GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[Animavore]

Someone asked a few pages ago, "What makes Drumpf dangerous?"

This. This does (and all the other, worthless, GOP candidates in fairness).

FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR: You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?

DONALD DRUMPF: I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not – I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room – but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

STEPHEN STROMBERG, EDITORIAL WRITER: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?

DONALD DRUMPF: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/trump-s ... te-change/

Sheer stupidity is dangerous.

[pErvinalia]

That certainly sounds like Trump. Repeating simple things and being unable to finish sentences..

[Forty Two]

He's not wrong, though, about nuclear weapons being the greater, more immediate risk.

... a “limited” regional nuclear war between antagonistic nuclear nations India and Pakistan could result in 300 million deaths, with 6.5 million tons of black soot released into the atmosphere. It would be enough to block out the sun and change global temperatures by 1.3 degrees Celcius. For comparison, global temperature only changed seven-tenths of 1 degree from 1880-2010. Precipitation in some parts of the world would fall by 50 percent, and the growing season would not be long enough to sustain staple crops. Two billion people would die of starvation, Helfand said.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... ate-change

[pErvinalia]

Global warming is a bigger threat, though.

[Animavore]

He's not wrong, though, about nuclear weapons being the greater, more immediate risk.

... a “limited” regional nuclear war between antagonistic nuclear nations India and Pakistan could result in 300 million deaths, with 6.5 million tons of black soot released into the atmosphere. It would be enough to block out the sun and change global temperatures by 1.3 degrees Celcius. For comparison, global temperature only changed seven-tenths of 1 degree from 1880-2010. Precipitation in some parts of the world would fall by 50 percent, and the growing season would not be long enough to sustain staple crops. Two billion people would die of starvation, Helfand said.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... ate-change

So what? How does that take from Drumpf's sheer denial of scientific fact and utter unwillingness to do anything about it (the part I'm attacking)? Even the end of the article you posted (which I'm actually doubtful of, but let's not get sidetracked) says -

Helfand argued that climate change is a slow and predictable threat that can be managed, but the nuclear threat is immediate: “The world could end tonight.” He admonished the audience, “If we are serious about providing for the security of our children, we need to get rid of these horrible weapons before they are used.”

How can we manage the threat if we're electing dangerous leaders who deny such a threat exists?

[pErvinalia]

And I thought "nuclear winter" had been debunked a long time ago.

[Animavore]

And I thought "nuclear winter" had been debunked a long time ago.

I'm not sure. I have reason to doubt that nuclear threat does pose a higher threat which are unrelated to "nuclear winter". The guy seems to argue that a threat exists because the weapons exist (going by this article), which seems rather un-nuanced on the face of it.

[piscator]

...It's a transcript of Trump's meeting with the WaPo editorial board...

...

MARCUS: You chose to raise it …

TRUMP: No, I chose to respond.

MARUS: You chose to respond.

TRUMP: I had no choice.

MARCUS: You chose to raise it during a debate. Can you explain why you had no choice?

TRUMP: I don’t want people to go around thinking that I have a problem. I’m telling you, Ruth, I had so many people. I would say 25, 30 people would tell me … every time I’d shake people’s hand, “Oh, you have nice hands.” Why shouldn’t I? And, by the way, by saying that I solved the problem. Nobody questions … I even held up my hands, and said, “Look, take a look at that hand.”

MARCUS: You told us in the debate ….

TRUMP: And by saying that, I solved the problem. Nobody questions. Everyone held my hand. I said look. Take a look at that hand.

MARCUS: You told us in the debate that you guaranteed there was not another problem. Was that presidential? And why did you decide to do that?

TRUMP: I don’t know if it was presidential, honestly, whether it is or not. He said, ‘Donald Trump has small hands and therefore he has small something else.’ I didn’t say that. And all I did is when he failed, when he was failing, when he was, when Christie made him look bad, I gave him the– a little recap and I said, and I said, and I had this big strong powerful hand ready to grab him, because I thought he was going to faint. And everybody took it fine. Whether it was presidential or not I can’t tell you. I can just say that what he said was a lie. And everybody, they wanted to do stories on my hands; after I said that, they never did. And then I held up the hand, I showed people the hand. You know, when I’ve got a big audience. So yeah, I think it’s not a question of presidential …

MARCUS: He said he regrets …

HIATT: Okay, let’s move on here. Let’s move on.

TRUMP: I did feel I should respond. Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know. But I felt I should respond because everybody was talking about it.

RYAN: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You’ve mentioned it many times. You’ve also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?

TRUMP: I don’t want to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…

RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?

[CROSSTALK]

TRUMP: I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?

HIATT: Sure, then I’d like to let a couple of them get in questions.

LEWANDOWSKI: We have got five minutes, hard out.

HIATT: Okay.

TRUMP: Oh is it?

CORY: Yeah. You have a meeting you have to get to.

TRUMP: Okay we do.

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/po ... ial-board/

[pErvinalia]

He's an incoherent teenager!

[piscator]

Jersey represent

[Animavore]

So will he or won't he nuke ISIS?

Actually; what the fuck is he even talking about?

[pErvinalia]

Only Merkans with IQs below 80 know...

[Forty Two]

So will he or won't he nuke ISIS?

Actually; what the fuck is he even talking about?

It's actually pretty clear. No, not unless they hit us first.

You know, the gripe is that he won't "rule out" using nukes on ISIS. Neither will Hillary. So what? Hillary criticized Obama for ruling out the use of nukes against Al Qaida in Pakistan.

[Svartalf]

e need to nuke ISIS, make it clear we won't tolerate their terrorism anymore and cow them into submission, or into utter oblivion

[Animavore]

So will he or won't he nuke ISIS?

Actually; what the fuck is he even talking about?

It's actually pretty clear. No, not unless they hit us first.

You know, the gripe is that he won't "rule out" using nukes on ISIS. Neither will Hillary. So what? Hillary criticized Obama for ruling out the use of nukes against Al Qaida in Pakistan.

He didn't explicitly say that. He evaded the question or it was buried under some noise. Then he went on some rant.