Trump Could Destroy the Entire Human Species, Says Yale Psychiatrist

a reply to: StallionDuck

the president can authorize the launch he can't actually launch them though. he's not the one turning the launch keys.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: StallionDuck

the president can authorize the launch he can't actually launch them though. he's not the one turning the launch keys.

I really didn't think people actually believed he had a button on his desk. Hell, I thought that was a given.... errrr well... uhh

Maybe you're right. Maybe I was too hasty in the benefit of a doubt that I freely give people.


It's gonna take a really long time to launch all those nukes. By the time Trump is done with every key in every silo in every part of the world, we'll have already lost the war. ...Unless he's Santa, of course.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: infolurker

One time, Nixon was overheard to remark he could "get up, walk to that (red) phone and in thirty minutes 150 million will be dead".

It not the presider with this terrible power, its the Military Industrial Complex.

The Pentagon issues those orders.

actually... the PoTUS can call that strike anytime he wants to. He has the codes.

The President does NOT have the launch codes . He has the nuclear football to call for a launch . The only military person that can order a first strike launch now. Thanks to Bill Clinton. And , contrary to popular belief , there are all kinda checks and balances.
Avatars say it all.

Sorry buddy. He does. I'm guessing you're a little confused.

The Gold Codes are the launch codes for nuclear weapons provided to the Presidents of the United States in their role as Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces. In conjunction with the nuclear football, the Gold Codes allow the president to authorize a nuclear attack.

Source


And....

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3] The Secretary of Defense succession plan designates numerous individuals that may serve after a President removes his or her predecessor.[4] Traditionally, a civilian United States officer must countersign a Presidential order or resign.[5]

Source



And since Snopes is a left leaning source, I'll humor you.

Could Anyone Stop Trump from Launching Nukes? The Answer: No

They said sNOppers!




Besides... If he couldn't, then why is congress so scared and want to rewrite the rule books?

As someone who has been in the military, Snopes doesn't know what they're talking about. On paper, Trump has full authority. That doesn't mean he can just start a nuclear war for some stupid reason if he's crazy or immature. In reality, if he ordered a nuclear strike because Kim Jung Un sent him a mean tweet, the military would not obey that order. Don't be so gullible. The military aren't just a bunch of dumb robots who blindly follow orders.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
I didn't know people actually still believed Psychiatry was a valid profession, lol.

Damn which doctors, the lot of them! I don't want anything to do with their voodoo whoodoo.

Neither do I and neither should politics.

Article 7 of their own professional code of conduct called 'The Goldwater Rule' states:

it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to examine.

Apparently this issue came up over 50 years ago when some psychiatrists said that Barry Goldwater was unfit to be President. I guess here's another psychiatrist unfit to practice his profession.

a reply to: Swills

look last four years reagan was president i am pretty sure he was having adventures with bonzo and nancy did an excellent job keeping him from nuke football and i am sure if secret service saw a potus getting out football to launch when we were not attacked they would stop it.

a reply to: face23785

thank you which is what i was getting at.

a reply to: face23785

As someone who has ALSO been in the military, I know that if you didn't obey orders, especially in such times, you'd get a bullet to the head if you disobeyed orders that came down from so high a command for that specific reason. Oh wait... The military are all wussies now so the worst they'll get is jail time... no wait... even worse... They'll loose points and they wont get that brownie in the mess.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

yeah I hear you, though that's not really binding. That rule was made for one association or group of psychs. It only affected those tools. Now there are so many more tools in so many more groups, it really doesn't matter.

At least thats the way I understand it.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Its ethical standards.

Its not "tools".

The essence is similar across medicine, save for some exception for video conferencing, etc...you don't diagnose sight unseen. And in psychology, you cannot diagnose without an assessment. This assessment will sometimes include input from an RN (to assess basic demeanor and physical state, like observing for signs of tardive dyskenesia), a social worker (to identify personal life barriers to successful treatment and apply context to symptomology), a psychologist (to issue a clinical assessment of the patients psychological state) and a psychiatrist (to determine medical treatment, and consult with the rest of the team to determine additional non-medical interventions). At the very least, you have a psychologist meet individually with the patient to interview them and assess their responses.

To clinically assess someone by watching snippets on TV, and reading snippets of text that he may not even be writing, is the epitome of unprofessional. To share that information publicly to inflame and conflate is not only a violation of that persons rights to privacy of medical information, but violates common standards of ethics employed by any governing body within the field that I am familiar with.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: StallionDuck

To clinically assess someone by watching snippets on TV, and reading snippets of text that he may not even be writing, is the epitome of unprofessional. To share that information publicly to inflame and conflate is not only a violation of that persons rights to privacy of medical information, but violates common standards of ethics employed by any governing body within the field that I am familiar with.

This is the whole point. Arguing over what to call it is just semantics. It's dangerously unprofessional and if anything evidence of their own inability to think straight being so upset this man is their president. They tarnish their own professional reputations making such baseless claims.

Wow she just ruined her and the university she works for credibility.... nice one doc!!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: infolurker

Well, considering he’s an emotional snowflake who doesn’t need any approval to launch nukes I’d say this threat is very real. If he does have dementia then that goes double.

He doesn't have dementia, but the left in general obviously do have dementia wanting to claim someone is "mentally unstable' because of a "difference of opinion"... But that's what the left has brought us to this day...

Other people who used psychiatry to deem political opponents as "dangerous to society, etc" include communist regimes and even the NAZIs themselves...

More and more the left, not all but in general, are showing your true colors of wanting to oppress people based on political differences.

a reply to: infolurker

trump probably cant even tie his own shoe laces , what makes you believe he is capable of destroying 6 billion people

a reply to: infolurker

“This is not hyperbole. This is the reality.”

Oh My God she's right! head down to your bunkers ASAP and brace for the end, and while you wait for Armageddon you can peruse the dictionary for the definition of hyperbole before the world descends into nuclear winter!

You know I was bored on my lunch break today so i thought Id login to twitter and see what Donald is saying

well it took me three replies to Donald and my account is locked!

the first two were about his posts on Ronald Reagan and how he is cool etc,
I replied with a remark about reagan and the war on drugs and the flooding of the USA with crack coc aine and coke

the second was about "make america great again"

and I said it was never really great in the first place , as it was built in slavery , genocide and perpetual war
and I said you can polish a turd but its still a turd, and now Im blocked

3 posts to Donald and boom locked ! according to twitter my 3 posts are representative of automated behaviour
, which I find hard to believe since they were grammatically written responses , which did not look anything like a bot!

a reply to: sapien82

Sorry to tell you, but they were in no way original and indicative of hive-mind leftist thinking.

Yale psychiatrist Could Destroy the Entire Human Species, Says Trump

honestly did not read a word in this thread. It disgusts me by the title. Can someone start a better thread by reversing the accuser with the accused. I hate this mockery of science. It is obvious in this context psychiatry is sooooooooooooo subjective and movable that @ consensus is all that is desirec. Once AI takes over we will all be declared certifiably nuts just by pointing at our belief that psychiatry is a science. And they/it [AI] would be correct.

I fixed it for you

a reply to: ketsuko

I am not a part of the leftist hive mind , whatever the # that is !

i'm not trying to be funny so my comments whilst maybe not original are facts!
and why would I say anything other than facts when trying to annoy trump
the truth hurts right ?

and being truthful only serves to make change for the better right ?

What I am more interested in is that twitter believes three posts in 5 minutes to Donald to be "automated behaviour"
which means they have an algorithm in place to lock accounts which are responding to trump in this manner
does this happen for everyone on twitter or just him or for those who pay?

I dont use social media anymore and just wanted to see what would happen , so Im ignorant of all their rules and procedures

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: ketsuko

I am not a part of the leftist hive mind , whatever the # that is !

i'm not trying to be funny so my comments whilst maybe not original are facts!
and why would I say anything other than facts when trying to annoy trump
the truth hurts right ?

and being truthful only serves to make change for the better right ?

Let me point out the obvious!, from DJT perspective.
Anything other than the response you got would be him" trying to polish a turd"