The 2 most important questions of this Election. EMERGENCY

[Real Men Wear Green]

What worries you more? That Russia wants Trump elected or that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Hillary elected?

I'm not sure which is worse.

[NumberSix]

I'm not sure which is worse.

Well, one side is spreading worldwide jihadism and funding terror and the other is Russia.

[rufuspaul]

What worries you more? That Russia wants Trump elected or that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Hillary elected?

Ding Ding Ding!

[BoutPractice]

Let's calm down a bit, shall we? I understand the rhetoric can be more than a bit scary, but it was far worse in the Cold War era.

As late as the mid 80s, nuclear armageddon seemed like a very real possibility... just because we've been primed these past decades not to think about the implications of a nuclear Russia does not mean that we're back to Cold War era danger levels, where actual nuclear threats were made a number of times.

(As a general rule, people forget how crazy and terrifying what is now history seemed at the time)

Now - neither Putin nor Obama wants a nuclear conflict. The same applies to Clinton/Trump, and would apply to you too if you were president.

A nuclear conflict, were it to happen, would be caused by an accident / miscalculation.

In other words, the most likely predictor of whether a nuclear conflict happens is not the aggressiveness level, but the skill level of decision makers.

Therefore, an ignorant, arrogant rookie who would like to be friends with Putin but is afraid of looking weak is more dangerous than a well-prepared professional who hates his guts (although really, Putin is the one who hates her) but knows where the tripwires are.

Putin/Obama was tense as hell, and both made mistakes... but at critical times they were able to prevent conflicts from escalating because they basically understood what button not to push. It'll be the same with Clinton.

You'll hear rhetoric, you'll hear about this or that aggressive intention or threat, but in the end, direct confrontation is likely to be avoided as always. Of course, it's never impossible, but it's no more likely to happen under Clinton than under past sane, reasonably competent presidents...

And it would still be incredibly unlikely even under Trump. If they could get him to listen three minutes to a high ranking general with an aura of authority (ideally someone who looks/sounds like Patton or McArthur) he'd probably get it.

[poido123]

Let's calm down a bit, shall we? I understand the rhetoric can be more than a bit scary, but it was far worse in the Cold War era.

As late as the mid 80s, nuclear armageddon seemed like a very real possibility... just because we've been primed these past decades not to think about the implications of a nuclear Russia does not mean that we're back to Cold War era danger levels, where actual nuclear threats were made a number of times.

(As a general rule, people forget how crazy and terrifying what is now history seemed at the time)

Now - neither Putin nor Obama wants a nuclear conflict. The same applies to Clinton/Trump, and would apply to you too if you were president.

A nuclear conflict, were it to happen, would be caused by an accident / miscalculation.

In other words, the most likely predictor of whether a nuclear conflict happens is not the aggressiveness level, but the skill level of decision makers.

Therefore, an ignorant, arrogant rookie who would like to be friends with Putin but is afraid of looking weak is more dangerous than a well-prepared professional who hates his guts (although really, Putin is the one who hates her) but knows where the tripwires are.

Putin/Obama was tense as hell, and both made mistakes... but at critical times they were able to prevent conflicts from escalating because they basically understood what button not to push. It'll be the same with Clinton.

You'll hear rhetoric, you'll hear about this or that aggressive intention or threat, but in the end, direct confrontation is likely to be avoided as always. Of course, it's never impossible, but it's no more likely to happen under Clinton than under past sane, reasonably competent presidents...

And it would still be incredibly unlikely even under Trump. If they could get him to listen three minutes to a high ranking general with an aura of authority (ideally someone who looks/sounds like Patton or McArthur) he'd probably get it.

Dude, this has gone beyond just taunting. Russia is making preparations for nuclear war and organising its people for imminent conflict.


This is very serious. Trump doesnt get in amd the world faces a nuclear reality.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Dude, this has gone beyond just taunting. Russia is making preparations for nuclear war and organising its people for imminent conflict.


This is very serious. Trump doesnt get in amd the world faces a nuclear reality.

You throw around the term nuclear very easily

[dude77]

hillary and her cronies are itching for another war

[poido123]

You throw around the term nuclear very easily

Two nations that have a large nuclear arsenal?


Do you think they are there for decoration?


You have to understand, Russia and Putin feel cornered into this conflict. They are moving MILLIONS of citizens into bunkers and preparing for Nuclear war.


Even for the small chance that they won't use nuclear weapons, do you really want to risk Hillary and find out?