Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Maybe that it true, I am not positive about that. Does not change the fact that her mentioning response times is just dumb as hell.

Even if it is a guess?

Quote:Even if it is a guess?

Of course even if it is a guess. No reason to be so cavalier throwing around/verbalizing response time info. Anyone who has been exposed to the vetting process for obtaining security clearances knows this. Besides her apparently.

Quote:Of course even if it is a guess. No reason to be so cavalier throwing around/verbalizing response time info. Anyone who has been exposed to the vetting process for obtaining security clearances knows this. Besides her apparently.

Nonsense


Nit picking about nothing! And there are plenty of top security officials who agree it was no issue as well, not just me.

Quote:Nonsense


Nit picking about nothing! And there are plenty of top security officials who agree it was no issue as well, not just me.

Your attitude towards it is not surprising in the least. When she is eventually locked up for her crimes this will simply be another one of the examples of her stupidity that  lead to her downfall.

Quote:Your attitude towards it is not surprising in the least. When she is eventually locked up for her crimes this will simply be another one of the examples of her stupidity that lead to her downfall.

Ok. I look forward to that pipe dream. As long Nov 9th or later. It's great for me!

Quote:Maybe that it true, I am not positive about that. Does not change the fact that her mentioning response times is just dumb as hell.

 

Why is it dumb to tell everyone it takes only four minutes to get a bombing order?

Buuuuwwaaaaa, can't make this stuff up. Criminal, plain and simple.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...video.html

Quote:Why is it dumb to tell everyone it takes only four minutes to get a bombing order?

You don't want your enemy knowing your response time to anything they do. It's not a good thing to give them any information that they can use.

Quote:You don't want your enemy knowing your response time to anything they do. It's not a good thing to give them any information that they can use.

 

But how would the enemy know the order was sent out before it is executed?

Yep, she's Ready for Hillary folks!

Quote:You don't want your enemy knowing your response time to anything they do. It's not a good thing to give them any information that they can use.

Again.. this information has been out there long before Hillary mentioned it. I don't see what the big deal on this is. All anyone needs to know is we have enough nukes to give planet earth a permanent orange afro and they don't wanna mess with us.

Our nuclear response time is pertinent in game theory in the event an adversary wanted to adopt a first strike policy to disable all or part of our retaliatory capability and degrade the integrity of mutually assured destruction. Ash carter had to abstain comment on the level of secracy associated with this information, meaning I don't want to embarrass my party's nominee for president.


She demonstrated that while attempting to lecture trump on carelessness she needlessly exposed sensitive information about our nuclear capability. This is after selling a significant portion of our uranium capacity to Russia and having a husband who literally LOST his nuclear codes for more than a week.


The Clintons are experts at selling out the country enriching themselves and destroying political opponents. Anything else is amateur hour

Great speech by Trump in Gettysburg..

Quote:Just because it was news to you doesn't mean this hasn't been cited other places long before Hillary said it.

This is how I feel about it. That being said, POTUS candidates are (supposedly) held to a higher standard and shouldn't be using information like that in a televised debate. I believe there was a better way to answer the question without disclosing that information whether it's been cited before or not.

Quote:This is how I feel about it. That being said, POTUS candidates are (supposedly) held to a higher standard and shouldn't be using information like that in a televised debate. I believe there was a better way to answer the question without disclosing that information whether it's been cited before or not.

 

What did you want her to say?

Quote:What did you want her to say?

I'm dropping out.

Quote:I'm dropping out.

Should have thanked Donald.

Quote:What did you want her to say?

I'm not really bothered by what she said, but to answer your question, she could have just said there is a certain amount of time between the order and the launch without having to give a specific time.

Quote:This is how I feel about it. That being said, POTUS candidates are (supposedly) held to a higher standard and shouldn't be using information like that in a televised debate. I believe there was a better way to answer the question without disclosing that information whether it's been cited before or not.

You mean Information that is already widely known, and published?  

Quote:You mean Information that is already widely known, and published?  

 

LOL The fact was probably unknown to most people who heard it, including the guy standing a few feet away.