Is it possible to have a ww3 because trump lose the election?

[John Iverson]

I'm back posting here again,  i know a trust worthy psychic here in the  Philippines, this morning i watched his video and Trump would still become a president.. idk other info of his vision but because of that Trump will start a war... i am posting it here because i want to know how possible is that and what makes trump do such a thing even though he lose the election...

[fridjonk]

nah

[Preety_India]

The fact that the psychic says that Trump would be president is  enough evidence that this psychic is bogus and a fraud 

Trump has been stopped before he could start anything. 

The only  thing that Trump could start is a series of whiny immature tweets on his way out scowling and howling and falling as he walks out. 

 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Preety_India

[Sempiternity]

No

[eggopm3]

It was a mistake to give WWII that name. People should have just let WWI remain "The Great War" while calling WWII simply "The World War" or something. The presence of a 2 primes people to await a 3. Let wars have their own names.

[Willie]

It’s possible. Trump could launch an ICBM or 2 to Tehran on January 19th.

Not likely, though.

[Claymoree]

No, I don't think president has such power, if you need government agreement for less serious  matter, nuclear attack clearly needs more then just presidents desire to do it. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Claymoree

[John Iverson]

3 hours ago, Willie said:

It’s possible. Trump could launch an ICBM or 2 to Tehran on January 19th.

Not likely, though.

What? On my birthday ahahahaha

[Arcangelo]

here we go again with the psychics

 

[John Iverson]

3 hours ago, Preety_India said:

The fact that the psychic says that Trump would be president is  enough evidence that this psychic is bogus and a fraud 

 

Yeah maybe but also trump is red on the stage of development he could also do such a thing,  it is not impossible ? Maybe?

[Preety_India]

Just now, John Iverson said:

Yeah maybe but also trump is red on the stage of development he could also do such a thing,  it is not impossible ? Maybe?

Hahahaha. You wait till your birthday lol and then come back here to give the news.... Hahahaha. 

[Elham]

16 hours ago, Willie said:

It’s possible. Trump could launch an ICBM or 2 to Tehran on January 19th.

Not likely, though.

WHAT?! 

Why Tehran??? What do we have to do with US election except here also some people preferred Trump was elected so he would have pressured our government 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Elham

[Willie]

53 minutes ago, Elham said:

WHAT?! 

Why Tehran??? What do we have to do with US election except here also some people preferred Trump was elected so he would have pressured our government 

It would be a big “fuck you” to Joe Biden because Donald is a sore loser. More mess for Joe to clean up.

[Hansu]

Why would it be any more than a civil war?

USA army cant be so stupid that they'd invade a country just because the president flipped his dick around and demanded so on the end of his term. Unless they are ready to betray their country and their new, democraticly elected president.

Please tell me they wouldnt...

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, Willie said:

It would be a big “fuck you” to Joe Biden because Donald is a sore loser. More mess for Joe to clean up.

Trump has often used chaos for his advantage and to harm others - on smaller scales. This would be an escalation of chaos for him. It may also give him a sense of power and reclaiming the media attention and power. Yet it doesn’t seem like the people around him will go along.

3 minutes ago, Hansu said:

Why would it be any more than a civil war?

USA army cant be so stupid that they'd invade a country just because the president flipped his dick around and demanded so on the end of his term. Unless they are ready to betray their country and their new, democraticly elected president.

Please tell me they wouldnt...

The U.S. President is technically the commander of the military, yet within some semblance of reason. Pentagon officials and military will not go along with a batshit crazy lame duck president desperate to feel significant.

 

[Hansu]

11 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

The U.S. President is technically the commander of the military, yet within some semblance of reason. Pentagon officials and military will not go along with a batshit crazy lame duck president desperate to feel significant.

My thoughts exactly. Hollywood has done good work on making people think that army personnel do whatever someone with a higher rank tells them to do.

[No Self]

19 hours ago, eggopm3 said:

It was a mistake to give WWII that name. People should have just let WWI remain "The Great War" while calling WWII simply "The World War" or something. The presence of a 2 primes people to await a 3. Let wars have their own names.

WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, and over the longer term people will probably regard it as one continuous conflict. If the Cold War had gotten out of hand, that would have been yet another continuation so perhaps WWIII would have been appropriate.

As for Trump, we have seen a certain amount of violence on the streets between the fine people on both sides. It may escalate slightly beyond that for a time, but beyond that we are going to have to get used to living our lives without constantly referencing this primitive little man.

[John Iverson]

I love how you guise giving something on the table please continue

[snowyowl]

By my count we're up to WW6 for the next world war (WW1, WW2, then the cold war, war on drugs, war on terror, all of them very bad). But no I don't think Trump will start a war. He's too busy with recounts, court cases, and fundraising right now as far as I can see. Somehow I ended up on his mailing list and I've had hundreds of emails begging for money. Isn't he running out of time to overturn the election? 

[No Self]

9 hours ago, snowyowl said:

By my count we're up to WW6 for the next world war

The biggest world war since WWII was the Second Congo War (1998-2003). It was also very bad.

Ultimately, nine African countries and around twenty-five armed groups became involved in the war.[8] By 2008, the war and its aftermath had caused 5.4 million deaths, principally through disease and starvation,[9] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[10] Another 2 million were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighboring countries.[7][11]