Bernie Sanders up for debate against Donald Trump – campaign live | The Guardian |
Welcome to our live-wire coverage of the 2016 race for the White House. Bernie Sanders has responded in the enthusiastic affirmative to an offer of unclear seriousness from Donald Trump to debate him before the 7 June California primary.
« click for more info
A supporter kisses a puppet of Senator Bernie Sanders during a campaign rally in Cathedral City, California. (Photo: Damian Dovarganes/AP)Appearing on late night funnyman Jimmy Kimmel’s show on Wednesday, Trump said he would be glad to debate Sanders mano a mano – for charity. At which Sanders, whose supporters routinely cheer his stump speech attacks on Trump, and who has failed to lure Hillary Clinton into a similar California showdown, tweeted that he was game:
” Game on. I look forward to debating Donald
Trump in California before the June 7 primary.”
Source: Bernie Sanders campaign tweetMeanwhile Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, told the Huffington Post that the candidate’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States was just a conversation-starter:
“He’s already started moderating on that. He
operates by starting the conversation at the outer
edges and then brings it back towards the middle.
Within his comfort zone, he’ll soften it some more.”He’ll still end up outside of the norm, but in line with what the American people are thinking.
Barack Obama, speaking at the G7 summit, said that the world was “surprised” by the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president.
Bernie Sanders draws thousands to Cathedral City rally | The Desert Sun |
Lately (since ratcheting up fear of the Russian bear) the Dutch news services are pretty pro-America and follow the right-wing media stories like from the WSJ. I’ve written about U.S. propaganda outlets, NATO agression in Europe and the Atlantic Council. The Hillary Clinton story about her emails is widely covered in European media as it is in The Netherlands … doing Donald Trump and the GOP a great service.
This debate between Sen. Sanders & Trump will generate high ratings and a lot of $$ for charity. I wonder what network will host it? HRC should have honored the debate with Sanders in California; otherwise, we might not be seeing this headline.
You write:
She cannot. Every time she opens her mouth she loses more votes. This was OK when she was the media-promoted “winner,” but now? Razor thin dfferences.
Damned if she does, maybe damned a little less if she doesn’t.
Occam’s razor, redefined.
AG
○ Hitting the “Reset Button” by clammyc on January 22, 2009
○ Let’s Reset Ignorance by soj on March 10, 2009
mini-nukes aka tactical nukes are more dangerous than city busters because they are more likely to be used.
Actually not really.
The US has had versions of mini nukes since the 50’s;
The “Mod 0” was a variable yield device with three yields, ranging from 100 tons up to 1.1 kiloton and an enhanced-radiation (popularly known as Neutron bomb) mode which could be turned on or off.[2]
The “Mod 1” was fission only, without the enhanced-radiation option, and had a fixed 0.8 kiloton yield (800 tons of TNT). This probably corresponds with the maximum pure-fission yield of the “Mod 0”.
4. The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System was the tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile. The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 to 20 tons of TNT–very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.
all from wiki pages on each nuke
This list is not complete but shown to illustrate we have had very small yield nukes in the inventory for a long time.
All the ones listed are deactivated (out of the inventory) most demilled, (taken apart), some warheads even demilled also.
Warheads from one weapons systems sometimes are used in other weapons systems.
All Pershing II missile warheads were reused to manufacture B-61 bombs, this style of re-usage is common in nuclear weapons.
If you also notice above both the SADM and Davy Crockett used the same essential warhead. they were in the inventory around the same time and aren’t the re-usage of a warhead.
The usage of a mini nuke is no more likely than a larger nuke because use of either crosses the threshold of usage. that could very well lead to retaliation if used on a country either that has nukes or is allied with one that does.
Hence the simple fact the only military usage of a nuke was by a country (USA) on one (Japan) that had none nor any allies (Germany and Italy, both defeated by the time usage occurred) that had one.
I worked around people who’s job was maintain and if called on deploy such weapons.
My job included rendering safe said munitions if called upon.
Very few people who actually worked around these weapons want to see them employed in any mannor because we all know the consequences.
Loud mouthed know nothing politicians not so much.
Davy Crockett, there’s a suicide weapon. Fired from a Jeep, its radius of destruction was larger than its range.
Tactical nukes are not likely to be used where one’s own troops are. They have little value as a result because they irradiate areas that one is pretending to protect.
Nuclear weapons are fundamentally either useless or genocidal in actual use. That is why so many nations signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and why those nations that do have them are in the midst of self-created chronic conflict. That includes the largest nuclear weapons holder, the United States.
Advocating for nuclear weapons that can actually be used on a commander’s whim should be a disqualifying position of a politician, as it was for Barry Goldwater. Sadly, it’s not. That is pure folly.
And leads to even more destroyed infrastructure and impoverishment and conflict.
>>Over the next 30 years, the US plans to invest the astronomically high sum of more than $1 trillion (891 billion euros) in the construction of new aircraft carrier systems, long-range aircraft, a dozen nuclear-powered submarines
I won’t endorse the part that comes after this, but if we don’t build new ships and aircraft over the next 30 years we won’t have an operational navy or air force.
What is the role of aircraft carriers in future wars? What keeps them from being properly maintained? Why can they not last for 400 years if they are that expensive?
We have kept B-52s in the air for over 60 years because they were designed to be functional in the strategic air space, they are inexpensive to operate, and even with aluminum construction, they can be easily repaired.
The demand for new expensive toys is a huge drain on the US economy and the world economy. We fail to build infrastructure at home and destroy it abroad.
$1 Trillion is $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. And we haven’t even paid off the past wars.
No wonder the debt is outrageous.
Ship’s hulls have a finite life because of repeated stress of operation. Why do they cost so much? Having worked in the business I can say that the primary reason is cost-plus contracting. McNamara did try fixed bid, but fixed bids are inappropriate for new designs that push the performance envelope. The contractors had to be bailed out from the cost overruns. The ONLY way to control these costs is to return to the Navy owned construction shipyard, which is how Naval vessels were built prior to WW II. In WWII, private industry was engaged because of the massive expansion of operations, building 1100 warships in four years.
At least the prototypes should be built by the Navy. Then the costs are pretty well established and fixed bids can be used, IF there are bidders. Right now (and for a long time) there is only one company building Aircraft Carriers. For a long time (since at least the ’70s) there have been only two companies building Destroyers and the loser was usually given a smaller contract to keep them in business. Perhaps we only have one now. I haven’t looked at this for about 30 years. The Air Force probably has a similar situation and didn’t the Army have a problem getting any bidders for the Abrams tank back in the ’70s?
BTW, the US government OWNS the plants that the aircraft companies operate. they were all built by the government in WWII. Boeing, et al, are allowed to use the rent free for commercial operations. In fact, they are paid for the maintenance of those plants.
There are lots of good reasons for bringing all of the contracted functions back in house, from the Postal Service to armories and shipyards. At least then it would be accounted as a government cost that all true conservatives would have to reduce instead of private sector jawbs.
○ Is the US settling scores with the WTO appellate body?
Wow, Trump just canceled the debate with Sanders, who was hyperventilating at the chance to engage in a debate that no one except Bernie wanted. Seems no one wants to engage with Mr. wag the finger.
The only debates in the future will be Trump and Clinton, and Hillary will clean his clock.
She’s going to be his maid?
Naaaahhh…his c(
l)ock is too small to need cleaning.Besides…it’s stuck in 1973.
AG
You may have spoken too soon. It looks like Trump has reconsidered debating Bernie Sanders.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-debate/
○ Latest polls: Head to head – Sanders leads with double digits against Trump
http://www.bluenationreview.com/harsh-lesson-for-bernie-in-how-easily-trump-played-him/
Now Trump says debating Bernie was a joke. Looks like the joke is on Bernie.
Don’t forget to spew this piece of vomit.
In fact why don’t you go post over there with the rest of the Hilbots?
And that guns from VT are killing New Yorkers at a higher rate than something, something.
Why?? I like it here. Gives me a chance to tell the other side of the story and balance out the Bernie nonsense.
Each and every one of your comments is the confirmation why HRC is the lesser candidate for becoming president of the United States. Bernie’s movement will roll on, whatever happens in Philadelphia …
A late-night comedian and a candidate for President punk another candidate for President and the supporters of the putative nominee who will oppose the punking Presidential candidate are gleeful?
Trump proves that his word isn’t his bond. But his fans love that about him.
Same can be said for Hillary and her fans.
Yeah but Hillary has about 3 million more fans than Bernie
Right, eastcoastextgremist, cheer for Donald Trump.
Really?? When have I ever said I was cheering for Trump?? The guy is comparable to George Wallace.
○ Israel: Netanyahu Signs Up with Estremist Right
○ Israel A Jewish State, Not A Democracy – Sheldon Adelson
Rupert Murdoch smells a winner … he used to back the Senator Clinton campaign in New York. It takes a crook to know one. 😉
○ Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary | CBS News – May 2006 |
○ Anglo-American Relationship, Atlanticists and Israel
○ 1967 War – Israel – Rothschild – Cheney – Spoils
I suspect that he only supported Hillary Clinton in the primary.
In this primary, Bernie’s economic policies scare the heck out of people like Murdock.
Scare the heck out of virtually the entire structure of elites in government and business and that 50%+/-10% of the population that bows to TPTB.
When Bernie Wasn’t Even Mentioned …
○ Hillary Likely to Romp by BooMan on Apr 5th, 2013
○ Sanders and [Bill] Clinton by BooMan on Dec 11th, 2010
So Lieberman was a Democrat, mentor of senator Obama … I Support the Bill.
who just don’t get it at all what the underlying current is all about!
○ A plea to Hillary’s Democrat critics: don’t hand the White House to Trump | The Guardian |
○ Is Bernie Sanders making a Trump presidency more likely? | The Guardian |
○ How Do You Solve a Problem Like Trump? | NY Times |