Responses to Raving Madman Trump’s Threat to Destroy Us All With Nukes

There have been extinction events many times in world history. None of them have so far involved in a species exterminating itself. But that could change. There has never been a Donald Trump before.

And nuclear annihilation is a very likely outcome of Trump’s Christmas present to us all, a nuclear arms race. This is the man, remember, who asked if we have nukes why we can’t use them. Three times in an hour.

Media Matters‘ Oliver Willis offers us a sobering reminder of what, precisely, we are talking about when we say “nuclear arms race”:

The remarkable thing is how often Trump can say completely reprehensible, unthinkable things, only to have his followers massage his words, as happened with what The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent calls Rachel Maddow’s “deeply disconcerting” chat with Kellyanne Conway last night:

As Trump fact-checker par excellence Daniel Dale put it in words far too clear for the Trump camp,

So we end up with,

Trump SPOX: “There is not going to be” an arms race. Trump: “Let it be an arms race.”

Or, as HuffPo’s Sam Stein presents it, an administration that seemingly can’t find it’s own backside with both hands and a flashlight:

TRUMP: More nukes
AIDE: He meant less nukes
TRUMP: No, really, more nukes
AIDE: We won’t have more nukes

Stein is certainly right when he says, “Trump may believe in strategic ambiguity. In this case, it could bring us closer to nuclear war.” Indeed, if there is one thing we absolutely must be clear on, it is nuclear weapons.

Jeffrey Wright quipped that Trump was caught “Publicly pleasuring himself on Presidential power” but guess who is in the splatter zone?

Nate Silver offered us a mocking response to Trumpism’s many “if only” positions on the election:

Of course, at that point, with the libertarian dystopia finally the stuff of more than dreams, there is no guarantee there would be even that many people left to vote.