53 thoughts on “Nancy Pelosi may have just saved your life.”

  1. Thought you’d throw some raw meat out to the fringe?

    Yeah, good move on her part; batshit crazy coupled with desperation do not go well with the codes…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire

        Such an relevant insight!

        Trump’s modus operandi in a nutshell. He has tens of millions of his marks believing absurdities about stolen elections and, sure enough, thousands of those believers decided to commit the attrocity of shutting down the Congress with violence.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        2. I’ve had some interesting feedback from local people who were there Wednesday. (Friends of my daughter)

          They were near the back of the crowd, and described the mood as reminiscent of a campaign rally, and not particularly angry.

          They were not aware there had been a breach of the capitol building until the police told them to disperse.

          Not having been there myself, I can’t say how it would have appeared to me, but their characterization is very different from what we have seen.

          Like

          Reply

          2. Only that in their part of the crowd, it was peaceful if boisterous.

            So, if they were not driven to violence by Trump’s words, were those words the cause of the violence by others? or did they go there with violent intent regardless of what Trump said?

            Like

          3. Trump said to show up and be wild. Plans were bandied about on the usual right wing chatter rooms. Proud Boys bragged about being in town, dressed in black and ready to rumble.

            Probably a combination of both. But judging from the videos, wearing body armor, carrying clubs and pepper spray, wearing helmets and camo usually are not indicators for a tailgate party.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. So SOME people were not incited to violence by Trump’s lies and hate speech. What do you think that proves? Nobody has ever claimed that EVERYBODY who follows Trump is prone to violence or can be incited to it by his lies and hate speech.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “Trump said to show up and be wild.”

            No, he didn’t. He said the protest would be wild. Here is his exact phrase: “Be there, will be wild!”

            Are you so blinded by hatred or ideology that you can’t at least be truthful?

            Like

  2. RE: “Nancy Pelosi may have just saved your life.”

    That’s ridiculous. The president cannot physically launch a nuclear attack by himself. He can only do so with the assistance of the Secretary of Defense. Pelosi is just being melodramatic.

    Like

    Reply

      1. True, and I find it very “telling” that mis-information is immediately throw at a true statement.

        Not just part of the problem: THE problem…….

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. There is no misinformation. I looked it up at Wikipedia before commenting: “The National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons.”

          Just like I said, the president cannot PHYSCALLY launch nuclear weapons alone.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          3. Nobody thinks that Trump has a button that is wired to the launch facilities. People are involved up and down the chain of command. In this case, the Secretary of Defense is not an adequate safeguard because he is a Trump toady appointed without Congressional oversight. If told by Trump to authenticate such an order he very well might.

            Maybe Trump cares enough about his children to abjure such a plunge into Armegeddon, but the possibility that he would seek to end in such a blaze of glory is clearly somewhere above zero. It is the kind of thing that deranged and self-centered people would do. It was therefore VERY prudent for Speaker Pelosi to reach out to the military itself to be sure they were prepared to ignore this terminally deranged jackass should he try anything on his way out.

            Liked by 3 people

          4. RE: “In this case, the Secretary of Defense is not an adequate safeguard because he is a Trump toady appointed without Congressional oversight.”

            What an extraordinary fantasy.

            Like

          6. ” People are involved up and down the chain of command. ”

            Yes they are, and if you think that the Air Force Officer sitting in a silo can or would launch a nuke against NYC or Berkley just because a President orders it, without confirmation from the full chain of command, you are as loony as Nancy.

            Like

          8. LOL!

            Leave it to you to put “urban” people in the crosshairs.

            Uh, no. I was talking about the danger of his kicking off a global nuclear war with nuclear strikes on other countries such as China, Iran or – heaven forbid – Russia. For all of which the military already has targetting information keyed in.

            Nancy Pelosi is NOT looney. Your saying so, clearly is. Nothing new there. A haters gotta hate and you find new ways to prove it every day. But the reality is that rational people have rational fear of what an irrational person with nuclear launch authorities might try to do. Pelosi was simply being prudent by addressing these rational concerns in the only way that she could – reaching out to the military directly.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “think that the Air Force Officer sitting in a silo can or would launch a nuke against NYC or Berkley just because a President orders it, without confirmation“

            Scary mindset, I not sure given the actions by those such as yourself that have been indoctrinated into the cult, that a young Airman would not follow what they perceived to be a lawful order.

            Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?

            Liked by 2 people

          10. RE: “Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?”

            I have. It is in part due to the Nuremberg trials that the Uniform Code of Military Justice compels every level of the chain of command to disobey unlawful orders. I believe that’s one reason why it takes two persons — the president and the SecDev — to authenticate a nuclear launch order.

            Like

    3. Even scarier, is that we have no Senate approved Secretary of Defense. He is just another in the list of “interim appointments” that Trump has been using to bypass the Constitution.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    4. Uh, no. You are ridiculous to scoff. Pelosi did exactly the right thing. This is not a time for any ambiguity about who can do what when it comes to nuclear weapons. It is prudent to double-check that this deranged old man is not in a position to take us all out with him.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “It is prudent to double-check that this deranged old man is not in a position to take us all out with him.”

        Pelosi is a derranged old woman. The protocol for nuclear launch does not include her and the possibility of an unstable president “pressing the button” without cause is so remote as to be laughable.

        Like

        Reply

        1. LOL!

          You are blind to all of Trump’s flaws and failures so your reaction to this concern is entirely predictable.

          Pelosi is one of the strongest, most sensible and capable Speakers we have ever had. Your view of her is what is “laughable,” but then reality always does lean left and weak minds always believe whatever Q tells them to.

          As stated in another post, this idea of a rogue Trump setting off a nuclear war is – hopefully – not very probable. But risk is measured by BOTH probablity and by the scale of the disaster being risked. So, pretty obviously, with Washington in turmoil and Trump in some sort of funk having the grown-ups put in a steadying hand is a good thing. Whether you and your ilk are laughing or not, it is being done for your protection as well as mine.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. RE: “it is being done for your protection as well as mine.”

            Actually, no. Pelosi’s machinations put the country at greater risk by suggesting the president’s command authority may be compromised. SHE is the national security threat.

            Like

          2. The greatest threat to our security from foreigner military is their fear of a first strike by an erratic and irrational President of the United States. In the cold calculus of M.A.D. suffering a first strike is the greatest danger to head off. That is why in the good old days we lived constantly with a hair trigger. By reasserting rational control of our arsenal Ms. Pelosi reduces that fear and increases our safety.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “By reasserting rational control of our arsenal Ms. Pelosi reduces that fear and increases our safety.”

            The president is the ONLY person in our nation who can order a nuclear strike, but you think telling the world he may be forcibly constrained makes us safer. I’m glad I’m not as smart as you.

            Like

          4. “I’m not as smart as you.”

            Something we can agree on! How about that.

            Because of our robust nuclear war capability, in the real game of deterrence no one is tempted to try a first strike on us UNLESS they see a real and immediate threat. Only the kind of instability that a deranged President creates affects that balance, IMHO. We are safer when the world knows our weapons are in safe and sane hands.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Something we can agree on! How about that.”

            If you need to work so hard for compliments, you can have it. Your opinions on issues of national security remain without merit.

            Like

          1. Video of the shooting death have been published by WAPO. More than any words the images of these crazed Trump supporters trying to bash their way past police and the last barrier protecting Congressmen is chilling. Far better than words for understanding how deadly and serious this insurrection actually was.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

            I wonder if Mr. Roberts is going to stick by his appraisal that it was not particularly violent?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. In a few weeks, this violent attack on Congress will be replayed by the right wing media as a field trip to Washington that included a tour of the Capitol.

            I fear that there will be another Timothy McVeigh in the mix.

            And if so, can we expect the insanity of “what else could he do…he had no other choice”?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “This president sent a screaming mob of domestic terrorists to overthrow the government with gusto. 5 people died.

            “Laughable also, I suppose.”

            Yes, totally laughable.

            Like

          4. RE: “I wonder if Mr. Roberts is going to stick by his appraisal that it was not particularly violent?”

            The Capitol incursion was clearly less violent than the so-called “peaceful protests” that raged all across the county after George Floyd died.

            Like

          5. You mean the protests that the FBI said were infiltrated by right wing folks looking to make BLM protesters look overly violent?

            Sorry, but another failed attempt at projection by a T****ist lie-spreader.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Obama took us up from the worst economic recession since 1929. Tripled the DOW, low unemployment, affordable health care for millions more, record months of employment gains and some decent GDP stats that Trump never broached but one quarter at a huge cost.

      Fast forward to an attempted overthrow of the government, 350,000 dead from a pandemic, high tariffs, increased trade deficits and about 8-9 Trillion more in debt.

      Democrats have to clean up a friggin’ mess…again, and again, and again.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  5. Okay, JTR.

    Here’s how it works and doesn’t work. The president DOESN’T say “Nuke Milwaukee,”
    Nuclear strikes are preplanned, and all coded up. He cannot change the aimpoint willy-nilly.
    The briefcase (football) holds all the current preplanned strikes for the time. They change based on intel.

    If he want to, oh say, nuke Iran, then there maybe some 20 plans that are already determined with weapon assignments. Each has an envelope and a code. One might be two nukes on Tehran, and one on their nuke facilities.

    He extracts the plan code, calls the chairman of the JCS, and reads the code. The two men verify the strike numbers an that’s it, from there on the military handles it all.

    Now, here’s where the SecDef and SecState comes in. They, one or the other, simply verify to the chairman that the president did issue the order. There is a succession list of people in case the SecDef isn’t available.

    Go to your Wiki page and continue reading. Look for Reference #7.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  6. Oh goodie, yet another political stunt by left wing jerk offs. I just knew you could brighten by day by posting idiotic left wing nonsense like this. Saved us, my ass. She doesn’t have that power and you don’t know what they told her. You only know she had the stupidity of thinking she would have some say and then bragging to idiots that think she actually did something. Someone in the mirror maybe???

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Paul Murphy Cancel reply