If you didn't do it Obama's way, he went around you and cut you out, he lied and then lied on top of lies to get his way. Let's not pretend he was a swell guy by any stretch!

Tom

Obama went and did that really stupid Iran deal,

I want to make clear there’s no going back. Absent a clear and present violation [by Iran], I don’t think we can take advantage of some new president—Republican or Democrat—and say, ‘well, we’re not going to live up to our word in this agreement.’ I believe we’d be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have anywhere near the impact of an allied approach to this

.
Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis April 22, 1016.

tom

He went and screwed over Israel,

How?
By achieving the nuclear pact with Iran and the other participants? (Russia, France, UK, Germany, China, EU)
By funding the Iron Dome?
By sending 3 billion $ to Israel every year?
Or by continuing the 65 year policy of the US oppossing Israel settlement of occupied Palestinian land?

"There's no going back"
...doesn't mean it was a good deal, it was still a horrible deal Obama ran around congress on. Because we can't go back on it does not mean it wasn't stupid.

How he screwed over Israel?
"by achieving the Iran nuclear deal?" ...yes, it made things worse for everyone (except iran)
"by continuing to oppose Israel settlements" ...yes and no, we never fully backed the UN resolution and always used our veto power

Thanks for proving me right

tom

yes, it made things worse for everyone (except iran)

So, Iran giving upon nuclear weapons made it worse for everyone? How?
The governments of China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany and the EU parliament all say the agreement was a great acheivement. As does the current US government.
If it made it worse for everyone, why is only a small group in the US, and Israel complaining?

tom

"by continuing to oppose Israel settlements" ...yes and no, we never fully backed the UN resolution and always used our veto power

factually incorrect.
To begin with, the US signed the Fourth Geneva Convention., It is under that agreement that the settlements are illegal.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385e ... 1e004aa3c5
This convention bans nations from the moving of populations into and the establishing of settlements in the territory of another nation won in war.

Under President Ronald Reagan, when the United States voted in 1981 to condemn Israel’s air attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor.

In 1987, meanwhile, the Reagan administration abstained and allowed adoption of a resolution that condemned Israel for killing Palestinian students and included Jerusalem as part of the “Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.”

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. in 2003 voted for a resolution endorsing the Roadmap for Peace—an attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that called for a freeze of Israel’s settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for Palestinian leaders to curb terrorism.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/27/us-ha ... ng-israel/

The reaction by Obama is proper, in that the Israelis have been acting with impunity over the settlements. They have no interest in peace, or a two state solution as demonstrated by their actions. And they fully depend on US shielding them from the world opinion. Which isn't fair to the US, who are caught out as hyprocrits if they do not work towards a 2 state solution which recognizes their support for the Geneva Conventions.

Ricky wrote:

The reaction by Obama is proper, in that the Israelis have been acting with impunity over the settlements. They have no interest in peace, or a two state solution as demonstrated by their actions. And they fully depend on US shielding them from the world opinion. Which isn't fair to the US, who are caught out as hyprocrits if they do not work towards a 2 state solution which recognizes their support for the Geneva Conventions.

I can't remember the last time I agreed with you about anything Ricky. Well said and true.

rickyp wrote:tom

yes, it made things worse for everyone (except iran)

So, Iran giving upon nuclear weapons made it worse for everyone? How?
The governments of China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany and the EU parliament all say the agreement was a great acheivement. As does the current US government.
If it made it worse for everyone, why is only a small group in the US, and Israel complaining?

"Peace in our time" is more comforting.

The reaction by Obama is proper, in that the Israelis have been acting with impunity over the settlements.

It's cowardly. He could have done this anytime, but waited until no election would be affected.

It's dishonest. He and his anti-Israel gang cooked it up and forced it to a vote, yet they still deny it.

There is only one sense in which it's "proper": it shows how much Democrats really hate Israel. This is how they feel: if they could push a button and wipe it out, they would. The problem is they know that Israel has support in this country well north of 60%, so they have to play cloak and dagger.

It might also be a "proper" burial for the useless UN.

They have no interest in peace, or a two state solution as demonstrated by their actions.

Read that and substitute "Palestinians" for "They" and you have it right. What have the Palestinians EVER done to suggest they are serious about a peaceful solution?

And they fully depend on US shielding them from the world opinion.

No, they count on the US to shield them from widespread anti-semitism. It's featured throughout Europe--and Canada.

Which isn't fair to the US, who are caught out as hyprocrits if they do not work towards a 2 state solution which recognizes their support for the Geneva Conventions.

Fascinating that you put the weight on Israel and the US, but don't mention the Palestinians at all. Aren't they responsible to do anything?