When it scares the bejeesus out of Stephen King, we KNOW we're in a LOT of trouble

[Triana]

[Scootaloo]

1. Could he be more specific? n/t

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. Wondered how long that would take.

[MissDeeds]

4. Ouch!

Well done!

[Enthusiast]

21. That's what I was thinking.

[RufusTFirefly]

42. Haha! Don't worry! Once you've endured Bosnian sniper fire...

... you're ready for anything!

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. Actually, there are lots of folks around who dont think it is a concern.

[Triana]

5. HOW MUCH is America's STUPID gonna cost us - and the World? Do we REALLY want to find out?

I guess some do. Pfft.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

8. I think my candidate, Bernie, will need to be VERY LOUD and IN THE FACE

of people if he loses the nomination, when he has to ASK his supporters to support the party.


Bernie knows better than anyone just how much damage someone as sociopathic, narcissistic, immature and childish as Drumpf can do.

The economic concerns that set Bernie aside from all others, will likely be the last of our worries if someone like Drumpf takes over with a con House and Senate.

[katmondoo]

9. I was for Bernie now I am not

Bernie is now helping Trump

[Jackie Wilson Said]

11. He will do a reverse on all that and be very vocally in support of her if he loses.

The concern wont be Bernie, it will be do his supporters listen.

[retrowire]

13. shes doing it to herself

Please stop with the blame game. She had the highest untrustworthiness ratings before and after this whole thing. People are unfortunately stupid enough to think Trump is somehow more trustworthy.

And that's not Bernie's doing.

[Enthusiast]

22. Nice post!

[Thespian2]

24. Yep

She needs no help to keep her untrustworthiness ratings high...

[LeFleur1]

40. Yeah Yeah Yeah

We've heard about the 'trust issues' and every other made up piece os slime that has been thrown at Hillary by the right wing teabutts for the past 30 or 40 years. Tell us how Bernie is going to do all those things he wants to do...besides having a revolution...which his followers are going to have to do because he's a conscientious objector. I guess if Iran starts messing with nuclear components he will jump up and say, "I object." I'd like to know his plans. We all know he wants to spread the money around but I'd like to know HOW he's going to get that done. What is the P L A N?

[Giggity]

51. How is it Bernie's job to make Hillary look honest?

That is her job, and she has done a terrible job of it.

[Thespian2]

53. Read his website

[Triana]

32. +1 n/t

[Phlem]

35. Thank You.

[AlbertCat]

15. Bernie is now helping Trump

Baloney.

If Clinton can't get enough people excited about voting for her, it's not Sanders' fault.

But she'll probably win by default as many hold their noses and reluctantly vote for her. How hard can it be to win against an orangutan no one in their right mind would vote for? She won't be president because a majority want her to be.

[Raster]

36. She won't be president because a majority want her to be.

And that is the distinction. If Clinton does manage to eke out the POTUS win, it won't be because the majority of Americans want her to be POTUS, it will be because the majority of Americans DON'T WANT Trump to be POTUS.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. If you actually, honestly believe that

then you need to get your ass to work designing a new primary system.

The primary is not over yet BY DESIGN.
A winner has not been coronated yet BY DESIGN.

A bunch of your fellow voters have not yet had a chance to voice their preference. You don't like a continuing campaign, 'this late' into the election? Change the primary system for next time.

Meantime, you sound like sour grapes. This primary is not over.

[arikara]

57. That's ridiculous

Mrs Clinton is polling lower than Trump. Bernie has nothing to do with it.

[MH1]

64. I was for Bernie, now I am not for fake Bernie supporters who are helping Trump.

There, fixed it for you.

Bernie will do the right thing when the time comes. Some of his supposed supporters, not so much. Of course, they weren't really his supporters in the first place, if they could so easily roll over to support Trump.

[tazkcmo]

43. Where is Clinton in this discussion?

I find it amazing that politicians are now entitled to our votes in spite of disagreeing with them on almost every action or judgement call they've made and when they lose it's not their fault, it's those stupid voters' fault. I remember when politicians had to earn votes by actually doing something for people as opposed to talking about doing things for people. Incremental change is not a convincing or energizing message. Tough talk aimed at Iran is not inspiring. Appearances for huge fees at some of the most reviled financial companies in the world does not promote trust.

But it's my fault. My fault because I'm not willing to vote AGAINST Trump because I won't vote FOR Clinton. For me, it's like the choice of cutting off my leg or losing my sight. Which do I want to lose less? I don't trust either to give two figs about me and folks like me. They never have in their actions and never will. But it's my fault. My fault that I don't believe in their sincerity when they're at their bazillion plate fund raisers for Those Less Fortunate while wheeling and dealing away our jobs in free trade agreements or giving tax cuts in exchange for Charitable Contributions and Campaign Donations.

My fault. Fine. Even though our probable nominees from each party won't/can't do it, I'll take the blame. Some one has to be accountable.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

60. Why does Clinton even matter in this discussion? If you dont instantly and without my help

see the VAST differences between Clinton and Drumpf, and the results of life under each in comparison, then there is nothing to talk about.

GOP supporters believe Drumpf is BETTER than her, and some others around here think there is not enough difference.

Both are wrong to the point of possible life ending consequences.

So yes, if you know this, and you must, and you allow it to happen...well then

[NastyRiffraff]

59. Sanity!

Thank you!

[wallyworld2]

44. What I worry about

Are pensions/ 401k/ Social Security and savings being decimated

I just keep remembering the Savings and Loan debacle where people who had retired lost everything and eventually were paid back, if they got anything at all, pennies on the dollar

The only redeeming thing was people actually went to prison over it

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

17. I was raised in the fifties and sixties

and nukes were and still are, very dangerous weapons, they have no place in any country's arsenal, they need to eliminated totally from our world, that's the only sane position to have.

[madokie]

6. Short, concise and to the point

What more is there to like???

[moonbabygo]

20. The movie nt

[liberal_at_heart]

7. I don't want Trump or Hillary in charge of our military.

[Enthusiast]

23. I'm with you there.

[MissDeeds]

25. Same here n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

37. Me three!

[pablo_marmol]

47. +++++++++++++ NT

[dchill]

49. +1,000,001

[Journeyman]

10. I was in Minot, in '73, during the Yom Kippur War when Nixon & Kissinger took us to DefCon 3 . . .

so I don't see where we're much better off with "seasoned foreign policy" so-called "experts."

Of course, I don't want Trump anywhere near the codes. But let's face a brutal reality: MAD (mutually assured destruction) only works if there are SANE people in charge. Nixon and Kissinger in the Fall of '73? Not so much.

[sheshe2]

12. He was talking about Cruz ~

In an interview with the Daily Beast, King and reporter Marlow Stern discuss both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, both agreeing that while having Trump elected president would be one bad thing, the prospect of a Ted Cruz presidency is even scarier. King in particular finds his religious views terrifying.

http://uproxx.com/news/presidential-candidate-that-scares-stephen-king/

[Octafish]

14. I don't believe the Pentagon would follow an illegal order.

Still, that's a tough one.

[litlbilly]

34. the problem, there might be enough people there who would like nothing more

than to go nuke something.

[Octafish]

38. That's what JFK found out.

Corrupt Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles and JCS chair and RWNJ Lyman Lemnitzer counseled JFK launch all-out attack on USSR in 1961. At a meeting in July 1961 they counseled JFK to attack in the Fall of 1963, when the USA would enjoy optimum strategic and tactical superiority. It's something important that's been missed by journalists and historians due to all copies but one getting burned...

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

''And we call ourselves the human race.'' - President John F. Kennedy, after walking out of that briefing.

[litlbilly]

39. I think im gonna watch 13 days tonight.

[Octafish]

50. Col. Burris was a professional.

From author Larry Hancock:

One of Col. Burris’ early assignments, in May 1961, was to accompany Johnson on the trip to Vietnam. To prepare for that trip, he was rehearsed on how to control LBJ, and told what he could say or could not say to the vice president. What he found suggests that he thought Johnson had a rather provincial and shallow understanding of the culture, economy, history and concerns of Southeast Asia in general and Vietnam in particular: As reported in a previous chapter, Col. Burris said that, “I don’t think he had a really deep perception and comprehension of what the whole scene was about.”[iii] This trip – despite Johnson’s miserable performance, as previously described – would mark the start of what would become Johnson’s secret back-channel to the CIA, which provided him unfiltered intelligence information that unavailable to either McNamara or Kennedy. Author Gus Russo confirmed this when he stated that Burris had personally told him that “…Johnson had back-channel sources at the CIA that kept him apprised of such matters.”[iv]

SOURCE: https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/burris-continued/

[Enthusiast]

62. I would like the CIA to be extracted like a bad tooth.

They probably have someone including me on a list for even being critical. "Bad attitude"

Excellent posts, Octafish.

[MrScorpio]

16. Considering that he created the character of "Greg Stillson," I share his concern. nt

[ProudProgressiveNow]

18. +1000 nt

[spanone]

19. no shit!!!!!

thank you mr. king!!!!

[villager]

26. He already wrote it. In "The Dead Zone," the country was left it ruins. nt

[forest444]

63. That's the one!

Although personally I felt that Ted Cruz had more Greg Stillson in him than the Donald.

[villager]

65. It's the "Stilson Party" either way.

I was actually thinking of ol' Greg when Li'l Bush was appointed after the stolen election of '00.

And of course wasn't wrong about the general -- and unrecoverable -- "ruins" the country has been left in, since...

[forest444]

67. Dubya even more so - absolutely.

Bush was, on top of being a criminal, completely obsessed with Armageddon. That regime was a multi-sided calamity that will (or should) fascinate historians for decades to come.

And, to paraphrase Trump, he was definitely not "good with women":

[TrappedInUtah]

27. Quit blaming Bernie.

If Hillary can't get people to trust her and inspire them to vote, it's all on her. She's up against possibly one of the weakest GOP candidates in decades and has no excuses not to win in a landslide.

[peace13]

29. The clown in him will bring out the clown in her.

The vibration of those two is pretty similar.

[Skittles]

31. who are you talking to?

not hard to guess where you are coming from

[murielm99]

46. This thread was not about

Hillary or Bernie.

How about we just support the nominee, and work to defeat Trump SOUNDLY?

[peace13]

28. Remember when Cheney had an exercise that moved six nuclear warheads across the country...

....and when the were finally recalled they couldn't find one? Anything can and does happen out there! A bad tempered $$&hole or a power hungry politician...they sound equally dangerous to me.

Funny thing is my Army step brother is for Trump and begged anyone who didn't agree to unfriend him. Go figure!

[Skittles]

30. love, love, LOVE Mr. King

[cstanleytech]

41. Well we already did the village idiot (Bush) so would an asshole (Trump) really be worse?

[Betty Karlson]

45. Turning it over to a war-hawk with the wrong kind of "experience" sounds just as bad.

[Helen Borg]

48. Oh, I see...

So we have to vote for her, right?

[liberalnarb]

52. More

This is just a few of them.

[MariaThinks]

54. he knows a horror story when he sees one.

[chknltl]

56. Turning the mightiest military over 2 highest bidder

is history. History further shows us how well it it turned out....for the profiteers and for the rest of the world. The electorate is not in a good position if their only choices are reflected in that military being run by fascism or by oligarchy. History will further reflect that some of us chose neither.

[Bad Dog]

58. Only if anyone's left to write the history.

There's more than enough nukes to take care of that.

[davidthegnome]

61. Oddly enough, my mom mentioned the same thing

earlier today. I kind of shrugged it off, thinking that there was no way Trump would ever get anywhere near nuclear weapons, or the authority to use them. On second thought though... his numbers in the polls are looking reasonably good. There's a chance he might actually beat Clinton.

Who knows what an ass like Trump will do with that kind of power? Yeah, it's a scary thought.

[Scientific]

66. BTA = Bad Tempered Asshole (R)

King nails it.