[ExI] The Clinton Foundation

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 15:05:57 UTC 2016

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

​> ​
> As I have said repeatedly, presidents shouldn’t make the call on nukes

​And as I have said more than once it makes not one bit of difference if
they should or shouldn't because presidents *DO* make the call on nukes and
they will continue to do so.

> ​> ​
> It was set up that way so that we can respond quickly in an attack.  But…
> we now have early warning systems and instant communications.  The reason
> we originally set up that system has passed.  John, you have made the case
> that this system will not change, but I argue that it can and probably will:

​Probably? Well OK, the possibility that will happen is not zero, it's
greater than that, it's about the same as the possibility that all the air
molecules in the room you're in right now through random motion will
suddenly end up on the other side of the room and you suffocate in
a vacuum. It could happen but probably won't.

> ​> ​
> If the congress passes a bill to take back that football (and I hope they
> do) the president has the option of vetoing that bill.  However… a
> determined senate can do it anyway.  It requires a 2/3 vote to override a
> veto.

​Spike,  if you're willing to stake your life on the possibility of that
happening in the next 4 years then you are one fearless man and should
consider a career change to jumping cars on motorcycles.

> He
> ​[Johnson] ​
> related that in his view, we should replace the income tax with a
> value-added tax (and so forth) but then added a key phrase that was music
> to my ears: US presidents don’t do that, the House does.

But US presidents can veto a tax bill the House passes, and in the real
world we live in a US presidents also has considerable political power to
pressure House members to vote the way he wants, not total power but quite
considerable. ​

>> ​>​
>> It's just so asymmetrical, we've got existential issues on the one side
>> and obscure aids who may or may not have filed the proper government
>> paperwork on the other. And the paperwork wins! I just don't get it.
> > It is more than improper or incomplete paperwork.  In contract law.

I still don't consider a contract dispute between an obscure government
employee and her employer to be an existential issue, but never mind, it
you want to talk about contract law lets talk about it. Trump is being sued
in hundreds of separate lawsuits for violating the construction contract he
signed and not paying people what he promised them he would pay:


Trump is being sued for not living up to the contract he made with
thousands of poor students signed up at his ridiculous Trump "University"
and bilking them out of $40,000,000:


Trump's modeling agency is being sued for violating work contracts and
 “fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of U.S. immigration and labor


John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160902/17348d69/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list