Since Tao was criticized for not explicitly listing his reasons why Trump is unqualified, let me now give my own top ten — any one of which, in a sane world, I think would immediately disqualify Trump from presidential consideration. To maximize the list’s appeal, I’ll restrict myself entirely to reasons that are about global security and the future of democratic norms,Global security? Hillary Clinton is a warmonger who has done more to undermine the security of the Mideast than any living person.
I won't go thru his list of reasons, as they are too silly. His first reason has to do with free speech. But the Left is all about shaming people who say something that is not politically correct, and Trump has surely opened up political discussion of the hot issues of the day. So I see Trump as very much helping free speech.
He has reason to hate to hate the social justice warriors (SJWs):
Meanwhile, many of the social-justice types who are Trump’s ideological opposites did try to destroy my life — and not because I hurt anyone, tried to hurt anyone, or said anything false, but just because I went slightly outside their Overton Window while trying to foster empathy and dialogue and articulate something true. And having spent a year and a half reading their shaming attacks, on Twitter, Tumblr, Metafilter, etc., I’m well-aware that many of them will try again to destroy me if they ever see an opportunity.So what makes him endorse Clinton? He is very much in favor of the changing demographics that are eliminating the white Christian majority in the USA. (He looks white, but he is Jewish and his wife is Israeli. Many Jews do not identify as white.)
So on the purely personal level, you might say, I have a hundred times more reason to fear Amanda Marcotte than to fear Donald Trump, even though Trump might become the next Commander-in-Chief (!?), while Marcotte will never become more than a clickbait writer.
Apple, Google, and Facebook are also working for the Clinton campaign.
I can accept that these guys are smarter than I am, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them about exterminating white people. They are clever enuf that they do not explicitly say that they are working towards genocide, but they can be judged by their actions. How would they be acting differently if they were trying to destroy white America?
It is apparently in the interests of the super-rich, elites, white-haters, Christian-haters, and others to flood the USA with Third World immigrants, to destroy the middle class, and to mire us in pro-Moslem foreign wars. That is what you get when you vote for Clinton.
10 comments:
"How would they be acting differently if they were trying to destroy white America?"
When you have little or no argument to make, ask the other side to prove a negative... Prove that what these smart people are doing isn't trying to destroy white America.
Sure, these guys are so smart that if they were attempting to commit genocide, you wouldn't be able to know that they were because they'd go about it in such a smart way that you wouldn't be able to tell that that's what they were doing. Does your logic go something like that ? Is it obvious that they're trying to destroy white America but, only the really smart people can tell and you're one of those people or not one of those people ? Do you know that that's what they're up to because you're not as smart as them as you'd stated.
So if I were really smart and was going to rob a bank, it wouldn't appear like I was going to rob a bank. If I wasn't going to rob a bank, it also wouldn't appear like I was going to rob a bank, too. If I was really smart and wasn't going to rob a bank, it would also appear like I was someone who was really smart and planning on robbing a bank because I was really smart so people wouldn't be able to tell what I was up to. So, whether these people are trying to destroy white America is impossible for anyone to know.
Were groups of people who'd committed genocide in the past and got a way with it really smart and people didn't know what they were about to do or were doing ? Or weren't they that smart ? Or they were smart and people knew what they were doing while committing genocide ?
If you make an assertion, back it up with some facts, instead of trying to say that we're not smart enough to tell that that's what they're up to so that proves that that's what they are doing.
I have linked to what Tao and Aaronson say. Judge for yourself.
The USA has Communist intellectuals and professors for decades. So yes, it is possible to have high-status evil intellectuals.
Just ask yourself -- why are these guys so in favor of flooding the USA with Third World migrants?
"I can accept that these guys are smarter than I am"
ROFL! The guy does calculus problems! Totally overrated! The folds and dots can't even invent!
Roger, Tao is coming out with this stuff because U.C. Berkeley and UCLA are a federal scam that will probably be shut down. They are not very innovative schools but receive tons of NSF funding and federal money. UC Berkeley gets "just about 13 percent of Berkeley’s operating revenue came from state appropriations in 2014-2015, down from roughly 50 percent in the 1980s." As for UCLA: "In the past five years, about 60 percent of funding for UCLA research has come from federal grants. In 2014, federal funds contributed about $570 million out of a total more than $970 million to UCLA research projects."
They abuse NSF money:
"The University of California-Berkeley improperly spent nearly $2 million in taxpayer funds that it received from the National Science Foundation (NSF) on staff salaries, travel expenses, and alcohol, according to an agency audit released in March.... They noted $1,608,944 in senior personnel salary, fringe benefits, and applicable overhead that exceeded NSF's two month limit, as well as $15,451 in unallowable meal expenditures; $9,904 in unreasonable travel; $6,997 in unsupportable and unallowable immigration fees. According to the OIG, the university was selected because it is one of the largest recipients of NSF award dollars. Of the $730.7 million that was awarded to Berkeley in FY2014, the federal government provided 66 percent of that funding with private and state government sources accounting for the remainder."
The California school system is on federal welfare.
Why is it important what one mathematician says ? Any mathematician ? He's one person and just a mathematician at that.
The USA has Communist intellectuals and professors for decades. So yes, it is possible to have high-status evil intellectuals.
I don't know if the U.S, hasn't always had some Communist intellectuals, or since communism was conceived, but there's a lot of high status evil individuals that are idiots.
If someone doesn't say what you'd hoped, do you just act as though they did to provide you with an easy way to refute something ? It's a popular debating technique and is effective with people who want to believe what you're saying.
Just ask yourself -- why are these guys so in favor of flooding the USA with Third World migrants?
Because the U.S. has a history of receiving immigrants that have helped make the country great. Have you seen what it says at the Statue of Liberty, "Bring us your...etc. ?
Are you a Native American Descent ? If not, then you're from an immigrant family, too What makes you or your family so special as to believe that it's ok that your family came here, but others can't ? Are immigrants only good for this country when there's a desire for them be cotton picking, slaves or to build a railroad or work in dangerous mines, etc. ?
Yes, I am a native American, and not an immigrant.
There is a nice poem hanging on the wall of the gift shop outside the Statue of Liberty. It does not advocate open borders, and it does not set policy in 2016.
You are a native American. Fine. My question was "Are you of native American Descent ?" Are you ? Another example of answering the question that you wished you were asked instead of answering what was asked.
A cheap trick used when someone has little or no argument to support their assertions.
`The Artful Dodger: Answering the Wrong Question the Right Way
Study 3, listeners rated speakers who answered a similar question in a fluent manner more positively than speakers who answered the actual question, but disfluently.
Roger the dodger... It's not clever but, rather pathetic in my view. When you have no answer, avoid the question or pretend you don't understand, or answer the question that you wish that you were asked. It's essentially a conceding that you think someone else is right but, can't admit it.
Post a Comment