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

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 10/10/2026 00:53, spike wrote:
> -----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.


Very well.
Your answers to certain pointed questions are as slippery as an eel in a bucket of soapy water.


>> ...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.


Perhaps it's matter of debate how bad one specific corrupt action is, but there's no doubting that the current POTUS has committed many many more corrupt actions than any other. None of the other presidents have even come close to the blatant contempt for the law that he displays, and under nobody else have the mechanisms of democracy been so badly damaged. You yourself have repeatedly said that the constitution will defend you. You therefore must think that there is something that needs to be defended against.


>   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?


As you say, I have very little to no understanding of the intricacies of internal politics in america, I'm looking at the international situation and the most extreme examples of abuse I see in the news.

This morning, I found out that Trump has done a complete about-face on Russia and is now proposing to support Russia in their war on the Ukraine by buying russian oil. Even knowing how unstable the man is, my jaw literally dropped. You may say you are neutral on the Ukraine, but are you neutral on enabling russia's (or rather Putin's) revanchism? Are you neutral on eroding NATO? Are you neutral on somewhere between 1 and 2 million people being killed in a totally unnecessary war, and on actually /encouraging/ the aggressor to continue killing people?

Perhaps it would be a good idea to enumerate all the corrupt actions, abuses of power, illegal acts and decisions that have negatively impacted the world, for each president that it might be worth doing so. Then draw a graph showing the results.


> ...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 is a stance. Of course it is. Try telling people that you are neutral on the issue of catholic priests sexually abusing choirboys, see if they think you 'have no stance' on the issue.


>> ... 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.


I see little chance of that, while the US president sides with Russia in its war against a democratic country, simply because he thinks that very slightly reduced petrol prices will make him more popular in the mid-term elections. Even if he does realise the global effects of his many terrible decisions, it's pretty obvious that he simply doesn't care. The shit will really hit the fan when China finally gets round to annexing Taiwan. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, it's obvious that nobody is going to stop them.
-- 
Ben