[ExI] Gilded Rage: Elon Musk and the Radicalization of Silicon Valley

[John Clark]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 11:53 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:


> *>…He's not a king yet**,** but he's certainly a king wannabe…*
>
>
>
> *> On this we agree.  Fortunately the founders foresaw this and wrote a
> constitution.  King wannabes help Americans love our constitution.*
>

*The Constitution is not going to save you because that's just a piece of
paper and a practical matter, the Constitution means what judges say it
means. And judges have no army or even police force to enforce their
decisions, and He Who Must Not Be Named has already simply ignored the
rulings of a lower court. He has not yet done so for the Supreme Court and
he probably won't need to because the Supreme Court is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of the executive branch.  *


> *> In 2016, a campaign worker Carter Page had businesses in Russia.  The
> CIA asked him to make a number of contacts, which he did.  The FBI noticed
> this and applied for a FISA warrant to put him under covert surveillance.
> The FBI asked the CIA if Page was one of theirs.  They replied to the
> affirmative.  The FBI inserted the word “not” into their reply and used
> that in the FISA application, which was granted, based on the falsified
> evidence.  The FBI gained access to the communications of a campaign worker
> of their own political adversary, using falsified evidence.*
>

*That's true. Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the error
was the result of "gross incompetence and negligence" not intentional
malfeasance or political bias, but I'm not sure if being stupid is better
than being evil. But I am sure that is NOT the first time the FBI did
something inappropriate, such things were rampant when J Edgar Hoover ran
the place.*

*> You claim the current POTUS will try to hold the Oval Office after his
> term expires, I shrug and say OK, let him.  No harm done.  SCOTUS swears in
> whoever won the 2028 election,*
>

*But who is that, who won? Let's see a 2028 scenario that I think is
entirely plausible.  He Who Must Not Be Named decides to run for a third
term, the constitution clearly says he can't do that but the Supreme Court
says that would be just fine with them, no problem whatsoever. Then, even
though the specifics are somewhat vague, He Who Must Not Be Named Justice
Department files criminal indictments against the 3 most popular Democrats
who are likely to get the nomination, so the Democrats are stuck with #4, a
dull colorless man. *

*Nevertheless the Democrat wins the popular vote by a significant margin,
however because of gerrymandering the Republicans control the majority of
state governments, and state governments are the ones that run and control
elections. And in states where the Democrat won they perform an
"investigation" and conclude there were irregularities so the results are
nullified and the state legislatures, which are run by Republicans, decide
that they and not the election will pick the people that are to be in the
Electoral College. Of course all of this is challenged by the Democrats but
the Supreme Court says what those Republican states did was A-OK with them,
no problem whatsoever. And so on January 20, 2029 He Who Must Not Be Named
is sworn in for his third term by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
and maintains possession of the nuclear football.*

*And I remind you that if the above happens it wouldn't be the first time
that **He Who Must Not Be Named tried very very hard to remain in power
even though he lost an election. *

*John K Clark  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251027/88ae40b0/attachment.htm>