[ExI] Trump asks "Why Can’t We Use Nuclear Weapons?"

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

The second sentence of my post is:

Let's avoid discussing the elections on this list.

The last sentence of my post is:

I won't further respond to any election-related posts from you.



On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:22 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>>>> ​>>​
>>>> Hillary Clinton sent Humayun to his death at the hands of Islamic
>>>> terrorists, for short term political gain.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>> ​
>>> Apparently Humayun Khan's parents don't agree with you,
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> ### That may be the case, although I did not discuss the issue with Mr
>> Khan and I don't really know what he is thinking through all this commotion.
>>
>
> ​I don't see why it would be necessary to discuss it with him, Mr. Khan
> made it abundantly clear in his speech at the Democratic​ convention that
> nominated Hillary Clinton what his views were. And in response to Mr.
> Khan's speech Trump produced this self contradictory gem:
>
> *"Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of
> millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is
> false) and say many other inaccurate things."*
>
> If Donald Trump had actually read the Constitution he'd know that Mr. Khan
> DOES have a right to say whatever he wants in front of as many people that
> want to listen to him. And yet for reasons that absolutely baffle me
> libertarians seem to have a certain fondness for this fascist. It's weird.
> And yes I know many libertarians intend to vote for Gary Johnson, but it
> takes 270 electoral votes to become president and I will give 3 to 1 odds
> that Johnson will not get one single electoral vote. Johnson will get zero
> votes, zip nada zilch goose egg.
>
> >
>>>> ​>>​
>>>> Let's avoid the subject of elections on this list. It is odious.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>> ​
>>> Shouldn't you have said that at the very start of your post rather than
>>> at the very end after talking about Hillary Clinton and "short term
>>> political gain"?
>>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> ### Let's avoid the subject of elections on this list.
>>
>
> ​I've seen this before, after a long post on subject X it ENDS with
> something like, "we should never talk about subject X again", which really
> means I and only I should have the last word on subject X.  It would be far
> more convincing if the FIRST and only sentence in the post was "
>  Let's avoid subject
> ​X​
>  on this list
> ​", I'd still disagree but at least it wouldn't be self contradictory.​
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160805/9a9830b1/attachment.html>