[ExI] > Taiwan is standing strong

Mon Mar 16 21:25:57 UTC 2020

The only way in which Trump can even remotely be said to be
directly responsible for the government's response to covid is that he cut
the CDC budget.

This was not a uniquely Trumpian mistake. In all likelihood, given the same
realities on the ground, any hypothetical Republican President [and many
hypothetical Democrat Presidents] would have done the same. There is no
meaningful sense in which the election result can be said to have
contributed to the current health crisis.

Doing so is not, in normal times, an act of particular political or
practical significance. No one sounded meaningful alarm bells while it was
happening, and it's entirely possible Trump didn't even think about it for
any longer than it took to assess the general capability of the civil
servant who made the recommendation, if even that.

He does need to stop shooting his mouth off at press conferences, though. I
understand what he's trying to do - reassure a worried nation with
confidence and projected power. The problem is that's the wrong emotional
posture. That works for military and geopolitical threats, but this is more
of a case for calm measured leadership. And, to put it mildly, reassuring a
worried nation with calm, measured leadership is *not* Trump's strong suit.
At his best he projects power and confidence, and does so very effectively,
but *not* precision, measure, or self-control. He should leave that to
Pence, who is noticeably better at it.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 1:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *John Clark via extropy-chat
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] > Taiwan is standing strong
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:48 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> *John do you see any significant difference between the two mainstream
> parties*
>
>
>
> *>…GOOD GOD YES! *Except that the Republicans aren't mainstream anymore,
> nowadays they're America's Fascist Party…
>
>
>
> Again with the deities.  Putting a different name on them doesn’t change
> their spending habits.  Apparently we have two fascist parties now, for
> they are both spending money like the allied troops are approaching from
> all directions.
>
>
>
> >> I don’t accept your notion that borrowing can continue forever either.
>
>
>
> >…Why not?
>
>
>
> Because it leads to the obvious next step: if we can borrow forever, why
> do we pay taxes at all?  Just borrow it all.  Better yet, borrow more than
> that, buy up things of lasting value, pay back never.
>
>
>
> >…It's worked fine for nearly 200 years because improved technology lead
> to increasing productivity…
>
>
>
> Does the scheme fail when technology fails to keep increasing
> productivity?  What if the markets for all that productivity fails?
>
>
>
> >…which means the dollar I borrow today can be paid back tomorrow with a
> dollar that is easier for me to obtain…
>
>
>
> For YOU to obtain?  John didn’t you tell us you retired recently?  You do
> not need to obtain anything.  The next generation, which is smaller and
> earns less than you do must obtain those dollars to pay the debt we ran up
> before we retired.
>
>
>
>
>
> >…Because the Democrats made a mistake and didn't take computer security
> as seriously as they should have…
>
>
>
> So they were the ones who slew thousands?  Or is it up to millions?
>
>
>
> >…but if I foolishly forget to lock my front door that doesn't mean it's
> OK for you to come in and steal everything I have…
>
>
>
> Previously you told us it was all just office gossip.  But before that it
> somehow got whats-his-name elected which has slain thousands and is heading
> for the millions.  So office gossip was stolen, which no one apparently
> ever read (did you?  Neither did I) and somehow this influenced an election?
>
>
>
> Methinks there are some steps missing in your proof.
>
>
>
>
>
> >…What are you talking about, when Russia hacked the Democrats…
>
>
>
> How do we know the Russians did this?  The “evidence” cited by our FBI was
> Russian comments inserted here and there.  One of the IT team was Ukrainian
> and is fluent in Russian.  So we had a few Russian comments in a pile of
> office gossip which no one ever read, when the party refused to give the
> server to the FBI.  The FBI got it after the fact from CloudStrike, an IT
> company headed by a Ukrainian who hates Russia with a passion seldom seen.
>
>
>
> So I am back to: How do we know the Russians did this?
>
>
>
> >…Putin got something of incredible value, his boy in the White House…
>
>
>
> How do we know office gossip had anything to do with either boy?  Are we
> not overlooking the perfectly obvious please?
>
>
>
>
>
> >…Assange's actions will result in the death of thousands and perhaps
> millions of people and I stand by every word of that statement…
>
>
>
> *> **Have you any evidence of that notion?*
>
>
>
>
>
> >…On February 26 Trump said there were 15 cases of COVID-19 …
>
>
>
> {…Cutting a full paragraph having to do with covid, nothing to do with
> Julian Assange.}
>
>
>
> >…Did Julian Assange have half a brain?
>
>
>
> Do we have a trace of evidence Assange had any role in spreading covid?
> Do explain that please, starting with he published some office gossip, then
> fill in some steps between that and covid slays thousands.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>…Assange … must have known nobody would perform more incompetently in a
> crises than Donald Trump…
>
>
> *> Evidence please?  How would he know that?*
>
>
>
> >…Oh I don't know,... having less inflation adjusted money now then he had
> decades ago when he was given money by his daddy, owning a casino and
> failing to make money off of it, and 6 bankruptcies might have given him a
> clue, or just listening to the man talk for 5 minutes…
>
>
>
> Assange’s father has casinos?
>
>
>
> John I am not asking about casinos, I am wanting to know how you get from
> Julian Assange publishing office gossip to a virus slaying thousands.  This
> is as dramatic a leap as Fermat writing that he had discovered a marvelous
> proof but it was too large to fit in the margin.
>
>
>
> Are we not overlooking the perfectly obvious please?
>
>
>
>
>
> >…So... do you really think publishers are in the habit of publishing
> anything and everything anybody sets before them?
>
>
>
> Online publishing is free.  The content is free.  The content was
> political.  Of course Assange will publish everything he can get his paws
> on.  That’s what he does.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>…And although it received far less publicity the fact is the Republican
> National Committee was also hacked by Vladimir Putin's goons…
>
>
>
> *> **Evidence? *
>
>
>
> Russia Hacked 'Older' Republican Emails, FBI Director Says
> <https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican-emails-fbi-director-says/>
>
>
>
>
> Republicans also hacked by Russia
> <https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html>
>
>
>
> Did the Russians give it to Assange?  How do we know?
>
>
>
>
>
> >…I see nothing contradictory in it and this certainly wouldn't be the
> first time careers and lives have been ruined by gossip …
>
>
>
>  > Trivial office gossip killed thousand or millions now?  Do break down
> this line of reasoning step by step please,
>
>
>
> Step#1)Trivial office gossip provided by Julian Assange…
>
>
>
> Provided BY Julian Assange?  Did you mean TO Julian Assange?
>
>
>
> >… 53,650 voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan that Donald J
> Trump was more moral than Hillary Clinton…
>
>
>
> I didn’t read any of the office gossip, I have no reason to think it had
> anything to do with any particular politician’s moral standings.  John the
> material is public.  Before you go past that step, do quote us something
> that would indicate the office gossip was about anyone’s moral standings.
> Failing that, work that step that 53,650 voters were influenced by office
> gossip about a particular politician’s moral standings.  I just don’t see
> it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >…Step#2) Trump won as a result… John K Clark
>
>
>
> OK we need a loooot more detail here.
>
>
>
> We need some indication that a far bigger factor was not the material
> found on Carlos Danger’s laptop computer.
>
>
>
> >…Step #3)…
>
>
>
> Little point in going past here.  I am still wondering how office gossip
> (I have never met anyone who claims to have read it) somehow influenced all
> those voters in those three particular states to vote a certain way.
>
>
>
> I can’t think of how these office workers would have had any particular
> knowledge of any particular candidate’s morals.  If they did, why didn’t
> any of that material ever make it into the mainstream press?  Juicy gossip
> sells like hotcakes on the internet.  I don’t recall any of that leaked
> email ever being quoted.  Do you?  I would suppose it is still around
> somewhere.
>
>
>
> In step 2, you theorize that office gossip that no one actually read or
> even quoted, overturned an election, while overlooking the obvious: the
> voters didn’t like the candidate and most voters did not vote for her.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200316/77ba4256/attachment.htm>