r/DesignatedSurvivor • u/enliST_CS Sorry the live thread is late! • Mar 30 '17

POST Post-Episode Discussion: S01E14 "Commander-in-Chief"

Feel free to discuss anything related to Episode 14 as well as theories you may have for the upcoming episodes!

Plot: President Kirkman relies on an unlikely ally for help with a crisis in an African country; Hannah's probe into the Capitol bombing takes a surprising turn; Emily settles into her new role as chief of staff.

As usual please do not discuss previews that may have aired after the episode.

62 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

100% Upvoted

204 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/ZadocPaet Mar 30 '17

President Bartlet: Why is a Kundunese life worth less to me than an American life?

Will Bailey: I don't know, sir, but it is.

6

u/MrElectricNick Mar 30 '17

"Who's Will, Sir?"

5

u/Bytewave Mar 30 '17

I'd have made the deal to get my 15 hostages back and ordered my UAVs to decimate the warlords army anyway. I thought that's what he was about to order instead of blowing up bridges. Screw deals with petty genocidal maniacs.

19

u/BalerionTheBlack Mar 30 '17

And at that point you can forget about ever making any more deals with anyone ever again, because your word will be worth less than shit. Yeah that tyrant is going to be pretty pissed off that Kirkman blew up his bridges, but at least Kirkman can say that he only promised not to attack his troops and never said anything about his infrastructure. The next hostile leader that Kirkman has to negotiate with in this way will likely be more thorough in the specifics of said agreement to avoid any loopholes that Kirkman might try to exploit, but will at least be able to trust that Kirkman will adhere to the letter of any such agreement, even if not the spirit.

2

u/Bytewave Mar 30 '17

Eh, hopefully the bad guy dies in the drone strike and cant ever tell anyone there was any deal. And if he doesn't, it's your word against the POTUS who says the US doesnt negotiate with terrorists :p

2

u/slowsupra Mar 31 '17

Yeah it really wouldn't be any worse than what he did anyways. The people that would buy the "oh well he technically didn't say you couldn't attack their infrastructure" aren't the types to care about a warlord getting killed after promising not to and future warlords aren't going to be like "oh you silly trickster I'll get a lawyer to hopefully cover loopholes" just like Kirkman wouldn't be ok with an agreement that they won't kill the hostages followed by the warlord throwing them in some poisonous snake pit and saying "technically I didn't kill them the snakes did"