Should this turn out badly for Hillary Clinton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us...l-account.html

Originally Posted by New York Times

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

then her support goes elsewhere -- maybe Bernie Sanders.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Should this turn out badly for Hillary Clinton:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us...l-account.html



then her support goes elsewhere -- maybe Bernie Sanders.

Dear god I hope so. The last thing we need is a Clintoon. Hillary should not be anointed president because that is what it will be if it is brother Jeb. No more dynasties thank you. We seriously need a Constitutional amendment.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Thank you Eric for proving to the world that you are a great big fat racist yet again. You know I wish I believed in hell so I could send you there.

So, when did you want me to visit your place?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So, when did you want me to visit your place?

You must be confusing me with PBR. While I do not much care for Florida (too hot, too humid, too many idiots), I would not call it "hell" per se. It is merely a place that offers me not a lot in the way of culture, even if Daytona has Bethune-Cookman University (its too much a business school anyway). Unlike him while I have my complaints I do not make comments that could be regarded as self-destructive should I not leave here. Life could be a lot worse; life has been a lot worse.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Dear god I hope so. The last thing we need is a Clintoon. Hillary should not be anointed president because that is what it will be if it is brother Jeb. No more dynasties thank you. We seriously need a Constitutional amendment.

I can think of far worse... in the Reactionary Party. I can see some Republicans as mere fronts for the almighty Koch family and others with similar designs on making America a Christian and Corporate State in which professional survival and any semblance of dignity depends upon either being born into the Right Family or being a brutal enforcer or a subservient mouthpiece -- maybe. Owning and operating a small business? Big Business will squeeze you out.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can think of far worse... in the Reactionary Party. I can see some Republicans as mere fronts for the almighty Koch family and others with similar designs on making America a Christian and Corporate State in which professional survival and any semblance of dignity depends upon either being born into the Right Family or being a brutal enforcer or a subservient mouthpiece -- maybe. Owning and operating a small business? Big Business will squeeze you out.

Here's the problem with your view:

1. The GOP clown car might win the primary but they can't win the general. The dems have a built in advantage against them by virtue of simply not being stupid.
2. I would argue that most GOP candidates are up for sale to the Kochs or anyone one else who has deep enough pockets. So too is Hillary. For someone who has been a public figure since 1992 she has very inconsistent views, does this mean she is up for sale? Probably. She certainly is no progressive just like her husband isn't and neither is Obama. That is the problem right now we have a Center-Right party (the democrats) and a batshit insane party (the GOP).
3. Small business is going to get squeezed out by big business anyway (there are some niche exceptions though). Over all the mantra of capitalism is grow or die.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

1. The GOP clown car might win the primary but they can't win the general. The dems have a built in advantage against them by virtue of simply not being stupid.

The GOP clown car will almost certainly win the Republican nomination; if it does it will hamstring the effort of a relative moderate within the Reactionary party to appeal to voters near the political center.

It is worth remembering that the Democratic Party has practically assured itself of people who by demographics (other than ethnicity, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation) should be conservative voters could never vote Republican so long as the Reactionary Party pushes fundamentalist Protestantism, crony capitalism, pseudoscience, anti-intellectualism, and reckless militarism. The Republican Party is not going to change quickly enough to win the Presidency in 2016. Sanders is charging against every Republican.

2. I would argue that most GOP candidates are up for sale to the Kochs or anyone one else who has deep enough pockets. So too is Hillary. For someone who has been a public figure since 1992 she has very inconsistent views, does this mean she is up for sale? Probably. She certainly is no progressive just like her husband isn't and neither is Obama. That is the problem right now we have a Center-Right party (the democrats) and a batshit insane party (the GOP).

Republicans are for sale to the Koch syndicate? Not at all! They are fully bought!

I concur with you on your assessment of the two Parties: the Democratic Party is a conservative party with some room for liberals, and the Republican party borders on fascism. That Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by picking up the sorts of voters who could vote for Truman in 1948 but Eisenhower in 1952 suggests that he really is a conservative. The generational theory suggests that Barack Obama is the sort of politician who typically becomes President after a Crisis. By temperament he acts like a 60-something Reactive (even if he turned 50 while President) ... like John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower.

Compromise has lost relevance in the American political system. Quality matters much less than does ideology -- which means that a Reagan-like President would today win only on party-line votes on bills of substance. The Crisis is far from over.

3. Small business is going to get squeezed out by big business anyway (there are some niche exceptions though). Over all the mantra of capitalism is grow or die.

There are interstices (like micro-breweries that produce beer that tastes much better than the commercial schlock of giant breweries). Franchises are a gray area. 3-D printing could make small-scale, short-lot manufacturing possible again.

Big Business can destroy itself. It can promote bubble economies; that the political system seems to have learned nothing from the Double-Zero decade. That it sponsors pols who advocate wars for profit suggests that it has learned little even from the last Crisis Era. The cure for the mess that got us into this Crisis is for current elites to be humbled. They get humbled in elections -- or they get humbled in war or rebellion. Having to turn over shares of business to foreign entities as reparations for war crimes such as plunder of occupied countries and exploitation of peoples under occupation would be extremely humbling -- economic ruin.

If anything, Big Business seems to be resisting the inevitable post-scarcity world that looks much like the Communism that Marx said would follow the completion of economic development through Socialism. We have achieved that development without Socialism (unless you wish to speak of the American economic order as "socialism for the rich" as I do). Is prosperity the sort of economic inequality that one associates with plantation societies or fascist juntas? For the elites, yes -- but for the rest of us, Hell no!

We have a crisis of overproduction as in the 1930s, and the solution then was to turn hours that would never be worked again into leisure time. We could find ourselves going that way.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The GOP clown car will almost certainly win the Republican nomination; if it does it will hamstring the effort of a relative moderate within the Reactionary party to appeal to voters near the political center.

It is worth remembering that the Democratic Party has practically assured itself of people who by demographics (other than ethnicity, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation) should be conservative voters could never vote Republican so long as the Reactionary Party pushes fundamentalist Protestantism, crony capitalism, pseudoscience, anti-intellectualism, and reckless militarism. The Republican Party is not going to change quickly enough to win the Presidency in 2016. Sanders is charging against every Republican.

Good analysis as usual.

We have a crisis of overproduction as in the 1930s, and the solution then was to turn hours that would never be worked again into leisure time. We could find ourselves going that way.

Yes we could; it would probably take a more progressive government than we have now to help create and manage this shift.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The GOP clown car will almost certainly win the Republican nomination; if it does it will hamstring the effort of a relative moderate within the Reactionary party to appeal to voters near the political center.

Who said the GOP was remotely interested in moderate conservatives being in their party? I thought the point of the Tea Klux Klan was to purge the GOP of the RINOS. The natural place for those "relative moderates" to go is the Democratic Party.

It is worth remembering that the Democratic Party has practically assured itself of people who by demographics (other than ethnicity, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation) should be conservative voters could never vote Republican so long as the Reactionary Party pushes fundamentalist Protestantism, crony capitalism, pseudoscience, anti-intellectualism, and reckless militarism. The Republican Party is not going to change quickly enough to win the Presidency in 2016. Sanders is charging against every Republican.

One of the reasons why I don't think that the GOP will survive in its current form the 4T. I don't expect a GOP Prez for a while--IE until the GOP changes or dies.

Should the GOP actually die then the Democrats will end up splitting and a new party will take either the liberals or the conservatives with them. It would not be shocking to find the Democrats being the conservative party and a new party taking up the progressive mantra.

Republicans are for sale to the Koch syndicate? Not at all! They are fully bought!

I concur with you on your assessment of the two Parties: the Democratic Party is a conservative party with some room for liberals, and the Republican party borders on fascism. That Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by picking up the sorts of voters who could vote for Truman in 1948 but Eisenhower in 1952 suggests that he really is a conservative. The generational theory suggests that Barack Obama is the sort of politician who typically becomes President after a Crisis. By temperament he acts like a 60-something Reactive (even if he turned 50 while President) ... like John Adams, Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower.

For sale, fully bought...that is a matter of quibbling. I'm assuming that most GOP pols have enough sense to break deals when more money is offered. They may not be that smart.

That said yes Obama has governed like a 60 something reactive. That being said, I'm with Chris Rock, I wouldn't want to be the first black president. I think a large part of his conservatism in ruling has to do with the fact he doesn't want to be the last black president either.

Compromise has lost relevance in the American political system. Quality matters much less than does ideology -- which means that a Reagan-like President would today win only on party-line votes on bills of substance. The Crisis is far from over.

I would argue that unless we find a regeneracy very soon that the 4T will set us up for a saeculum of one crisis after an other.

There are interstices (like micro-breweries that produce beer that tastes much better than the commercial schlock of giant breweries). Franchises are a gray area. 3-D printing could make small-scale, short-lot manufacturing possible again.

Micro-breweries are a niche market. I've already made allowance for such niches.
Franchises are largely petty-bourgeoisie gloming onto large companies and they ultimately take all the risk while the corporation takes most of the profit.
3-D printing is still in its infancy. I'm going to wait for it to develop a bit before I start making predictions. People also said the steam powered horseless carriage was going to be big too.

On numerous other posts I have mentioned the contours of the restorationist system. However I will further elaborate on why we need restorationism. Restorationism is needed in order to defend against the "communist" armies that are being assembled in Russia and elsewhere. The soviet plan is to launch a surprise nuclear attack on military and civilian targets at the US east coast: then in the confusion launch a surprise blitzkrieg into Europe and the middle east while systematically massacring civilians especially those considered by the soviets to be "inferior races". The Russian plan is to carry out the worldwide extermination of all jews, catholics, blacks, hispanics, arabs, native Americans, most Indians, most southeast asians, africans, most Anglophone nations, and certain "despised" European nations such as poles, balts, and Ukrainian. The Russians and the ccp chinese elite (the chinese government seeks to carry out the destruction of japan, but also the "self-cleansing" of the chinese people in which southern chinese and the szechwanese branches of the chinese are eliminated) then seek to reorganize those races allowed to survive around an evil death-cult relogin whose central tenets is "racial purity" and whose main deity is an evil god called amolek. The putinists final goal is to force everyone allowed to survive to worship this amolek, ritual slaughter and other bloody rites would be carried out presided over by warrior-farmers and warrior-priests. We must stop the forces of evil gathering in the interior regions of Eurasia.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

On numerous other posts I have mentioned the contours of the restorationist system. However I will further elaborate on why we need restorationism. Restorationism is needed in order to defend against the "communist" armies that are being assembled in Russia and elsewhere. The soviet plan is to launch a surprise nuclear attack on military and civilian targets at the US east coast: then in the confusion launch a surprise blitzkrieg into Europe and the middle east while systematically massacring civilians especially those considered by the soviets to be "inferior races". The Russian plan is to carry out the worldwide extermination of all jews, catholics, blacks, hispanics, arabs, native Americans, most Indians, most southeast asians, africans, most Anglophone nations, and certain "despised" European nations such as poles, balts, and Ukrainian. The Russians and the ccp chinese elite (the chinese government seeks to carry out the destruction of japan, but also the "self-cleansing" of the chinese people in which southern chinese and the szechwanese branches of the chinese are eliminated) then seek to reorganize those races allowed to survive around an evil death-cult relogin whose central tenets is "racial purity" and whose main deity is an evil god called amolek. The putinists final goal is to force everyone allowed to survive to worship this amolek, ritual slaughter and other bloody rites would be carried out presided over by warrior-farmers and warrior-priests. We must stop the forces of evil gathering in the interior regions of Eurasia.

It's like The Yuan Dynasty 2.0, but in fact, far, far more evil than the Mongols were. The Mongols were choir boys compared with the current fiends.

Communists and Marxist-leninists such as kinser fail to realize that neither Russia or china are "communist" in the way that marx, Lenin or even stalin and mao were. The putinists blame their losses in the late 1980s/early 1990s on the internationalist and global brotherhood aspects of communism. Their "solution" was to dispense with those aspects while strengthening the stalinist ideology of worshipping the state above all else while adding a huge amount of racial supremacism. Today's russia and china ideologically have far more in common with fascism/nazism than it does with communism.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Communists and Marxist-leninists such as kinser fail to realize that neither Russia or china are "communist" in the way that marx, Lenin or even stalin and mao were. The putinists blame their losses in the late 1980s/early 1990s on the internationalist and global brotherhood aspects of communism. Their "solution" was to dispense with those aspects while strengthening the stalinist ideology of worshipping the state above all else while adding a huge amount of racial supremacism. Today's russia and china ideologically have far more in common with fascism/nazism than it does with communism.

That is very perceptive. The whole NBP thing was a mere hint of what was to emerge later.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It's like The Yuan Dynasty 2.0, but in fact, far, far more evil than the Mongols were. The Mongols were choir boys compared with the current fiends.

Those who agree with both sides of the conflict in the Ukraine exaggerate the evil of the other side, apparently. Peace will require a more realistic view.

One of the reasons why I don't think that the GOP will survive in its current form the 4T. I don't expect a GOP Prez for a while--IE until the GOP changes or dies.

Should the GOP actually die then the Democrats will end up splitting and a new party will take either the liberals or the conservatives with them. It would not be shocking to find the Democrats being the conservative party and a new party taking up the progressive mantra.

Yeah, the present party system is breaking down, with the Republicans looking increasingly unviable. On the other hand, the Republicans are still in a better position than the Democrats were starting out the Great Power Saeculum. Your scenario could very play out that way if something crazy happens, but I think it more likely that as the "red" Silents and Boomers die off the Republican party nationwide might start to look much more like the Republican party in deep "blue" states now. In which case we could see a moderate Republican president in the '30s followed by the gradual defection of a lot of the middle classes from an increasingly left wing Democratic party as they undergo their own demographic transition. Alternatively, it's worthwhile to point out that ideology is not the only way that the two parties can polarize, and historically neither party could really be described as left or right so much as they were a gallimaufry of sectional and ethnic interests. As an example of how this could play out, you could see identity politics start to polarize the parties along ethnic lines over the course of the next saeculum, with one probably holding the majority of white and whiteish people and the other the rising minority-majority demographics. In this case, you could see the parties each holding both conservative and liberal members, which (ugly racial conflict aside), might even be more conducive to the sorts of log-rolling the American political system is historically built on.

Or there could be electoral reforms that open the way for a multiparty system. Lots of ways this could play out, given the (in my mind entirely reasonable) assumption that the Republican party as is won't last and the present Democratic coalition will inevitably fracture as a result.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Communists and Marxist-leninists such as kinser fail to realize that neither Russia or china are "communist" in the way that marx, Lenin or even stalin and mao were.

I have said in the past that the USSR stopped being socialist sometime in the Mid 1970s. Russia today is not communist, indeed doesn't even claim to be socialist. China never was socialist. Mao's eclecticism prevented that. Perhaps if you spent more time reading and less time spouting off drivel you would know my positions on the socialism or lack thereof in various countries at various times.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

That is very perceptive. The whole NBP thing was a mere hint of what was to emerge later.

Lenin explained the NEP in his article Two Steps Forward, One Step Back. The point of the NEP was to improve the economy to a point where there was capital to expropriate to build socialism.

I am of course assuming that "NBP" was a typo, and you weren't referencing the something else.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, the present party system is breaking down, with the Republicans looking increasingly unviable. On the other hand, the Republicans are still in a better position than the Democrats were starting out the Great Power Saeculum. Your scenario could very play out that way if something crazy happens, but I think it more likely that as the "red" Silents and Boomers die off the Republican party nationwide might start to look much more like the Republican party in deep "blue" states now. In which case we could see a moderate Republican president in the '30s followed by the gradual defection of a lot of the middle classes from an increasingly left wing Democratic party as they undergo their own demographic transition. Alternatively, it's worthwhile to point out that ideology is not the only way that the two parties can polarize, and historically neither party could really be described as left or right so much as they were a gallimaufry of sectional and ethnic interests. As an example of how this could play out, you could see identity politics start to polarize the parties along ethnic lines over the course of the next saeculum, with one probably holding the majority of white and whiteish people and the other the rising minority-majority demographics. In this case, you could see the parties each holding both conservative and liberal members, which (ugly racial conflict aside), might even be more conducive to the sorts of log-rolling the American political system is historically built on.

Or there could be electoral reforms that open the way for a multiparty system. Lots of ways this could play out, given the (in my mind entirely reasonable) assumption that the Republican party as is won't last and the present Democratic coalition will inevitably fracture as a result.

Well there will be a seventh party system, assuming the country remains intact and functional under current construction. The form it takes depends on many variables.

I would say that ideology is a likely point of divergence. Race and/or color will likely play a role. The party seen as the Party of the White Elite can expect whatever party that is (GOP, Dems, or Other) to not gain or have defections of Black Americans. The White Elite almost never has our interests in mind. Ultimately though, I view the US as requiring a Constitutional Convention to sort out many of our electoral and political problems. We have to bear in mind that the Constitution was written for a slave holding, agrigarian federation of states and not a free labor, industrial (some would say post-industrial) semi-federation of states.

I say semi-federation because much power that once belonged to the states has been taken over by the federal government...some for good (a lot for good actually) and some not-so-good.

Ultimately I would prefer a new constitution with a weak presidency and an almost Westminster like parliamentary system. I would also strongly favor proportional representation in at least one of the two houses of that legislative body.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Well there will be a seventh party system, assuming the country remains intact and functional under current construction. The form it takes depends on many variables.

I would say that ideology is a likely point of divergence. Race and/or color will likely play a role. The party seen as the Party of the White Elite can expect whatever party that is (GOP, Dems, or Other) to not gain or have defections of Black Americans. The White Elite almost never has our interests in mind. Ultimately though, I view the US as requiring a Constitutional Convention to sort out many of our electoral and political problems. We have to bear in mind that the Constitution was written for a slave holding, agrigarian federation of states and not a free labor, industrial (some would say post-industrial) semi-federation of states.

I say semi-federation because much power that once belonged to the states has been taken over by the federal government...some for good (a lot for good actually) and some not-so-good.

Ultimately I would prefer a new constitution with a weak presidency and an almost Westminster like parliamentary system. I would also strongly favor proportional representation in at least one of the two houses of that legislative body.

Yeah, there's a strong overlap between race/color and ideology today. The two parties in the 6th system are notionally polarized around economic and social issues, but the Republicans have had a clear majority of the white votes for decades now, and blacks vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party. Increasingly, Hispanics and Asians have broken dramatically for the Democratic Party, now that the Cold War issues that kept groups like the Cubans and the Vietnamese in the Republican fold have loosened their grip. Ultimately, a new party system that polarized either around the bourgeois vs the proleterariat or mostly whites vs mostly black and brown people (I tried writing "blacks and browns" and started giggling) would probably look very similar either way.

It's just kinda baked in at this point. Longer term, assuming we get a second information revolution on the heels of the first (likely based around biotech, neuroscience, Big Data, 3D printing and the like), we could start seeing conflicts over things like transhumanism become relevant too.

As to a Constitutional Convention, parliamentary democracy? Could be interesting, not really seeing enough movement to make it seem realistic within the foreseeable future. Will keep an eye out for it, but still. The idolization of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers is pretty basic to America's conception of itself, and you'll probably have to wait till the next Awakening to see that start to shift, if indeed it does.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, there's a strong overlap between race/color and ideology today. The two parties in the 6th system are notionally polarized around economic and social issues, but the Republicans have had a clear majority of the white votes for decades now, and blacks vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party. Increasingly, Hispanics and Asians have broken dramatically for the Democratic Party, now that the Cold War issues that kept groups like the Cubans and the Vietnamese in the Republican fold have loosened their grip. Ultimately, a new party system that polarized either around the bourgeois vs the proleterariat or mostly whites vs mostly black and brown people (I tried writing "blacks and browns" and started giggling) would probably look very similar either way.

It's just kinda baked in at this point. Longer term, assuming we get a second information revolution on the heels of the first (likely based around biotech, neuroscience, Big Data, 3D printing and the like), we could start seeing conflicts over things like transhumanism become relevant too.

I expected we would be in basic agreement. Personally I don't really have a stake in the party system that emerges really. I don't view bourgeois elections as the means to acheiving what I want, but then again I'm a revolutionary.

As to a Constitutional Convention, parliamentary democracy? Could be interesting, not really seeing enough movement to make it seem realistic within the foreseeable future. Will keep an eye out for it, but still. The idolization of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers is pretty basic to America's conception of itself, and you'll probably have to wait till the next Awakening to see that start to shift, if indeed it does.

I would imagine that a Constitutional Convention would likely be a project for the 1T if the current state is wrecked to the point of not functioning. I doubt the Millies will tolerate dysfunction for as long as Xers (because we're numerically weaker and we know it) have. At such a point it will become obvious to them that a better system is necessary. Parliamentary style democratic republics have a better track record than Presidential style republics.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Lenin explained the NEP in his article Two Steps Forward, One Step Back. The point of the NEP was to improve the economy to a point where there was capital to expropriate to build socialism.

I am of course assuming that "NBP" was a typo, and you weren't referencing the something else.

Kinser, XYMOX's mention of NBP was not a typo, he was not referring to Lenin's NEP program. He was referring to the national socialist national Bolshevik party in today's Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Trump is a boorish asshole, as far as I can tell. I doubt very seriously that he could get elected President, and if he did, it would be probably be a disaster.

No doubt. Bruce Bartlett is rooting for Trump as a means to discredit the Tea Party.

And everything I said is just as true on the left as it is on the right, as, say, the protests and disruption at the Netroots convention in Arizona showed, despite it hosting (white) progressive stalwarts like Sanders and O'Malley.

I don't get the "despite". You pointed out that the stalwarts were white (as in 90% of their campaign staff) It's like they are Republicans. The problem was when confronted with the slogan Black Lives Matter, they did not know how to respond. Why hadn't they been prepped? Because the campaign is too white. Roughly half of Democrats are minorities, there's plenty of minority talent. If Bernie is to have a chance he has to energize minority voters. So far his rallies look like CPAC.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Kinser, XYMOX's mention of NBP was not a typo, he was not referring to Lenin's NEP program. He was referring to the national socialist national Bolshevik party in today's Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

If that is the case then he can tell me about it.

The National Bolsheviks though are well they are neither Bolsheviks nor Nationalists. They are considered to be an extremely fringe movement with little weight amongst the people. Their ideology itself is a contradiction.

I was aware of them, they are however, irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

...The soviet plan is to launch a surprise nuclear attack on military and civilian targets at the US east coast: then in the confusion launch a surprise blitzkrieg ...

Let me introduce you to the Ohio Class Submarine -



- carries 24 Trident II missiles in tubes ready to launch; each Trident carries 3-12 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) nuclear warheads, each warhead multiple times more explosive than the bomb used on Hiroshima.

Essentially, fully loaded, a single Ohio Class sub could destroy EVERY Russian city with a population of 50,000 people or more - that destruction does not include the widespread destruction from radioactive fallout.

That's one submarine. The US has 14 of these; Britian has 4. There is always a certain number of these at sea. They are undetectable let alone being targetable.

It's amazing how 2 minutes of your time Googling could save you from looking, well, let's just say, uninformed.

Bobby Kennedy Jr ( via his mouthpiece Ring of Fire ) is endorsing Bernie

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/...use-you-asked/