[ExI] The Clinton Foundation

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 02:50:07 UTC 2016

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> ​>…Sometimes the ends justify the means and sometimes they don't. If the
>> ends never justify the means ​then nobody would ever do anything because
>> there would be no way to do it…
> > Oh my, John, I disagree with that comment so very much.  he end does not
> justify the means if the means are illegal.

​We don't really have much of a disagreement here, it's just that I don't
like the phrase the end doesn't justify the means

> ​> ​
> who attacked the US embassy in Libya for instance, and why.

​ISIS attacked and they did for the same reason that most atrocities are
committed, they did it for god.  ​

> ​>​
> There are standards in place, legal safeguards, so that a top brass-hat at
> the Pentagon can’t just hire his favorite secretary and make her a .
What standards? If I'm
her boss and think she has great ability then I'll promote her. Abedin
was Hillary's
deputy chief of staff
and then her status was changed to
“special government employee”
which was perfectly legal and it allowed her to also work for the
Clinton Foundation
. Where is the substance to all this?

There are standards in place, legal safeguards, so that a top brass-hat at
> the Pentagon can’t just hire his favorite secretary and make her a GS12.

A GS12
​ makes about $61,000 a year, seems pretty modest to me for a ​
deputy chief of staff
​ for the Secretary of State​,

probably could have make 10 times
​as much​
​ job.​

​> ​
> Her arrangement with Ms. Abedin is fire.  It is contract fraud.

​What fraud? No doubt the people at Fox News and
​ have invented some wonderful ​conspiracy theories, but the law deals in
facts and so do I.

> ​> ​
> But not contract fraud.  It doesn’t even apply to Trump for he has never
> held an elected office nor any government position.

Speaking of Trump, why are his business interests so shrouded in secrecy?
why doesn't he want us to see his tax records? Donald says he won't put his
business empire in a blind trust
​if he wins ​
but instead will let his wife and kids run it
​. Makes any conflict interest Hillary may have seem pretty trivial.  ​

> ​>…they all accept campaign contributions…
> > But they don’t sell government favors for them.

​And neither did Hillary. ​

​I do admit however that one very sleazy character did donate to the
Clinton Foundation, in 2009 he gave $100,000 and his name was Donald
Trump. ​

>> >…Contributions to the Clinton foundation help millions of people but
>> ​Hillary doesn't get a nickel of the money…
> ​> ​
> I see.  Can you prove that?

​Hillary shouldn't have to prove her innocence, but never mind it doesn't
matter because yes I can prove it. Outside audits of the Clinton Foundation
from 1998 through 2014 are online, and the IRS tax forms are available too,
look for yourself:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-report ​

​And if that's not good enough you can see Hillary's personal tax returns
and that of her husband going all the way back to 1977, see for yourself:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/ ​

And you can also find the tax returns of Tim Kaine, her VP running mate. By
the way, do you know where I can find Trump's tax returns? I've been trying
to find them for some time but even mighty Google can't help me for some
reason. It's almost as if somebody had something to hide.

​> ​
> Having a family charity puts the burden on the recipient of contributions
> to prove there is no connection between the charity and government access,
> no connection of any kind between anything in the family charity and the
> candidate

​There is no law that I've heard of that demands such a thing. And why
didn't anybody make a big deal about the Bush family charity, the Points of
Light foundation, during not one but 2 ​presidential administration?

> ​>>​
>> ​I ​
>> disagree, I believe it has everything to do with her opponent, you should
>> always vote for the least bad person who has a chance to win…
> > Ja, but how do we define the term “bad” please?

​I'll give you something far better than a definition, I'll give you
examples. having a administrator assistant whose husband likes to put
pictures of his penis
on Facebook is bad, starting a conventional war in Iraq is very bad, and
starting a nuclear war is apocalyptically

> ​> ​
> Illegal is bad.


> ​> ​
> Crazy is a different kind of bad.

​Yes it's a different kind of bad. If you're the guy who can tell
the captain of a Trident Nuclear Submarine what to do then craze is
*INFINITY* worse than illegal, and so is stupid.  ​

> >
>> ​>​
>> As I have said it is infinitely (and I don't use that word lightly) more
>> important to avoid a apocalyptically bad president than it is to elect a
>> great one….
> ​ ​

> ​> ​
> But not a criminal.

​It's true that being insane is not a crime and neither is being an
imbecile, but* WHO CARES*?   ​

> ​> ​
> Recall that not everyone believes that Mrs. Clinton’s rivals will use
> nukes.  I don’t think that is a big risk. Yes I know what he said.  But I
> don’t think he will do that, once he sees the alternatives,

Are ​you really willing to bet your life and the life of everyone ​
​you know on your hunch ​that Donald Trump is not as crazy and not as
stupid as he appears to be? My hunch is that if he had to choose between
looking foolish and destroying the world Donald would destroy the world.

> ​> ​
> The notion of voting for a criminal in order to escape the risk of nuclear
> weapons being used is illegitimate.

​Avoiding a nuclear war isn't a strong enough intensive?! ​

> ​> ​
> We should be working to take the nuclear football away from the president.

Spike, there is precisely a 0% chance of the president losing his control
of the nuclear football in the next 338
hours. Like it or not we must deal with the world that is not the world we
might want
and if he wins then
​as certain as day follows night ​
in 141 days Donald (who thinks he knows more about military strategy than
any General)
​will ​
get to play with the football instead of his Twitter account.

>> ​> ​
>> …The charges brought against the two are grotesquely ridiculously
>> unsymmetrical…

​> ​
> It isn’t that serious a charge really.  Fraud conviction, 1 to 5 in the
> big house,

​Is ordering somebody to murder a child because you don't like their father
a serious charge? How about torturing for fun?

> Those criticisms aren’t much about which one will make a better president
> ​Then what's the point of them? All I'm interest is finding which one
would be a dreadful president and ​and quite possibly the last president so
I can vote for the other one.

> ​>​
> The rest is irrelevant.  If the candidate is a criminal, we can’t elect,
> regardless of how bad is her opponent.
> ​Why can't we? I can find no evidence that Hillary has violated any law
and apparently no prosecutor can either, but I don't give a damn even if
she's a criminal because in the bad president game crazy and stupid
outranks illegal, and Donald is both and Hillary is neither.

I said months ago that I just didn't get it and I still don't
is anti-science
anti-free market anti-free speech
​and ​
anti-encryption, Trump is
far more secretive than Hillary and will have vastly more conflicts of
interest than Hillary ever could
And he's as dumb as a sack of rocks. In short Trump stands for everything
that Extropianism
doesn't, and
 yet it's Hillary the list really hates not Donald. I don't get it.

​ ​
John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160831/b55f9d04/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list