From what I can tell, Hillary is the lesser of the two evils as far as the main parties go, despite being under FBI investigation. Personally, I would have liked to have voted Bernie Sanders if I was American, because I'm a democratic socialist myself but I know when America hears "socialist" it thinks "communist", so it's no real surprise that Bernie wasn't voted in as the Democratic candidate.

In my opinion, America has a real shitty choice in a little over a weeks time. As an outsider looking in, given the current choices, I'd probably vote third party and give Gary Johnson a chance because whilst Hillary is the more experienced of the two main parties, she's shady af and I would not be able to justify giving Trump access to a nuclear arsenal. His xenophobic rants are the stuff of nightmares as far as I'm concerned. He brings out the aggressive, racist side of some of the electorate, from what I can see. Giving that guy nuclear arms? Recipe for disaster if you ask me.

I'm really curious as to how the nuclear arsenal plays into who would be the lesser of two evils. Especially when one of those evils is supposedly a friend/puppet of the largest nuclear power.

 I'd imagine if there were to be grounds to risk mutual assured destruction the strike would take place the same way regardless of who was in office and as it stands now the aggressor would still be the one at a disadvantage.

There is no magic button a president can press to 'fire all the missiles' if they woke up to a bad tweet,  a strike would have to be planned in advance to try and best target the enemies means of nuclear retaliation, which it is still impossible to remove enough to not be signing your own death warrant. On the same coin there is the threat of a 'we detect so we just launch fucking everything' that allows MAD to work and for the world to have made it through the cold war.

I don't think there's a big red button in the White House, but who has the ultimate say of whether America's nuclear processes are commenced? The POTUS, right? If Trump was in office and decided there was a legitimate threat that he wanted to launch them at, who's gonna stop him from ordering those processes? I don't think you can disagree that Trump has an aggressive personality, what makes you think he's gonna be a peaceful Commander in Chief when he can't even discourage violence at his rallies?

I also don't think Trump is the kinda man to worry about breaking a few eggs to make an omelette, so worrying about what would happen to some Idaho farmer after an initial strike probably wouldn't be high on his list of concerns IMO.

Obviously this is all just conjecture on my part, but I just don't trust Trump to be a rational leader. I wouldn't trust him to be in charge of a spud gun, let alone anything more powerful. He's divisive and bigoted - not exactly endearing qualities on the world stage. When tensions grow, do you really trust DJT to be the voice of reason? Cos I don't.

#TrumpPence2016 #TrumpTrain #Trumpfor2016 #corruptHilary 

I believe the duty of stopping a POTUS from launching a nuclear attack could fall on the Secretary of Defence when he or she is asked to authorize the attack. So i would still imagine the process for making an attack is the same regardless of who is POTUS. The watch and planning phases would all be handled by the JCS and Department of Defence, before the president is asked to give the go to launch.

Ok, but the President's authority supersedes that of the SecDef, so ultimately, if the President wanted to launch a nuke and the SecDef didn't, the nuke would be launched regardless, no?

Lets spin this another way, however - what is it about Trump that you think would make him a good POTUS? What policies of his make you want to vote for him? Just to be clear - I'm not criticising your choice, I'm just curious. His attitude to legalising drugs is a positive in my opinion. The Mexican border wall; not so much.

I disagree with the idea of a nuclear launch at all.

America is currently:

1. The wealthiest country in the world. Even with the national debt reaching ridiculous heights we have the highest .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
2. And is The strongest military power in the world. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

It would be totally unnecessary for Any POTUS to cause a nuclear incident for any reason.

As far as my personal political views, I will quote a teacher of mine, "The fastest way to start an argument is to talk about religion or politics."

I will say that I dislike both of our presidential candidates and can only pray for our country as it enters this next term.

Ok, this is getting utterly ridiculous now. At no point did I ever say any POTUS would launch nukes, I said I wouldn't trust Trump with nuclear arms, pretty much as a throwaway comment.

I've tried to redirect this thread back to the point in hand - the Presidential race - twice already, so let me be crystal clear; I DO NOT THINK TRUMP WILL LAUNCH NUKES ON HIS TERM IN OFFICE. I apologise if I've come across poorly, but I find him to be unnecessarily aggressive, bigoted and divisive. I think he'd heighten international tensions and cause issues with some of his foreign policy, but I don't think he will actually physically launch nukes or even order it. I still wouldn't trust him to be in charge of the launch codes, however.

Now we've dealt with that, can we move away from that flippant five word sentence and get back to the point of the thread? If you're a Trump supporter, what is it about Trump that you consider makes him an attractive candidate? What policies do you think will be beneficial? What of Hillary's policies don't you like? I'm genuinely interested in the mindset of the American electorate; specifically Trump supporters. I'm intrigued what you expect to improve under Trump's control.

Like I said - I'm a democratic socialist, so I approved of Obama's term. Things like nationalising health care (even to a small degree) appeals to my political belief. I'm curious what appeals to the political belief of a Trump voter.

I was just curious why nukes were the first thing mentioned in regards to one candidate. While it may be a flippant comment for you, there does seem to be a number of people out there who think the sky is falling and if Trump is elected the world is going to end in a nuclear armageddon. Which simply isn't true.  I believe it's some of those people who out of fear and lack of reasoning are the ones going to Trump rallies to instigate violence against Trump supporters. Those violent people are the ones who are truely creating a divide and they are the ones who are dangerous.

As for the thread being derailed, OP asked questions that no one has answered yet, so the discussion has never really been on topic. I don't have a dog in the race but i assume a vote for Hillary would mean bussiness as usual, while a vote for Trump means America gets a sweet new wall payed for by the neighbors.

A sweet new wall? Yeah because Politicians are well known for actually honouring the pledges they make eh!

It's going to be built. They will pay for it. Believe me.

I may think Trump launching nukes is highly unlikely, but I can guarantee you that it's more likely to happen than Mexico paying for a border wall.

I am curious though - if you have no dog in this race, why did you take offence at my suggestion that Trump can't be trusted with nuclear arms?

I think offence is the wrong word. More an attempt to deny a common ignorance. There are a lot of people who think this election is a kind of end days and those people are spreading a fear of something that doesn't exist and is leading to violence.

"I DO NOT THINK TRUMP WILL LAUNCH NUKES ON HIS TERM IN OFFICE."

I'm glad you are not one of them.

How will Mexico pay for the wall? Is Trump going to threaten them with Nuclear annihilation? The President of Mexico has already stated they dont want and will not pay for a wall.

And i agree they shouldnt pay for a wall either that a racist fucktard like trump wants to build.

They would probably peso.

They would probably pay in peso.

They wont pay a damned cent for a wall that that fuckwit wants to build nor should they.

Or would the US under that wanker threaten them with nuclear annihilation? or invasion? you seem to think Mexico will pay for something they dont want by the sounds of it Trump is going to take the USA down the road of a rogue nuclear nation which i do believe is what the US is against.

I know you are probably not serious, but just in case, Trumps plan on how to make Mexico pay for the wall can be found here. Thankfully it doesn't mention any plan to turn United States into a rogue nuclear nation.

Drain the swamp!  Lets talk about that wall and who should pay. Lets start off with this gran idea. Take the greedy and corrupt leader of Mexico as a prime example.  Do you really think his people who come to America want to leave their family? Hell no but they got to survive and send aid to their family to survive. Surely we can understand and respect family above all and that means country. Thus, one of the reasons Americas economy is stagnating because of money being wired across seas.  A wall is in order and America will not pay for that wall.

America must have wall for the security of America. My heart goes out to Syria. The USA  is totally responsible for the tragic devastation in that country. Innocent families have suffered. Unfortunately, we do NOT have a vetting system that insures the safety of America. Anyone who  votes for Hillary has a death wish.  Another fact that pisses me the fuck off is how she targets minorities/poor in our inner cities in this country for their vote. Yet the Democrats have overseen/ruled these very inner cities for over 50 years! Not one damn thing was accomplished for their voters. They tell them what they want to hear and when in office they forget them. The tax payers foot the bill to feed these people.