General News Vladimir Putin ally threatens nuclear war if Americans vote for Hillary Clinton

Zhirinovsky is... Well... Not so much an ally of Putin as his court jester, carefully kept away from any real power, and kept around to make Putin (and Yeltsin before him) look reasonable by comparison.

He would basically say or do anything to grab headlines, like his proposal to fight bird fly by shooting any birds daring to cross Russian border, or his absolutely deranged pro-Saddam rant (that first put him on the international stage) or his original election promise of "Russian soldiers washing their jackboots in the waters of Indian Ocean." Which doesn't mean he's not dangerous. Just not immediately so.

 

I think alone the fact that someone thinks of the idea to threaten an entire nation into giving up their right of freedom should show us that everyone should have gotten rid of nuclear weapons long ago.

 

Go ahead and vote for that liar, but don't say the world didn't warn you.

 

You're never going to get either country to get rid of them completely, but it would've been good to reduce the number to a level where an all out war doesn't result in the possible end of the entire world, even the countries that didn't take sides. Still, the theory is the Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has kept something from actually happening all these decades, at least among the big countries. Putin can threaten all he wants, just a Khrushchev did in the 60's, but total global thermonuclear war is a losing proposition for both countries, shelters or not. The politicians on both sides know this, regardless of what they say in public.

I think the most realistic danger from nuclear weapons in the future isn't going to be hundreds of missiles or bombs from countries, but a single one from a terrorist group.

 

I don't understand the big deal, it's another country, isn't he held up enough trying to obstruct equality in Russia?

He could threaten ISIS or the other organizations senselessly attacking other counties instead, but that would simply be too productive for him, huh? It's a shame the daft always hold the reigns.

 

Which liar? The big one or the really big one?

 

*shrug* I live within a short drive of around 6 different military bases including a couple of major ones that are definitely first strike targets. The odds are excellent that in the event of nuclear war I will be inside multiple nuclear fireballs with conditions hotter than the Sun. So food and water seem a bit redundant.

I grew up during the Cold War - this sort of thing is just business as usual from my perspective.

Todd

 

The really big one, naturally. The one that comes with a liar husband and party attached.

I live in Argentina and here (in all Latin America) we are having similar political winds. The current (woman) vice president had the most rigid anti-gay opinions a few years ago. They always said what the people wanted to hear, and over time changed their speech.

So now they govern and of course we still have egalitarian marriage and all, that party even has a young gay guy as the chief of their youth movement.

The bottom line is: no one really cares about sexuality, gender and all that stuff. Honestly, those issues are pushed on the agenda only when power needs more labor force, and/or when they need to diverge attention.

Politicians work for the power (money, corporate, geopolitical, racial domination). That's it.

I see Trump as a guy who could be touching a gay man's ass on camera tomorrow, in order to change his current womanizer-abuser image.

 

LOL, he already supports LGBT now that that discussion is over. He doesn't care, he abides.

 

First, it's a ridiculous assertion from a man who does not hold power.

Second, even if it weren't hysterical, to take it seriously would be to say a Russian brute can threaten Americans into voting differently. That would be antithetical to democracy and US sovereignty, just as much as Trump's attempts to delegitimise any election result which doesn't make him president.

 

That's the way my SO feels too. He grew up in the cold war era, and his father was a high ranking USAF officer. The consensus opinion at that time was that if it was an all out war with thousands of nukes on both sides used, that the radiation fallout would be so great that merely having food and water and surviving the initial blasts wouldn't be enough. Not to mention the theory of nuclear winter, with massive amounts of dirt thrown into the upper atmosphere. He also said Hollywood was pretty obsessed with the subject, that during the eighties there was probably a dozen movies about nuclear war, some of them pretty graphic. Also some people at the time thought Reagan was going to get the US into a nuclear war. There was a music video on MTV that had a puppet version of Reagan in bed trying to press a "nurse" button, and accidentally hitting a "nuke" button. :rolle:

 

We had a discussion in history class about whether the deaths of those who would have died in the wars that would have been without the existence of nuclear weapons would have been worth all the things that wouldn't be possible without the existence of nuclear weapons. Either way it's quite a dark topic.

 

if this is reverse psychology, then it's working! I want to vote for Hilary :lol:

 

Meh, you don't even need to look at Russia for where the conflict would start.

Hillary seems to enjoy threatening Russia either way. I feel like SHE would be the one to strike first, as dumb as that is. She convinced me that she is more dangerous than Trump already.

Why couldn't you guys have taken Bernie? He was the only good choice in all of this :/

 

My thoughts exactly. I wish Bernie was picked to be the Democratic nominee. Trump and Clinton... no thank you. I don't know how Clinton got picked TBH.

 

Oh FUCK, I hope this doesn't lead to a Trump victory. I don't think it will though.

 

Don't you have a third option !
Does matter if they win or not but certainly each vote counts !

---------- Post added 18th Oct 2016 at 11:51 AM ----------

:roflmao:
I'm speechless!!