[ExI] Trump on ​linear induction motors ​

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:20 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
​>>> ​it was always clear as a bell that somebody WILL have ​that​ much​ power
>>> and the only ​control​ we had on November 8 was ​to decide ​if that
>>> somebody was a imbecile or not. >>
> ​> ​We don't decide that -- not in any meaningful way.

> ​Some of us tried to, some of us didn't.​


You tried to keep the system in place by participating in a rigged game that you as a voter have zero impact over. In fact, unless you lived in a district where it came down to a handful of votes deciding, you had little chance of having any impact on the outcome.

Now, sure, your shrill antics here and elsewhere might've influenced other voters, though I doubt it. Your vituperative tone might just as well as shifted things the other way: more people either not voting or not voting the way you wanted.


> ​> ​It's a mug's game to think that power can be so concentrated
>> and somehow it will be unlikely for someone bad to grab hold
>> of it. Constantly ignoring this problem too is like arguing
>> who should captain the Titanic after the iceberg hit.>

​> And that would have been a meaningful argument because a better
> captain would have made sure the lifeboats were not half full
> when he launched ​them but would instead have overfilled them
> which could have been safely done in such a glass smooth calm
> sea. ​There are bad situations and there are worse situations
> and there is a difference between the two.​

It's ridiculous to believe Clinton would've cared about the lifeboats in this case. Her political career seems to show she's none too worried about the "little people."

> ​> ​Do you believe someone power-hungry like Clinton would be
>> better?>

> ​Of course she would have been better and so would you and
> so would everybody on this list! But don't get too bigheaded
> over that complement, being a better presadent than Trump
> is setting a very low bar.

Better at what? I think most people on this list have a better moral compass than Clinton or Trump, but in terms of Clinton having a better moral compass than Trump, nope. What she was and is better at is not saying all the wrong things in public. (And she's not even great at that. She comes off as rehearsed -- as someone who definitely isn't saying what's she's thinking. Most other politicians at her level -- Obama, either Bush, her husband, etc. don't come off that way.)

> ​> ​Why?

​> Because she's not ignorant, not jaw droppingly​ ​​stupid, and
> because she is not ​Vladimir Putin​'s puppet. Oh and also
> because for her the truth was not a totally alien concept,
> she'd actually been known to engage in truth telling on
> occasion, but Trump is so accustomed to lying he will do it
> automatically even when the truth would serve his interests
> better.


Again, not signs of moral superiority here or even that she would be less dangerous. Some make the case that an intelligent sociopath is far far worse than an unintelligent narcissist.

But this is rephrasing the part of my post who edited out in a sort of Stalinist fashion:

"Again, this is a reason for a [typo removed] radical critique of power -- rather than just whining over Trump winning. Do you believe someone power-hungry like Clinton would be better? Why? She's craftier, knows when not to say whatever thought crosses her mind, and already has a fairly bloody track record. (Granted, Trump will likely surpass her there, but that's because he (or his henchmen) is (are) now the one ordering drone strikes -- not because she had any sympathy for the victims of empire.)"


> ​> ​Let's try an analogy. Yes, some dictators are worse than
>> others. That, however, should never be an argument for
>> dictatorship. >

​> But it obviously is a argument that some dictators are
> worse than others! So if you live in a dictatorship but had
> the opportunity to decide between a bad dictator and a
> worse one the decision is obvious, or at least it should be.
> I agree it's not the ideal solution but the perfect shouldn't
> be the enemy of the better because you're never going to live
> in a perfect world. Perfect is out of reach, you're just
> going to have to settle for better.

Choosing dictators is also out of reach. You're letting a fantasy of your electoral power, which is near zero, dominate the discussion. If you want to reduce governmental power -- to prevent ever worse people from getting control of it -- then the axis of discussion has to go beyond the Frick and Frack choices here.

> ​> ​Some masters treated their slaves worse than others too. I
>> trust you wouldn't have argued for merely having better
>> masters over abolishing slavery.>

> ​But I would argue that because ​some masters treated their
> slaves worse than others ​some slaves were less miserable
> than others, and I would prefer to be one of the less
> miserable ones.​

But you wouldn't have argued for abolishing slavery because you don't want to make "the perfect the enemy of the good"?


> ​> ​There were reasons not to want Clinton in that you have
>> ignored. When I talked to folks here in Seattle who didn't want her in,>

> ​They ​must have been hard to find in Seattle​, that's Clinton country,​

Actually, Sanders and Stein country in my neighborhood. Though, happily, there are many anarchists here too.

> ​> ​none of them mentioned her insecure email server.

> ​That certainly wasn't the case on this list.​ ​It all seems comically trivial now. ​

You kept mentioning it. I mentioned several times here that the email server was not a big issue among these folks. The big issue was her bloody track record. The trail of bodies across the globe kind of matters more to some than email servers.


> ​> ​They feared her militarism, her love of police power, and her
>> coziness with corporate elites.>

> ​And the fools ​actually thought Trump would score better on that ?!

No, but they didn't ignore that. You did. You kept talking about the email server here. You minimized all problems Clinton had here. I don't recall you ever posing her as a "real scumbag with bloody hands, but not as bad as Trump." Instead, you seemed like a Clinton partisan: she did little objectionable by your lights. Folks I talked to here didn't want Trump in either.

(There were Trump supporters I talked to too, though they were mostly alt-right assholes.)


> Or maybe they thought they made some sort of grand historical
> gesture by voting for the Libertarian guy who's name now escapes
> me as it has to nearly everyone in the country. Oh well I guess
> you can find fruitcakes everywhere even ​in ​Seattle​.​ ​

It's good to see you're dismissive of people you disagree with. Don't bother even trying to figure them out. Just continue scolding everyone you disagree with. That'll change their minds. And that'll give you insights into why they do what they do.


> ​​>> ​No please don't try, not if you think increasing ​the defense
>>> budget by 78 billion dollars will decrease the elite's desire to project force. >>

> ​> ​Where have I said that? Reread what I wrote. Do I have to explain
>> it to you? I want the military abolished. Is that clear?>

​> No that is not clear, if It were I'd understand why you didn't seem
> to care that somebody who felt almost the exact opposite of
> everything you believe in would be the most powerful person in the
> world because the alternative was not perfect. Perhaps you're too
> perfect for this world but I am not.​

You live in a fantasy land where such power can exist and rarely be harnessed for the wrong purposes.


> ​>​ the numbers support you here. Defense spending went down under
>> Obama for several years.  It by a huge amount -- and, no doubt,
>> some of this was merely pulling more forces out of Iraq.>

> ​Merely? In our everyday macro-world  ​(lets not involve quantum
> mechanics in the discussion right now) things always happen for
> a reason, and what happened is the US military budget went down.

My point: It might have been special draw down from ending an expensive occupation -- not a long term cut that'll stick. I could be wrong here. 


> Don't expect that to happen under Trump.

Not if the Democrats were to take the House and Senate. Then he might have to go along with whatever budget imperatives they have. I'm surprised it happened under Obama. (I recall a few years ago looking at the 1990s and not seeing any cuts then. But I wouldn't be too quick to praise Obama here. To me, two semi-good things he did were somewhat open up relations with Cuba and also with Iran -- making wars less likely in the latter case. And please don't tell me. I know Trump has tried to undermine both of these. Please don't be so fucking idiotic to think I'm unaware of that you sad little prick.;)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170629/7e7ab0dc/attachment.html>