No wrestling, just cut him off. No President in history has been treated this way. Why?You boy cannot take a question unless he already knows what it is. He is demented.Yes Democrats tried it on republican presidents, but no Democrat. Why was Biden cut off as soon as he said he would take questions. That has never happened before. LolWow this is out of left field and further derails your thread. I see you're changing the subject yet again....I guess you're finally learning your lesson. You've been taught enough of them. LOL.So you're good with leaders of your party wanting your guy Biden stripped from the nuclear codes?306-232. Scoreboard.The Vegetable can't even read from a teleprompter for 20 seconds without forgetting where he is.Biden is a laughing stock. He cannot even hold a press conference.Try again slingblade. LOLBiden on his first day got Canada wanting to put sanctions on us.Factually incorrect.People were being vaccinated more quickly under Trump.Erasing the blob's legacy one uneventful day at a time.View attachment 463622More pure BDS!How can you have bds with a shell of a moron? Biden is a demented fool.BDS!
Persons being vaccinated is way ahead of schedule thanks to Joe...the relief bill is progressing through Congress nicely, we're once again joining our allies instead of picking fights with them...and you blob is relegated to the back pages of the news.
Joe is doing a great job.
306-232
Scoreboard.
Shameless.You couldn't kick yourself out of a wet paper bag. Joe is demented and is proving to be worse than Obama. Even leaders in your own party wants to take the nuclear codes from him.Poor illegitimate dementia pedo Joe.What, did they ask him if he got his pudding pop yet?Meanwhile back in reality; he did a town hall that was televised, took questions, etc...Biden is a laughing stock. He cannot even hold a press conference.Try again slingblade. LOLBiden on his first day got Canada wanting to put sanctions on us.Factually incorrect.People were being vaccinated more quickly under Trump.Erasing the blob's legacy one uneventful day at a time.View attachment 463622More pure BDS!How can you have bds with a shell of a moron? Biden is a demented fool.BDS!
Persons being vaccinated is way ahead of schedule thanks to Joe...the relief bill is progressing through Congress nicely, we're once again joining our allies instead of picking fights with them...and you blob is relegated to the back pages of the news.
Joe is doing a great job.
You sound like you need a nap...you keep making these silly accusations then when they are proven wrong, you say something ignorant.
I guess you're tired of getting creamed on the topic you tried to introduce. I can't blame you. Your ass has been kicked so often, you now have to shit via your mouth.
But lets go there!
As with almost all things, there are nuances to this.
Your question is: "So you're good with leaders of your party wanting your guy Biden stripped from the nuclear codes?".
A). That isn't what the letter said at all. The President would have the sole authority to instigate a launch.
B). What the letter did say was that those who signed off on it wanted to strip the President from being able to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons. The decision to launch would still be her or his...he can't be over-ruled. But his decision would have to be seconded by someone. As I recall, the letter presented four options.
View attachment 463943
View attachment 463944
As far as the options presented above, for a first strike ONLY, #1 and #3 are the ones I'd endorse. Number two is nonsense. As we saw with your blob, we often had "acting" secretaries of defense, state, treasury, CIA, etc... The only federal official he didn't fire was the guy who changes the lightbulbs in the guard shack. So #2 is not a workable solution; a blob-like President would just keep firing anyone who disagreed with him and replace them with someone who would agree to fire the nukes. #4 would be okay but it would depend on who sits on the council. But if you're going to empanel a council; why not go with #3 and get Congress to declare war before we launch weapons? Also, you have to worry about the talent of the people in those positions.
Again, all of that is nuanced commentary regarding a first-strike. To answer you question, I'm elated by it. No President should be able to guarantee the end of the world. I think a similar letter should be sent regarding the presidential pardon as well--stripping the office of the power to pardon. Put it in the hands of a 3 judge panel. We need the pardon; Presidents from both major parties have turned it into a reward for patronage instead of an eraser.
If the question is to put limits on the President in terms of a retaliating, I'm less in favor of that but at the end of the day, I'm okay with her/him keeping the power to unilaterally launching our nukes. The letter is not clear if they are talking about launching in all cases or just first strikes. So again, Yes to stripping the power of a first strike and No to stripping the power of a retaliation.
The reasons I'm not super excited about it is because of two considerations
The idea that we have to launch immediately is pretty silly. We have 18 Ohio Class Subs--one or two under the ice cap at any time--that can rain nukes down on much of the earth. The idea that the ICBMs that are incoming will take away our launch capability is false. On top of the subs, SAC has dozens of B52's, B-1, and B-2s that can carry nuke payloads. If we can get them airborne fast enough is a question but we train to launch them pretty quickly. I get the reason people would want to launch immediately but the NEED to do so is non-existent.
Also, the cartoonish version that we've been fed of a giant screen at NORAD tracking incoming ICBMs is likely not the way it's going to work. Any nation rich enough to have a nuke arsenal is sophisticated enough to know that they will be reduced to nothing in short order if they launch. So state actors are most likely off the list of suspects who are going to start a nuke war.
As far as the nukes themselves go....Here is how we will be hit one day:
1. Terrorists/Rogue commanders take over a nuke site somewhere and launch. Unlikely but more likely than an elected head of state pushing the button
2. Terrorists/Rogue commanders acquire a nuke and a launcher and take out an ally of ours. Do we respond if ISIS takes out Milan? Interesting question. Again, this is unlikely but more likely than a head of state pushing the button.
3. This is the most likely scenario...the nuke in one of the bajillion containers we offload daily at our ports. It goes off in Houston or Jacksonville or Miami. What then? It's unknown where the container came from--investigating it would rather difficult. If it's a terrorist who is now in, lets say, Cairo...do we nuke Cairo to "get even" with the leader of the group?
All in all, the nukes we have are a useless weapon. Even if we did decide that we are going to "get even" with the dude in Cairo and spin up the USS Georgia to launch it's arsenal....when Russia and China see it on their defense screens picked up by their satellites...what do they do? Are they going to wait until the missiles land before they launch their birds? I doubt it. Our retaliation would likely mean complete destruction.
Huh?
I guess at at some point he will have someone wrestle a microphone away from a reporter like your blob did. LOL.
306-232. Scoreboard.
Your blob ordered one of his toadies to take the microphone away from a reporter in a press conference. And you worship him.
