[ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

spike spike66 at att.net
Wed May 18 02:22:10 UTC 2016



From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark


​>>… ​That Canadian charity donated huge amounts to the Clinton Foundation, which means they have shady connections,


​>…I don't get it.​  Why does that mean they have shady connections?​


John: because both Clintons are shady characters.  Both lie.  Any charity which donates to them is suspect.



>…I don't get it, ​Clinton has ​

​put the tax return and ​an outside audit of the entire charity on the internet for all the world to see…


The world cannot see who funneled money through that Canadian charity.  Canadian charities are not required to reveal all.  So they were a perfect vehicle for the perfect crime.


>…What more can she do?


Show us the yoga routines.  We don’t care about the tax returns; we already know the shady stuff wouldn’t be found there, just as we knew the evidence in Nixon’s case was in that missing 18 minutes.  The email was all intentionally and carefully deleted while under subpoena.  But all is not lost.  She can probably buy copies of everything from a hacker, then show it to us.  She has the funds, in the Clinton family charity.


But she won’t.  That stuff will probably leak eventually, but Mrs. Clinton won’t be the one to leak it.  We don’t know who is going to do that, or how to verify if it is genuine.  That in itself is one hell of a note.



>>​… Carlos Slim and Frank Giustra aware and are they OK with this?  Why?  Are you?  Why?


>…I don't get what "this" means so I can not answer, in fact there is a lot I don't get…


This means giving money that could have gone into AIDS research instead disappearing into the Clinton Family “charity” which is under their control, doing who knows what, but we do know it is not charity.  The Clintons don’t do charity.  They use that money for political gain.



>…It seems clear that the majority of Etropians favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and I don't get it…


Nah, Gary Johnson most of them.  He’s a good guy.  


We Yank ExI-ers are in the same unfortunate position as our own countrymen however.  If we took either of the major candidates and put only that candidate alone on the ballot with two boxes, YES and NO, it is conceivable that in either case it would be a close race with no guarantees the YES would win.  We could elect NO for president, which would be better than either of these two.  I would rather risk four years of vulnerability to nuclear first strike than either of these.  


These two are the worst choices in American history, absolute worst.




​ >…At one time the vast majority of Extropians were libertarians is that no longer the case? 


Go Gary!  Libertarian party convention in less than two weeks!



>…Clinton is not nearly as libertarian as I'd like but she's far more libertarian than Trump…


John that isn’t at all clear to me.


>…Libertarians are in favor of freedom of speech but Trump wants the law changed so that if a journalist…


A filmmaker is a journalist in a sense.  Mrs. Clinton had one jailed in order to lend support to a cover story that was so silly it was laughable.  It ruined his career: not being jailed, that would have helped his career.  It ruined his career because it called so much attention to a movie that was so stupid, poorly made and boring it was difficult even to view the advertising trailer.  (Go ahead, attempt to view it; it’s still out there, and hasn’t improved a bit.)  Mrs. Clinton blamed this video, which was so boring, even the ayatollahs couldn’t stay awake through it and had never heard of the silly thing until she called attention to it.


This and the rest of your examples are exactly why presidents don’t make law.  Congress makes law.  If those parties disagree, nothing changes, which is how the system is intentionally designed.  You get some crazy goof or some criminal (which will probably happen soon) and the likely outcome is a no-change.  Well then, OK, if we must.


In fact, given a sufficiently dire choice, I can even see electing an out-of-the-closet commie.  He or she would be far enough left of center, congress would never send him anything to veto.  So nothing changes.  Is that so bad?  Is a no-change for four years so bad really?


Trump could launch a nuclear war unilaterally, but I don’t think that would happen.  I don’t even think Hilliary Clinton would launch the nukes.  But she could launch cruise missiles with conventional warheads, if someone is threatening to leak her yoga.  I don’t think Trump would do that either: those things are expensive.  Bill Clinton did, firing 750 million dollars worth of them at nothing.


John you have somehow convinced yourself that Mrs. Clinton is honest and that the security leak is trivial.  I do not follow that reasoning at all.  Treason is never trivial.  Note that Scooter Libby was nearly charged for treason when a reporter said “I heard yakkity yak works at the CIA.”  He replied, “Yeah I heard that too.”  Mrs. Clinton knew she wasn’t allowed to do her State Department business on her personal server: she asked as was told not just no, but hell no.  She did it anyway, requiring her aids to routinely commit felonies.  Do you think the FBI won’t be able to find out who sent those and how the hell they got them across the gap?  That last part has really had me going for almost a year now: whodunit and how was it done?


Compare to Mrs. Clinton’s revealing TS to Scooter’s uttering “Yeah I heard that too”, Clinton’s storing TS on an unsecured server, making a flash drive copy and giving it to her attorney who had no clearance, all of which is definitely treason, not some trivial little oops on an absent minded Friday afternoon.  Then carefully erasing the evidence which was under subpoena, which is obstruction of justice.  Then instructing her attorney to not answer the obvious question “How was the determination made for which messages should be erased?”  Then telling us it was all yoga, wedding plans and love notes to Bill, which is arrogant as hell, insulting and obviously as false as the laughable internet video story.  Had the erased email been only that, she wouldn’t have gone to all the trouble, refused a subpoena, made it look like what it looks like to get rid of those 30,000 yoga routines.  She knew it would look Nixonian, far worse than his erased 18 minutes of audio.  This is 30,000 suspicious emails, vs 18 minutes of audio.



>…I mean it, I honestly don't get it.​


 John K Clark


I mean it too John, I get it.  I honestly do get it.  Plenty of us do.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/5e3c25c3/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list