> Now that the candidates have been decided (or will be very soon), who do you think > should be president? > > I've seen plenty of Trump on our news screens, and he doesn't seem to be the type to > run the country and coexist peacefully with his neighbours. > > Haven't seen anything really of Clinton, I guess she's not into confrontation. > > > Anyway I'd like to know what the citizens of the U.S. think of both of them, and who > would do a better job?
The winner is the most insane person.
Give them the weapons and then watch the show. Don't forget the popcorn.
> Now that the candidates have been decided (or will be very soon), who do you think > should be president? > > I've seen plenty of Trump on our news screens, and he doesn't seem to be the type to > run the country and coexist peacefully with his neighbours. > > Haven't seen anything really of Clinton, I guess she's not into confrontation.
eta: Not into confrontation? There are 2 types of sins. The sin of commission, where you willingly do something wrong. Then there's the sin of omission, where you know the right thing to do, but don't. See the attached pic.
> > > Anyway I'd like to know what the citizens of the U.S. think of both of them, and who > would do a better job?
Trump or Sanders.
If Trump would pick Rand Paul for VP then that'd pretty much seal the deal for me. But I can't see it happening. Maybe he'd pick someone like Sarah Palin... Not that I think that'd be a good thing, but something to get more votes from more hardline Republicans.
> Now that the candidates have been decided (or will be very soon), who do you think > should be president? > > I've seen plenty of Trump on our news screens, and he doesn't seem to be the type to > run the country and coexist peacefully with his neighbours. > > Haven't seen anything really of Clinton, I guess she's not into confrontation. > > > Anyway I'd like to know what the citizens of the U.S. think of both of them, and who > would do a better job?
First of all, the perception that "coexisting peacefully with one's neighbors" is a cardinal priority, is a cardinal problem. It is NOT the function of a nation to coexist peacefully with its neighbors. It's the function of a nation to grow wealthier at the expense of everybody else. Life is a will to power. Acceptance of this IS a cardinal priority.
I'm all for tolerance to a degree. But my God, man, you can't and shouldn't tolerate EVERYTHING! It seems as though we have somehow reached a point at which we think we should. Tolerance is a new all-consuming mantra. It's frickin bullshit. If I believed everything Trump said then I would vote for him twice in November. If I really thought that he really intends to lock down the border with Mexico and to "find the next Patton" and send him to the middle east to kick the shit out of everything walking then...
It doesn't matter. Hillary is sickness and delusion personified and Trump's just a full of shit prankster child.
I am voting for Trump as the lesser of two liars, based upon the hope that he has a little more common sense.
Keeping the coin-op vids alive and wishing I loved stamps or coins or baseball cards, instead.
> I'm all for tolerance to a degree. But my God, man, you can't and shouldn't tolerate EVERYTHING! It seems as though we have somehow reached a point at which we think we should. Tolerance is a new all-consuming mantra. It's frickin bullshit.
Toleration isn't a word in my working vocabulary. I allow things I don't care about. I do not allow things I do care about. Simple.
As for wealth, soon technology will remove that option, allowing distributed abundance.
> As for wealth, soon technology will remove that option, allowing distributed abundance.
I'd love to believe this. As have innumerable others for like the past 150 years.
If we had robots farming all the food and trucking/training/shipping all the food and distributing it to market and/or everyone's front doors, then we will have made a necessary next step toward realizing the dream to which you refer. However there would then be a mega-niche for the engineers and technicians responsible for the production and maintenance of said machines. How much are WE going to have to pay these people? Or are these hundreds of thousands going to produce and maintain for free?
Or are we going to be "eating" digital food?
How exactly do you foresee this foreseeable Utopia?
Keeping the coin-op vids alive and wishing I loved stamps or coins or baseball cards, instead.
> > As for wealth, soon technology will remove that option, allowing distributed > abundance. > > I'd love to believe this. As have innumerable others for like the past 150 years.
> If we had robots farming all the food and trucking/training/shipping all the food and distributing it to market and/or everyone's front doors, then we will have made a necessary next step toward realizing the dream to which you refer. However there would then be a mega-niche for the engineers and technicians responsible for the production and maintenance of said machines. How much are WE going to have to pay these people? Or are these hundreds of thousands going to produce and maintain for free?
> Or are we going to be "eating" digital food?
> How exactly do you foresee this foreseeable Utopia?
Utopia isn't a word in my working vocabulary. (Broken record, huhn? Hehn.) In Von Neumann style, automation means self-repairing. Or, more simply, ape Nature - which is more my inclination: organic infrastructure, a la the Edenist habitats in Peter F. Hamilton's Confederation Universe. Either way, though. Organic sentient habitats, or non-organic Minds.
It'll happen, perhaps much sooner than later, simply because of the influence of Star Trek on the kiddies, who would pay to do this stuff, and who have invaded the techno-infrastructure, with more on the way.
> I wonder if he believes the stuff he types. If so he's really strange. Possibly insane.
> But probably he's just playing and/or taking "strange pills" as polite company used to say.
That's a common self-assurance by many who read my posts. I don't even drink coffee. (I've said this, too.) I'm older than Tomu. I believe nothing. I have conviction, which ranges in degree relative to the matter.
I can see how discouraging posting pictures of gross-ass skinny, fake-boobed chicks would seem perverted to the regular dude.
You know, tons of dorks love Carl Sagan. But he wasn't at all into, in fact he discouraged, Fanstasy and Sci-fi. (far as I can tell) He didn't go to a single F/Sifi convention. He probably would've frowned on DeGrasse's appearance in Supe II.
Index 
Threaded 
-
Reply
[Re: 
