The Politics Thread

[Ircher]

Discuss politics here, but keep it civil; don't make this into the recently closed Donald Trump thread.

Don't flame users for disagreeing.

[Ircher]

PS: Most of you were fine in the DT thread. It's primary K******* who I felt was flaming.

[Ircher]

So I've been thinking about the Donald having access to nukes lately, and that's a bit frightening. I'm surprised more people aren't talking about the potential effects of giving the nuclear football to someone who has advocated civilian casualties as a means to destroy ISIL.

I think you're overestimating the power that the US President has over nuclear weapons.

They can't just go "whee" and press a button and kill a thousand people. For a nuclear

first

strike (the first strike bit is important - if it's a retaliation to a nuclear attack, less steps must be taken), there needs to be permissions from the Secretary of Defence, and potentially the director of the CIA and the Presidential Cabinet and, well, the point is, it requires negotiation and agreement from a large group of others.

The "Nuclear Football" doesn't literally contain a button either or anything like that - it's a set of instructions on nuclear strategy and communication equipment with the military personnel who would actually carry out the strike, all stuff like that.

Probably Congress too.

[Ircher]

So, erhm.... Who's gonna win the Democratic nomination?

[Ircher]

Our justice system is playing favorites; Clinton should be indicted imho.

[Ircher]

Indictment is based on evidence. It sounds very improbable to me that there isn't enough evidence to draw up formal charges against Clinton.

[Ircher]

While the media always exaggerates things, there must be SOME evidence suggesting that Clinton MAY be guilty.

[Ircher]

Which, that shouldn't be the case.

Rule of Law: No one is (or should be) above the law (the Constitution).

Not indicting Clinton imo violates this principle that our government was founded on. That's why impeachment exists.

[Ircher]

There is, but Loretta Lynch said she wouldn't indict her

that's not true

You're telling me its 100% the media then?

[Ircher]

She should be imo. Again, going back to Rule of Law; justice should be served objectively, not subjectively. Unfortunately, justice has seemed to become intertwined with politics now, so.... broken system.....

Pedit: So you DO agree she should probably be indicted?

[Ircher]

she did not "make it a point to announce" anything

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked whether her agency would be "required" to pursue criminal charges against Clinton, and she responded accurately to that question

Of course that's hiw she answered it, but if she were willing to indict her she would have said so, and wouldn't continuously not answer the question when asked of whether or not she would be willing to regardless

do you think the justice department should make it a practice to announce their intentions to indict people before the fbi tells them whether a crime has even been committed or not

That's a fair argument. If the FBI does say she did, then the justice dept should indict though.

[Ircher]

Bump **************