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

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 10 October, 2026 1:04 PM
To: spike at rainier66.com
Cc: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Trump suggests letting Iran ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego

 

On Sat, Oct 10, 2026 at 12:03 PM <spike at rainier66.com <mailto:spike at rainier66.com> > wrote:

 

>>They were too stupid to figure that out….

 

> THAT’s IT!  You hit it John.  Everyone other than you is just too stupid.  Such insight.

 

Thank you. In early 2016 I said that any libertarian (small l) person that voted for the Libertarian (big L) party candidate was either stupid, or hypocritical about the strength of their libertarian (small l) convictions, or both; because if they did that then we would end up with the most anti-libertarian president in American history. I am very proud of having said that because events have proven I was 100% correct….

 

 

But to assign 100% correct to your prediction requires that you assign 100% confidence in your premise, which I dispute.  In that same timeframe, you also predicted that if Mrs. Clinton lost, it would increase our risk of nuclear war with Russia.  Now we know it decreased the risk: it went from some unknown but not zero risk down to zero.  So… was your prediction a lie?  Do elaborate please.

 

>…I also predicted that if Donald won the 2016 presidential election then, regardless of the results of the 2020 election, he would not leave office gracefully as every other President had done in the nation's history, instead early 2021 would be a nightmarish Constitutional shit show. And I was right about that too….

 

On the contrary, it was not a nightmarish constitutional shit show.  So do we count that as a lie?

  

 

 

>…I don't know if Hillary Clinton would've been a good president, she might very well have been a lousy president, but she wouldn't have been an apocalyptically dreadful president

 > How do you know? 

 

>…Because in over 200 years we've never had a president or a presidential candidate that would place astronomically enormous tariffs on friendly nations, sue newspapers and book publishers for tens of billions of dollars for saying things about him that he didn't like, or stage a coup d'etat when he lost an election. But all that changed when King Donald I made his royal entrance to the political landscape. 

 

John K Clark

 

You shifted the question away from Hillary Clinton.  You claimed that Hillary Clinton would not have been an apocalyptically dreadful president.  How do you know?  Is that prediction a lie?  Or an opinion?  If we may assign 100% truth to our opinions, then contrary opinions become lies.  Is that where you wish to go?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20261010/3dc738b7/attachment.htm>