Trump: U.S. must greatly strengthen nuclear capability

Tweet first and let your handlers explain later. Now that's presidential.

Remember, this compulsive and thin-skinned little boy will have control over 7,100 nuclear weapons.

Thank God for that.

He's certifiably nuts and this kind of talk will only make us less safe not stronger. It's been said there are no winners in a nuclear war except the cockroaches. And guess who will be in charge of this project? The world renowned nuclear physicist, Rick Perry! Man, you can't make this stuff up.

bass, please explain why you thank God that Trump has control over America's nuclear arsenal? What personal characteristics of his do you think make him qualified?

He's certifiably nuts and this kind of talk will only make us less safe not stronger.

Sure it will. It will send a signal that Trump will not hesitate to use them if any of our enemies think they can bully us into submission, knowing that alone will keep the country safe and free from assured mutual destruction.

It's been said there are no winners in a nuclear war except the cockroaches.

And knowing that we would use them should deter any adversary.

And guess who will be in charge of this project?

Trump, a man that doesn't take ****!

The world renowned nuclear physicist, Rick Perry! Man, you can't make this stuff up.

If we can live through John Kerry, Rick Perry should be fine.

Greg Stillson: The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!

It seems were due for a remake of The Dead Zone, only with Trump as the deranged president.

please explain why you thank God that Trump has control over America's nuclear arsenal? What personal characteristics of his do you think make him qualified?

Being not PC, has some of the top generals to advise him, as a successful businessman that translates into being methodical, calculating and shrewd and not to mention fearless.

If there were a God, She'd make sure there was no need for filthy nuclear weapons. And if She couldn't do that, She'd make sure no tweet-deranged, feline-grabbing man-boy got anywhere near them.

Riiiight, so how about those Dodgers?

Trump's faction of the MSM backed (led?) global hegemons is stating its opening bargain position for other hegemonic factions to respond to. (On Twitter though?)

Trump has said he wants to expand the size of the US military. He's filling his cabinet with magnates from big oil and energy, (the US keeps invading sovereign nations to gain greater control over resources big oil needs), big military (as one poster called it big war), big banking (the war industries need big money), big media (needed to keep the distortion of facts coming), big entertainment (e.g. WWE, providing circus for his followers), big medicine and pharma (who'll continue to profit while military personnel are recovering from war wounds), among other bigs.

Trump hasn't started office. It could be all his bluster will just be like his wall, or locking HRC up and he'll 'walk back' his talk. I hope that's the case.

But it does seem to me that in an era when there are leaders like Putin, Xi, Duterte, the Al Sauds, Assad, among others not afraid to use extreme violence that adding fuel - words at this point - to fires is not the best way to put fires out.

Trump has said he wants to expand the size of the US military.

If he does, that would be a great thing.

He's filling his cabinet with magnates from big oil and energy, (the US keeps invading sovereign nations to gain greater control over resources big oil needs), big military (as one poster called it big war), big banking (the war industries need big money), big media (needed to keep the distortion of facts coming), big entertainment (e.g. WWE, providing circus for his followers), big medicine and pharma (who'll continue to profit while military personnel are recovering from war wounds), among other bigs.

Here we go again, more liberal falsified accusatory statements. I think as an outsider Trump needs all the help he can get and by having a lot of top Generals that have the know how and the historical, social and PR knowledge and skills, they can be more than helpful, instrumental in shaping his admin.

Trump hasn't started office. It could be all his bluster will just be like his wall, or locking HRC up and he'll 'walk back' his talk. I hope that's the case.

I hope not.

But it does seem to me that in an era when there are leaders like Putin, Xi, Duterte, the Al Sauds, Assad, among others not afraid to use extreme violence that adding fuel - words at this point - to fires is not the best way to put fires out.

If it works, extend an olive branch, if not, whatever and by any means necessary.

Moron. As if being able to destroy the world several hundred times over is not enough -- and this guy is the man to do it -- he wants to waste more money and more resources on making the world a far worse place.

bass4funk: "Here we go again, more liberal falsified accusatory statements."

Yeah, if it's not "The National Review", bass' admitted news source, which claims Obama violated the Constitution numerous times (but which bass could not back up with examples or legitimate sources after), it's falsified statements when someone points out who Trump has announced for his cabinet and what their pasts jobs were.

Impeachment. That is our only hope to get someone sane into office.

I'm convinced that Mr. Trump didn't really want the job and he's seeing how far he can go before getting thrown out. Then he will claim to have been "The Best President Ever."

Yeah, if it's not "The National Review", bass' admitted news source, which claims Obama violated the Constitution numerous times (but which bass could not back up with examples or legitimate sources after),

I did post it, so now you want to change facts because you don't agree with them? I'm just the messenger, hate the message.

it's falsified statements when someone points out who Trump has announced for his cabinet and what their pasts jobs were.

It just hurts you guys that this is real and for the next 4-8 years, libs can't do anything about it. Don't worry, I felt the same 8 years ago, but I just accepted it, I just worry about my liberal friends and hope to God they are ok in the next foreseeable future and can get a grip.

It makes a sense.

Oh great. That's just what the world needs.......not.

Sure it will. It will send a signal that Trump will not hesitate to use them if any of our enemies think they can bully us into submission

If Trump decides to launch nuclear weapons suddenly the chain of events from his doing this would more than likely lead to billions of death on the planet and serious environmental damage to the earth making large parts of it unlivable. Are you sure Trump should launch nuclear weapons to countries he doesn't like like Mexico and Iran?

It just hurts you guys

Worse than that if you are dead from Trump being crazy and pushing the button.

I wonder if there is a point where Trump backers would accept that choosing him was a bad idea, or if they would sing his praises even if the economy collapses, and/or he starts a nuclear war that ends in the destruction of the US.

Trump should have someone else in his administration talk about our nukes. I think it makes too many people uneasy to think a man who has trouble spelling will actually have input. Let the smart people handle it while he goes on tour again.

translates into being methodical, calculating and shrewd and not to mention fearless. unfortunately Trump has a equal adversary in Putin. Russia is no walk over, the US can see just a glimpse of that in Syria. All Trump is going to do is instigate another arms race with Russia and other nuclear capable countries. And people were complaining Clinton was a warmonger.

I did post it, so now you want to change facts because you don't agree with them?

Facts aren't something that can be changed based on someone's agreement or not. Facts are irrelevant of opinion.

And the fact is, the one source you supplied was some guy who listed a bunch of things that weren't constitutional violations.

Being not PC, has some of the top generals to advise him, as a successful businessman that translates into being methodical, calculating and shrewd and not to mention fearless.

This statement might carry some weight if we ignore the fact that Trump has claimed to know more than his top generals and if his business acumen had actually resulted in more long term success rather than the bankruptcies that affected everyone concerned except him...as for being methodical, calculating and shrewd, that is almost laughable given his track record of willful ignorance and rejection of any opinion that doesn't reflect his own narrow vision of the world...

Trump, a man that doesn't take ****!

You're certainly right, he doesn't take it, he dishes it out. By the truckload.

In case we thought that Trump was some kind of savior.....It seems it's back to Dirty business as usual :(

If Trump decides to launch nuclear weapons suddenly the chain of events from his doing this would more than likely lead to billions of death on the planet and serious environmental damage to the earth making large parts of it unlivable.

Exactly as you said "IF"

Facts aren't something that can be changed based on someone's agreement or not. Facts are irrelevant of opinion.

Well, there you go, so that doesn't make me the enemy, glad that was cleared up.

And the fact is, the one source you supplied was some guy who listed a bunch of things that weren't constitutional violations.

Yeah, ok, so now we have liberals sticking their heads in the sand again? LOL Look, whatever makes you libs sleep at night. The thing that is FACT and INDISPUTABLE and as the sun goes up, comes down and the tide rolls in and rolls out, Obama will be a thing of the past in the nest few weeks and the rest of us won't have to deal with this loon and his supporters on the left can build a Shrine honoring him and all of the.....so called achievements he has supposedly made. 1/20/17 can't come soon enough. Got Jose and the Cuban ready!!

Well, there you go, so that doesn't make me the enemy, glad that was cleared up.

Of course you're not the enemy, you're just misguided.

But that doesn't change the fact that the article you posted that supposedly showed Obama's constitutional violations, didn't actually show any constitutional violations.

Boy it's a good thing we didn't elect that war-monger Hillary!

Exactly as you said "IF"

No one would say that about Obama. There would be not even at IF. The worst thing about Obama is that all his racist haters just hated him because they thought he was born in Kenya.

Obama: Being born in Kenya (or so his haters think)

vs

Trump: Pushing the button (as he was dangerously suggested)

Even if Obama was born in Kenya I'd rather go with the person who has no chance of pushing the button. I'd rather be alive with a president being born in Kenya than Trump and end up dead.

IF- Obama never went there.

..and he does it by appointing Rick Perry to oversee it.

Perhaps presidential candidates in the future should be required to pass a series of extensive psychological tests before being allowed to run.

No choice now but to bite the bullet and hold on to your seats for the next 4 years. It looks like it's going to be a wild ride.

Trump, the mad tweeter with a hair-trigger temper in charge of the nuclear arsenal aided by GOP evangelical crackpots who think the end of the world wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

WMDs. Lots of WMDs.

What could possibly go wrong?

He might be copied Reagan's joke which made Russia prepared to. be attacked by USA nuclear bomb until radio announced thaþ was a joke. Reagan announced US will nuclear bomb to destroy Russia today. Check old radio announcement of Reagan.

he starts a nuclear war that ends in the destruction of the US.

@strangerland, calm down!!

What could possibly go wrong?

Trump making the same mistakes that our enemies take advantage of him like they did Obama.

See: Cuba, Iran Syria, Russia, China and North Korea

Cold War II starts next month. Or maybe it has already started. Last time, there were NUMEROUS TIMES that nuclear war almost happened by accident, or sheer stupidity. See the link below...

Under Trump, a nuclear war is almost certainly going to happen due to stupidity.

http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

Exactly as you said "IF"

So he could launch them to countries like China and you are OK.

If Kim Jong Un started upping the nuclear capability of North Korea, the right-wing would be freaking out.

What they don't realize, is that Trump is just as unstable as KJU, and he wants to increase the nuclear capability of the US.

See: Cuba, Iran Syria, Russia, China and North Korea

Don't forget Mexico and Japan. He hates both of those countries.

The news about China building bases out of atolls is old news. I'm sure Obama got the "briefing" once the CIA/NSA understood what China was up to. What did Obama do about it? FOUR!! The corporate MSM didn't report on it. THAT should tell you something. Love the MSM Russia tie-in to Trumps nuke message, but this is really about China, not Russia, but of course the corporate MSM which has trade ties with China and would never tell you the truth and jeopardize their "bottom line". How people still STILL put any faith in the MSM escapes me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/world/australia/trump-asia-pacific-harry-harris.html

How people still STILL put any faith in the MSM escapes me.

Which is why Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya (and they also believe in the Jesus zombie).

I don't like Trump but I like twats!

Very sane talk from Trump- the US needs modern nuclear weapons not 1970s weapons- no mention of more functional weapons- just better ones. Nuclear Weapon command has been at its lowest morale for decades- that lunatic Obama was in charge of those nuclear weapons.

FYI Geronimo - It's "Fore!" not "4". Apparently a huge golf handicap isn't your only one.

I don't think Trump will start a war. The problem is he too often comes across as emotional and immature, so when the topic of nukes comes up he doesn't really have the gravitas to make people feel at ease. If you put enough drinks into a Trump fan this might be the one area where they'll begrudingly agree.

bass4funk: "I did post it, so now you want to change facts because you don't agree with them? I'm just the messenger, hate the message."

No, you posted an attempt at a top-10 comedy article, written by a self-proclaimed ultra-Conservative rag. That you call that 'fact', in deflect and in order to defend a man who said "MILLIONS of illegals voted for Democrats" and literally believes it, is very telling about you, bass. But, I mean, you DID say the other day you think it's responsible to post without knowing the facts, so...

smithinjapan: No, you posted an attempt at a top-10 comedy article, written by a self-proclaimed ultra-Conservative rag.

But ...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

... by Ilya Shapiro ... ... ... Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro

... Shapiro has testified before Congress and state legislatures and, as coordinator of Cato’s amicus brief program, filed more than 200 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court, including one The Green Bag selected for its “Exemplary Legal Writing” collection. ...

... "filed more than 200 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court"!

And IIRC nothing was actually said in reply about WHY the guy was unqualified or the article was wrong, only flat opinions that he was unqualified or wrong, with nothing put up that could be replied against. Like "Oh, no, not National Review!"

No, you posted an attempt at a top-10 comedy article, written by a self-proclaimed ultra-Conservative rag.

I see, so if a liberal had written up that article, it would pass the liberal smell test? Sorry, these are all documented and if you want I could post a video matching Obama's fumbles on the constitution. But maybe you might not accept it if the cameraman filming is a conservative. But I do so sincerely appreciate you trying so hard.

That you call that 'fact', in deflect and in order to defend a man who said "MILLIONS of illegals voted for Democrats" and literally believes it, is very telling about you, bass.

I guess we will never know, but a vast majority of Americans DO believe that, so I guess it boils down to he said, she said. You don't believe it, I do and buy the way, are you going to attend Trump's inauguration?

But, I mean, you DID say the other day you think it's responsible to post without knowing the facts, so...

Meaning, liberals do it every single day, so...

If it comes to that and they are the aggressors, of course, but I know China is NOT that stupid.

Will he launch to Mexico? As Trump and his voters say the US is under attack by Mexico.

How people still STILL put any faith in the MSM escapes me.

So where do you suggest getting news from that is reliable?

That's what we like about him, not the typical Washington elite puppet.

Wow, you like Kim Jung Un because he's not a puppet? I'd prefer a puppet that doesn't risk starting a nuclear war myself, but hey, to each their own.

And IIRC nothing was actually said in reply about WHY the guy was unqualified or the article was wrong, only flat opinions that he was unqualified or wrong, with nothing put up that could be replied against. Like "Oh, no, not National Review!"

The article speaks for itself - he didn't post anything that was a constitutional violation.

The fact that you fall for the headline of the article without confirming that the contents match the headline, shows your lack of ability to differentiate truth from reality. The fact that you do this while in other places criticizing the MSM for being untrustworthy shows is just irony.

so if a liberal had written up that article, it would pass the liberal smell test?

Nope. If the article contents don't match the headline, then criticism is justified regardless of who wrote the article. There are plenty of articles on JT for which I criticize the article for not matching the headline, and JT is more left wing than right.

What I find hypocritical is that you unquestioningly believe the article because it is right-wing, even when the content clearly doesn't support the headline.

these are all documented

I haven't bothered to fact-check what he was actually saying. I only looked at the fact that he supposedly claims constitutional violations, then lists a bunch of things that even if true (again, not checked), are not constitutional violations.

I guess we will never know, but a vast majority of Americans DO believe that, so I guess it boils down to he said, she said.

No, there are actual facts behind it. It does not boil down to he-said she-said at all.

I do and buy the way

No one got busted. It is about as credible as the story of Obama being born in Kenya (which Trump voters believe). I want to know arrest reports. No arrest reports then no real story. Trump voters think millions but how many arrest reports have there been?

Strangerland: The article speaks for itself - he didn't post anything that was a constitutional violation.

Sorry, can't take your bare, unadorned opinion seriously on this, because he's the one with the credentials:

Ilya Shapiro ... filed more than 200 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court ...

I understand the left in the USA is sensitive about Obama and constitutional law. It was one of his selling points, 'constitutional law professor!' Actually, he was a lecturer, not a professor. And at least some have mentioned he was not that good at what he did. But the label is enough for the media to run with.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/heres_what_constitutional_scholar_obama_really_taught_at_law_school.html

January 10, 2016 - Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school

Among the lies about himself Obama consistently repeats is that he was a constitutional law professor. ... Lie one: Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. ... Lie two: Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar. ... As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: "race, rights and gender." ...

FYI Geronimo - It's "Fore!" not "4". Apparently a huge golf handicap isn't your only one.

Oh geesh! so sorry. Please instruct me on the geopolitics of the Middle East.

bass4funk: "I see, so if a liberal had written up that article, it would pass the liberal smell test? "

No. If it contained FACT, it would pass the FACT check. You were asked how you felt about Trump stating he is literally, as his first act as President, going to violate the Constitution by swearing in and still owning his businesses. Your reply was a fictional top-10 list of how Obama violated the Constitution when in fact NONE of what was written was against the Constitution, but a bunch of things the author simply did not agree with. Again, not surprising you claim fact as fiction, bass. You DO support the man you called a lunatic, and the leader of the post-fact world. But none of that changes the FACT that what you posted is anything but.

"I guess we will never know, but a vast majority of Americans DO believe that"

A 'vast majority', eh, bass? haha. The National Enquirer tell you that, too? I guess it's like the Millions of illegals that Trump suddenly tweeted about in anger when he couldn't, and still can't, accept that he lost the popular vote by three million. Obviously the 'vast majority' does NOT agree with you, bud.

Sorry, can't take your bare, unadorned opinion seriously on this, because he's the one with the credentials:

He may have the credentials (I didn't check), but that doesn't change the fact that none of the things he posted were constitutional violations.

You can try to deflect from that fact all you want, yet we're still left with that fact.

Since winning the election, Trump has complained about the cost of Boeing’s work on two new Air Force One plans and Lockheed’s contract for F-35 fighter jets. Following the meetings, both CEOs said they had discussed lowering costs of the projects with the president-elect.

Negotiating better biz deals for his country will def be DT's forte, plus it's obvious he will always enjoy that, i.e he's and will always be the street smart 'super sales rep/ procurement manager" type. Problem is that's, what, 2-3% of potus role. (again I think he would have been a better advisor than potus per se)

Re his call to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability”, although I respect his frankness I still think it's a completely silly thing to say (especially in the current context). He's basically giving carte blanche to everyone else to do the same with impunity! Countries like the US have to lead by example and re-starting an arms race doesn't sound like a great idea in a world with nuttas like Putin, Kim Jong Un, Erdogan, El Assad, Duterte and a few euros far rightists waiting in the wings.

The wussies of the world would have you sacrifice your normal life for their refugee dream. Time to stop these dreamers.

You're crazy Smith. Its people like you, full of hatred, that cause problems for everyone else.

Obama's nuclear paradox: pushing for cuts yet agreeing to upgrades

Obama has put the U.S. on course to spend around $1 Trillion on upgrading its nuclear arsenal over the next 3 decades

How much more do ya think Trump is going to increase that?

turbostat: "Sorry, can't take your bare, unadorned opinion seriously on this, because he's the one with the credentials"

Remember that next time you guys cry about the "MSM" conspiracies you make up -- they are the ones with the credentials, not you.

Remember that next time you guys cry about the "MSM" conspiracies you make up -- they are the ones with the credentials, not you.

Heh, I think you got Turbostat with that one.

But it's pretty clear how his mind worlds. Right-wing = valid. Left wing = invalid. He phrases it as MSM and 'correct', but it's clear that his problem isn't the MSM, it's that what he terms MSM is not right-wing, so he doesn't count it as credible.

Oh yes, let's start another nuclear arms race. That will be of great benefit to all American citizens who are in need of jobs and security and will help to build better relations with other super powers which will relent to the initiatives of a disturbed mind.

So where do you suggest getting news from that is reliable?

Definitely NOT from the far looney stratospheric progressive leftist sites, that's for sure.

The fact that you do this while in other places criticizing the MSM for being untrustworthy shows is just irony.

What? Well, anyway... http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/court-says-administration-violated-constitution-funding-obamacare

https://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/11/fifth-circuit-rules-president-obama-violated-constitution-on-unilateral-immigration-changes/

That's 2 right there, can't wait until we have a Supreme Court Judge to strike down this ruling as well.

There are plenty of articles on JT for which I criticize the article for not matching the headline, and JT is more left wing than right.

I'm just going to digress on that one....

What I find hypocritical is that you unquestioningly believe the article because it is right-wing, even when the content clearly doesn't support the headline.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I don't care if that article is left or right, but having worked in this business for so many years, I tend to distrust the left more because I worked in an ocean of liberals 5 to 1 and remember, we are alive and breathing and as rational thinking humans that can judge for themselves, we see what Obama has done and there is nothing the left or anyone can do to erase what has been said and done. Personally, Obama violating the constitution at this late stage in the game doesn't bother me, I'm just gleefully counting the last days.

No, there are actual facts behind it. It does not boil down to he-said she-said at all.

Sure it does and very much so

Let's have a nuclear arms race again

Just what the world asks for

Now, I know that Trump and his supporters are a bunch of loonies. He much rather spend the billions of dollars from Americans' hard-earned money to pay for more nuclear weapons, than for more important matters like health care, education, and improving the environment. Let's not forget the money he wants to spend for his wall.

Trump making the same mistakes that our enemies take advantage of him like they did Obama. See: Cuba, Iran Syria, Russia, China and North Korea

No country in Africa? C'mon...BLM too!

Great, we have got Cold War II. And we all know how well Cold War I went. Bay of Pigs II coming up!

Now, I know that Trump and his supporters are a bunch of loonies. He much rather spend the billions of dollars from Americans' hard-earned money to pay for more nuclear weapons,

What money? Obama will leave us with a $10 Trillion debt. But yes, he definitely should rebuild our military.

than for more important matters like health care, education, and improving the environment. Let's not forget the money he wants to spend for his wall.

He's doing that and unlike Obama, he can walk and chew gum at the same time. Remember, we tried Obama's hippie politics for 8 years and the people have had enough of it.

Ah, the Republican dream. They say they are fiscal conservatives while at the same time wanting more money for the military. Which means more taxes or more debt. Then they say they want less in taxes and less debt. And round and round they go.

When they realize the contradiction, they short circuit and start talking about Democrats. 3...2...1...

This article seems to be a "fake news" nuclear arms proliferation story. Seems to be a logical misquote of Trump.

What money? Obama will leave us with a $10 Trillion debt.

Which as we all know came from the wars started by his predecessor, combined with the economic collapse caused by his predecessor.

I know you like to pretend that didn't happen, but the rest of us don't forget.

"He's doing that and unlike Obama, he can walk and chew gum at the same time. Remember, we tried Obama's hippie politics for 8 years and the people have had enough of it."

You keep posting "the people". Who are you talking about? The number of voters who voted Trump which was lower than the number who voted for Clinton?

Why do you call Trump voters "the people"? Why don't you call them Trump voters?

smithinjapan: Remember that next time you guys cry about the "MSM" conspiracies you make up -- they are the ones with the credentials, not you.

This is just more of the same from you and Strangerland. Not all the time, but sometimes you put something out there and claim "it's just so". I backed up my points, and in both these cases you haven't. Chanting 'not constitutional because I say so' and providing no other reason, vs. an article by a real constitutional scholar (not a fake, self-professed one like Obama). Or claiming I 'made up' MSM conspiracies, when I've posted links to surveys of MSM journalists, surveys of MSM content, and evidence from Wikileaks showing collusion between the media and the Democrats.

Ah, the Republican dream. They say they are fiscal conservatives while at the same time wanting more money for the military.

Yes, so you think we should have a military the size of Denmark and just allow Russia and China to expand theirs? Another bad 60's hippie nightmare for the bizarre left.

Which means more taxes or more debt. Then they say they want less in taxes and less debt. And round and round they go.

So we just cut more entitlements, that'll free up a lot of the money.

When they realize the contradiction, they short circuit and start talking about Democrats. 3...2...1...

I see, so we should spend it more on failed projects like Solyndra? Give me a break!

Which as we all know came from the wars started by his predecessor, combined with the economic collapse caused by his predecessor.

And this lame president added to it and will won't even leave with a surplus. Nice job, Barry!

You keep posting "the people". Who are you talking about?

The people that wanted change and voted for Trump and not Hillary, so taking away the coastal areas, pretty much most of America.

The number of voters who voted Trump which was lower than the number who voted for Clinton?

Yeah, fine, but our system is the Electoral College system is what we go by. Trump 307 and Hillary 163

Why do you call Trump voters "the people"? Why don't you call them Trump voters?

Because of the sea of red which blanketed the US, I wasn't referring to the blue specks that you could hardly see on the map except for 3 states. Kudos to Trump! I am happy, are you happy too?

Trump has paranoia as Japan and Russia are friendly now.

Trump wants a new Cold War with Russia but I thought he wanted to be friends?

bass: The people that wanted change and voted for Trump and not Hillary

Agreed. Let's start with military and police pensions.

Nuclear deterrence has an effect and has worked so far.

A unilateral reduction in nuclear arms is not to anyone's interest.

Putin "says such things on a near­ weekly basis", but Trump's the bad one, bringing it up once?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tweets-apparent-call-more-us-nuclear-weapons-n699221

... It's unclear what prompted the statement. Earlier Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his desire to strengthen Russia's nuclear forces, but experts say Putin says such things on a near­ weekly basis. ...

Are we to trust an even bigger nuclear arsenal in the hands of someone who doesn't even understand what a 'nuclear triad' is? Trump would rather have Americans pay through their teeth to fund more weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter if Americans end up not being able to afford health care and grossly uneducated as a result.

There is literally no purpose this would serve. America should have a deterrent but an expansion is pure lunacy. If America expands heavily, then I don't really see why other countries should feel they shouldn't create their own world-ending arsenals too.. Soon enough every country on Earth could hold the world to ransom over total destruction!

I'd love to see how these Trump critics would react if darling Hillary had won & were trigger happy. Strengthening a nuclear arsenal doesn't immediately translate into nuclear war. I remember the Soviet backed down when Reagan played the same card.

I'd love to see how these Trump critics would react if darling Hillary had won & were trigger happy.

It's weird that you think we'd be partisan about something like this. I'd be equally pissed at Hillary, Obama, or anyone else for ramping up cold-war nuclear tactics as I am at Trump. The potential destruction of our planet isn't something that should be partisan. That's why I'm flabbergasted that so many right-wingers seem to be praising Trump for this.

This is crazy. There is literally no limit to what his supporters would accept. The Trump Youth in action