So has anybody addressed why Obama started his speech so late? Why do you think the DNC didn't have him on at a more reasonable hour. More people would have heard his speech, not?

 

I found something online showing that from 10 to 11 it was Tim Kaine followed by the President . I figured it just got behind and he was scheduled for 10:00 but maybe not.

So has anybody addressed why Obama started his speech so late? Why do you think the DNC didn't have him on at a more reasonable hour. More people would have heard his speech, not?

What's late for us is not so late for folks in the other three time zones.

So has anybody addressed why Obama started his speech so late? Why do you think the DNC didn't have him on at a more reasonable hour. More people would have heard his speech, not?

 

That seems to be the "prime time" for these speeches. Trump's ran from roughly 10:30-11:30 last week.

Absurd? Unreasonable? Hardly. Yes, a president can't just fire one off for fun ... but firing off a salvo in a hate-filled rage is not outside the realm of possibilities, especially when said president is irrational and immature.

 

A related fear, of course, is that another unstable national leader (Kim Jung-un) will act first if Trump gets elected and goes into his bully-boy schtick.

 

(As an aside have you ever witnessed a launch procedure inside a Minuteman ICBM control center?)

 

Yes my father worked on and in them..

 

If the US President at the spur of the moment decided to launch a nuclear missile as a first strike attack, could anyone stop him? - Quora

We are not going to launch a first strike nuclear warhead. Not now, not ever. Doesn't matter who we elect.

 

What we need to be concerned about is if someone else launches. The president could be woken from a deep sleep and have only several minutes to decide on a counter launch. That's frightening no matter who is in office. No one is ever prepared for that scenario.

We are not going to launch a first strike nuclear warhead. Not now, not ever. Doesn't matter who we elect.

 

What we need to be concerned about is if someone else launches. The president could be woken from a deep sleep and have only several minutes to decide on a counter launch. That's frightening no matter who is in office. No one is ever prepared for that scenario.

Exactly. The finger on the button rhetoric is comedy.

What's late for us is not so late for folks in the other three time zones.

Mountain and West Coast I will give you. Central time it is still late.

We are not going to launch a first strike nuclear warhead. Not now, not ever. Doesn't matter who we elect.

 

What we need to be concerned about is if someone else launches. The president could be woken from a deep sleep and have only several minutes to decide on a counter launch. That's frightening no matter who is in office. No one is ever prepared for that scenario.

Yes, it does matter who we elect. You assign far more confidence in President Trump's maturity level/understanding of world affairs than I do. With Trump as commander in chief, the possibility of the U.S. launching a first (nuclear) strike against a member of the "axis of evil" enters the realm of reality.

 

I'm not ready to take that chance in November ... nor do I wish to see an armed conflict with Mexico.

 

Trump simply isn't stable enough to be trusted with anything more important than a reality TV show.

Yes, it does matter who we elect. You assign far more confidence in President Trump's maturity level/understanding of world affairs than I do. With Trump as commander in chief, the possibility of the U.S. launching a first (nuclear) strike against a member of the "axis of evil" enters the realm of reality.

 

I'm not ready to take that chance in November ... nor do I wish to see an armed conflict with Mexico.

 

Trump simply isn't stable enough to be trusted with anything more important than a reality TV show.

Perhaps he'd have better luck being entrusted with his email.

Yes' date=' it does matter who we elect. You assign far more confidence in President Trump's maturity level/understanding of world affairs than I do. With Trump as commander in chief, the possibility of the U.S. launching a first (nuclear) strike against a member of the "axis of evil" enters the realm of reality. I'm not ready to take that chance in November ... nor do I wish to see an armed conflict with Mexico. Trump simply isn't stable enough to be trusted with anything more important than a reality TV show.[/quote']

 

Armed conflict with Mexico, you continue to spread this ridiculous false rhetoric.

I'm still waiting to see anyone truly defend Hillary. Seems like people are either anti-Trump or anti-Hillary. Or anti-both. Pointing out Trump's warts doesn't make a person pro-Hillary.

 

In a thread that's supposed to be about Hillary? I hear more Trump than Hillary in here. And none of you seem to care that she's as bad as he is for the country. If you guys did, you would vote 3rd party and be proud to admit it. You ramp up Obama's speech and ignore the fact that he actually endorsed Hillary. A criminal.

Yes, it does matter who we elect. You assign far more confidence in President Trump's maturity level/understanding of world affairs than I do. With Trump as commander in chief, the possibility of the U.S. launching a first (nuclear) strike against a member of the "axis of evil" enters the realm of reality.

I'm not ready to take that chance in November ... nor do I wish to see an armed conflict with Mexico.

 

Trump simply isn't stable enough to be trusted with anything more important than a reality TV show.

 

Your reality is......different.

Armed conflict with Mexico, you continue to spread this ridiculous false rhetoric.

 

But it's fun. Sounds like anxiety is setting in.

:lol2: back to 3rd grade. That would be an opinion. Facts are proven like the 3500 lawsuits that Trump has been involved in.

 

At least Trump doesn't have "blood" on his hands.