Ok, a tougher question

[Edena_of_Neith]

Here's Ivy Mike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFXfMQ-vzQ

Now, our president has control of the nuclear launch codes, and we have tens of thousands of nukes.
Our president is elected in a popularity contest every 4 years.

Now, here's the tough question:

Should our president, with that kind of power put into his (or her) hands, be elected through a popularity contest?
Or should we modify our system (amend the Constitution) to create a different system?

[Edena_of_Neith]

(said flippantly)

I mean, after all, the popularity contest has given us people like George Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy.
Why, the popularity contest might even elect Sarah Palin. She is leading all her Republican challengers in the polls, and she leads Barack Obama in the polls as well.
(To give equal time - our Republicans mourn that Barack Obama won the popularity contest this time around.)

Now, people like these, will - or do - have their finger on the nuclear launch controls.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Ergeheilalt]

Now, our president has control of the nuclear launch codes, and we have tens of thousands of nukes.


Uh, buddy, you're wrong.

The United States has 5,113 nuclear weapons as of March 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050302089.html

[Andreas]

And the launchcode for 8 years was "000000000000".

[Name Lips]

Who was it who said...

Democracy is a very, very poor way of choosing a leader. All the other ways are even worse, but it's still a very poor way.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Uh, buddy, you're wrong.

The United States has 5,113 nuclear weapons as of March 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050302089.html

(flippantly)

Well, ok, only 5,113 nukes.
The President has his (or her) finger on the launch controls.
And the President is elected in a Popularity Contest.

Again, this brought us George Bush The Decider, Sarkozy the George Bush, and other interesting leaders.
Any and all of them, with the power to annihilate us all on a whim.

Why, even someone like me, Edena_of_Neith, could probably get elected, and will.
I mean, if you had to choose between Edena_of_Neith and Sarah Palin for President, you would choose? ...

As I said, with a Popularity Contest System like this, and weapons like Ivy Mike, what could possibly go wrong?

[Hatter]

While it appears that such power is without balance, that's not how reality works. Our military leadership aside from the Commander in Chief are not elected and if a madman bent on Nuclear Armageddon truly were elected, there are mechanisms in place that would prevent him from starting a nuclear war on a whim.

[Edena_of_Neith]

While it appears that such power is without balance, that's not how reality works. Our military leadership aside from the Commander in Chief are not elected and if a madman bent on Nuclear Armageddon truly were elected, there are mechanisms in place that would prevent him from starting a nuclear war on a whim.

My pardons, but check your history. Kennedy nearly did start World War Three.
Nobody was 'there' to 'stop the madman', as it were.

-

(in a most darkly gleefully hideous tone)

And ... did someone say we only had 5,000 nukes?
Well! ...
Only THIS could happen then! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jueyzgJo9SA&feature=related

(Best of all, no more McDonnels to place ads, and kill us with their lousy fast food.)

But we'll rectify this situation, if faced with a real crisis!
We can build thousands of new nukes very quickly if we want to. So can the Russians and the Chinese. The Indians will soon be able to (the World's Largest Democracy!) And the British. And the French. And the Pakistanis. And others, undoubteldy.

We can ensure that such *minor* destruction as shown above, is a dumpster fire compared to what our Popularity Contest Elected leaders, can create!

[Edena_of_Neith]

(in a REALLY gleefully, maniacally, dark tone)

Your statement implies that there is 'some power behind the throne' that would stop an elected President from starting World War Three.

Well, consider this.

One of those 'men behind the throne', one Gibbs, just openly stated that the Opposition Party was going to retake the House of Representatives.
Whether or not they are going to is irrelevant. It's *always* interesting when your own teammate declares before the game: The other side will win!
But don't just take Gibbs at his word (which he then took back ...) He and Pelosi are at war. Pelosi and Redi are at war. Sherrod just got canned. Emmanuel is talking about leaving (then denying it.)

Look at the polls. These jokers, they cannot even run a good - or even a bad - re-election campaign.
If they cannot handle a re-election campaign against the hapless, hopeless Republicans (who were destroyed by George Bush, and have yet to get back on their hands and knees, much less their feet), how in the name of all that is right and proper can they be expected to manage a Nuclear Arsenal?!

But, you shall say, the military can handle it! They are competent people, right?

Well, under George Bush the Decider, a bomber took off from Minnesota, and flew all the way to Louisiana, and landed.
Said bomber parked, the crew left and went to eat and rest, and the bomber just sat there, out on the tarmak, unprotected, unguarded, unwatched.
Until a mechanic (or someone of that sort) happened to go out, inspect the plane hours later, and he comes back with:

'Hey guys, look what I found!'

Only 2 hydrogen bombs (in the several hundred kiloton range class, it seems.)

No biggie. Just 2 hydrogen bombs.

If I was a cashier, and I was off by 2 dollars during my work, the manager would catch it, and wonder where the 2 dollars went.
But if 2 hydrogen bombs go unaccounted for, that's no biggie. Sorta like extra parts, you know, and as that guy said: Parts is parts!

Yeah, I have full faith and trust in the military, to look after the Nuclear Arsenal! :D

I'm sure that between the President, his Cabinet, the Senate, the Congress, the Military, the CIA ... well, they - combined - could not stop a terrorist from detonating a (small, conventional) bomb in Times Square.
The terrorist happened to be an amateur who did not know how to make bombs, so the bomb did not go off. That fact, and that fact alone, saved Time Square, New York City.

Yeah, the Nuclear Arsenal is in Good Hands. Bozo the Clown himself could not hope to compete with these guys, in terms of quality and competence! They are all the epitome of Wise Men. (Sorta like George Bush, He Who Was The Decider.)

You still sure the Popularity Contest, is the best way, in this new Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Era?

You sure??? :)

[Hatter]

My pardons, but check your history. Kennedy nearly did start World War Three.
Nobody was 'there' to 'stop the madman', as it were.

No he didn't. :rolleyes:

Edit: Actually, let's follow this absurd train of thought to it's logical conclusion.

Premise: Kennedy was a madman or dangerously incompetent and led the U.S. on a course for nuclear war.
If nobody was capable of stopping him then why did a nuclear war not occur?

[Name Lips]

Kennedy did not, in fact, start WWIII. That means the madmen were, in fact, stopped.

Because it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[Schizm]

Premise: Kennedy was a madman or dangerously incompetent and led the U.S. on a course for nuclear war.
If nobody was capable of stopping him then why did a nuclear war not occur?

Because elvis shot JFK.

Seriously, didn't you read Snow Crash?

[Edena_of_Neith]

No he didn't. :rolleyes:

Edit: Actually, let's follow this absurd train of thought to it's logical conclusion.

Premise: Kennedy was a madman or dangerously incompetent and led the U.S. on a course for nuclear war.
If nobody was capable of stopping him then why did a nuclear war not occur?

Robert Kennedy, his brother, talked him out of it, apparently.

[Hatter]

Robert Kennedy, his brother, talked him out of it, apparently.

[citation needed]

[Glass]

Am I the only one who gets a little tired of EoN's ill-educated blog entry posts? I mean sure, I can just skip 'em, but watching someone trying to figure out how to reason and think like an adult just straddles the line between entertaining and annoying a little too much.

[Aloysius]

Should our president, with that kind of power put into his (or her) hands, be elected through a popularity contest?


Yes ! http://www.francoisrodrigue.com/blogstory/images/Gov-Palin-2006_Official.jpg

[Edena_of_Neith]

I do not think I am so misinformed.

Kennedy was 2 days from attacking Cuba, we were 2 days from a shooting war with the Soviet Union, before the Cuban Missile Crisis was stopped.
2 days, from World War Three.

The hydrogen bombs really were delivered by that bomber, from Minnesota to Louisiana, and they really weren't detected until accidentally found.
The bomber really did try to set off a bomb in Time Square, and he was foiled only because he did not know how to build a bomb.

The Republican Party self destructed, then what remained was further demolished by George W. Bush. The Republicans haven't even gotten back on their hands and knees from this, but they are poised for colossal gains this November, thanks to a remarkably weak re-election campaign by the Democrats.

Sarkozy was elected in France. Ask Winslow once more, about the merits (or lack thereof) of Sarkozy. Winslow is French, and he can tell you all about Sarkozy.

So, control of many of the Nuclear Arsenals of the world, are up for grabs in Popularity Contests.

Something that many would agree, doesn't even work as a way of deciding who rightfully deserves to be Prom Queen at the high school, should be used to decide who controls the Nukes?

There is no better way?

[Varaj]

I do not think I am so misinformed.

You believe many things and there is not always a correlation between your belief and reality.

[AriesOmega]

The only thing that really ticks me off about how we elect our officials is the whole electoral college thing. I think that elections should be about what the people want, and the people should want to have the person who is going to do the job well. None of this "Joe sixpack, I am a common person too" or "I came from poor roots, single mother" crap. Here is the problems we have. Here is what I think is the biggest three. How are you going to fix them? Quit you over there doing the wink gun thing and you over there quit posing for a photo.

One year I decided to volunteer with one particular candiate that I felt would have been a great president. He didn't win the primary for his party and the guy who did I felt was an idiot and lost the election anyways.

I knew about it, more or less but I did talk to an "elector" and got the run down I was a bit pissed. A friend of mine from the UK explained the parliamentary system and I have to say I like "aspects of it" and would love to have a hybrid of the two.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Our Founding Fathers did *not* trust the voters, did *not* want a Popularity Contest.
They created a special body of elite to elect the president. Only the privileged few were allowed to vote (in any way at all, whether their vote meant something or not, being irrelevant.)