[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


>...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 do think there is something that needs to be defended against, Ben.  You
are right.  We have mechanisms in place for when a POTUS tests the limits of
that office's power: the supreme court.  Those guys read the constitution
and decide if the action is legal.

....
>
>> ... "....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...

That one isn't an intricacy.  It is outright corruption, the kind which is
seldom caught.  It would not have been, had not one of the participants been
an addict, who dropped off his laptop for repair, the repairman found what
he thought might have been child porn, turned it over to the FBI, the FBI
stamped it classified and hid it away.  However... some of the contents
leaked.  It was corruption.

>...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?...

No I am against buying Russian oil.

 >...Are you neutral on eroding NATO?

Demanding every NATO nation pay its share isn't eroding NATO, it is building
it up.  My take on it is that NATO over-relied on an ally which any casual
observer can see is charging full speed toward utter bankruptcy.  What if
the European nations do build up NATO, then suddenly the USA isn't just
reducing its involvement, it is eliminating it completely, because it can no
longer pay its soldiers?  No I am not neutral on compelling NATO nations to
step up their game, I favor it.

>...Are you neutral on somewhere between 1 and 2 million people being killed
in a totally unnecessary war...

I oppose totally unnecessary war.  

>... and on actually /encouraging/ the aggressor to continue killing people?

This is spin.  I agree, the US should never have been involved in the
Russia/Ukraine conflict and shouldn't be involved now.  We can do without
Russian oil.  Higher oil prices mean alternative energy sources have a
chance to compete, which is a good thing, because diversity really is our
strength when it comes to energy production.

>...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...

Sure.  But how do we scale it?  If we have evidence a POTUS was on the take,
getting 10% of some shady deal for some reason, how does that compare to
Roosevelt drawing the USA into WW2?  We don't know how to scale that.

>
> 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....

Ben when I see those kinds of examples, I blame those who allow their sons
to be choir boys.  Enabling that abuse is wrong.

>> ... 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....

I oppose siding with either of those combatants.  I will note that Ukraine
seems to be holding its own pretty well with reduced US support.  Good for
them.

>...Even if he does realise the global effects of his many terrible
decisions...

You proposed graphing (by some mysterious means) corruption.  Terrible
decisions are not corruption.  They are terrible decisions.  Two different
things.

>... The shit will really hit the fan when China finally gets round to
annexing Taiwan....

Why do you suppose that didn't happen Ben?  China can see its own
demographic problem: far too few young men, and far too many of them are the
only child.  China didn't annex Taiwan because they aren't entirely sure
they can take that island, and they saw what the USA navy did to the Iranian
navy.

>...To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't already happened, it's obvious
that nobody is going to stop them.
--
Ben

_______________________________________________

Why is that so obvious?  It isn't to me.  If they were convinced nobody
would interfere, they would likely have already invaded.  But it is far from
clear they wouldn't face navies from all over the world, for Taiwan is the
world's electronics factory.  The optimal time for that invasion has already
passed, and it gets less optimal with each passing day.

spike