nice shilling
kys faggot
>>112737321
Isaac Lopez
Other urls found in this thread:
politifact.com
en.wikipedia.org
screenertv.com
azlyrics.com
airspacemag.com
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
quora.com
documentcloud.org
twitter.com
Jeremiah Ramirez
Typical Trump supporter
>No argument
>"SHILL"
>"CTR"
Trump supporters can't process logic or cognitive reasoning, which is why they stick to memes and buzzwords for arguments.
No Trump supporter can be debate anything he said in any of his videos regarding the wall, his policies or how much he lies.
Also
politifact.com
Let me guess: "FAKE NEWS"
Noah Gray
>BritBong's only means of comedy is bashing an American president.
>sanity
Noah Hill
Explain how his argument is wrong?
Why would check your references and sources EVER be a bad idea?
Actually back up your shit for once.
Jackson Roberts
Not even 1/4 of his shows are about Trump. The media (CNN, Breitbart, MSNBC, Fox, etc.) mention the U.S. president far more than Last Week Tonight does.
en.wikipedia.org
You have to come to terms with reality at a certain point. You are past that point.
Hunter Parker
If you get your political insight from a comedian you might just want to kill yourself
Lincoln Butler
Good goy
Heres your 5 shekels
Luke Ortiz
This.
I get all my political insight from a humble water filter salesman and a Cantonese fingerpainting forum.
Eli Hernandez
>if you dont agree with my opinion then you havent got critical thinking skills and self-awareness
Maybe it is you? Also, he's simply not terribly funny.
Asher Torres
I wonder if the doctors let John keep his testicles in a little glass jar after he had them surgically removed...?
Levi Murphy
Maybe if he talked about actual issues? He used to talk about pertinent shit like civil forfeitures and pay day loan scams, but ever since Trump came into the fray, he can't get enough and it's getting fucking stale.
Hunter Myers
>political insight
>last week tonight
Confirmed for never actually watching the show. Sup Forums shouldn't be your only source of news.
Most of the topics aren't right or left. Prisoner reentry programs, big tobacco bullying small countries and patent trolls are generally common sense issues.
William Wood
>pic related
Jon Oliver is my hero.
Thomas Bennett
>attacking trump over THE FUCKING NUCLEAR TRIAD
>BECAUSE BOMBERS ARE RELEVANT TO MODERN NUCLEAR WAR
>REGARDLESS THAT THEY GET 100% WIPED OUT BEFORE THEY HAVE CHANCE TO FUEL OR BE ARMED
INTO THE FUCKING TRASH
Jayden Hall
>you will never experience a shill-free Sup Forums again
Tyler Hernandez
Objectively false.
It's ironic that the latest issues was about verifying your information and you failed to do so.
Pic related were the last episodes of his latest season.
Daniel Morales
>Typical Trump supporter
Damn how much does it hurt you that a "typical" supporter has already way more clue than you? sad
>politifact
Lol pls never be surprised that no one takes you seriously and yes your guess is actually true with more than just a fair share of prove.
Gabriel Baker
screenertv.com
John Oliver cheerfully tells stories on national television how his wife started singing these lyrics with LL cool J at an airport in front of him.
Jason Hughes
>I don't understand military doctrine, strategy, or tactics so it's okay if the U.S. president doesn't as well
>“According to the pilots I’ve spoken with, combat lessons and improved technology have made the B-2 more capable than ever, but the job of flying it is no easier. Additions over the last decade enable the airplane to gather and transmit information about the battlespace, taking advantage of the fact that the B-2 is the only manned platform that can fly where enemy radar and surface-to-air-missile defenses are up and running. Part of the B-2’s mission is mapping the state of the enemy’s air defense system by getting the enemy to turn on radars and missile batteries, especially on Night One.
airspacemag.com
Justin Garcia
Are you planning on making a concrete argument or are you just going to keep projecting your deep rooted insecurities through use of empty rhetoric and hyperbole?
Joshua Taylor
He acted like he was being fair by saying Obama was rated as untruthful 25% of time but then said trump was untruthful like 75% of time. He was referencing politi"fact".
Also he had a long segment on why voter IDs caused issues but his entire argument hinged on a single old black lady he found who didn't have a birth certificate and she had issues proving things.
That's basically all you need to know because the rest of the show is really that bad when it comes to logic.
Alexander Sanders
Can current year man ever recover?
Liam Nelson
If you were here for more than a few days you would understand he's already been discussed and disproven probably hundreds of times by now.
>Blah blah blah generalization of trump supporters
Kys
Brody Torres
That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the discussed topic
NUCLEAR TRIAD is about RETAINING RETALIATORY CAPABILITY in face of incoming nuclear attack
Bombers are reduced to RADIOACTIVE CINDER before they have an OPPOTURNITY to be armed or fueled
Only bombers in a nuclear scenario you'll get any use out of are the ones ALREADY IN AIR before fighting starts suggesting youre using them offensively and thus are not part of the nuclear triad as depicted
Adrian Wilson
>wonder who's behind this thread
Daniel Hill
OP BTFO
P
B
T
F
O
Ethan Perry
Someone's opinion that he's not funny is objectively false? Interesting. I love learning new things from "Its the Current Year" bros.
Justin Nelson
He's definitely funny, I'll even give you sane. But definitely not smart.
Gavin Gonzalez
If you took a moment to actually read those articles Bernie's statement was sourced though he used the wrong terminology. Trump and his people refused to give a source leading one to believe he is pulling it out of his ass. The only reason it even got mostly false was because politifact had to find numbers ANYWHERE to back up Trump's statement.
The question your pic fails to address, and should naturally include, is where the hell is Trump citing his numbers from?
But, that is a critical thinking skill...
Nathan Perry
Yeah they even had a segment in which they tried to explain why having voter id is bad... before the election of course.. and when it came out that the only PROVEN voter fraud was mainly done by hill supporters stuff like detroid with more hilldawg votes than voters ... this stupid asshole you all take as "political education" is nowhere to be found and heard.
Sorry you have to be stupid to swallow that crap.
Its not political education and that you confuse it for one is a mistake on your side and by design by the dems friendly media.. they know what they have to put in to pass as "education"its easy for them cause they already convinced the narcissist people (that cant shut up about how educated they are..cause the media told them they are) that they are smarter than everyone.
Jayden Howard
You want me to post pages of politifact anti trump bias? You have to be blind to not see it.
You do realize politifact is just a name?
Matthew Bennett
>only bombers in a nuclear scenario you'll get any use out of are the ones ALREADY IN AIR
Alright, I read up til hear when I realized you have very little knowledge of what you're discussing. If you truly believe that ICBMs take a shorter amount of time then it does to generate an aircraft you're going to want to pull some open-source information to support that claim.
I'm sure Jane's or similar would be a good starting place for that.
t. 14N
Oliver Perry
Submarine launched missiles wipe out all your bases in less time than it takes to get those planes in the air
Jace Perry
JFC excuse my RANDOM CAPSLOCK but have YOU ever watched dr STRANGLEOVE?
Carson Gonzalez
Argument for what?
What's your point I'm supposed to be refuting? Whether he's funny or not?
If it's that people source shit on Sup Forums all the time that's not backed up by legit sources then pull any number of the "infograms" or pics posted here.
Or better yet, just look at the front page:
was for
Apologies.
Connor Green
That's what I thought shillcuck, when totally beaten you revert to playing dumb and pretending that you don't know what is being debated.
Joshua Kelly
Thats archaic they didn't have GPS guided nuclear cruise missiles back then that fly below radar
Christian Morgan
Oh ok that makes more sense. I won't lie and say I haven't enjoyed some episodes, and he has pointed out valid problems on a platform seen by many, but when it comes to Trump he seems to simply push his handler's wishes. I mean seriously, politifact? He just blindly accepts it and expects his viewers to as well. His whole thing was not blindly accepting what authority tells you and pointing out others hypocrisy. It goes against what he was supposed to be doing.
When you point out how these guys are completely wrong on something they fall back on "its just comedy bro" but then expect to be taken completely seriously on certain things. Jon Stewart pulled that one all the time.
Brayden Wright
I'm not going to wargame with you. You can pull up numbers for that claim or not. Your choice.
If you believe that Russia/China will use one of it's very few strike subs capable of sneaking past the USN to attack one of the many U.S. bomber bases stateside (not even counting overseas/NATO bases) then you've already acknowledged the threat posed by aerial bombers.
The strength in the nuclear triad is the diversity of both options and targets. It keeps the opponent focusing on several areas of defense to counter multiple threats. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Julian Young
are you fucking kidding? he's incredibly biased, he cherrypicks cases to fit his agenda, he shilled for bernie and hillary, he and his ilk (trevor noah and bill maher are other good examples) were some of the primary contributors to the current political climate by ridiculing the president, bastardizing his supporters, pretended some of the most pressing issues were unimportant and generally brought nothing meaningful and constructive to the political discussion....
by claiming this guy is a voice of sanity, you've outed yourself as a moron completely incapable of critical thinking
nice going
David Wood
You don't seem to comprehend how much damage a single sub with modern weapons can do
Ian Thompson
>Alright, I read up til hear when I realized you have very little knowledge of what you're discussing. If you truly believe that ICBMs take a shorter amount of time then it does to generate an aircraft you're going to want to pull some open-source information to support that claim.
en.wikipedia.org
Minuteman has a top speed of Mach 23
en.wikipedia.org
B-2 Spirit has a top speed of Mach 1
en.wikipedia.org
It doesn't even go Mach 1.
Add to the fact that Airfields are visible from satellites while subs and silos are not.
And the fact that we have convetional warhead balistic and tactical missiles capable of destroying both the airfields and the planes before they take off. You can see why they are shit.
How about you stop being a retard?
Julian Scott
>don't push argument you want person to refute
>claim victory
That's some 9D chess. I guess you won?
I'll be here in case you want to actually make a point...
Jacob Wilson
The Boy who is Livid
Harry Oliver
Hogwarts Education
Lives Under the Stairs
Kills Dragons and Shit
James Price
...
Jace James
My problem with Oliver is that he's a biased piece of shit who continues to insist that he isn't (also he's just not funny to me but I can appreciate people may have different tastes).
I think I'm pretty much the definition of an outsider and I can see both the dems and the GOP have their problems. However, he only highlights the GOP shit and ignores everything coming out of the dem camp except maybe to say how "actually, it isn't a problem".
Seriously though, I don't understand how people can find him funny after watching a few times. I hate his fucking "CURRENT YEAR" manufactured outrage act.
Ryan Murphy
The absurdity of Trump's rise and success provides plenty of fodder. He's also taken Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein to task. But being honest, they're all far more boring then Trump's constant stream of blunders and the surreal. Trump tends to lend himself to comedy.
I'm not saying poltifact can't be wrong or have a bias. Almost all humans/organizations do no matter how hard we try to be unbiased. I think it's false equivalency, however, to say politifact, npr, last week, etc. are in anyway close to the bias of your breitbart or dailykos. And those latter two are, in turn, far, far more biased than even your Fox News or MSNBC. There are levels of bias and it's insincere to simply pile everything into only two groups.
I hate to repeat it but this latest episode was exactly about this conversation we're having. "Check your sources and information. Verify and vet the news that you're getting. If something confirms to your bias it should even be more scrutinized for truth." That lesson goes for both "sides".
I have never seen them fall back on, "it's just comedy". Jon Stewart would use that argument for TDS but that usually came out when journalists tried to hold them to a higher standard then they even held themselves. Which is honestly a bit odd, no?
Juan Wilson
You don't seem to comprehend how vulnerable subs become after they launch even a single missile.
Nathaniel Murphy
this is the guy that said that terrorist attacks are fine as a result of letting in muslim refugees.
almost prophetically, huge attacks happened in france shortly after
liberals are insane
Logan Evans
They launch their whole load at once, unlike the bombers which again are turned to radioactive cinder before they're even fueled or armed
Aiden Johnson
At least a Sub can launch it's missiles, a nuclear bomber has to take off, fly towards the target, avoid SAM's and interceptors, get directly above the target, and drop the nuclear bomb or launch the missile, and then you have to expect it make the trip back without dying.
William Parker
> common sense issues.
Nolan Morgan
...
Ayden Jackson
Shill
Aaron Parker
>But being honest, they're all far more boring then Trump's constant stream of blunders and the surreal.
That's probably where you and most of the people on this board differ. IMO the shit from the DNC and Clinton campaign emails is far worse that what Trump has done up to now.
Mate, I've WORKED with subs (admittedly not nuclear capable ones) and the whole fucking point is how stealthy and shit they are. Yes there are countermeasures etc but you sure as fuck aren't going to eliminate any significant portion of the US missile sub capability even in after they've launched their payload.
Hunter Jackson
I won't even consider him a British comedian. He has such poor reception here in the UK that he isn't even well known here.
Political satire has always been a big thing for British comedians but you can definitely see a dip in quality by those who solely follow popular views on politics.
Luke Collins
#1 you are generalizing super hard here. You fall back on "all humans have bias" which is an obviously true statement but we are talking about Politifact specifically, or at least I was. It's owned by a newspaper that was for Clinton and has many many obviously false statements. Hell, they have "mostly false" in their little quick judgement but then in the text it shows the statement was true in articles.
Then you muddied the waters and assumed I read Breitbart etc, when I don't even look at those, didnt mention them, and we aren't even talking about them. Cmon man. Simple stuff. Reread what you're typing before you post. May want to look at the poster at the top of the main page and see what fallacies you're committing.
Luke Price
>comparing speed of delivery platforms to a conversation about speed/survivability
Stunning.
They're not going to battle it out in the air. The information you want to look up (if you can find it) is how long it takes to generate an aircraft from standby, preferably. Specifically those with nuclear-strike capabilities (all bombers and most multi-role aircraft). An aircraft that's part of the nuclear triad requires the ability to pose a threat before it is countered (i.e. can this aircraft be wheels up and on it's way before it's ability to launch is destroyed or what is survivability once it's in contested space).
Your not even arguing the right question.
Your information on airfields (yes, but orders of battle change rapidly -- bombers/strike aircraft can be staged almost anywhere), subs (plenty of open source will show you subs detected by SAT this but it's irrelevant because that's not how they would be targeted... en.wikipedia.org
Tactical isn't even the equation if you understood their ranges. Also, I don't understand why you deem it necessary to separate conventional/nuclear unless you really don't understand the question, again. The same delivery packages (i.e. aircraft/submarines/cruise missiles) are often used for both nuclear/conventional weaponry, depending on payload capacity. A strike submarine launching either would put it at risk to attack submarines, ASW aircraft, etc.
Also, who is this "we"?
Aaron Richardson
He's just a shitty "comedian"
Andrew Brooks
So will any of you rabid trumplrinas please explain why none of you are actually addressing the content of the video?
How does it make you feel to be duped so easily?
Elijah Brooks
And you read like a few of the people I went to college with who became completely brainwashed.
A lot of the absurdity is planned. Look at how much he spent in comparison. Not sure how you didn't figure that out yet.
Also as mentioned, what was in emails and what was uncovered by Veritas and all those ties is way more important than "absurdity", name-calling and race baiting. The DNC paid for protesters to incite violence for fuck's sake.
Gavin Gonzalez
>he shilled for bernie and hillary
And yet he had pieces on both of them as well as Jill Stein.
Again, you can't create the false equivalency that he is in the pocket of either when even by his supporters own qualifications, Trump is an oddity of a presidential candidate and president. He literally was voted because he's "not like the others" and then when it's pointed out trump supporters complain that he's not being judged exactly the same.
That's insanity. You realize that right?
You realize you can't put forth an inexperienced, fickle, bombastic outsider then get angry when everyone in the world highlights it? You can't have an attack on reality.
Bentley Lee
>And yet he had pieces on both of them as well as Jill Stein.
His pieces on everyone but Trump were tame and leashed even by his standards, and he attacks Trump much more often. Trump arguably has more material to work with but that doesn't explain why he seems to go out of his way to avoid offending them yet it's no holds barred for Trump and elk.
>You realize you can't put forth an inexperienced, fickle, bombastic outsider then get angry when everyone in the world highlights it? You can't have an attack on reality.
Again, it's probably the disparity between what the media is attacking him for and what his opponents are definitely guilty of.
Jason Phillips
Adrian Morgan
>
They're not going to battle it out in the air. The information you want to look up (if you can find it) is how long it takes to generate an aircraft from standby, preferably. Specifically those with nuclear-strike capabilities (all bombers and most multi-role aircraft). An aircraft that's part of the nuclear triad requires the ability to pose a threat before it is countered (i.e. can this aircraft be wheels up and on it's way before it's ability to launch is destroyed or what is survivability once it's in contested space).
Do you think SAM and Interceptors will not exist?
The nuclear bombers in service right now can be brought down, intercepted even by generation 2 and 3 jet fighters.
>yes, but orders of battle change rapidly -- bombers/strike aircraft can be staged almost anywhere)
No they can, things like the Stratofortress and B2 require long enough strips not to mention the B2 requires more maintenance do to stealth and flying wing design.
>Tactical isn't even the equation if you understood their ranges. Also, I don't understand why you deem it necessary to separate conventional/nuclear unless you really don't understand the question, again. The same delivery packages (i.e. aircraft/submarines/cruise missiles) are often used for both nuclear/conventional weaponry, depending on payload capacity. A strike submarine launching either would put it at risk to attack submarines, ASW aircraft, etc.
The reason I am separating is because nobody is gona lob a nuke at an airfield, we have tactical missiles for that.
As for attack subs and ASW vs a nuclear sub. Nuclear subs have the effective range to fire out of the range of ASW's and other similar platforms and the attack subs need to be in range and have a fast enough attack to not miss since a nuclear sub will relocate.
Not to mention we have things like decoys when it comes to naval warfare.
>Also, who is this "we"?
Humans since Russia, China, America and even European powers have the tech.
Oliver Green
John Oliver is fake news posing as comedy.
Gabriel Lewis
A nuclear sub will not be hit by any retaliatory strike period, assuming competent commanders and planning.
Ryder Gonzalez
Pretty cool. Why do I find the show pretty bad then? It's not funny or entertaining. Even if this claimed subversion exists, they're not doing a particularly good job of it.
Henry Flores
I'd LOVE to sit you down in a SCIF and discuss why you're wrong.
I didn't work subs but I did spend two years with some very, very bright Navy guys during joint firepower at weapons school and NATO headquarters.
But the best I can do is to post some unverified anecdotes by some boaters:
quora.com
Subs greatest strength goes out the window the moment they launch a single missile. Period.
Multiple, nuclear-capable aircraft staged at several bases simply cannot be covered by the number of strike subs in the world. The simple fact of having to target so many locations is, in itself, a strength.
Do you honestly think so much would be invested in strategy that was so fundamentally flawed (well, it probably would because it's the government but it's actually a sound philosophy)?
You're really oversimplifying what it takes to the make a sub both undetected and effective.
Logan Nelson
I just can't stand looking at his face.
Christopher Clark
yes, he had pieces of those and yes trump's behaviour is irrational at best and so of course it is tempting to ridicule. however, when you do your political satire in a way that condescends half your population you are really contributing to the problem. analyse his pieces on all candidates and compare the rhetoric objectively, you should be able to see what i mean...
i agree that it is insane that your country ends up with those two presidents. it really says something about your political climate. if you fail to see the concerted effort of 98% of the media to shoot down trump, i don't know what to tell you, buddy.
how is the reason for why he was voted in a justification for going for ridicule? it should be so easy to beat him, if you guys just stepped out of your leftist rhetoric for a couple of seconds, and put him to the test on real political issues in effect exposing his inexperience you would've done far better than the shitshow you tried.
when did i say i was angry? either way. i'm not saying it's an unacceptable attack on reality, i'm saying when comedians like john oliver glosses over the major scandals being uncovered in realtime about one of the presidential candidates and instead went on to ridicule and mock the other (and his supporters), they can't talk about fucking reality
Lincoln Davis
Not sure what the argument is at this point. All I can say is that there is no way to eliminate any significant portion of US sub based missile capability even when retaliating, let alone a first strike scenario (barring some big bullshit etc).
Parker Wood
>You're really oversimplifying what it takes to the make a sub both undetected and effective.
Move out of the last known location.
And you are overestimating the capabilities of Strike Planes.
Do you really expect a piece of junk Stratofortress or Tupolev to even get anywhere close to a target without getting shot down by SAM's and Interceptors?
Evan Bennett
I'm not falling back on it, I'm explaining that it's a poor argument to position that, "because Oliver has some bias, you can dismiss his arguments, ad hominem". Again, politifact has very few errors compared to the amount of content they get right. And, again, you attack them because the newspaper they are a subsidy of endorsed Clinton (which, almost all newspaper endorsed Clinton because journalism generally strives for integrity/truth that Trump objectively has a scarcity of).
I've already addressed that image earlier.
I didn't muddy the waters or assumed you read anything. Why did you only get offended at Brietbart when I mentioned DailyKos, Fox, MSNBC, etc.? I was only posing examples of how bias is largely unavoidable but that doesn't make it equal. Which feeds back into my first paragraph (i.e. don't dismiss entirely because of some perceived bias). Don't read in between the lines. My argument is quite clear.
Adam Morales
>subs won't be struck in retaliation
I just can't anymore.
Jaxson Davis
>what his opponents are definitely guilty of.
Tangent, but I'd love for you to elaborate on this.
I have feeling it's going to be emails (largely innocous) or Benghazi (cleared in several investigations including the two-year, Republican-led House Committee Benghazi Investigation that found no wrongdoing).
If you mention pizzagate or hillary assassinating a "whistleblower" then I forefeit. Because I honestly don't have the energy for that level of retardation and I'm sick as shit.
Kayden Hughes
Nice shill thread
Colton Foster
Oh my God man you are fucking dense.
>yes you did fall back on it
>etc means et cetera
Post "fact checks" you see as true. Almost all the shit I've seen on there is fucking fake as shit. I didn't mention the one image you said you refuted. Why the fuck do you keep doing that? Youre talking about bias, I'm talking about blatant manipulation for a goal eg propaganda.
>inb4 but there are many forms of propaganda and not just Politifact does it
You are fucking pathetic
Luis Lewis
>The nuclear bombers in service right now can be brought down, intercepted even by generation 2 and 3 jet fighters.
SAMs are a non-issue. We have countermeasures for interceptors/fighters.
>No they can, things like the Stratofortress and B2 require long enough strips not to mention the B2 requires more maintenance do to stealth and flying wing design.
Sure. I can't find any open source info so let's just go with "sure".
>tactical
You may want to look at locations for US air bases/staging areas.
>Nuclear subs have the effective range to fire out of the range of ASW's and other similar platforms and the attack subs need to be in range and have a fast enough attack to not miss since a nuclear sub will relocate.
Logically, you should understand that the further away they fire, then the more warning that adversaries have to counter. To eliminate this they'd, naturally, be inside a the threat ring for effectiveness. Now, with those two premises in place connect the dots...
Again, you're balancing detectability with effectivness. Otherwise submarines would just be TELs.
James Bailey
Also to add to the stupidity of thinking Nuclear Bombers have any use in a all out war,
US has built 20 B2 spirits, not known how many still are operable. And has about 100 Operable B52's.
Compared to over 400 Minutemen and 230 Tridents.
Russia is not much better with around 200 Nuclear Capable bombers with almost half being Turboprops.
Liam Jenkins
How much does Vladimir pay all these Trumpsky white knights I wonder?
William Foster
You don't like the Beatles fucked Harry Potter look?
Racist.
Josiah Green
LOL. where to begin...
1. she doesn't even have to be guilty of anything. with wikileaks track record, the explosivity of the contents of those mails and the crickets in the media, alarm bells are going full blast...
2. saying the stuff that was in the emails was of no importance? come on.... if it was trump, you think the media would have stayed silent? you have to do better than that
3. implying most republicans and democrats arent working for the same masters? i'd put more trust in a wikileak email than in any career politician, whether its democrat or republican, any day.
4. not allowed to ask questions about seriously weird stuff? i get it, the claims are wild and im sure many conclusions are dead wrong, but still, the content of those mails are highly suspicious and no-one is allowed to talk about it. you think that is normal?
Blake Morris
I just call out retardation. It pisses me off.
If you would read and could comprehend the English language you may understand.
Look at the official "Russian Influence" hacking report for instance. Over half is Russia Today. People keep fucking ignoring it when I post it.
documentcloud.org
Isaiah Fisher
>sanity after he got mindraped by 2016 and 2017 (ongoing)
CURRENT YEAR indeed.
Lincoln Jenkins
>SAMs are a non-issue. We have countermeasures for interceptors/fighters.
S-300 and S-400 are powerful enough to knock out even a B-2 spirit with a competent enough ground crew familiar with the radar system. Even if they can't do that they can destroy the escorts and let the jet fighters deal with them. Jet fighter that are significantly faster than a B2. And again US only has 20 B-2's and the B-2 is the only long range stealth jet bomber with nuclear capability.
>Sure. I can't find any open source info so let's just go with "sure".
The B-52 has such a long takeoff path it is designed to fit RATO's to shorten it.
>You may want to look at locations for US air bases/staging areas.
A large number of them are in Europe and even when talking about the US, both Russia and China are in range of the West coast with some munitions even without subs.
>Logically, you should understand that the further away they fire, then the more warning that adversaries have to counter. To eliminate this they'd, naturally, be inside a the threat ring for effectiveness. Now, with those two premises in place connect the dots...
How do you counter an ICBM overload? There is no nation on earth with enough anti missile armament to do so. Yes some would get brought down but over all enough would hit. Moreover even without such a tactic the sea is big, you would happen to have to be in the strike range of a ASW or a hunter killer sub and not relocate fast enough which is unlikely.
Grayson Garcia
>condescends half your population
Honestly, if someone believes or supports half the things he's ridiculing then we shouldn't coddle them.
It's like Hillary backing down on the deplorable statement and it becoming a rallying cry.
>"You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right," Clinton said, drawing laughter and applause as she addressed about 1,000 donors at an LGBT for Hillary fundraising gala in New York City, "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it."
Let's take a moment and analyze that. There are people who got angry that people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, etc. got called "deplorable". What the fuck? Those people ARE deplorable and SHOULD be ridiculed. What weird Twilight Zone did we enter as a nation? Oh, I'm sorry, the racist is offended he got called a racist...wut?
Hillary was a shit candidate for backing down.
>concerted effort of 98% of the media to shoot down trump
I never get this argument, either. The media is literally reporting what Trump says and does. To blame the media for reporting reality is the equivalent of lambasting the cop for arresting a criminal. "Yeah, yeah, he stole that television but you don't have to be a dick about it..." They're literally just repeating what he says. This is no different than any other reporting and yet everyone wants Trump to be put on a pedestal. Other politicians get it WAY worse compared to the things Trump has said. Take a moment to truly compare the statements Trump has made compared to the slight missteps of other politicians to understand how much he actually gets away with.
>how is the reason for why he was voted in a justification for going for ridicule
Because the things he said were ridiculous.
> it should be so easy to beat him
The smear campaign against Hillary was ongoing for three years. Many people honestly believe a lot of the rumors and disinfo about her.
1/2
Benjamin Thomas
"Typical drumpf supporter"
Jack Nelson
Just look on Sup Forums where Hillary Clinton may just be the devil incarnate (murderer, child molester, corrupt, crooked, etc.)
>you guys just stepped out of your leftist rhetoric for a couple of seconds
You guys? Now, who's making assumptions?
> put him to the test on real political issues
I wholeheartedly blame the media for that. But I don't excuse the American people for not ignoring all the noise about wikileak emails and pussygate.
2/2
Ian Wilson
Nice post.
Juan James
I can say that your missile subs will not be hit by any retaliatory strike in an offensive operation, if preserving them is a significant objective. Ofc operational planning may require something different and my knowledge is nowhere near 100%.
Main issue for me is Clinton's mishandling of confidential information. That shit is definitely not innocuous, I'd be sent straight to armed forces jail immediately (ie straight to sentencing) in her circumstances. I understand she's nominally a civilian but that's gotta be criminal negligence at least in a civie court.
Second would be the way Sanders was treated by the DNC, I was pretty keen on him before he endorsed Clinton.
Then it all snowballed from there after I started reading the leaked emails. Clinton's campaign manager saying shit about producing "an unaware and compliant citizenry" etc.
>There are people who got angry that people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, etc. got called "deplorable"
A person who would like stricter immigration controls and supports Trump based on that would definitely be angry at being called that shit for example. IMO she lost the election by statements like these which turn moderate voters against her.
>I never get this argument, either. The media is literally reporting what Trump says and does.
From a very biased angle similar to what Oliver does.
>The smear campaign against Hillary was ongoing for three years. Many people honestly believe a lot of the rumors and disinfo about her.
No, I went and read the leaked emails directly and formed my opinion of her from there.
Easton Flores
>yes you did fall back on it
That's not how this works.
You can't just state something without proof.
You state Politifact is "handled and controlled" by their parent newspaper to have a bias that is pro-Clinton/vs Trump(many, many biases). I state that's not necessarily untrue since everything has a bias but that bias is relatively weak and largely doesn't affect their reporting. Everything they state is source/cited to the best of their ability.
How about this, since there are
>many many obviously false statements
let's tackle them each.
You even reiterate it that there is a treasure trove of not only biased (I was trying to give you some leeway) but objectively false statements.
Post some. If almost all the shit you've seen on their is outright fucking fake as shit this shouldn't be hard...
Jace Flores
RT became big on Sup Forums about 3-4 years ago and I always thought that was weird.
Cooper White
I'd like a current year man shill to defend John Oliver's editing of the inauguration rain comment
Blake Gomez
Back to Vladistok Vladimir
Austin Martin
People are actually trying to engage you and your responses are littered with base insults and condescension.
Benjamin Davis
If you think he's sane, you should question your own sanity.
Nolan Cruz
>he doesn't even have to be guilty of anything.
We're off to a strong start.
>with wikileaks track record, the explosivity of the contents of those mails and the crickets in the media, alarm bells are going full blast...
You give no substance in this sentence. It's a lot of inference and exciting words but that's it.
>saying the stuff that was in the emails was of no importance?
Still no information except vague handwaving at "the emails".
> if it was trump, you think the media would have stayed silent? you have to do better than that
Are you honestly claiming the media didn't run her emails into the ground? We heard about her private email server for over a year and half. Try to remember where you heard about her email server (hint: the media).
And no I don't have to do better because, again, you're not offering any substance.
> implying most republicans and democrats arent working for the same masters? i'd put more trust in a wikileak email than in any career politician, whether its democrat or republican, any day.
>more vague handwaving at "the powers that be"
>not allowed to ask questions about seriously weird stuff?
You're free to ask questions about whatever you want. But if you don't think you won't be challenged on absurd claims with no proof then you're living in the same fairy tale as every other conspiracy nut that's ever existed.
>the content of those mails are highly suspicious and no-one is allowed to talk about it. you think that is normal?
>more vague handwaving
This is why it's so hard for rational people to take any of this seriously. There has been plenty scandals that everyone agreed happen because there was evidence. It's fascinating that so many Trump supporters don't grasp that it's not some uniformed movement against the demographic by the some mysterious NWO, it's that your arguments hold no merit. It's that simple.
Most of the 9/11 truthers were liberal nutjobs and they received the same derision.
Isaac Wood
>if you are a (Insert news speak label) you ARE deplorable
nigga...
Gabriel Cox
>SAMs are a non issue
Whew lad you've got to be might ignorant if you think US planes are invulnerable to surface to air missile systems like the s400