Trump: "I'll nuke ISIS"

[credoconsolans]

He needs one well before that. Many other candidates will be dropping out. He will start to get exposed.

I really don't think he does. I think he could run on no stated platform at all and still give Hillary a tough fight. What he has is celebrity and bluntness, and against Hillary he can also project an image of being not a corrupt mainstream politician. He funded her and she did favours for him in the past. He can lean heavily on that against her. She can be bought. He can't. That wills sell.

That only means he has and will in the future use his money to try to buy people. AKA bribery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. The fallout danger of bombs is greatly overrated.

Yeah. We have a lot of evidence to support that from all those other nuclear bombings.

I was thinking of all the aboveground testing in Nevada. The fallout from a bomb is independent of the target so long it's a proper-height airburst. Many of the tests in Nevada were on towers instead of in the air, they would actually have more fallout than a weapon used for war. Bombs have also gotten a lot cleaner since then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The radiation effects of nuclear weapons are mostly avoided by the simple expedient of having the majority of people who are exposed to lethal doses not survive long enough to develop acute radiation sickness. Being torn apart by the remains of your home tends to make you rather immune to concern about possible bone-marrow failure in the coming week.

Nevertheless, despite our ability to stop worrying and love the bomb, it might be best not to elect a US president who plans to start chucking them around like it's the Fourth of July.

The issue was fallout. Other than for the smallest of bombs the direct radiation is unimportant as the people it would kill die of the bomb instead.

I do agree that it's a reason to vote against him, though. While I expect we will eventually see nukes used against the Islamists that doesn't make it something to look forward to.

 

[untermensche]

The radiation effects of nuclear weapons are mostly avoided by the simple expedient of having the majority of people who are exposed to lethal doses not survive long enough to develop acute radiation sickness. Being torn apart by the remains of your home tends to make you rather immune to concern about possible bone-marrow failure in the coming week.

Nevertheless, despite our ability to stop worrying and love the bomb, it might be best not to elect a US president who plans to start chucking them around like it's the Fourth of July.

The issue was fallout. Other than for the smallest of bombs the direct radiation is unimportant as the people it would kill die of the bomb instead.

I do agree that it's a reason to vote against him, though. While I expect we will eventually see nukes used against the Islamists that doesn't make it something to look forward to.

Now I understand the nonsense about fallout.

When one dreams of nuking the islamists nothing can stand in your way.

Utter insanity.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The radiation would eventually kill an enormous amount of people in the area- What a boost for the most extreme of Islamist fundamentalism worldwide that would be.

I disagree. The fallout danger of bombs is greatly overrated.

In the short term the figures show this, in the long term, affects of radiation in the water supply and for some time on the crops and environment.
A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I wrote that Trump looked more like a Democrat parody of a Republican than he looked like a Republican, people asked for examples so they could try to tell the difference.

This thread is one. Even "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain wasn't calling on preemptive nuclear strikes.

 

[untermensche]

It is no parody.

Trump IS a large part of the Republican party.

Not the leadership, the lowest level of support. People that only vote Republican. They control nothing.

They actually blame the tiny few illegals that mainly do work other people do not want for the problems of US capitalism.

All they know is that their lives are going nowhere or going backward.

They should be blaming the Trumps of the world, but instead they scapegoat some vulnerable foreigners.

 

[dystopian]

The radiation effects of nuclear weapons are mostly avoided by the simple expedient of having the majority of people who are exposed to lethal doses not survive long enough to develop acute radiation sickness. Being torn apart by the remains of your home tends to make you rather immune to concern about possible bone-marrow failure in the coming week.

I was thinking more along the lines of people commonly thinking 1) that lethal fall-out will spread much farther, faster and wider than it actually would, resulting in a swift death for everyone in an much overestimated radius of the bomb; and 2) that you'd have radioactive wastelands that would be untraversable for decades. In reality, only some areas would be hit by radiation strong enough to be lethal, and travelling through those areas would be pretty safe after just a few weeks.

Nevertheless, despite our ability to stop worrying and love the bomb, it might be best not to elect a US president who plans to start chucking them around like it's the Fourth of July.

Agreed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is no parody.

Trump IS a large part of the Republican party.

Exactly, he is everything that Democrats think Republicans are.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When I wrote that Trump looked more like a Democrat parody of a Republican than he looked like a Republican, people asked for examples so they could try to tell the difference.

This thread is one. Even "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain wasn't calling on preemptive nuclear strikes.

Ya, it's really funny how the "Democrat parody of a Republican" has about double the support of any other candidate in the Republican primary. It's almost like the Democrat parody of a Republican is ... accurate.

The problems which Trump is exposing are problems within the GOP voting base, not problems with others' views of the GOP voting base.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I really don't think he does. I think he could run on no stated platform at all and still give Hillary a tough fight. What he has is celebrity and bluntness, and against Hillary he can also project an image of being not a corrupt mainstream politician. He funded her and she did favours for him in the past. He can lean heavily on that against her. She can be bought. He can't. That wills sell.

That only means he has and will in the future use his money to try to buy people. AKA bribery.

Which could hurt him, if he was running against anybody but somebody he bought. But instead you'd have the person who bribed against the person who sold out. The former looks better.

 

[dismal]

It is no parody.

Sometimes I wonder if people can even tell when something is a parody.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It is no parody.

Sometimes I wonder if people can even tell when something is a parody.

Because the world has become so absurd, no, not anymore.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The radiation would eventually kill an enormous amount of people in the area- What a boost for the most extreme of Islamist fundamentalism worldwide that would be.

Trump is a good test of America's fitness to survive this century. This guy is a hate spouting crackpot. If our country elects ANOTHER CRACKPOT in these very trying times, then perhaps we simply are not up to the task of surviving as a culture on this earth.

Hmmm...if every planet that's habitable and becomes technologically advanced has their own version of Donald Trump, this explains a few things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sometimes I wonder if people can even tell when something is a parody.

Because the world has become so absurd, no, not anymore.

After the massacre in South Carolina, The Onion had to resort to quoting the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -

When I wrote that Trump looked more like a Democrat parody of a Republican than he looked like a Republican, people asked for examples so they could try to tell the difference.

This thread is one. Even "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain wasn't calling on preemptive nuclear strikes.

Uh huh. And "we should turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot" has not been uttered by at least half of those supporting Trump.

 

[dismal]

Sometimes I wonder if people can even tell when something is a parody.

Because the world has become so absurd, no, not anymore.

There are usually ways you can tell if you put in a little effort.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If this keeps up, the Democrats need only someone to stand up there and not piss their pants in order to win the election.

If only Democrats could be trusted not to do that...

 

[Frikki]

It is no parody.

Sometimes I wonder if people can even tell when something is a parody.

I have never been sure about you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When I wrote that Trump looked more like a Democrat parody of a Republican than he looked like a Republican, people asked for examples so they could try to tell the difference.

This thread is one. Even "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain wasn't calling on preemptive nuclear strikes.

Ya, it's really funny how the "Democrat parody of a Republican" has about double the support of any other candidate in the Republican primary. It's almost like the Democrat parody of a Republican is ... accurate.

The problems which Trump is exposing are problems within the GOP voting base, not problems with others' views of the GOP voting base.

Don't you generally think that Republicans are stupid? Then why are you giving them credit for in-depth policy analysis of the candidates?

Trump's appeal is much simpler than that.

First of all, he can be bought by neither Soros nor Koch. Second, he doesn't talk like the the other candidates (in either party). Third, he definitely fits the description of step 9 on the Road to Serfdom. The Central Planners (in both parties) can't agree (even with their own party allies) until the frustration reaches a point where people say "look, just give me someone who can get things done." That's a nasty step, which shows how far down the road we actually are. He is presenting himself as "these fools only argue, I get stuff done."

 

[funinspace]

I managed to listen to a portion of a Trump Stump yesterday on CNN and it was an interesting mixture of bombastic absurdity and tidbits that actually made sense. He stated one obvious thing that neither party has been interested in talking about, that several countries like South Korea, are pouring their exports into the US while we spend tens of billions to make sure they are safe from perceived threats. I don’t think I have heard any serious politico mention the absurdity of our continued military presence in S. Korea. They spend far less on their on military as a percentage of their GDP, than we spend on ours. I don’t see how S. Korea can be considered all that concerned about that big bad boogeyman to their north. Yet our billions of military support pour their way, as S.K. cars, appliances, and electronics arrive container ships.

Like I’ve said a few times here. Pull the 28k or so soldiers (and their families) out of S.K. and build a $13 billion base next to Detroit to protect us from those crazy Canadians to the north.

Note: Nothing that I said above means I would ever vote for him.