[ExI] ?What would ?Kim Jong-un? do??

[SR Ballard]

1. Trump is smart because he's rich.

Trump definately inherited more than $1M, and his current worth is unknown
because he will not release his tax returns.

2. Mainstream everything didn't support Trump.

I think FOX news is still regarded as Mainstream Media. FOX news did
promote him, even if they mostly just focused on trashing Clinton.
Destroying the opponent in a two-party race is still a form of underhanded
promotion of the other candidate. It leads to one of three scenarios: 1)
Clinton is disgraced so you vote 3rd party, b) Clinton is disgraced so you
don't vote, c) Clinton is disgraced so you vote Trump. [Or possibly Clinton
is less disgraced than Trump in the long run, so you pinch your nose
distastefully and vote Clinton]

And in another way of looking at it, Trump tapped into a disenfranchised
demographic who have long been denied a voice in the American Political
system, and said things that they have been wanting to say, but have been
socially prevented from saying, despite their deeply held belief that these
things are true.

Further than that, many people who voted for Hillary feel disenfranchised
by his win because they did not (do not) understand the electoral college
system. I don't know how much of that can be blamed on the voters
themselves. I think I'm probably quite a bit younger than many people on
the list, because I've read stories of some of y'all having disagreements
before I was even born, but in the same vein, that also means I might know
something you don't. And that something is that Civics Class died sometime
between 1983 when my mom dropped out, and 2012 when I graduated High
School. I was never taught about how elections and other political
"machines" worked. I learned it because I was interested in politics, and I
worked during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns at a local political office.

3a. Trump has not "maintained an approval rating in excess of Obama's". He
began lower, and now is trending within the margin of error.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/presidential-approval-numbers/

3b. "No source, even Fox, gave Trump net positive coverage"

Well, you know, maybe there is a reason for that?

The inevitable consequences of the "Media hates Trump" argument is that he
gets bad coverage because of stupid people, and that their continued and
intensifying negative coverage is because every news outlet is getting
stupider. Such arguments inevitably lead towards some form of tyranny,
usually under the branding of "fairness" or censure/reproach in general --
because instead of admitting that the reality is failing to conform to
one's superior conception of it, clearly the stupid media need superior
wisdom imposed upon them by force.

4. Increasing GDP growth "via renegotiating trade agreements
disadvantageous to the USA".

Like what exactly?

If GDP growth is going to be some exciting contest of how good a president
is, your very same website shows it at nearly 4% under Obama in or around
2015.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

5. Trump ended the Korean War.

The Korean War is not "over" any more than it has been in the last decade.
We had the summit, and still, the war is not "over" yet. Blowing up one
military installation, no matter what it once contained, is the end of a
war, regardless of who blew it up or why.

>What on earth are you talking about?!
>Trump hasn't ended anything yet. If
>somebody as smart as Obama or Bill
>Clinton were going to talk with the
>leader of North Korea I would be filled
>with optimism, but with somebody as
>brain dead dumb as Trump I am filled
>with dread.

Well, I'm actually somewhat hopeful and optimistic about the possible
outcome. NK relations have been stagnant, as far as I can tell, since
before I was born. Perhaps a nudge, regardless of intent, will possibly get
things moving in the right direction.

People severely freaked out about Trump meeting with Kim, but in all
seriousness, it would be better to re-normalize relations, if for no other
reason than it would make sanctions, if we were forced to return to them,
to be more impactful. NK hasn't ever experienced life without US sanctions,
so if they got used to it, it might mean more if we take it away.

And besides all of the antics, and despite how people might interpret it
politically and morally, Trump really admires something about Kim, in a
very genuine way. It's not fake because he doesn't ham it up enough. So he
will probably act in a way that ultimately brings the two nations closer to
normalized diplomatic relations. It's good for business.

6. People will continue to be surprised as things continue to "just happen"
to benefit the USA (IRAN).

I don't really see what pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement really
accomplished? Sure, it would only have existed for a few more years, and
perhaps we would have liked to have stricter limits on the agreement, but
those could have been negotiated from within the confines of the agreement,
in the form of amendments. Hell, we could have even pulled out of the
agreement, using the mechanism from within the agreement. Pulling out the
way we did does not limit Iran's nuclear capabilities, has emboldened their
rhetoric and actions, and has proven that the US can't be trusted to keep
its word, even in vital matters.

7. NASA should do NASA-type thing.

Well of course. Space exploration serves a number of important functions.
It gives people hope & dreams. It presents challenges to be overcome with
amazing new technologies. It elevates that social and cultural status of
scientists and researchers. All important things.

8. Being Extropian meant favoring free markets.

Doesn't the list still favor a highly competitive free market system?
That's been my impression when I have read discussions for the last number
of years. What other model would really fit?

9. Being Extropian meant a balanced budget.

Well, isn't it though? High debt is bad for national security in a number
of ways, some of which are psychological, in both citizens and politicians.
Money isn't actually "real" but it is a very well established social
fiction that we should take great care in tampering with.

9. Trump doesn't read his briefings.

President Trump is declining to read his daily brief and is instead having
> officials orally brief him on certain issues
> Reading the report is not Trump’s chosen “style of learning"
> Intelligence analysts have been recommended to keep their daily briefings
> with Trump short, limiting them to three topics and keeping their findings
> to a single page.



http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373124-trump-prefers-oral-report-to-reading-daily-intel-briefing-report

As they huddle around the desk, Trump likes to pore over visuals — maps,
> charts, pictures and videos, as well as “killer graphics,” as CIA Director
> Mike Pompeo phrased it.
> Intelligence officials were prepared to deliver daily briefings to Trump
> throughout the transition period, but the president-elect often turned them
> away, usually agreeing to sit for briefings only once or twice per week.
> “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same
> thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” Trump
> told Fox News last December.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-president-trump-consumes--or-does-not-consume--top-secret-intelligence/2017/05/29/1caaca3e-39ae-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.1b5de5ceba6c

The early briefing sessions had a more freewheeling quality, according to
> current and former administration officials. Five or more White House aides
> might join Trump for the briefing, in addition to his briefer and
> intelligence officials.
> The meetings were often dominated by whatever topic most interested the
> president that day. Trump would discuss the news of the day or a tweet he
> sent about North Korea or the border wall — or anything else on his mind,
> two people familiar with the briefings said.
> On such days, there would only be a few minutes left — and the briefers
> would have barely broached the topics they came to discuss, one senior U.S.
> official said.
> “He often goes off on tangents during the briefing and you’d have to rein
> him back in,” one official said.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/breaking-with-tradition-trump-skips-presidents-written-intelligence-report-for-oral-briefings/2018/02/09/b7ba569e-0c52-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html?utm_term=.e5c5bfb61869

National Security Council (NSC) officials include President Trump's name in
> memos in as many paragraphs as possible to increase the chance he reads
> them, Reuters reported Wednesday.
> NSC officials insert the president's name in "as many paragraphs as we can
> because he keeps reading if he's mentioned," the report said.
> It added that Trump likes short, single-page memos and likes to use visual
> aides.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/333788-nsc-official-include-trumps-name-as-often-as-possible-so-he-reads

10. If Trump loses, he won't leave.

>My biggest worry has nothing to do with
>technology. If Trump loses in 2020, even
>if its by a landslide, I really don't think
>he will go quietly, I think he will say it
>was a fake election and somebody will have to
>literally drag him out of the Oval Office. And
>I'm not sure that will be possible. A recent
>poll said half the Republicans would be in favor
>of postponing the election if Trump said we should,
>and I'm sure they would be in favor of nullifying
>the election results too if they don't go their
>way regardless of what the Constitution says.

In a certain way I agree with you, but on the other hand, I'm not so sure
the concern is valid. As it stands, only about 20% of American citizens
voted for Trump, or about 25% of adults.

Since the election, quite a few people have expressed regret, such as an
illegal immigrant pastor who told his daughter to vote for Trump and is now
facing deportation, American Steel and Aluminum, etc. So these people who
did vote for him, generally are not supporting him now (with the exception
of that pastor being deported)... Additionally, there were a number of
people who voted for him not because they felt they were voting "for" him,
but rather because they felt obligated to vote "against" Hillary.

So even though he probably had many supporters who didn't vote, many of the
people who voted for him can't correctly be considered "supporters". I also
wonder if those who didn't vote for him actually feel strongly enough to
take action to promote or protect him, if that might lead to severe bodily
harm for him.

And beyond even those considerations, it seems roughly that the "Magic
Numbers" are 1/3 from what I can recall. 1/3 for, 1/3 against, 1/3 neutral
is the basis of many civil wars and well-orchestrated rebellions. I'm not
convinced that he has the "magic numbers" he would need.

> Regardless of what even the majority wants,
> the constitution is still the law.

This is true, and not true. If the majority wants, the majority can get the
law changed. If the president wants, he can declare martial law where lots
of things work really different from a normal day in the States. If enough
people choose to ignore the law, then it doesn't really matter if it
exists. For example, it was not legal for the South to form the
Confederacy. The American Revolution was not legal. And yet here we are.

>>the constitution is not a law of
>> physics, it can be violated…

>Sure, if you win the civil war. I wouldn’t bet
>on anyone’s odds, since they would be up against
>those who hold that document as sacred as a law
>of physics, and we are a well-armed militia.
>The constitution is what gives a president
>authority in the first place.

Assuming there -was- a civil war, rather than a guerrilla movement. I don't
think that it's likely, but people might roll over and accept it, "outrage
fatigue" as people have started to say lately.

And the laws of physics aren't "sacred" really. They seem to be literally
unbreakable.

If the president is trying not to be a president anymore, then the
constitution doesn't really matter, does it? Besides that, in a very real
sense, might makes right. As the person with the football, he's someone
with a very large amount of power.

Do I think he would even try? I think he would flirt with it, but
ultimately would have the good sense to understand that if he messed it up
he would be looking at a whole lot worse than bankruptcy.

>keep in mind the founders specifically designed
>the constitution to prevent someone from making
>himself king. [...] So… they put in place a
>system that specifically prevents that.  They
>did a marvelous job.

This is true, as long as people accept the social fiction that is the
constitution. The Constitution is just as real as money, for better or for
worse.

>there is no redo mechanism in the constitution

There isn't, but we do have the elastic clause, and that's almost as good.

>he can insist [on a redo] all he wants, but there
>is no legal mechanism to make that happen

That may be true BUT all it takes is one nut-job fanatic with a gun to
shoot the "new" president.

I'm not saying that it's LIKELY that anything like that will happen, but it
certainly is possible. It could happen, however unlikely.

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:26 AM, <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* spike at rainier66.com <spike at rainier66.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 2, 2018 6:13 AM
> *To:* 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Cc:* spike at rainier66.com
> *Subject:* RE: [ExI] ?What would ?Kim Jong-un? do??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Dave Sill
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:04 AM
> *To:* Extropy chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] ?What would ?Kim Jong-un? do??
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
>
> We saw Rogue One.  We know it can be done, we know there is enormous
> motive.  So what can we do?
>
>
>
> >…We need to actively share videos that demonstrate what can be faked.
> Like:
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0&t=3s
>
>
>
> The downside, of course, is that we'll end up unable to believe what we
> see and hear. When the piss tape is inevitably released Trump will say it's
> fake and...well...who's to say?
>
>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh the potential for gags here, oh my it makes my butt hurt just thinking
> about it.  Now if we can just prevent that whole civil war business…
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm, boy this quickly gets knee deep in ethical considerations.  Mama is
> on her deathbed, medics say there is no hope, she has a few days at best.
> Her heartbreak is that her wayward son eschewed the religion of his mother,
> went his own way and wrecked his life, now he’s doing hard time.  The other
> children make a video of him telling his mother he repented of his sins, he
> is leading a prison ministry, even the guards are giving up their sinful
> ways, the parole board has set up an interview, etc.
>
>
>
> It is wrong.  But at least their mother dies with a smile on her face.
> Hmmmm…
>
>
>
> On the other hand, what if there really is a heaven, she get there, looks
> down, her son is the meanest bastard in the prison yard, covered in big
> ugly tattoos, leading a gang, etc.  Then she gets so pissed she goes and
> haunts the kids who were just trying to do good deeds with their fancy
> “computers” and “videos”, lying to a dying old lady, SHAME bitches!  etc.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180711/0dba900c/attachment.html>