[ExI] Trump suggests letting Iran 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Ben
Zaiboc via extropy-chat


>...You're as slippery as an eel in a bucket of soapy water,....

Ben as we say in chess, play the board, not the man.

>...when it comes to declaring any opposition to, or even criticism of, a
certain individual who has demonstrated, over and over and over again, his
blatant corruption, utter disregard for the rule of law and basic human
rights, and his total unfitness to lead a nation...

I quietly rejected your premise, but saw no value in debating yankee
politics with a non-US citizen.  So I let it go.  But I sensed you believe
the current POTUS is the most corrupt one in yank history. Oh we have had
worse, in recent memory.  I will forgive you for not knowing the details on
his successor/predecessor.  Seldom do we get evidence of wrongdoing from the
actual perpetrator outside the ScoobyDoo villain opining "...I would have
gotten away with it too, had it not been for those meddling kids."  We had a
rare real-life example of just such a confession when the previous POTUS
uttered this commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tOOv20Qqp4

This sets a record for corruption with a bigger margin than the one set
yesterday by Hurricane Isaias.  I can count the infractions if you wish, but
you can start with abuse of power.  If one listens carefully, one might be
able to vaguely detect a quid pro quo in the comment "...if the prosecutor's
not fired, you're not getting the money."  Recall the current POTUS was
impeached for an implied quid pro quo.  But his successor was not, for a
perfectly explicit one, which was the subject of his predecessor's request
that the Ukrainian president look into corruption.  If that comment about
the prosecutor isn't corruption, I fail to understand the term.

Second, a VP doesn't have the authority to demand concessions for funds
allocated by congress.  POTUS doesn't either, as was established in the
predecessor's impeachment hearings.

Third, it is improper to demand a foreign country make personnel changes.

Fourth, the threat-avoidance action was carried out: the son of a bitch got
fired.  (One must wonder how they worded his dismissal letter.)

Fifth, he implicated the sitting president.  I will freely admit we have no
evidence Obama knew what Joe was doing.  I suspect he did not.

One might ask the obvious: why would Biden commit these impeachable acts?
Could it be he was protecting his own revenue stream?  Might it have
something to do with that "....plus ten percent for the big guy..." perhaps?
Who is the big guy?  Andre the Giant?  Andre passed away in 1993.  So who is
this big guy please?

>...I'm completely baffled by your stance on this excuse for a human
being....

Taking no stance is not a stance, it is a no stance.  I take no stance on
the British prime minister either.

...

>... neutrality regarding this particular despicable creature fills me with
despair, I have to say... Ben

My apologies Ben.  It is not my intention to fill you with despair.  May you
soon rise above the dark clouds of despair and may joy fill your life once
more.

spike