Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why does the USA have weapons then, and nukes. Why does it have so many guns. Take them all away, let's see the "real power" you speak of. Give everyone a trumpet and tell them to march around North Korea 7 times. If only America was Israel. Unlike Israel, the USA's "trust in God" is hidden behind the largest and most powerful military in the world, and one of the largest nuclear arsenals, just in case God does not show up.

There are many kinds of power. A locomotive can have the power to pull thousands of tons of train. That is power.

A nuclear bomb has the power to kill many people.

The resurrection has the power to bring in a new creation.

But you didn't say that the US was more powerful than the Roman Empire, you said that Trump was more powerful than Constantine.

Does Trump have the "power" to obliterate at will? I don't believe so. I believe we have many checks and balances before a president could push the button (except in self defense). But even in self defense Trump would give the order which would then have to be carried out by ranking officers.

I don't believe that Constantine was constrained nearly as much as Trump is. He may not have had nuclear bombs yet he may have killed more people.

So if you are measuring "power" in the number you can kill, potentially Trump can kill more, but realistically, practically, factually Constantine killed more. It is extremely hypothetical to think that Trump, on his own, could decide to nuke another country.

No one who took issue with your comment doubts that the US with a nuclear arsenal has the potential to destroy more people and material than the Roman Empire. We took issue with the comment that Trump was more powerful than a dictator as though the US constitution and all the checks and balances don't apply to him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are many kinds of power. A locomotive can have the power to pull thousands of tons of train. That is power.

A nuclear bomb has the power to kill many people.

The resurrection has the power to bring in a new creation.

But you didn't say that the US was more powerful than the Roman Empire, you said that Trump was more powerful than Constantine.

Does Trump have the "power" to obliterate at will? I don't believe so. I believe we have many checks and balances before a president could push the button (except in self defense). But even in self defense Trump would give the order which would then have to be carried out by ranking officers.

I don't believe that Constantine was constrained nearly as much as Trump is. He may not have had nuclear bombs yet he may have killed more people.

So if you are measuring "power" in the number you can kill, potentially Trump can kill more, but realistically, practically, factually Constantine killed more. It is extremely hypothetical to think that Trump, on his own, could decide to nuke another country.

No one who took issue with your comment doubts that the US with a nuclear arsenal has the potential to destroy more people and material than the Roman Empire. We took issue with the comment that Trump was more powerful than a dictator as though the US constitution and all the checks and balances don't apply to him.

Your post here is way more common sense than EvanGelly can handle in one sitting.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your post here is way more common sense than EvanGelly can handle in one sitting.

Well this "non-American" is explaining to you how things really work in your own country. Embarrassing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well this "non-American" is explaining to you how things really work in your own country. Embarrassing.

You liberals will never get it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are many kinds of power. A locomotive can have the power to pull thousands of tons of train. That is power.

A nuclear bomb has the power to kill many people.

The resurrection has the power to bring in a new creation.

But you didn't say that the US was more powerful than the Roman Empire, you said that Trump was more powerful than Constantine.

Does Trump have the "power" to obliterate at will? I don't believe so. I believe we have many checks and balances before a president could push the button (except in self defense). But even in self defense Trump would give the order which would then have to be carried out by ranking officers.

I don't believe that Constantine was constrained nearly as much as Trump is. He may not have had nuclear bombs yet he may have killed more people.

So if you are measuring "power" in the number you can kill, potentially Trump can kill more, but realistically, practically, factually Constantine killed more. It is extremely hypothetical to think that Trump, on his own, could decide to nuke another country.

No one who took issue with your comment doubts that the US with a nuclear arsenal has the potential to destroy more people and material than the Roman Empire. We took issue with the comment that Trump was more powerful than a dictator as though the US constitution and all the checks and balances don't apply to him.

I am surprised that you and Ohio don't know very much about how this all works under your dictator Trump. Yes Trump has that power to obliterate at will, the Commander in Chief has that ability.

Now they’re his. When Trump takes office in January, he will have sole authority over more than 7,000 warheads. There is no failsafe. The whole point of U.S. nuclear weapons control is to make sure that the president — and only the president — can use them if and whenever he decides to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.b9dba136a1b0


Trump does not need approval to fire Nukes. No checks and balances stopped Trump firing 59 cruise missiles into Syria, or stopping Obama firing missiles from UAVs in other sovereign countries. The President has to go to Congress only if there is a declaration of war. It's rare for a President to go to Congress before military action is taken.

Trump is more powerful than Constantine because Constantine could only dream of having the power to send 59 cruise missiles or a nuke into another country at will while having dinner with a Chinese president, all without Congressional, or even UN approval.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am surprised that you and Ohio don't know very much about how this all works under your dictator Trump. Yes Trump has that power to obliterate at will, the Commander in Chief has that ability.

Your boy Obama had the same "power," yet I never heard you express any concerns.

Putin has even more "power" in his arsenal (remember that the US unilaterally disarmed during the last 8 years) and you kept your mouth silent. Why is that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your boy Obama had the same "power," yet I never heard you express any concerns.

Putin has even more "power" in his arsenal (remember that the US unilaterally disarmed during the last 8 years) and you kept your mouth silent. Why is that?

Because Obama and Putin weren't/aren't provoking Kim King Kong.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because Obama and Putin weren't/aren't provoking Kim King Kong.

What? Invading the Ukraine was not provocative?

Enabling N. Korea to become a nuclear power is fine?

This is idiotic.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What? Invading the Ukraine was not provocative?

Enabling N. Korea to become a nuclear power is fine?

This is idiotic.

That defines liberal progressive thinking.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because Obama and Putin weren't/aren't provoking Kim King Kong.

Provoking?

He (and Iran too with our $billions) has been developing nukes and ballistic missiles while Obama played golf with rock stars and movie stars.

Read this article before you blame Trump -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Are Responsible for North Korea’s Nukes

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Provoking?

He (and Iran too with our $billions) has been developing nukes and ballistic missiles while Obama played golf with rock stars and movie stars.

Read this article before you blame Trump -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Are Responsible for North Korea’s Nukes

Yes because America bombed their poor country to pieces during the Korean War.

You need to read this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.79cb01fac346

like most Americans, educate yourself about your own country.

Although the ferocity of the bombing was criticized as racist and unjustified elsewhere in the world, it was never a big story back home.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes because America bombed their poor country to pieces during the Korean War.

You need to read this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.79cb01fac346

like most Americans, educate yourself about your own country.

Although the ferocity of the bombing was criticized as racist and unjustified elsewhere in the world, it was never a big story back home.

We bombed their country protecting the democracy in South Korea from their invasion.

And you expect me to read and believe an article at WaPo?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am surprised that you and Ohio don't know very much about how this all works under your dictator Trump. Yes Trump has that power to obliterate at will, the Commander in Chief has that ability.

Now they’re his. When Trump takes office in January, he will have sole authority over more than 7,000 warheads. There is no failsafe. The whole point of U.S. nuclear weapons control is to make sure that the president — and only the president — can use them if and whenever he decides to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...=.b9dba136a1b0


Trump does not need approval to fire Nukes. No checks and balances stopped Trump firing 59 cruise missiles into Syria, or stopping Obama firing missiles from UAVs in other sovereign countries. The President has to go to Congress only if there is a declaration of war. It's rare for a President to go to Congress before military action is taken.

Trump is more powerful than Constantine because Constantine could only dream of having the power to send 59 cruise missiles or a nuke into another country at will while having dinner with a Chinese president, all without Congressional, or even UN approval.

Spoken like someone who is not a US citizen.

When asked if he approved of the missile strike it was very clear from his response that he had merely given the military approval to do what was necessary. He didn't plan the strike, give the order for the strike, or fire the missiles. Yes, technically he could have, but there are many layers in our government, and as you can see our news reports to the entire world everything that happens, unlike ancient Rome.

Now if Trump were to go off the rails and order a nuclear strike there would be a general who would give the order to fire those missiles, which order would then be carried out by all of the subordinate officers.

In the US, unlike ancient Rome, refusing an order from the President is not seen as treasonous (ask Sally Yates), especially a bogus order to start a nuclear war. In the past people were trained to obey authority, in our country ever since JFK assassination we have been trained more and more to question and be suspicious of authority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Spoken like someone who is not a US citizen.

Now if Trump were to go off the rails and order a nuclear strike there would be a general who would give the order to fire those missiles, which order would then be carried out by all of the subordinate officers.

It's just incredible to see how the liberal media makes their heads explode with fear. They have taken fearmongering into the 21st century. We got liberals on this forum that scoff at the idea of a future Armageddon, based on biblical prophecy, and now all of a sudden they have all become "believers", claiming Trump will start WWIII.

When it comes to decisions, Trump is a careful and strategic planner. How else does one become so successful? He is a real patriot first, and not a One World Order guy like our last 4 presidents. Yet he is portrayed by the Press as flaky, impulsive, and whimsical as Kim in NK.

It's just amazing to me to see how little negative press that George Soros gets. Here is a wealthy genius hell-bent on taking down all western democracies. The guy is famous for destroying the British pound and the Bank of England. He is funding every liberal activist group out there.

If liberals had a brain, they would know who to fear and who not to fear. Here read this -- Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous

9. Currency manipulation: A large part of Soros’ multibillion-dollar fortune has come from manipulating currencies. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad accused him of bringing down the nation’s currency through his trading activities, and in Thailand he was called an “economic war criminal.” Known as “The Man who Broke the Bank of England,” Soros initiated a British financial crisis by dumping 10 billion sterling, forcing the devaluation of the currency and gaining a billion-dollar profit.

10. Delusions: Soros has repeatedly said that he sees himself as a messianic figure. Who but a megalomaniac would make these comments? “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance—to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god” or “I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin.” If only the loony bin were an option. As it is, one of the wealthiest men in the world is using his billions to impose a radical agenda on America.

[ZNPaaneah]

It seems this thread has become too tame, so let's include a discussion on the recent firing of Comey.

I find it interesting that after being advised that Flynn has been compromised by the Russians Trump fires the woman who told him this a few days later, but takes close to a month to fire Flynn.

Now compare that to firing Comey the same day it comes out in the testimony that he might have misspoke about the email incident. On the surface it seems like a reasonable mistake, thousands of emails were forwarded, it may have seemed from his original testimony that this was done manually, but the issue is that it was done. Hard to know who was at fault for this misunderstanding or even how serious it is, if it is even serious. But to instantly fire him suggests to me this is merely a contrived excuse and not the real reason.

I have to wonder if anyone who touches this question of collusion between Russia and the Trump administration does so knowing that they will be terminated at the first opportunity.

On the other hand if it really is the reason then wow, it really shows how upset Trump is that he won the election.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems this thread has become too tame, so let's include a discussion on the recent firing of Comey.

I find it interesting that after being advised that Flynn has been compromised by the Russians Trump fires the woman who told him this a few days later, but takes close to a month to fire Flynn.

Now compare that to firing Comey the same day it comes out in the testimony that he might have misspoke about the email incident. On the surface it seems like a reasonable mistake, thousands of emails were forwarded, it may have seemed from his original testimony that this was done manually, but the issue is that it was done. Hard to know who was at fault for this misunderstanding or even how serious it is, if it is even serious. But to instantly fire him suggests to me this is merely a contrived excuse and not the real reason.

I have to wonder if anyone who touches this question of collusion between Russia and the Trump administration does so knowing that they will be terminated at the first opportunity.

On the other hand if it really is the reason then wow, it really shows how upset Trump is that he won the election.

Trump cannot deflect the appearance that he fired Comey because he is investigating Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. His action parallels Nixon firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was investigating the Watergate break-in. Now Congress must appoint an a special prosecutor to lead an independent investigation into the Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump cannot deflect the appearance that he fired Comey because he is investigating Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. His action parallels Nixon firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was investigating the Watergate break-in. Now Congress must appoint an a special prosecutor to lead an independent investigation into the Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

The appearance is that Trump fired Sally Yates, Flynn and Comey because of this investigation and the potential to drag him down.

It must be a nice world these billionaires live in where they get to appoint the person who is going to oversee the investigation of them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Trump cannot deflect the appearance that he fired Comey because he is investigating Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. His action parallels Nixon firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was investigating the Watergate break-in. Now Congress must appoint an a special prosecutor to lead an independent investigation into the Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

Director Comey should have been fired last year. His own agency lost confidence in him. His actions violated his authority.

Drain the swamp!

Btw, have you forgotten all the calls for his resignation by the Democrats?

I guess this means that Trump has finally succumbed to Democratic pressure.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Spoken like someone who is not a US citizen.

When asked if he approved of the missile strike it was very clear from his response that he had merely given the military approval to do what was necessary. He didn't plan the strike, give the order for the strike, or fire the missiles. Yes, technically he could have, but there are many layers in our government, and as you can see our news reports to the entire world everything that happens, unlike ancient Rome.

Now if Trump were to go off the rails and order a nuclear strike there would be a general who would give the order to fire those missiles, which order would then be carried out by all of the subordinate officers.

In the US, unlike ancient Rome, refusing an order from the President is not seen as treasonous (ask Sally Yates), especially a bogus order to start a nuclear war. In the past people were trained to obey authority, in our country ever since JFK assassination we have been trained more and more to question and be suspicious of authority.

Of course the president did not fire the missiles himself. What a silly thing to say. He gives the orders. Same with any leader, they give orders, others follow. But what if that person firing the missile was a Trump supporter and believed everything Trump said? Your argument is shot to pieces.

And why did Trump's presidency get people worried about his new found power?

see

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/s...odes.html?_r=2


Some scholars (and Wikipedia entries) insist that a system of checks and balances puts the secretary of defense in the decision loop. But Bruce G. Blair, a research scholar at Princeton University who as an Air Force officer would have launched a nuclear missile if an order had come from the president, said that rule applied in the silos but not at the top of the command chain.

“There’s nothing the secretary of defense can do,” Dr. Blair, who wrote a book on nuclear command and control, said in an interview. “He has no authority to refuse or disobey that order.”



Your argument fails because ancient Rome also had checks and balances in their power structure.

https://www.reference.com/history/ch...f9ac785247b74a

The Roman Republic had several items in place to keep any one part of the government from having all the power, including a group of men called tribunes who could veto select items and completely stop acts of administration, limited terms and specific requirements for members in order to move up in the government. Many governments in the modern world are based, at least in part, on the model of the Roman Republic, including the United States.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule
"The two-man rule only applies in the missile silos and submarines; there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your argument fails because ancient Rome also had checks and balances in their power structure.

https://www.reference.com/history/ch...f9ac785247b74a

The Roman Republic had several items in place to keep any one part of the government from having all the power, including a group of men called tribunes who could veto select items and completely stop acts of administration, limited terms and specific requirements for members in order to move up in the government. Many governments in the modern world are based, at least in part, on the model of the Roman Republic, including the United States.

Are you kidding? The Roman Republic ended when the Roman Empire was established with the first emperor.

Please stop trying to educate us, it is painful.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you kidding? The Roman Republic ended when the Roman Empire was established with the first emperor.

Please stop trying to educate us, it is painful.

Too funny!!!!