[ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
spike66 at att.net
Thu May 19 00:28:26 UTC 2016
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Also to Adrian - what if he is both? Violated the law and blew the whistle on gov misgoings? I don't know what the judge said, but I assume did not clear him of all wrongdoings. Or the gov would not still be after him. Si?...
Since we are on the subject of paradoxes, I will comment on John Clark’s admirable comment on why he has his own doubts about Hillary Clinton, and why I cannot support either of the current leaders.
It is paradoxical to me that John cited Clinton’s vote to invade Iraq in 2003 of all things. That is a puzzling thing, for Mrs. Clinton was one of a few senators cleared to view all the evidence we had. The president cleared a subset of senators (and how the heck they figured she was clearable is another mystery (but let us leave that for the moment)) ones that were defense specialists, or were on committees, and showed them all the evidence. The heads of some European states saw this too. The Brits showed what they knew.
They were well aware of the risk that Iraqi leader Saddam and Iranian leaders and other parties were willing and eager to use the European armies and especially American military muscle to crush their enemies. It was not as simple as Iraq vs Iran either, for there were subgroups in those countries with their own agendas, the apocalyptic religious types, the parties within the countries, oh it must have been crazy difficult to figure out who was doing what. They knew there was the risk of parties with unknown motives intentionally trying to fake evidence for nukes. They knew there was a risk of invasion and finding nothing. Bush knew if he ordered an invasion and found nothing, his legacy was ruined, as did Tony Blair (both were right on that part.)
So these heads of state, some of our senators were cleared to see everything. They all knew the risks. The cleared senators, Bush, Blair and several other heads of state said go. France, Germany and the commies said no.
OK turns out it was a bluff. Saddam’s deathbed testimony included several interviews with his American interrogator, with whom he became friendly, knowing the US was going to hand him over to the Iraqis, and he was dead. The interrogator asked him why he would attempt such a dangerous game as to intentionally make the US think he was developing nukes. Saddam revealed his strategy was to convince the US that he already had them, so that they would not invade, and would convince Iran it was unwise. Again his American interrogator asked was not this a very risky strategy. Saddam agreed that it was, but anything he could have done was a risky strategy. With this, he made the now-famous comment Americans don’t understand. The entire Arab world is a dangerous neighborhood.
In any case, the cleared senators, Bush, Blair and the others, looking at the same evidence weighed the risk and chose go. Bernie Sanders could not be cleared to see that evidence. Most of the senators could not, but were influenced by those who were cleared. So, in we go. Bluff. Bush ruined. Blair ruined. But they knew the risk. Clinton: well, I would have to give her a pass on that one. She was looking at the same evidence the others saw and came to the same conclusion.
This is not to say I approve of Clinton in general, for reasons I have so egregiously over-posted already.
That being said, I cannot support Trump either. It isn’t because of all the crazy comments, the shooting from the hip, all that. We know that is showmanship. He has a plausible explanation. He ran in 2000. Did you know of it? Neither did I. Nor anyone else I asked. He was presidential. No one even noticed him. Businessmen are adaptable sorts. They see something that didn’t work at all, was a huge waste of effort. So… he tried the opposite: make crazy clowny comments on purpose, with the strategy of later coming back and saning all the silliness. When asked about the grand wall, he can say “OK, the real message is this: ours is a nation of law. If we have a state (California in particular) pulling rank on the Federal government on immigration, California becomes the defacto Federal government. Ours is a nation of law.”
If he did that, most people will realize why he did the crazy act during the primary. The Republican party had become so crazy, no sane approach would have worked. No sane approach did work: note the candidates eliminated first. Those were the sane ones.
OK then. I still cannot support Trump, because of that eminent domain business. I know it is technically legal. But in my mind it is a poster-child example of government overreach. That should soooo be illegal. Trump used the law. I cannot cotton to that. Clinton disregarded the law governing the office she occupied for nearly four years. Disregarding law is government overreach too: it is even more dangerous than exploring the limits of power, which is what eminent domain really is: the ragged edge of law, way out there where honorable wielders of power should not tread. That whole self-pardon notion is another one: ja we see that it is legally feasible. But we see that it is a path to totalitarianism, which is the path I fear we are charging down with either of these. I don’t fear so much they will launch a nuclear war. I would estimate 1% risk for either, which is a stunning thing in itself. But my fear of sliding into a totalitarian dictatorship is extremely high for both of these distasteful characters.
My ideal scenario is if both parties would agree to parachute in someone else, pretty much anyone else, and agree to nominate this other person if the other party agrees to do likewise. My first choice would be Peter Thiel, but I already know he is not eligible, being born in Germany. My second choice would be Sal Khan. Sal Khan vs Condi Rice, something like that. Then I could vote for one of them. Of those two I would vote for Sal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat