[ExI] The Bomb verses a Email server
danust2012 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 19 15:24:45 UTC 2016
On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:18 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >…Come on Spike, do you really need to invent wild conspiracy theories involving an international crime ring run by the Clintons to explain violence directed against Americans in an Islamic country during a civil war? John K Clark
> I do need some kind of wild conspiracy theory to explain why the embassy was not evacuated when we knew there were credible threats. I need some kind wild conspiracy theory to explain the refusal to turn over the server when there was a legal subpoena, why the extraordinary effort to get rid of some of it (Nixon’s 18 minutes of audio and Clinton’s thousands of yoga routines) when it was perfectly clear what that would look like, why the angry “What difference does it make” outburst, why we seem to be fighting in the Syrian civil war on the wrong side with nothing to gain, why the concussion-amnesia wiped away memory of the other dozen communication devices but not the 123 Deal, why the constantly changing story on that server, why none of the stories make sense even now.
I question the adjective 'wild' above. In some cases, a conspiracy explanation seems not wild at all.
> These are not wild conspiracy theories, they are all just questions. Is it possible to have a conspiracy question? Note that people asking conspiracy questions led to the discovery that the Watergate burglary traced all the way up to the Whitehouse.
Indeed. I believe, though, one has to be careful when posing a conspiracy explanation to make sure a) that the phenomenon can't be more reasonably explained in other ways and b) to look for independent evidence for a conspiracy.
With the Clinton server issue, I don't know what's being hidden. My guess is Clinton wanted to have as much control over information as possible -- that the whole thing about convenience is a baldfaced lie. I'm guessing she didn't think about the security implications because her focus was on keeping her emails off government servers where they might be subject to scrutiny by people she couldn't control.
Does this amount to much in this election? Maybe it should. I can see the argument being made that if she's hiding this, she's probably hiding much more -- much more that's relevant. That's not a wild conspiracy theory. If you catch someone in a blatant lie about something important and they brush it off, it's not unreasonable to believe they lie about other important stuff.
How does does weigh against everything else? That depends on how much weight is placed on other things. My big problem in this discussion -- aside from it being carried on here and for far too long -- is that one person is completely trivializing it and seems to not even want to admit Clinton has any problems of note. This all seems to be motivated by a blind fear of Trump. (And I don't look forward to a Trump presidency either. I'm not worried about his ruining the prestige of the office as I think the office should be abolished along with all its powers.* I'm more worried about thing he might do with the power that others won't resist, such as putting in more trade restrictions and increasing military spending -- because, you know, the US government only spends more, right now, than the next five or ten nations on the military.)
Sample my Kindle books via:
* This isn't impossible -- anymore than the fall of the Soviet Empire was impossible. It doesn't require a legal change or working within the system. It merely requires enough people simply disobey and ignore whoever's in the office. And that applies to the rest of the government too. (Of course, it might get harder to do if one provides the president or government with more tools that don't require agreement or collusion -- Anders' rational fear of a turnkey totalitarian state.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat