@bobknight33 @newtboy

Leaving out key information, to the point that what's being said could be easily misunderstood, is a form of dishonesty.

But, Bob, I know we don't talk much, that's mostly because I don't like you. This kind of thing is exactly why I feel this way though.

Let's break down the first few of this commercial...errr propaganda piece.

"Despite our political differences, Russia and the United States have maintained friendly relations since the foundation of our great nation."
--------
Depends heavily on your definition of "friendly." If by friendly, you mean "almost nuking each other over long stretches of time," yeah sure, we're friendly.
------------------

"In fact, Russia and America have worked together, throughout history, to defeat our common enemies."
-------
Ehhh... we sort of worked independently against the same people out of individualized interests, not because we like each other. The video cites Russia "ignoring British requests for naval support during the American Revolutionary War;" except Catherine II basically manipulated the colonists into turning their backs on Britain to suit her own purposes and weakening the countries by splitting them in two.

This video cites the Ghent Treaty, but that was only struck after Napolean had already taken Moscow and an emboldened Russia started the land grab that led to the Crimean War. While getting their commie shits kicked in and losing the land they tried to take and then some, they were worried about not being compensated for American Russia, aka Alaska. So a few years after that, they sold it to the US for a cool $7 mill. (cold joke, get it?)

In short, even if we did get along with each other, it was just barely. Regardless, that was a different country that just happens to be occupying the same land now.

---------

But, you know, nevermind all that. Because that's not what you wanted to debate, was it? (see quote)

So I'll say this: Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a twitter war with the mayor of London, whose city just suffered a terror attack. That's the level of critique and disregard for decorum he has while doing it.

He'll cofefe the shit out of the pope and spit in NATO's face.

AND YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Nothing but positivity for Russia.

Last I remember, you were a fairly large promoter of Hillary's email dumps. Yeah, one of us is drinkin the bad kool-aid alright.

Let's end the suspense. Why not use something less-abstract to rest your laurels on? Hmmm...if only there were something...like...hmmm...something more...hmmm... concrete......hmmmm not like transparent like a fence...fence=fake news (see first presidential address)...hmm if only there were some kind of symbol for just how big of a fucking liar this asshole is....hmmmm ghad why can't i think of this...URGh! I feel like I'm banging my head against....hmmm.

Ah well.

p.s. Right here buddy: http://bit.ly/2rNSNsw

Coal is responsible for many orders of magnitude more deaths and radioactive emissions than all nuclear incidents combined. But people don't care about simple things like facts or numbers. Talking about renewables when a significant portion of baseload power is still produced by coal is pointless. Let people have their feel good green tech (made in China, powered by a lot of coal of course ; ), but replace coal with modern nuke.

Denying the place of recent generation nuclear power as a viable strategy of supplying cleaner baseload power is much like denying man made climate change. Fucking moronic.

Thorium salt reactors do produce waste, but it's incredibly safe compared to breeder/lwr reactor byproducts. In fact, you can introduce older reactor waste in to the liquid mix in small amounts and the LFTR will break it down to less harmful components by accelerating decay in the core.

http://lftrnow.com/

"LFTRs can also burn radioactive “waste” we are currently storing, made from the LWR units of today. We could actually reduce our radioactive waste using LFTRs and other Molten-Salt Reactors (MSRs) (more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fqB6p9pgM)."

So LFTR is a strategy for both power supply and cleaning up existing waste storage. Who'da thunk it??

It's too bad that the Addams Foundation basically used youtube's shitty flagging to nuke any and all episodes from Melissa Hunter, the lady creating the parody. Nevermind that it was a parody, long held to be protected via fair use, gotta keep that chedda in the pockets of the Foundation!

$314 million for one bomb that does more damage to terrain than any enemies.

You could have dropped 1000 cluster bombs for the same price and done way more targeted damage, or 10000 JDAMS / Laser guided bombs.

This is all just Trumps ego. He wanted to show how serious he is, and nobody would let him drop a nuke, so they used his short attention span to dangle this MOAB in from of him to make him feel good.

"Yeah, yeah, it's the biggest one we have"

He's not even good at war mongering.

I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.

It's amazing to see just how smooth and clean Putin's or "Russia's": "Coup O' America" is running, using empty-headed our power-hungry Republicans as the tools to make it work. (Yeah sure it's I don't believe this; but does it really matter when it is still turning OUT the same way?!)

Essentially just putting a person in each office that wants to tear it apart, so that they destroy America from the inside. Then put an administration on top that would run like a classic Dictatorship-lite. Right now our military branch and side branches--like the courts, taxes/money, infrastructure, etc... Are the only things that can actually respond and do jack-shit. Our country is running around like a chicken with its head chopped off.

Trump has NO idea what in the hell he is doing at all at the wheel. We ALL know this by now; if you don't agree on this you are absolutely lying to yourself. He has yet to make ONE announcement as President, that is actually--you know--presidential... Like after North Korea and it's missile test, then it's warning about Nuke use. Iran's proclamation. Russia's little boat fiasco (HHRrrmmm...Me Trump...Not Good!...)...

You could tell that Trump has absolutely no handle on anything at the last press briefing where all he did was bitch and moan, and didn't do anything useful at all. All he did was sit there and act like a spiteful little crybaby--Obama should've tried that out at the start when everybody called him a Muslim, non-citizen, the anti-christ, and whatever shit popped in their mouth.

Then we have the folks that say, "See, look the same thing happened to Obama too! So we are j-u-s-t-f-i-e-d!". Now that is the worst way to make a case for equivalency, ever...

Its easy to surprise people if you just make s#!t up.

Reminds me of that one time Ronald Reagan joked about nuking the Soviet Union with the mike switched on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSSRE27GQ0

... except Donald does it all the time and keeps a straighter face. Or maybe he is not joking? Is that why he elicits such uncomfortable laughter?

Death sentence, maybe, maybe not, but so dangerous that they didn't go, and the rest, yes. He's the polygamist leader that had sex with all the group's children....in prison now, but in charge of his own fiefdom for decades with next to no interference.
Edit: sorry, that's Warren Jeffs
That makes no sense. You don't prove the need for the military by having it sit idle while you're attacked.

I actually do think we should have done far more, if not gone to war with Pakistan when it was clear the military and government were harboring Osama (and others, and supplying terrorists, etc.) and claiming to be our allies....but, they've got nukes, so it won't happen....well, wouldn't happen, today all bets are off, so who knows.

To be fair, we have an obligation to physically defend Ukraine. They gave up their nukes for our promise (by treaty) to keep their borders secure. It was Putin starting a war by invading them, we just walked away from our obligation to avoid war.
And no, I don't want war with Russia, but neither do they. If we had mobilized troops into Ukraine, I doubt the Russian invasion would have continued to expand, but even if it did come to war that's what we promised, we lose all future credibility if we don't keep our international obligations.

Strangely, the thing that seems to be most important in stopping nuclear war with Russia is Trump's outrageous friendly relationship with Tsar Putin, because he's already made it clear that he has no qualms about using nukes against those he thinks are enemies.

Do you have to demonize a man who assassinates his enemies and expands his country? There's no question that he's done those things, so I don't get his point at all. You don't have to demonize a demon.

How does he think he knows what classified proof there may be? His statement makes him seem silly, he's complaining he hasn't seen this proof, knowing he shouldn't be able to see it.

Russia incontrovertibly militarily and financially supports our enemies and attacks our allies. That alone makes them threat #1. Period. They are also expansionist on multiple fronts, which is hyper threatening.

It's only unwise to build up Polish border forces if you want Poland to be Russian.

Be clear, Putin didn't "put Trump into the whitehouse", but he certainly helped. The argument that he didn't just install him is a red herring, designed to distract from the legal and illegal things Russia did to effect the election, a plan that worked better than they ever hoped.

Fake news hysteria?!? Fake news is one of the most important issues today, because it denies progress on ANY other issue by confusing the facts, making negotiation impossible.

I hate hearing about Bakers "promise"....it wasn't in writing, it wasn't from America or NATO, it wasn't binding in any way even then, and thinking we should stand by it in the face of Russia breaking treaty after treaty is just insane and naïve. Remember, Russia promised to never invade Ukraine (including Crimea).

I don't really think Aleppo was liberated....there's nothing left to liberate there but rubble.
Really, he's claiming that when Mosul was "liberated", Iraq just let the enemy drive away? That's bullshit. We have bombed the fleeing militants, and the Iraqi have fought them with vigor this time.

For a professional on US, Russia relations, he's got some strange ways of seeing things.
I do agree with him that, to Russia, bolstering Assad IS fighting terrorism. I think we failed miserably when we didn't take Assad out after he gassed the populace AND support/safeguard the local populace (if not their militias)....no question in my mind, that's when we lost Syria. Once Daesh and others were allowed to take over the anti-Assad side, there was no "winning" that war.
I also agree, with our current leaders, the nuclear safeguard is no safeguard at all, it's a sword of Damocles, not a shield.

Ban Arab Muslims, except from places that have attacked us, and tell all other Muslim countries that more is coming, they may be next.
Terror linked is a different category from terrorist sponsoring, and those nations are not banned. That's absolutely retarded.

I guess he's ignorant of the fact that the right was frothing at the mouth because Obama refused to just arm anyone fighting against Assad and insisted on VETTING them before he armed them. Had Trump and the Republicans been in control, Daesh may have been given battlefield nukes.

The "exemption" to the un-American refugee ban doesn't start for 120 days, and is then ONLY if Trump's people think it's in the national interest to let them in on a case by case basis (based on what, determined by whom?)....which is not likely for those worth less than $5000000. I guess he didn't read the text before calling others delusional or he would have read that.

Oops, the 2014 attack was also preformed by an American, as others have been....I guess we have to ban Americans too.

Yes, because America VETTS those we invite in...contrary to what most right wing idiots believe. They use Europe as an example of what will happen if we don't stop the scary Muslims, conveniently ignoring the vetting process that's completely non existent in Europe.

He's saying that people treated as the enemy often become the enemy, you feculent douche. Learn to read...and think.

Trump is just the bigot. Period. It's absolutely correct that if Muslims were as dangerous as portrayed and treated by Trump and the right, he would have been assassinated. That's a good indicator that Trump is wrong, not that all Muslims are easily radicalized or a call for assassination like the right spent 8 years doing directly and personally towards Obama.

Not a single Syrian that supports Daesh has made it through the vetting process to America.

They don't ban Israelis because of religion, they are banned because they are all in the military and that military is an expansionist fascist oppressor of and provocateur to Palestinians and most other Arab nations. I'm fairly certain Jews from America can go there.

What a fucking brain dead, dishonest idiot.
Mostly good tags though, this is certainly chock full of fail and lies, fearmongering, and has mostly been debunked....but it's absolutely not news in any way. I'll let someone else fix that though.

Surely, I can't be the only one who starts humming/singing CONELRAD songs during videos/articles about nukes/nuclear warfare...

Pence probably wouldn't nuke Mexico City as a bargaining tool.

Last week when they, again, threatened us with nuclear missiles. Granted, there wasn't much about the conditions, but they were mentioned. I hear about them at least once a month, usually more, but I watch a lot of news.

I can't believe I'm arguing that average Americans are informed, even just a little bit. Did I wake up in bizarro world?

Edit: They don't have much oil or natural resources, and they do have nukes, you can be certain the west won't find the will to stop the atrocities, that's not how we roll.

@enoch, you seem to be under the impression that you or I or anyone else has some kind of right to say whatever the fuck we feel like saying on the sift.

We don't. This isn't some public forum, it's a privately run website and @dag or @lucky760 have the right to decide if they don't want @gorillaman calling Obama a "nigger prince".

The sad thing is, I mostly agree with his post, but that one stupid epithet undermined his whole point and made him look like an ignorant fool.

And yeah, I'll fucking say it, calling Obama a "nigger" offends me, and not in some sensitive snowflake way. It should fucking offend you too, and frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with either dag (in his Siftler guise) or us as a community deciding that that's not cool and we don't want it here.

Free speech is not absolute, and anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves. There are well-documented limits to free speech (yelling "fire" in a public theatre, joking about bombs at airports). Once you accept that something is not absolute, you then simply have to argue the degree to which limits apply (same as gun control, if you accept that civilians can't have nukes, then you're already in favour of gun control, you're just arguing over the extent).