POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[IkeTheGeneric]

Because it's not just any war, its nuclear war.

Typical fearmongering.

We can stop their actions, sure. But this is not the way. This action is Self Delete, and therefore the logic of 'stopping the bad guys because they're hurting people' doesn't make sense when everyone you're trying to save will end up dead.

As the old saying goes:
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Confronting them directly would be a mistake, and would help no one. Going from the inside would change everything.

Do you have any idea what's going on outside of the American bubble? Like seriously, do you even understand what I was going on about? Ignoring the stuff Russia is doing to align with them is in no way beneficial to us or any of our allies. I have absolutely no idea why you think it would be a good idea to back down to a dying country trying to play "Who's political richard is bigger"

[Ad Bot]

[LeisureSuit912]

You guys act like Clinton or Annoying Orange could just launch nukes anytime they want to.

[SeventhSandwich]

You guys act like Clinton or Annoying Orange could just launch nukes anytime they want to.

strictly speaking, any president can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

[Poliwhirl]

You guys act like Clinton or Annoying Orange could just launch nukes anytime they want to.

they absolutely could, but also they absolutely wouldn't

politicians have self-preservation instincts, too

[Conan]

like its obvious to anyone even half intelligent that using nukes is a very, very bad idea. the only people who would probably launch a nuke without caring about the consequences are the north korean leaders. putin's not stupid enough to launch nukes.

[Jairo]

I'm gonna stick by my delegation that pakistan/india will be the first to fire nukes if the occasion ever arises

[beachbum111111]

I'm gonna stick by my delegation that pakistan/india will be the first to fire nukes if the occasion ever arises

Nooo not the stuffting streets :CCC

[Nickelob Ultra]

like its obvious to anyone even half intelligent that using nukes is a very, very bad idea. the only people who would probably launch a nuke without caring about the consequences are the north korean leaders. putin's not stupid enough to launch nukes.

Exactly, who would be stupid enough to do such a thing?

[Master Matthew²]

Exactly, who would be stupid enough to do such a thing?

Ahh, the Clinton News and Brodcasting Company.

[Magus]

Ahh, the Clinton News and Brodcasting Company.

How dare the liberal media record the things Annoying Orange says!

[Frequency]

Exactly, who would be stupid enough to do such a thing?

"citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee."

seemslegitmeme.exe

I'm sure there's a better source than that.

[Conan]

Ahh, the Clinton News and Brodcasting Company.

....so you're just going to dismiss the claim that he did ask without even trying to rationalize why he did so?? even i thought the news is missing context

like i think the question is somewhat legitimate. sure its """obvious""" that the nuked countries or countries with nukes would retaliate, but the answer's usually not so cut and dry - he might have wanted to understand more about the nuances about nuclear usage. though i don't imagine Annoying Orange had that sort of thought in mind when he asked the question.

the fact he asked the question doesn't mean he necessarily wants to use it, and its scummy that they imply that is the case in the article.

[beachbum111111]

Ahh, the Clinton News and Brodcasting Company.

Stop

[Nickelob Ultra]

Ahh, the Clinton News and Brodcasting Company.

"citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee."

seemslegitmeme.exe

I'm sure there's a better source than that.

Literally take your pick, it's not like he was misquoted or misrepresented in any way.  He has been quoted questioning why we don't use our nukes already to solve issues abroad, completely oblivious to:
1.  The concept of mutually assured destruction, that using nuclear weapons on a target that possesses nuclear weapons will also return fire.
2.  The immense backlash of utilizing nuclear weapons on a target that does not have nuclear weapons (not even NATO would stick with us).
3.  The environmental impact of the weapon, even if it was the Islamic State or North Korea that was targeted.

This isn't disputable nor is it "shill headlines."  I know it's common to plug your ears and sing when you hear something negative about your orange lord and savior, but you can't ignore the facts lol

[Frequency]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/joe-scarborough-donald-Annoying Orange-asked-three-times-why-us-cant-use-nukes/

"while the claim certainly turned heads, it's worth noting that Scarborough was not a party to the conversation. An MSNBC executive said that Scarborough heard the tale "days" before repeating it, but the source and provenance of the anecdote were unclear."

thanks for googling that for me though