[ExI] The Debates
spike66 at att.net
Fri Sep 16 16:48:29 UTC 2016
>… On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Debates
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:26 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
> >…Powell demonstrated he knew he was breaking the law…
>…I knew I was breaking the law when I gave an account of a baseball game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball…
I see, and did you ever take an oath of office to uphold the law? Neither did I. Neither did Trump. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Powell did.
>… Do you see a moral equivalence there?
No, sure don’t. If you had taken an oath of office and defied the law, then you, Sec. Powell and Sec. Clinton should be impeached forthwith.
>>… She couldn’t use the encrypted dot gov account that was actually set up for this sort of thing, because she would be accountable.
>…She could have set up a Gmail account using a phony name in about 45 seconds, but instead she instructed her ISIS friends to Email their sinister plans on how to destroy America to clintonemail.com <http://clintonemail.com> . What is wrong with this picture?
What is wrong with this picture is that this account would fail to follow the law on retention of records in about 45 seconds, which is needed to comply with Freedom of Information Act in about 45 seconds.
Note that it isn’t called Freedom of Information Suggestion, or Freedom of Information If Convenient. There is no ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ anywhere in that law, the term “frigging” is nowhere to be found in that act. It’s the law. High office holders take an oath and sign agreements on that. They have no option to “frigging” them away. It’s the law.
Had Mrs. Clinton put the State Department on bcc on everything into auto-archive, every sneaky account, every communication from every electronic device accidently smashed to shards with a hammer, every email including the actual literal yoga (if there is any of that) then we would never have needed any of this huge taxpayer expense and utter chaos that has already happened, is happening, and is yet to come, chaos which threatens to destabilize a nuclear-enabled government.
Had our own Secretary of State followed the law she took an oath to uphold, we would know who attacked the embassy and why; we would deal with the problem instead of blaming some hapless schmendrick who had nothing to do with it, resulting in the US government apologizing to the Middle East for something it did not do and cannot control.
John do you need more things wrong with this picture? I have a list, but it is tedious. I am working towards brevity.
> >…I am not excusing Trump for his craziness.
>…I don't think so Spike, if you vote for Johnson I think you are excusing Trump for his craziness, you are helping to give the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine to a madman…
Using that line of reasoning, voting for Johnson is excusing Mrs. Clinton for criminality and helping give the submarine keys to a lying criminal. The logic is strained, even disregarding the free states where we vote for whoever we want without risk of influencing who gets those keys. If the election is even close in California, New York or Texas, the other candidate has already won by a nearly historic landslide. Most of the US population is in free states.
I have heard that a vote for Johnson is equivalent to a half a vote for Trump, but the same argument would hold it is also half a vote for Clinton. I rather think of it as a full vote against the both of them.
> >…Hear the footsteps.
>…Look at the mushroom clouds. John K Clark
Note the previous time that argument was used, we got the Vietnam war out of the deal.
Johnson doesn’t wish to nuke anyone. He is our best shot at securing those nukes. He seems like the type who would not only hand over the keys, but would read the constitution and argue this authority never should have been in the executive branch to start with.
Hear the footsteps.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat