[ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump
spike66 at att.net
Sat May 7 17:53:32 UTC 2016
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
The Democrat party appears to be on the verge of nominating the head of a crime family.
>…Crime family? Spike, I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Yes Bill got a blowjob, and yes Hillary was sloppy with her E-mail server… John K Clark
It isn’t just a game John, it isn’t just a blowjob. We don’t know who has copies of those yoga routines, but we know those of us who are voting do not know what was in those yoga routines and we are not allowed to know. We do not know what hoops some foreign power might make the US jump thru in exchange for not exposing those yoga routines, what armies will be deployed, who we will be ordered to kill.
There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn sure is a law against covering it up. It causes that politician to be vulnerable to blackmail. Note that Monica did attempt to blackmail Bill. He refused to cave, she carried out her threat. Otherwise we never would have heard of that infamous blue dress.
Fast forward. We have 30,000 emails intentionally erased. Compare that to Nixon’s 18 minutes of erased audiotape, and note that Nixon didn’t bother insulting our collective intelligence by suggesting those 18 minutes were just yoga routines, wedding plans or love notes to then-governor Bill Clinton. We don’t know what was on those 18 minutes but we have a strong enough suspicion to satisfy us: whatever that was is worse than conspiracy to destroy evidence, obstruction of justice etc. It was bad enough that Nixon risked having it look like what it looks like, just to get rid of it. He threw the dice and lost.
So why do we have a different standard, a far different standard today? We do not admit the obvious: that Clinton Family Charity business is what it appears to be, at very best an enabler of corruption, a glaring conflict of interest, a quasi-legal vehicle to get around all those political donor laws, enables donors to cover their identities by funnelling the funds through a Canadian charity, all of which quasi-legalizes money laundering and sets a most dangerous precedent. Now all politicians will simply establish a family charity, funnel money through Canada, and money which once secretly controlled government will pretty much openly control government.
Meanwhile the other guy sets an equally dangerous precedent: just make crazy outlandish comments, get free press, proof of the longstanding notion that in politics and entertainment, there is no bad publicity. Bad publicity is better than no publicity, and the scary corollary to that: in some ways, bad publicity is better than good publicity. It travels faster and farther.
I am ashamed of us.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat