'Nuclear Football' Safety Procedures To Be Reassessed (cnn.com) 319
quonset writes: Wherever the president goes, so goes the nuclear football, a 45 pound case which allows the president to to confirm his identity and authorize a nuclear strike. The Football also provides the commander in chief with a simplified menu of nuclear strike options -- allowing him to decide, for example, whether to destroy all of America's enemies in one fell swoop or to limit himself to obliterating only Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing.
During the attempted insurrection on January 6th, video from inside the capitol showed the mob coming within 100 feet of then-Vice President Mike Pence and his military aide who was carrying a second nuclear football. Had they lost control of the case, no nuclear weapons could have been launched, but the highly classified information within the case could have been leaked, or sold, to nation states.
As a result, members of Congress asked the Pentagon to review procedures for handling and security of the nuclear football. The Department of Defense Inspector General will evaluate the policies and procedures around the Presidential Emergency Satchel, also known as the "nuclear football," in the event that it is "lost, stolen, or compromised," according to an announcement from the DoD IG's office. This would not be the first time procedures for the case have been reviewed. Jimmy Carter, who qualified as a nuclear sub commander, was aware that he would have only a few minutes to decide how to respond to a nuclear strike against the United States. Carter ordered that the war plans be drastically simplified. A former military aide to President Bill Clinton, Col. Buzz Patterson, would later describe the resulting pared-down set of choices as akin to a "Denny's breakfast menu." "It's like picking one out of Column A and two out of Column B," he told the History Channel.
Following Carter, an incident during the Reagan administration led to another review. In the chaos after the attempted assassination, the aide carrying the case was separated from Reagan and did not accompany him to the hospital. When Reagan was stripped of his clothes prior to going into surgery, the biscuit, a card every president is given, which, if needed, can personally identify the president, was found abandoned in a hospital plastic bag. Bill Clinton had his review moment when it was discovered he had lost his biscuit for months, and never told anyone.
During the attempted insurrection on January 6th, video from inside the capitol showed the mob coming within 100 feet of then-Vice President Mike Pence and his military aide who was carrying a second nuclear football. Had they lost control of the case, no nuclear weapons could have been launched, but the highly classified information within the case could have been leaked, or sold, to nation states.
As a result, members of Congress asked the Pentagon to review procedures for handling and security of the nuclear football. The Department of Defense Inspector General will evaluate the policies and procedures around the Presidential Emergency Satchel, also known as the "nuclear football," in the event that it is "lost, stolen, or compromised," according to an announcement from the DoD IG's office. This would not be the first time procedures for the case have been reviewed. Jimmy Carter, who qualified as a nuclear sub commander, was aware that he would have only a few minutes to decide how to respond to a nuclear strike against the United States. Carter ordered that the war plans be drastically simplified. A former military aide to President Bill Clinton, Col. Buzz Patterson, would later describe the resulting pared-down set of choices as akin to a "Denny's breakfast menu." "It's like picking one out of Column A and two out of Column B," he told the History Channel.
Following Carter, an incident during the Reagan administration led to another review. In the chaos after the attempted assassination, the aide carrying the case was separated from Reagan and did not accompany him to the hospital. When Reagan was stripped of his clothes prior to going into surgery, the biscuit, a card every president is given, which, if needed, can personally identify the president, was found abandoned in a hospital plastic bag. Bill Clinton had his review moment when it was discovered he had lost his biscuit for months, and never told anyone.
Dummy? (Score:2)
Wasn't the nuclear football a dummy at this point?
I vaguely recall the previous president being given a non-functional fascimile instead...
No one person should be able to start a world war.
Re: (Score:2)
No one person should be able to start a world war.
Good News! We’re handing that decision off to an “AI”..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No one person should be able to start a world war.
This.
Ability to convince people to vote for you isn't a qualification for being in charge of something that can destroy the planet in minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
You could just give up the nukes but then you're either relying on finding sufficiently destructive alternative weapons that other nuclear ar
Re:Dummy? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, I'll bite.
The whole concept of MAD is that no one launches a surprise nuclear attack because if they do, they are not assured of taking out their enemy's entire retaliatory capability before their enemy can fire back.
The U.S. president has the football because they're the person with the authority to launch that retaliatory strike. If an adversary of the U.S. was assured that the U.S. could not respond in time to a surprise nuclear attack, they might be tempted to launch such an attack.
So being ready to respond at a moment's notice is part of the MAD strategy for preventing a nuclear attack in the first place. It's completely bonkers, but the logic makes sense. Most of us, thankfully, don't have to think about this kind of thing most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, MAD is probably the best acronym in history.
Re: (Score:2)
They now have enough accuracy with ballistic missiles that the Minuteman array can be destroyed
Only if the President can't get to the football and put those birds to wind.
The Minutemen are solid-fuel for precisely this reason. You don't need to fuel those fuckers. You give them some flight parameters, and press go. This means they can be in-flight while the enemy birds are still in boost phase. They'll pass each other during midcourse like ships in the night.
Knowing that, I doubt they drop even a single weapon onto a known silo. Much better pay-off going for the economic base since you know the re
Nuclear Strike Menu Options (Score:5, Funny)
... allowing him to decide, for example, whether to destroy all of America's enemies in one fell swoop or to limit himself to obliterating only Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing
Article omitted the "I'm Feeling Lucky" option
How the End Times start (Score:2)
What are those stupid sirens going off for???
Re: (Score:2)
That means you won!
An all-expenses paid trip to Cuba.
No one person should have that power (Score:3)
The US President has many powers, particularly the power of the Commander in Chief. But Presidents are human, and the best of them can become corrupt. It should be very difficult to declare nuclear war. No one person should ever have that kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
What I understand of the procedure is that the order would come down through at least 1 other military commander who would, in turn, have tech grunts actually throw the switch to launch.
There was an incident in the USSR, where their early-detection radar had some kind of interference and showed the US launching a missile strike. The procedure for this scenario - the orders, as it were - were to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Procedures were initiated to launch, but the guy who was supposed to throw th
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you can now become president without being corrupt? How do you finance that campaign if you don't sell out?
Re: (Score:3)
You use an m of n protocol. The president plus at least one (or possibly two) of certain positions must agree. Those positions might be VP, SecState, SecDef, or Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act has been introduced in Congress as H.R.669 and S.1148, and would require that any nuclear launch occur only after both the SecDef and JCOS Chair confirm a nuclear attack on the US.
The bills themselves are thin, saying that no money can be used to launch a first stri
Re: (Score:2)
Since the protocol itself is top secret, the football itself might not be activated until the SecDef and JCOS Chair essentially initially a first step in the process that nukes are in the air. We likely will never know and all we can do at best is "trust" that those involved have considered the potential weakness you mentioned. Literally the only way we would potentially ever hear is if one of the two with the football were to be crazy enough to try a first strike when they are also likely informed on the s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to discuss the matter, you just need multiple people to act.
Its the same way land based ICBMs are set up to be fired - while fiction and TV might have you believe that each silo has its own two-person launch command team who fire the missile using two keys, its actually a bit more than that. One installation may have a dozen or more silos and two or three launch command teams, and all the missiles can be fired on the basis of a certain interaction between a certain number of keys being used.
Re: (Score:3)
Others already replied to your objection to consensus. This is easily done.
Eliminating nuclear weapons? Let's suppose the US decides to eliminate its nuclear weapons. What motivates China, or Russia, or India, or Pakistan, or North Korea, or the other 20 or so nuclear powers, to also get rid of theirs? Yeah good luck with that. The only way to keep bad guys with nukes at bay, is to have good guys with nukes.
Where is that biscuit? (Score:2)
The destroyer of worlds - Dan Carlin (Score:2)
Direct link, because the cross-site scripting is weird. [podtrac.com]
Procedures and Denny's decisions. (Score:2)
"The Department of Defense Inspector General will evaluate the policies and procedures around the Presidential Emergency Satchel, also known as the "nuclear football," in the event that it is "lost, stolen, or compromised,"
OK, let's just stop right here for a moment. The US Military is one of the most prepared organizations on the entire planet. They practically pride themselves on having not just a plan, but a backup plan, and two more backup plans in case the backup of the backup plan goes south.
Why in the HELL does this read like we do NOT have plans and procedures in place already (and for the last few decades) in the event that a nuclear football is "lost, stolen, or compromised"? If Pences' football would have been co
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing every leader must understand is... it makes absolutely no difference what you do, except you can make the problem worse.
If an enemy strike is inbound, you're basically all dead by the time the President hears about it and is asked for a decision. If they choose to retaliate, if that's even possible in that time without a dead-man's-switch kind of system, people on the other side of the world die too.
If they don't retaliate, allies will anyway. Everyone's dead again.
If they retaliate and ther
Easy fix (Score:3)
Just hand over the control of nuclear missile launch to a decentralized computer AI!
Oh, nevermind...
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Donald Trump was "Well informed and lucid" than the only conclusion we can make of the man was that he was criminally negligent and cost half a million americans their lives due to completely neglecting his constitutionally mandated duties to put in place adequate quarantine and other health measures to steer the US out of its covid hell. Instead he gutted the CDC and replaced it with yes men, constantly undermined the advice coming out with what few experts the administration had, interfered with crucial logistics of respirators and medications, and then had the gall to take the credit for the vaccine research that was mostly done in the UK (adenovirus based vaxes such as Astrazenica) and Germany (mRNA vaxes such as Pfizer-BioNtek). The vaccine roll out happened in spite of the man.
And thats just focusing on the last year of his term, there was 3 years of baffling nonsense coming out of that man prior to the bad bug turning up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
People are upset and angry that something out of their control dramatically affected their lives and killed many.
People look for a target when this happens. The president at the time happened to be a loudmouth imbecile who was clearly in way over his head - a natural target for blame.
It's very reasonable to say that the U.S. could have done better, but pinning 500k deaths on him is silly and a notion which is not born of rational thought. People all over the world, with all different types of governments,
Re: (Score:3)
And plenty of young people with no comorbidities died too or were left with long lasting effects.
All existing evidence that we currently have overwhelmingly points to covid-19 as a natural virus that was not engineered, the only counter "evidence" is a slew of conspiracy theories. Yes, it would be great to pin the blame on China, but they're never going to pay reparations and we'll never bomb them, so it's just a bunch of wasted hot air that does nothing but garner the un-informed conspiracy votes.
Here in
Don't throw "ad homimen" until you make an effort! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can debate Trumps role in the COVID death toll, but you really didn't put any effort into that. Look at your post: "One that was, IN NO WAY, fiddled with in a lab." Do you realize you're stating it wasn't "fiddled with" in a lab? You're agreeing with the Chinese in that sentence. But your bad grammar aside, you didn't prevent evidence nor a reasonable argument. As someone neutral on the lab-origin facet, someone rando saying "IN NO WAY" is not really compelling. Cite some sources, provide an argument better than "NO WAY." You get no respect from your audience because you give no respect to them. Your lab origin paragraph is just emotional rant.
Your "A little thing we like to call "freedom"" paragraph is also ill informed. The gov didn't force you to stay in your home. So your entire premise is nonsense. What I think you meant to say, but it's hard to tell because you are so incoherent, is regarding business shutdowns and your local/state gov can shut down businesses for all sorts of reasons, health code violations come to mind. If they think it's a health emergency, they have the full right to stop a commercial business from operating publicly. I think my state's decisions were pretty justified for the most part. However, if you have to say jingoisms like "A little thing we like to call "freedom""...you don't understand freedom...your argument is garbage as well. You're hiding behind slogans instead of making an original or even coherent point. Freedom is a nebulous word that means many different things to many different people and I am quite confident you do not actually understand the legal freedoms granted to you by the United States. So you made up a straw man about gov confining you to your home, but valiantly slayed your straw man there, bud.
Regarding your "calling him a "racist" " point....yup, it's right on. He refused to accept the medical term and did all he could to rebrand it as "the chinavirus." Why? to make someone else the villain. If it was an attack by China, he could rally his base and maybe pick up some new stupid supporters on the fence in the next election. All that ire directed to whomever reminded you of China shuts down your critical thinking and evaluation if he's doing a good job..questioning him telling you to send UV light and bleach into your veins...saying it will go away by April 2020...that it's no worse than the flu...chastising people for wearing a mask...getting Herman Cain killed and nearly getting himself and half the white house killed. So yeah, it was a racist tactic to rally people like you to hate China, if not your local people of Chinese ancestry so you can focus your anger towards them instead of questioning "Well, what has DJT done for me lately? How's he doing? Could he be doing better?" Such questions are rarely asked in time of war with a scary enemy. DJT knows this. He was quite upset that the media was taking a neutral tone on the virus, calling it specific medical names instead of Wuhan Flu or Chinavirus. Meanwhile the US is filled with Asian American residents, many on the west coast whose ancestors moved here before China was even communist, who have to live in fear of MAGA folks looking for an outlet for their frustrations. Nice to throw them under the bus. I have had talks with a handful of coworkers from China. They are really worried about hate crimes, which fortunately has not materialized, but it is shitty to make a large group of the use nervous in a racist bid to deflect focus from your job performance, which I will say was quite poor. What struck me was he didn't even have a vaccination plan....he knew a vaccine was coming...his entire staff didn't even start a draft. If he has half a brain, politically, he would have oversold his vaccination plan before the election and given p
...or possibility centrists disagree as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has become a progressive echo chamber. I know it sucks sometimes, but setting your threshold at -1 to see all posts is really the only way to use this site now (for non-progressives).
So translation...the majority of people find my opinions repellent...so it's a progressive echo chamber? I assure you genuinely progressive opinions get met with a lot of opposition. Look at it logically. Either:
A. I am downvoted because people generally find my statements and statements from like-minded individuals objectionable for some reason because of what we are saying or how we have said it or...
B. There is a conspiracy...the media is just "biased." Slashdot, a decentralized forum, is an "echo chamber"
Calling Donald Trump a failure is not a "progressive" opinion. The majority of voters voted against him, twice. The majority of the international community views him as a failure. Only a very small percentage of the United States actually likes him or respects him. It may be the majority in your neck of the woods, but it's not the majority electorally or globally. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a progressive. You could just have opinions that are objectionable to centrists, liberals, and progressives.
I find the "world is against me" bullshit to be quite manipulative. If you're having to question the bias of everyone you meet, that's a sign you're being manipulated. It's what cults do. It's what crazy religions do. Starting about 30 years ago, it's what the far right has started doing. The more you sound like Scientologists, the more you should really question your affiliations. You know...30 years ago, conservatives used to attempt to win elections by getting more votes. Hell, even 15, 20 years ago, they care about getting more people to vote for them...not convincing their stans that anyone who disagrees is part of a bias, conspiracy or echo chamber and doing all they can to suppress votes, hoping their hardcore supporters are more likely to jump through the hoops than people without a strong affiliation.
This "us vs them" mentality is very toxic, especially for conservatives in the long term. You need to actually persuade people of the merits of your arguments, not complain that no one likes you. The doubling down on crazy and stupid just ensures that Republicans that could actually win a general election are eliminated by primaries. Conservatives should be crafting messages to make conservatism appealing to everyone, especially those in the center. So instead of complaining that somehow the forums are unfair, put a little more effort into crafting a message that appeals to someone who DOESN'T read breitbart all day or subscribe to the QAnon conspiracies.
Instead of shitting on "others" all day, tell me how agreeing with you will make my life better. Tell me how Republicans can improve MY life...don't just tell me that you think the Democrats are shit. Persuade me to adopt your view, don't just shit on what you perceive mine to be....and for fucks sake, stop fucking complaining like a child about progressive echo chambers. Slashdot is NOT progressive. There's a much better chance the posts you enjoyed were downvoted for tone than some sort of stupid progressive conspiracy. Slashdot is a very friendly audience to respectful and informed debate. Do a better job crafting your message and people will vote it up.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:4, Insightful)
Donald Trump, for all his faults, was clearly lucid. He attacked questions well informed and engaged.
Really? The live TV thing where he asked his medical advisers whether internal use of bleach was a good idea was "lucid", "informed" and "engaged"?
Let's see the look on her face again, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Oh I forgot, he was being "sarcastic". (facepalm)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't say "bleach".
He said "disinfectant".
And there are substances that qualify as "disinfectants", that are taken in-vitro. But not for that particular purpose.
For all you assholes screaming at Rand Paul for going after Fauci with "Paul isn't a Doctor!"
Well? Neither was Trump. He made an idle speculation in public.
OH THE HORROR!
But please, go on with your revisionism.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, let's hail an alleged president who speculated in public. Who would listen and follow his advice. . .we'll try not to recall the poor couple in Arizona who drank some of the fish tank chemical that contained hydroxycloroquine, at least the wife survived. And there were good people on both sides of the racist get-together in N. Carolina. And who could forget those proud Americans who decided the alleged president won the election when even his own nominated judges laughed at their "evidence". Then a group of them attacked Congress because he told them to in a bid to have Congress throw out the election and declare him Fuhrer.
Re: (Score:2)
And there are substances that qualify as "disinfectants", that are taken in-vitro.
Yes, they're called antibiotics, and they fucking suck at ending a viral infection.
You're really asking for the flaming you're getting, man.
I can totally see why some people think ol' Joe isn't all there.
I think he probably is, he's just got... well, Joe's style. I mean he's been like that for as long as I can remember.
But you are so fucking deluded with regard to your frankly icky trumpophilia, that it makes any opinion you may have regarding the opposition... not worth much, to put it nicely.
As for you not understanding Trump's strategy.
He'd say shit.
And his opposition would catch fire and begin spurting blood out their ears.
Meanwhile, as they're rolling around screaming imprecations, he and his administration were GETTING SHIT DONE.
I mean
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They're NOT called "antibiotics".
I apologize for the snark, however:
disinfectants are anti-bacterials.
antivirals are not considered disinfectants.
You can look this up if you don't believe me, but I'm right.
This is YOU attempting to insert narrative.
No. I think this is you trying to avoid something laughably stupid that Trump said. I mean who cares? Every President I've lived through has said enough dumb shit to fill a DVD worth of blooper roll. Who cares? Why is this the hill you want to die on?
The substances being discussed at the time were clearly NOT antibiotics.
Well, of course not. That's why my response was snarky as to your use the word disinfectant.
The substances being discussed don't exist. Period. Would be great if they did.
Viruses don't have cell walls, and the ones that are encapsulated are done so with the shattered remains of the host that made them.
This is why antivirals focus on improving your ability to fight a virus, not on destroying the virus, and why the word disinfectant means antibacterial.
Again, please continue trying to blame Trump for the Apple and everything after.
I'm not doing that at all.
I totally agree that it's nearly impossible to objectively evaluate anything about the guy given the hate for him. I also believe that exists toward Biden, and formerly Mrs. Clinton.
But the fact is, what he was.... was stupid. I don't understand the defensiveness. It's not like the guy didn't have a history of saying... well, really stupid shit.
Historical revisionism is the soul of good sophistry.
This is a strawman. I didn't try to revise history. Attempting to label what I did as that as a way to avoid the actual discussion? That's a logical fallacy.
Do better.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
He made an idle speculation in public.
You're allowed to make an idle speculation in public. The president and leader of a country with a population of 350million people looking to him for guidance is not.
Making idle speculation, or being sarcastic, or whatever excuse the press secretary came up with after the fact is just direct evidence that the man was criminally negligent at his job and as a result people are dead.
Fuck you for defending that shit.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean he could lucidly mouth stupid stuff. Don't drink the bleach. . .bad for you. And be careful with the magic markers on hurricane maps, they do not reflect kindly on a carnival barker who draws them. While you are at it, try not to lucidly utter over 30,000 falsehoods in 4 years, makes you seem a tad ignorant. Also, work on your attention span, being longer than a squirrel after his third cup of coffee is, I feel, about the best for which you can aim.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump, for all his faults, was clearly lucid. He attacked questions well informed and engaged. The same thing can not be said of Joe Biden.
What the fuck kind of constructed reality do you exist in, dude?
Clearly lucid?
Lucid, adj.
1. expressed clearly; easy to understand.
2. bright or luminous.
Neither of those things describe Trump, dude.
That dude's sentence structure and speaking ability would have flunked him out of the fifth grade. You ask him anything, and he just starts repeating himself over and over again about something entirely unrelated. Seriously, listening to him speak killed my fucking brain cells.
I'll give you that he was engaged.. in counter-attacking whatever bizarre slight he perceived at the moment. But lucid? well-informed?
How fucking stupid can you be? You really think those stage magicians are doing physics bending magic, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
That dude's sentence structure and speaking ability would have flunked him out of the fifth grade. You ask him anything, and he just starts repeating himself over and over again about something entirely unrelated. Seriously, listening to him speak killed my fucking brain cells
Here is audio [cnn.com] of the con artist's ramblings for an interview as part of a book being released. As someone said, it sounds like a drunk Nixon.
Also take note of his words regarding the crowd during the insurrection and how wonderfully p
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Interesting)
Donald Trump, for all his faults, was clearly lucid. He attacked questions well informed and engaged. The same thing can not be said of Joe Biden.
One word: covfefe. And remember how George Washington and the Continental Army took over the airfields.
See, I do think Joe Biden is loopy himself, but that doesn't negate what a fucking moron Trump is/was. That you have to go out of your way to defending him in such a pathetic way, it speaks volumes about your own intelligence.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Funny)
But we also currently have a president who seems demented.
If that's true, then w'ere good because the handlers have had 4 years to figure out how to deal with a demented president. Woman, person, man, camera, TV!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke:
In Zarist times, power was transfered from grandfather to grandson.
In Soviet Russia, power is transfered from grandfather to grandfather.
(It's not exactly reassuring when the Soviet jokes from the 80s apply to the USA...)
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:4, Insightful)
Awww, your BDS is so sad, by comparison, Biden is far less demented than Trump, in fact not demented at all, its just you are a Triggered Trumpatard Taliban terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a demented prez than a narcissist one. The potential damage is way lower.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason that they were not stopped is that this is the USA and not some less litigious country. There, the guards would just have mowed down the goofballs and be done with it.
In the US, they were probably worried that this would probably give some shyster a handle to sue in the name of their surviving dependants with a bleeding heart closing speech that sways some idiot jury into actually paying taxpayer money to these assholes for their treason. In a country with a sensible justice system, the judg
Re: (Score:2)
The US was seconds away from a coup. I think lots of procedures and policies need to be re-examined in the light of this event.
Yes, after four years of Trump it's time to remove the child proof lock.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that guy with the buffalo hat sure seemed like a big threat.
And the rest of those unarmed and unruly tourists were certainly a threat to the succession of power, because that one guy was, um, stealing the podium that's the true center of US government. If they'd managed to take that out of the building, he could have legally taken over and run the place with an iron hand.
"Seconds away from a coup." Sheesh, you guys are living in a complete fantasy world.
Re: (Score:2)
"Seconds away from a coup." Sheesh, you guys are living in a complete fantasy world.
VR sickness [medium.com] will do that.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:4, Insightful)
They delayed Mike Pence from certifying the election. A mob interrupted the transfer of power. Banana republic shit courtesy of yall”queda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a nice civics lesson that ultimately its Congress that certifies who is President not CNN on election night. Trump fighting at every stage of the process actually educated people on the process. Most people just thought what Anderson Cooper says on election night goes.
Huh. And here the con artist kept saying the Vice President has the ability to not certify the will of people but instead pick whomever he wants. It's almost as if the con artist has no clue on how the Constitution works and dumbed down society for having done so.
Funny how CNN knew what it was talking about and the con artist didn't while millions of people continue to believe his lies.
The only civics lesson learned is large portions of the country don't know civics, let alone how a presidential election
Re: (Score:3)
It was a nice civics lesson...
Yeah, getting a police officer killed and many others injured is a nice civics lesson. Oh, and let's not forget the dude who stole the podium (stealing is patriotic), the ones who were literally looking for Pelosi and Pence (fill up the spaces what they were planning to do with them.)
Oh, and the shit, yeah, they literally smeared walls with their own feces while they were going ape-shit at it.
Civics, yeah, so good.
Re: (Score:2)
Works as designed.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be overridden at a whim by shenanigans and chicanery.
To the contrary, those entirely failed at overriding the will of the people.
Are you really one of those fucking morons who thinks the election was stolen from Trump, when he lost by about the same margin he won by 4 years earlier?
Come on, dude. Use your fucking head. Or pull it out of your clenched ass.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Not going to make that claim.
I'm simply saying thatthe ability to verify and contest election results is essentially meaningless if someone stonewalls you long and hard enough.
This leaves the door open to all sorts of abuses.
There were several recounts in areas where the vote was close. How many more did you want? It seemed to me that the Trump camp wasn't going to be satisfied until the vote count somehow magically turned around and showed them winning. And that is the only result they would consider valid.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also a great example of why our current system is broken.
The elections are set up in such a way that egregious irregularities can happen. And by the time any challenge to the process fights its way through all the sandbagging and opposition, it's "too late" to remediate anything.
So, the will of the people is meaningless.
It can be overridden at a whim by shenanigans and chicanery.
Ah yes, now the system is broken because of an "irregularity". Funny, this same irregularity happened in 2016 and Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent any recount. They claimed the voting procedures are secure and the electoral college is the way to go.
It's almost as if when the system works, Republicans have a problem with it.
Re: (Score:3)
As a centrist, I would say it's almost like the democrats secretly didn't want these types of audits to happen in 2016. I'm also saying once the dust settles from the audits on the 2020 elections, we should go back and audit the 2016 elections in any way possible. I understand we won't be able to perform an audit to the depth of those performed on the 2020 election but we could at least look into it.
You could also say that the voting and audits functioned correctly, yet the crazy-as-fuck Q-publicans think that if they [re-]count them enough they'll finally end up with the number they're after. IMO, they know it was accurate but it's too hard to give up the grifting once they got a taste of the moneys - just like those damn charity scams [nonprofitquarterly.org]. The Democrats simply weren't as shameless in 2016 as the Q-publicans are today. I mean, their base will believe anything, and their leadership has no qualms about abus [spectrumlocalnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's obvious that Hillary lost fairly though and there are very solid reasons why. She goofed. She assumed that important states would lean her way and didn't bother voting there. She severely underestimated the deep hatred a lot of people had for her. She underestimated the core support that Trump had or that her "deplorables" comment would bring out people to vote that normally never bothered to do so. I think if you had a boring centrist Democrat in 2016 that person who was not Hillary it would have
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those tourists erected a gallows. They were actively searching for Pence, Pelosi et. al., calling her by name, "Nancy, where are you".
All the damning video footages are out there, for anyone seeking the truth and not living in a complete fantasy world.
Re:You left out a lot of info (Score:5, Insightful)
Why did Ashli Babbit not simply comply with the police? Isn't that the answer when a black person is shot by cops?
Also this guy https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: You left out a lot of info (Score:5, Insightful)
What does that have to do with Ashli Babbitt climbing through the broken out window of a physically barricaded door? Is the lack of bars on those windows an implicit invitation to climb on through?
Re:You left out a lot of info (Score:5, Informative)
The point isn't about how many people will killed. Certainly we can agree that it's a travesty people were killed in both riots. That's what these are though, riots, with made people, who hurt those who oppose them or they simply don't like.
The difference is the location. Washington DC is the capital of our nation and the center place of our democratic process. More so, not just any place was sacked but the Senate and not just on any day but the day the election results were being certified.
Your talking points are fair if we ignore all the significance of where and when the capital hill riots took place. That's what your doing. You are comparing a tomato to an apple simply because they are both red without considering that one of them has an infectious disease within it because again you are looking at the superficial aspects, not the symbolic aspects (or what's inside).
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't even need to have previous examples to know you were fucking wrong as soon as you said that. Rioters entered a building and you don't think anything was damaged?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/c... [forbes.com]
"The curator of the House of Representatives intends to request $25,000 to restore eight historic busts, statues and paintings that were damaged by a fire extinguisher during the Capitol riots in January."
Now we can say this is a side-effect of their actions but you are still wrong, the symbols were damaged
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Constitutional crisis- yes, we were seconds away from that.
Imagine the mob had successfully stopped Congress from tallying the votes.
There's no constitutional answer to that.
Imagine, that Trump continued to do nothing about it. Imagine he let those guys occupy Congress.
If you take the standpoint that the mob had the tacit approval of the executive branch, then you could even look at it as a soft-attempt at "dissolving parliament"
Either way, I'd say the fair analogy would be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that guy with the buffalo hat sure seemed like a big threat.
And the rest of those unarmed and unruly tourists were certainly a threat to the succession of power, because that one guy was, um, stealing the podium that's the true center of US government. If they'd managed to take that out of the building, he could have legally taken over and run the place with an iron hand.
"Seconds away from a coup." Sheesh, you guys are living in a complete fantasy world.
Yeah, let's ignore the motherfuckes who were literally looking for Pelosi and Pence to shoot them in the noggin', with arresting zip ties and all, who hurted over a hundred police officers, some of them losing their eyesight, one killed and another one driven to suicide from the resulting PTSD.
Let's ignore that because the fruity granola shaman was kinda goofy looking and harmless.
What a flawless logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not really. I highly doubt these goofballs could have staged a coup even with a charismatic leader with a plan. Let alone without someone like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Andrew Clyde look like he’s shitting himself in this photo? https://news.yahoo.com/republi... [yahoo.com]
In fact these “tourists” made him scream like a little girl. For the record this man is a republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the cops removed barriers for the motive of "letting Democrats enact authoritive laws", or that this is a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats for more harsh laws - then your attempt to be really smart has resulted in you being in a bubble of your own.
I agree, there is no version of reality where these people took over the country, but there is a version where they would have murdered elected officials as punishment for them not overturning the results of an election to a ego-maniac with zero actual proof of voter fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Who brings faux tactical gear to a "political demonstration", including zip ties to bind people. And this political demonstration attacked cops. That some cops agreed with the attackers just shows how far the rot has progressed. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you are above introspection.
Re:Are we sure it has to do with Jan 6? (Score:5, Interesting)
if you have to make up lies to support your own opinions, surely it's more sensible to change your opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
A bunch of idiots let into the facility, led around by the security, and then wandering idly.
That bit.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone else I don't like did something bad ergo insurrection is OK.
Brilliant.
Re: Guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask George Floyd or Breonna Taylor.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about the US right? You can shoot trespassers very easily in your own home in virtually any state. In fact there are stories of people killing burglars in windows and pulling them back in to make sure they don't fall outside.
Now we can debate if the death penalty is acceptable for this. I recently learned in China I cannot kill home invaders without being likely criminally prosecuted but in America the standard is already is pretty well set for trespassing and while trespassing at a mall mig
Re: Guns (Score:2)
the death penalty You realise she wasn't sentenced to death, right? She took the risk and put herself in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked even I can shoot a trespasser in my house without fearing any repercussions. And that's in a country where even owning a gun, let alone carrying it, is subject to laws that would be considered a second amendment violation in the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Why didn’t she just comply with the police? Isn’t this the blue lives matter crowd? Or I’m a white woman, nobody will shoot me.
Re:Guns (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mike Pence? The VP?
Did they know that he's on their team?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they know that he's on their team?
Yes, yes, and yes but they considered him a traitor to their team.
Re: (Score:2)
No longer legally able to own firearms. Do you think these kind of conservatives really care about that kind of law?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This tired nonsense again.
BLM protesters: Killed dozens of people, tried to burn federal buildings, did burn police stations. Prosecutions dropped.
January 6th protesters: Killed nobody, burned nothing, tried to burn nothing. Six months so far in solitary confinement with no trial date set, restricted access to lawyers, restricted access to evidence, often awaiting charges.
Maybe there would have been a bloodbath. BLM kill people, like David Dorne.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are no longer allowed to own firearms, that's all.
How much they care about federal laws should be kinda obvious by now...
Re:Forgot already? (Score:5, Informative)
You fell for fake news again.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
and no, it wasn't a bloodbath.
The only reason It wasn't a bloodbath is because the President was holding back the men with guns.
You know, because it was him who "suggested" that they might like to go there and invade. If they felt they were up to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Newsweek disagrees (Score:2, Informative)
The plan was to kill Pence and Pelosi (along with a few other House Dems, notably AOC), which would open the door to put someone into the VP seat who would refuse to certify the election. That would buy time for the state legislatures of Arizona, PA & GA to overturn the election results and hand the Whitehouse over to Trump.
Is it a stupid plan? Hell yeah. The SS has mini guns and isn't afraid to use them. If they'd got near Pence they'd have been cut to pieces. The rioters had a few gun
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There was no "attempted insurrection". Stop it. (Score:5, Informative)
The certification of an election was delayed. That is a huge deal.
https://www.npr.org/sections/c... [npr.org]
Also people were nice enough to smear shit on the walls. Sounds about right for the caliber of people in that crowd.
https://www.revolt.tv/news/202... [revolt.tv]
Re: (Score:3)
Also people were nice enough to smear shit on the walls.
Yup, sounds just like the average USA tourists. The world can confirm.
just so we know the maturity level in the room (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unarmed tourists are not a fucking insurrection.
Yes, "unarmed" [independent.co.uk]. "Tourists" [pbs.org]. So peaceful [cnn.com].
Fuck your gaslighting. Pelosi knew how unstable the con artist was during that time and took the necessary steps to prevent him from doing something even more stupid than he usually does. That General Milley was in agreement with her and took steps to prevent the con artist from launching a strike says all one needs to know about that days attempted insurrection.