Twatter

[BillyDWhizz]

Apparently a meeting by US top military officials have made sure that Trump is not able to use the codes for the Nuclear war heads.

That's a lovely story but it's not believable. The protocols are so designed to make it impossible for a nuclear launch to be initiated by "rogue" individual(s)

Not exactly the case BD. The protocols in place do indeed keep nuclear control out of the hands of the military but by design they go exclusively to the Commander In Chief. The United States does not have a no-first-use policy so theoretically if the President wanted to, he and he alone could authorise a launch.

A snippet from a wagingpeace.org article dealing with this exact topic:

"Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces."

This is probably why some US officials arses are twitching a bit at the moment.

[BlackDiamond]

That's a lovely story but it's not believable. The protocols are so designed to make it impossible for a nuclear launch to be initiated by "rogue" individual(s)

Not exactly the case BD. The protocols in place do indeed keep nuclear control out of the hands of the military but by design they go exclusively to the Commander In Chief. The United States does not have a no-first-use policy so theoretically if the President wanted to, he and he alone could authorise a launch.

A snippet from a wagingpeace.org article dealing with this exact topic:

"Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces."

This is probably why some US officials arses are twitching a bit at the moment.

It's an interesting one. Would a submarine commander accept an order from Trump ?

To command a nuclear boat you need to be a very smart man indeed. My guess is, and only because it's him, the order would remain un actioned.

[Dwayne Pipes]

His first strike would be to take out the Mexicans.

[mkhammer]

Not exactly the case BD. The protocols in place do indeed keep nuclear control out of the hands of the military but by design they go exclusively to the Commander In Chief. The United States does not have a no-first-use policy so theoretically if the President wanted to, he and he alone could authorise a launch.

A snippet from a wagingpeace.org article dealing with this exact topic:

"Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces."

This is probably why some US officials arses are twitching a bit at the moment.

It's an interesting one. Would a submarine commander accept an order from Trump ?

To command a nuclear boat you need to be a very smart man indeed. My guess is, and only because it's him, the order would remain un actioned.

Does it need 2 people on a Ship/Sub to launch anything Nuclear...

Just to complicate things a bit more....

[Ironworksfc]

Got lost in a place where anyone who chooses to speak against the despot government rhetoric was attacked and had followers removed.

When they started to ban people with a non leftist view, decided to sack that shit off and cancelled my account.

[h69]

So they now reckon they can tell the President of the USA...what he can and cant do..

But they let the Shit Stirring Anarchists ...across all extremes left and right have free range.

You make it sound like Trump has done nothing wrong.

Free speech is central to a democracy. It is very worrying that Social media sites decide on who gets a platform and who does not.

[h69]

Apparently a meeting by US top military officials have made sure that Trump is not able to use the codes for the Nuclear war heads.

I literally wouldn't trust him with a light switch never-mind the nuclear launch codes.

Yet he is the first US President in a generation that has not started a new conflict and has actually subdued the North Korean Lunatic.
I am not a fan of his but the left do build up preposterous angst.

For example he asked his followers to march on the Capitol. Nowhere did he tell anyone to storm the building and how do twitter know he didnt mean 'March and protest' which is actually their constitutional right.

No different than those 'People's vote' idiots who wanted a 'march on Westminster' !

[BillyDWhizz]

You make it sound like Trump has done nothing wrong.

Free speech is central to a democracy. It is very worrying that Social media sites decide on who gets a platform and who does not.

I'm sorry but when the individual in question is advocating anarchy, promoting disorder and encouraging violence backed with thinly veiled threats then of course the social media site has a right to remove them from their platform. If someone tweets, uses the N word and gets banned, no one in their right mind comes to their defence citing freedom of speech.

You're acting as if Twitter is a federal organisation. It isn't, it's not a government mouthpiece, it's an independent entity and is free to police itself as it sees fit and THAT's where the 1st amendment applies to it. Add to that the fact that seditious conspiracy is a federal offence in the US and all of a sudden the "free speech" argument for Trump collapses.

Listen, I get it, and of course there are people from both ends of the political spectrum who need muzzling and perhaps, after all this has blown over they will be. There certainly needs new rules to be put in to place to determine what is acceptable as free speech on social media sites and what isn't - but that's a whole new can of worms.

At the end of the day Trump has used social media not to enhance the democratic process within the US but to subvert it. Nothing he has said or done was for the benefit of the Union, no, everything he did was designed to create his own personal one party Republic of Trumptonia and that should've been a worry not to just Americans but to all of us who do believe in democracy.

[h69]

Free speech is central to a democracy. It is very worrying that Social media sites decide on who gets a platform and who does not.

I'm sorry but when the individual in question is advocating anarchy, promoting disorder and encouraging violence backed with thinly veiled threats then of course the social media site has a right to remove them from their platform. If someone tweets, uses the N word and gets banned, no one in their right mind comes to their defence citing freedom of speech.

You're acting as if Twitter is a federal organisation. It isn't, it's not a government mouthpiece, it's an independent entity and is free to police itself as it sees fit and THAT's where the 1st amendment applies to it. Add to that the fact that seditious conspiracy is a federal offence in the US and all of a sudden the "free speech" argument for Trump collapses.

Listen, I get it, and of course there are people from both ends of the political spectrum who need muzzling and perhaps, after all this has blown over they will be. There certainly needs new rules to be put in to place to determine what is acceptable as free speech on social media sites and what isn't - but that's a whole new can of worms.

At the end of the day Trump has used social media not to enhance the democratic process within the US but to subvert it. Nothing he has said or done was for the benefit of the Union, no, everything he did was designed to create his own personal one party Republic of Trumptonia and that should've been a worry not to just Americans but to all of us who do believe in democracy.

Thats exactly it. It is not a federal organisation and should have no power of veto. Since when did a software company decide what we can and cannot say. Whether you like what he did or not, there is a democratic process that allows people to vote someone in or vote them out. That must be the only way.

Did you see what Trump actually wrote ? I could find 10 times worse on twitter in 5 mins but funnily enough they are not banned. Who said Trump needs to use social media to enhance the union or you get banned......is that in the Ts and Cs ?

Like I said....asking people to march on the Capitol is no different than those idiots who asked people to March on Westminster. For another referendum vote.....or indeed the Black Lives Matter Marxist group encouraging violence and destruction of buildings or property...or Corbyn praising Terrorists. I dont like what they say either but I bet they don't get banned.

The fucking left....always the same, don't subscribe to their lazy self centered view of the world....silence it.

By the way..if you use the N word you don't get banned by twitter.....you get a 12 hour suspension.

[mkhammer]

What we have to ask ourselves is...WHO said and gave the order for a ban...a Democrat or a Republican leaner...
Was it one persons call or a vote of some kind..who actually decides.

Even with the News Channels in the States you now what your gonna get...Fox..CNN Both spin for opposite sides,
everyone knows that...but if things like Twatter have a political bias...could lead to a whole heap of trouble.