My Choice for President

[tango]

Why would Russia launch a preemptive nuclear strike if the USA deploys Iron Dome anti missile systems in Europe? I do not see the logic of nuking the USA knowing that doing so will very likely result in Russia being nuked in return. And what does this have to do with picking a USA candidate for whom to vote in the coming USA elections?

In many ways the whole "iron dome" concept is about fighting the wars of the last century rather than this century. It's of limited use being able to take down warheads delivered by missile when a far more modern threat would be something more like a suitcase nuke detonated somewhere like, say, downtown Manhatten on a Friday evening. A big bang, a mushroom cloud, and New York is gone along with millions of people, without warning. Less immediately spectacular but not much less devastating would be a dirty bomb in the same area, that wouldn't simply remove the entire city from existence but would render it uninhabitable for years if not decades.

Either scenario would create cause untold billions of dollars worth of damages and disruption, not to mention the human costs of death and general suffering. Just imagine the knock-on effects of the whole of downtown Manhatten being uninhabitable for decades. At a stroke you have to rehouse several million people, companies may or may not survive with the knock-on effects on employment and tax revenue, I shudder to think how many billions of dollars worth of notional property values would disappear overnight with the consequential effects on the banking system - few people would continue to pay mortgages on homes they can't occupy for decades and the effects on the banks of billions of dollars worth of outstanding mortgages disappearing is easy to see, as is the effect on the economy in general of billions of dollars worth of rental payments no longer being made.

With regard to whether Russia would launch a pre-emptive strike it's hard to say for sure. If it was clear they were facing a world in which they could be attacked but could not counterattack it's easy to see why they might consider launching a first strike while they still could but even then one would hope the notion of mutually assured destruction would mean they would think twice. Chances are they'd load up a bunch of nuclear submarines so they could launch a counterstrike from inside the dome, should the US launch a first strike against them.

 

[visionary]

That is true. We are in the midst of a war declared on us by ISIS and we fail to recognize it for political reasons of the ruling party in our country. Gorilla warfare is the name of the game. Infiltration and destroy from the inside out is also part of the strategy, yet we can not identify the moles. This election should focus on who has not sided with the enemy. Who knows and will do something like cleaning house of infiltrators, traitors, and draw clear lines of what is in and what is out for what represents this country and its moral standings should be our choice for the next President of the US. If we do not do this now, the whirlwind will come and everything will fall apart and we soon will be looking like Syria, city and city... We will be a third world, out of control, and out of resources in a heart beat.

 

[visionary]

This is serious times we live in... So here is a serious question...

 

[visionary]

Received this email and thought I would share it.

Only the Lord knows
7/28/16

"Only the Lord knows the condition of a person's heart.

I can only tell you what I've heard. First, Trump appears to be tender to things of the Spirit. I also hear that Paula White has known Trump for years and that she personally led him to Christ. Do I know that for sure? No. Do I know the details of that alleged conversion? I can't say that I do.

But there are many Christian leaders who are serving on a faith advisory committee for Trump in the future. I am among them. There are about 25 of us that include Jerry Falwell, Jr., Robert Jeffress, Jack Graham, Ben Carson, James Robison, Michele Bachmann and many others whom you would probably know. We've all agreed to serve. How will that play out if Trump becomes president? I don't know. It is a good start, I would think.

If anything, this man is a baby Christian who doesn't have a clue about how believers think, talk and act. All I can tell you is that we have only two choices, Hillary or Donald. Hillary scares me to death. And, if Christians stay home because he isn't a better candidate, Hillary will run the world for perhaps eight years. The very thought of that haunts my nights and days. One thing is sure: we need to be in prayer for our nation at this time of crisis."

–Dr. James Dobson

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems that those Christians who support the Republican party wish to believe that Donald Trump is a Christian so that voting for him will be "godly".

 

[MarkFL]

Seems that those Christians who support the Republican party wish to believe that Donald Trump is a Christian so that voting for him will be "godly".

I'm surprised the "Trumpster" waited this late in the game (unless he thought it would be more noticed now, he is first and foremost a "showman")...and I'm certain Hillary would say she is a Christian as well...after all, that is the primary prerequisite for the job.

 

[Alithis]

Why would Russia launch a preemptive nuclear strike if the USA deploys Iron Dome anti missile systems in Europe? I do not see the logic of nuking the USA knowing that doing so will very likely result in Russia being nuked in return. And what does this have to do with picking a USA candidate for whom to vote in the coming USA elections?

i guess you would have to ask putin .. but strategically speaking ..if some one puts up a net which can intercept all your most potent missiles .. he does have a point ,they are playing with the balance of nuclear power on the world .
reverse the situation .. would America strike preemptive ?.. they are after all the only nation to ever out rightly use atomic warfare and thus have shown they are not adverse to it in their psyche .
so why would you assume an enemy would not consider it feasible that if you may be struck and that strike could annihilate you .. you may as well strike first .

 

[tango]

i guess you would have to ask putin .. but strategically speaking ..if some one puts up a net which can intercept all your most potent missiles .. he does have a point ,they are playing with the balance of nuclear power on the world .
reverse the situation .. would America strike preemptive ?.. they are after all the only nation to ever out rightly use atomic warfare and thus have shown they are not adverse to it in their psyche .
so why would you assume an enemy would not consider it feasible that if you may be struck and that strike could annihilate you .. you may as well strike first .

Perhaps, but only if you're using the kind of reasoning that says that because your opponent may decide to annihilate you later you might as well face certain death now as possible death later. It's not as if Russia wouldn't be able to rustle up a few nuclear submarines or even fund a mass infiltration of terrorists. So far the media goes wild when some nutjob kills a few dozen people with an AR-15 or drives a truck into a crowd and takes out less than 100. Just imagine the coverage if, say, a high profile shopping mall were levelled in the run-up to Christmas.

Years ago when the Provisional IRA were attacking the UK mainland they targeted London's financial district and set off what I think was a fertiliser-based bomb in the back of a huge truck. Back in the 90s that did over $1bn worth of damage. Imagine a well funded organisation set on doing that sort of thing. Would we have what we British refer to as the "blitz spirit" to pull together come what may? From recent disasters I doubt it.

 

[MarkFL]

[unm]tango[/unm], I would agree with your earlier post in which you cited the greater danger is from a nuke being detonated by a terrorist group (domestic or foreign), rather than by one government launching a thermonuclear war against another.

I personally think it's only a matter of time before a van/truck containing a nuclear weapon is parked in a metropolitan area (not necessarily in the U.S., but after all, we have made ourselves the biggest target) and detonated. Even a small yield fission bomb would be devastating. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but when there are terrorists who value our deaths more than they value their own lives, I think I'm right.

 

[Highlander]

You are correct, Coffee. It is doubtful that America or Russia will ever start a nuclear war.

However, we ARE edging ever closer to such a war, but not one started by one of us. The muslim terrorists place absolutely no value on human life and would detonate a nuclear device in a split second if they ever get their hands on one. THAT is where our greatest danger of nuclear war lies.

 

[Alithis]

You are correct, Coffee. It is doubtful that America or Russia will ever start a nuclear war.

However, we ARE edging ever closer to such a war, but not one started by one of us. The muslim terrorists place absolutely no value on human life and would detonate a nuclear device in a split second if they ever get their hands on one. THAT is where our greatest danger of nuclear war lies.

it would seem counter productive to either for sur e. but some one is stirring for it to be .. just that those some ones think it wont effect themselves ...

 

[tango]

[unm]tango[/unm], I would agree with your earlier post in which you cited the greater danger is from a nuke being detonated by a terrorist group (domestic or foreign), rather than by one government launching a thermonuclear war against another.

I personally think it's only a matter of time before a van/truck containing a nuclear weapon is parked in a metropolitan area (not necessarily in the U.S., but after all, we have made ourselves the biggest target) and detonated. Even a small yield fission bomb would be devastating. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but when there are terrorists who value our deaths more than they value their own lives, I think I'm right.

The whole issue of them valuing their own lives is the bit where we need to see where they are coming from. If you truly believe that by killing infidels and dying in the process you are going to be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise you'd not only not value the lives of the infidels but you'd regard your own life as entirely worth sacrificing for the cause.

You are correct, Coffee. It is doubtful that America or Russia will ever start a nuclear war.

However, we ARE edging ever closer to such a war, but not one started by one of us. The muslim terrorists place absolutely no value on human life and would detonate a nuclear device in a split second if they ever get their hands on one. THAT is where our greatest danger of nuclear war lies.

Yes (wow, how about that, me agreeing with you!). Normally the portable nuclear device is the sort of thing that is of virtually no use to anyone because it destroys an area large enough that it needs to be left undetected for long enough for the perpetrator to make good their escape. But when dealing with people who are not only willing but actively seeking to die during their attack we're dealing with people who would gladly hold the device, maybe even sit on it so there isn't even a hint of a threat associated with unattended baggage, and actively seek their own death as part of their plot.

 

[visionary]

Does Hillary have a christian advisory team?

 

[psalms 91]

Actually I think Putin would and probably will if he thinks he can do it and escape annilation

 

[MoreCoffee]

Christians ought not to buy into the Republican V Democrat battles we're seeing in the media now. It is okay to choose a candidate and vote for him/her without buying into the slanders and lies propagated by the political parties during the campaign. Ultimately neither presidential candidate is on the Lord's side. These people are seeking worldly political office and their publicly stated aim is to represent what the people of the USA want. Christians are far better served by evangelising the nation's people so that public officials will have good reasons to do good things because the people of the USA want good things and that will most likely happen if the people of the USA are themselves good and godly people. Christian ideals of justice and goodness will not be effected from the top down (leaders to people). It is first necessary for the people to want justice and goodness from the bottom up (people to leaders). So choose your candidate remembering that the key to justice, mercy, peace, and goodness is to love your neighbour as you love yourself and to love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength.

 

[tango]

Christians ought not to buy into the Republican V Democrat battles we're seeing in the media now. It is okay to choose a candidate and vote for him/her without buying into the slanders and lies propagated by the political parties during the campaign. Ultimately neither presidential candidate is on the Lord's side. These people are seeking worldly political office and their publicly stated aim is to represent what the people of the USA want. Christians are far better served by evangelising the nation's people so that public officials will have good reasons to do good things because the people of the USA want good things and that will most likely happen if the people of the USA are themselves good and godly people. Christian ideals of justice and goodness will not be effected from the top down (leaders to people). It is first necessary for the people to want justice and goodness from the bottom up (people to leaders). So choose your candidate remembering that the key to justice, mercy, peace, and goodness is to love your neighbour as you love yourself and to love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength.

The bit I find most tedious is the idea that if you're opposed to Hillary being president it logically follows that you agree with everything Donald Trump has ever said or done during his campaign, and vice versa.

As I've said a few times now I think President Trump would be a cataclysmic disaster. I just think President Hillary Clinton would be a bigger disaster.

 

[visionary]

This election has the two parties divided over religion. DNC is Muslim supportive, while Trump is Christian supportive. Do you want Sharia Law or the Moral law guiding the US future? http://www.worldpoliticus.com/donal...hele-bachmann-announcement-no-one-saw-coming/

 

[tango]

This election has the two parties divided over religion. DNC is Muslim supportive, while Trump is Christian supportive. Do you want Sharia Law or the Moral law guiding the US future? http://www.worldpoliticus.com/donal...hele-bachmann-announcement-no-one-saw-coming/

I don't want anyone's interpretation of any religious text directing the country.

The reason is twofold, firstly because God gave man the freedom to accept or reject him and it's not any one man's place to impose a religious standard upon those who don't share his beliefs. Secondly, because if we allow government to impose a religious standard upon us there will be nothing to protect us if the religion of the government changes - a government free to impose Christian standards today is free to impose Islamic standards tomorrow and Hindu standards the day after.

Ordinarily I would support Trump over Hillary (but only in the sense that I'd rather have a broken leg than a heart attack), but his ideas about sweeping bans on Muslims in the country are just silly.

 

[visionary]

I don't want anyone's interpretation of any religious text directing the country.

The reason is twofold, firstly because God gave man the freedom to accept or reject him and it's not any one man's place to impose a religious standard upon those who don't share his beliefs. Secondly, because if we allow government to impose a religious standard upon us there will be nothing to protect us if the religion of the government changes - a government free to impose Christian standards today is free to impose Islamic standards tomorrow and Hindu standards the day after.

Ordinarily I would support Trump over Hillary (but only in the sense that I'd rather have a broken leg than a heart attack), but his ideas about sweeping bans on Muslims in the country are just silly.

The details of the mechanics of how he is going to do that is far different from his broad sweeping comments. You can not close the gate and throw all those inside the gate out. A processing by which people are vetted must be enforced. Currently our immigration laws are being ignored.

Trump, at least will close the gate, and work on a process to vet those wishing to come in, and those who are in and wishing to stay in. Those who are not interested should go home. We do not need them sucking the live blood out of the social security, medicaid, etc systems in place for Americans. Clinton has no such plans except to open the gate even further and the flood in will change the landscape of what we know as America forever. Clinton has a OWO agenda through the UN [Muslim dominated]. Trump is retro in wanting America to be the king of the world in all departments. The benefits of focusing on US needs vs world needs first is one of sustaining and building rather than tearing down and sliding into a melting pot of conflicts.

 

[tango]

The details of the mechanics of how he is going to do that is far different from his broad sweeping comments. You can not close the gate and throw all those inside the gate out. A processing by which people are vetted must be enforced. Currently our immigration laws are being ignored.

Trump, at least will close the gate, and work on a process to vet those wishing to come in, and those who are in and wishing to stay in. Those who are not interested should go home. We do not need them sucking the live blood out of the social security, medicaid, etc systems in place for Americans. Clinton has no such plans except to open the gate even further and the flood in will change the landscape of what we know as America forever. Clinton has a OWO agenda through the UN [Muslim dominated]. Trump is retro in wanting America to be the king of the world in all departments. The benefits of focusing on US needs vs world needs first is one of sustaining and building rather than tearing down and sliding into a melting pot of conflicts.

Controlled immigration is something I would entirely support. The trouble is that broad sweeping comments that suggest, if not outright state, that he wants a ban on Muslims coming into the country and all Muslims currently within the country to be registered has unpleasant tones of Nazi Germany requiring Jews to wear their yellow stars. It shifts the perception of the policy from enforcing the laws to introducing draconian new laws that are unlikely to have any useful effect.

Enforcing immigration law is simple common sense. There's no point having laws on the books and then ignoring them. No argument from me there