Monday, December 19, 2016

My Buddhist Seasons Greetings

I wanted to write this felicitation on my holiday treats:

As a Buddhist I've sworn off all materialism as illusory trappings of existence. I keep to that principle as best I can. I tend to forget to remember and consider the impact and importance for others. I've also been singled out as anti social, while that seems true it's only apparent, I'm so behind on work and my obligation to help binds me to do the most I can.

But in honor of the many holidays I'm leaving these treats as a token of goodwill to all my colleagues. I don't understand holidays but I respect them because I respect you.

What I wrote:

Seasons Greetings

Sunday, December 18, 2016

How #Trump won

How #Trump Won

For those of you still catching up to reality of President-elect @realDonaldTrump, let me (as someone that predicted his victory in August 2015) enlighten you to how it really happened (vice how he did it which is false because he did not know he was going to win until late in the campaign). I will make a two page argument based on objective outside observation. I favored neither Trump nor Clinton and I argued they were both dangerous candidates. I hoped @GovGaryJohnson would make the debate stage and then at least have a chance at winning.

The first question to address is can you win if you lose popular vote? This is the stupidest question; popular vote versus electoral college is pointless until election law is changed. If you win the electoral college you win, no special mention nor extra value to winning the vote total. That is how you win. Remember the Clinton campaign mocking Trump's misunderstanding of how to win, they should have heeded their own advice. They didn't make swing states a priority. The goal of an electoral college is to prevent New York and California from deciding all elections. If you live outside these two areas you want to make sure large population centres, and all the big city priorities, don't swamp other concerns. State electoral voting demands that candidates make every state a part of the strategy rather than allowing them to ignore flyover states.

Consider all the possible, if somewhat far fetched, election outcomes against a crude timeline. If you make a matrix of all possible outcomes like so:

Candidate Decided during Primary Decided before Nov 8 Decided on Nov 8




And you consider the most likely reasons for candidate choice:

Candidate For Candidate Against Opponent Change vice Status Quo




You don't need to fill them in, just consider how the results align with these possible causes. The reason for the timing as in primary, before election day, and on election day considers the impact of media, scandals, coverage, debates and so on as the likely turning points for people to decide which they would vote for. These are arbitrary and fuzzy but generally align with major information thresholds. The people that decided earliest had the least information, the people that decided later had the most. Did having more information change the result? Both sides expected revelations against the other candidate would change the outcome. The election outcome suggests that both GOP and DNC solidified large portions of the electorate that decided on one candidate early. But that wasn't the difference.

The deciding factor was disenfranchised voters returned to politics, unemployed/desperate needed change, or otherwise opponents of the status quo wanted change. The preponderance of new voters went to Trump. It was people that turned off politics over many years that realized there was a real chance for change with a candidate that owed no debts to anyone. He proposed economic relief and policy restructuring – even without detail – that convinced enough voters he might change the status quo. That was the election decision. Logically, more people decided, in the primaries, to vote Trump than decided to vote Clinton. That included voters that don't partake in elections in general that changed behaviour because this election was different. Information didn't matter and as I describe below information against Trump didn't work for this very reason. They didn't care what he did or said, they convinced themselves with the LEAST information that he was the best chance for change. Does the proposition that normal/average people decided with the least information at the earliest moment and then stubbornly defended their choice sound more or less likely than alternatives? To me, this is the simplest explanation.

This explanation fits the most possible outcomes and the events leading up to the election; most voters decided early. Without Gov. Gary Johnson or Dr. Jill Stein on the debate stage to alter the visibility / give attention to 3rd party alternatives the vote came down to who wanted change over who wanted status quo. Both Trump and Clinton negative ratings negated each other just like most of the scandals. Neither is pious nor perfect.

The fact that famous, even pious people like the @Pontifex, people took turns insulting or criticizing @realDonaldTrump and all those pleadings did not change the outcome means that liberals did not anticipate all outcomes nor did they understand voters. The Clinton campaign truly believed they had won, in part because they were taking biased / skewed samples, but also because they deluded themselves into thinking they COULD change enough voters to win. 

There was no chance of that. That is the reward for hubris!

What really happened was most voters in the electoral majority, most average normal voters, believed and could see first hand from a lack of good paying jobs, that the USA needed to change directions. They were paying too high a price for globalization and the evidence is ready for all to see: the empty rusting factories that used to give voters a good living. In fact, "change voters" have been voting for hope and change since at least George Bush II. Bush II was the new sheriff in town, a street smart governor that wasn't a beltway insider. He promised them a stop to globalization, to make economic changes that kept jobs, but instead got distracted by 9/11 and wars. The same with Obama over McCain and Romney. He was the hope and change candidate. The underlying belief is that the rules aren't fair and the people wanted globalization to stop, if that means trade wars and tariffs then so be it.

The point is Obama, Bush, and now Trump were the more plausible change candidates than their opponents. This is a direct rebuke of free trade policy. Capitalism is choking as it swallows the world and these victims of the rise and fall of prosperity wanted another change November 8 2016, a promised dropped 16 years in a row by other promisers.

Most of the normal, average voters must have decided on Trump early on. The way that famous person after famous person failed to dent Trump's popularity, the way that $1.2 billion Clinton marketing did nothing to sway voters, it means that simple people whom decided for Trump felt shame or anger about their choice when it was rubbed in their faces. Whenever something embarrassing or ridiculous was revealed about Trump they took it PERSONALLY that the accuser was insulting them for being allied to Trump. They were being personally mocked for their choice. That made them even angrier and more determined, Trump supporters were like rabid dogs whereas Clinton supporters – because she is an odious candidate despite the varnish – were like fickle cats. Clintonites were not sanguine enough about their choice to match that level, including cheated / defeated Sanders supporters that felt (rightly) betrayed by the Democratic party. The delicious irony is, the more that sanctimonious elites lined up with Clinton, the more President +BarackObama talked, the more Bush-era apparatchiks lined up with Clinton, the more media made fun of Trump's many failings, the more comics and actors mocked Trump, it was all electing Trump in the process and demoralizing Clinton supporters at the same time. How could this buffoon even be in the running Clintonites thought, and yet the roots of their hubris lie in the fact they were so quick to judge, so quick to dismiss normal voters, that they did not attack the most important economic assumptions of Trump. 

Clintonites were too busy yelling “Racist!”, “Hitler!”, “Sexist!”, and “Misogynist!” (why they would hurl this one for normal voters who probably don't know the definition, this by itself proves their disconnection). Some of these attacks didn't even make sense to Clinton supporters. The power of their attacks dropped as they repeated them. It made decided voters LESS likely to change their minds.  Doubling down on more baseless personal attacks made themselves worse off. It was like struggling with a boa constrictor; the more you writhe the more the coils expose your weaker spots and the deeper becomes the pull of death. The voters were angry at the elites, at the Clintons, at the Obamas, at the media so more proved detrimental.

The Clinton campaign was in a death spiral from May 2016 and no one was brave enough to warn the boss. All this loss proves is that if she can't even get this right, she wasn't a good candidate in the first place and the world is better off without her.

Add to that the appalling lack of integrity of pollsters to bias the very polls they were taking, and there was no way to realize how wrong the establishment was. The “hidden” Trump voters were in plain sight but tired of the mockery from media. They stayed silent or lied about their choice because the media were nonstop nonsense and voters were sick of intrusion and condescension.

This interpretation fits with Professor Norpoth's model that predicted Trump would win based on the primary results. The primaries are the biggest sample poll run before the election so therefore a better determinant than daily sub sub sampling. The radical difference in  Trump's versus Clinton's primary numbers were all that was needed to predict the outcome no matter what self-interested political people tell you. That was the indicator of new / returning voters that wanted change.

The only way to change the outcome was if +GovGaryJohnson would have made the debate stage. He would have sounded like a sane alternative to the two hated candidates and might have tipped the balance to a tie and into a Congress-determined Libertarian victory.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Islam is a Trojan Horse Ideology

+General Michael Flynn is in hot water for warning about islam; but he's not wrong on his analysis.

All the Abrahamic religions have fire and brimstone commandments authorizing bloodshed, slaving, sacrifice, and unique rights for pious believers. They can all be turned into a weaponized ideology. He wasn't wrong. While liberals/progressives become offended at the idea of evil intent generic or stereotyped to be a whole group, the problem is radical adherents get to live and hide in the religion because they can question the faith of more moderate members. By rebuking moderates, they are neutralized from real criticism and the extremists continue using the goodwill of others.

Moderate islamists cannot complain about stereotyping them with extremists, for they agree to follow the religion, more or less, with radicals. When islamists do not get their way in mainstream life, they are allowed to turn to become a religious scoundrel and exploit the poisons of religious belief against society.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Hard Truth to the MSNBC power - this is why Trump won.

Finally a MSM pundit is able to break through the bullshit, the fake outrage, the, "racist", and "misogynistic" smears of the left denialists and explain why middle America voted against the establishment and for a real change.  Ignore the spin.

People didn't vote for Trump because he is polished, they voted for him because he isn't varnished - he sees the plight and had a credible shot at taking on the oligarchs.  A man outside the plutocracy they could rely on to NOT be diplomatic.

Someone that could deliver a thermonuclear enema to Washington DC the way that DC policies had decimated Middle America.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Libertarian Unipolar moment

+Gov. Gary Johnson  has a unique moment while +DonaldTrump  takes office. There are disaffected Democrats   & Republicans that are diaspora in the wake of political upheaval. They don't have a home in the plutocracy now.

Since he didn't make the debates, his fortunes were sunk.  But if he truly wants to be president in 4 years - because Trump will not make all promises and not keep many happy- then there is a unipolar moment when he can steal from the left and the right to forge a new alliance. It is entirely possible that one of the major parties might die in the wake of dissolution.

Friday, October 28, 2016

The Internet Forum walls

I like Twitter even though I am a big believer in long winded rational thought.
It was a little nicer back then.

What makes twitter special is that it reinvents the walls of the Roman Forum. 

It was a little nicer back in SPQR. My high school friend studies Roman dig sites all over the Mediterranian. I won't speak outside my limited knowledge, seek an expert for more.

Bottom line: anyone could post ideas for all to see on the walls of the Forum. People could come to one place and listen and learn and compete ideas in a Socratic method kind of way. All ideas were presented equally because they were all in the same spot in the same way.

This is a powerful tool that even technological dinosaurs must understand going into the future. This is the reason why sociology and archaeology are still important sciences because they allow us to understand all technology from before for now and the future.

Buddhism doesn't exist

People tend to forget, if they get caught up in the Buddhist spiritualism, the human made pageantry and ritual of a religion like Buddhism, that even Buddhism doesn't exist.

As humans, we need "metaphysical" things / mental constructs to help us practice and remember, to share common understanding, to alter behavior, to join a tribe, to cling to, and so on. This has more to do with how our brains work than what and how we choose to believe.

Believing in the eightfold path does not make it real. Believing in reincarnation does not make it real.  Simple people seem to miss the mental flaw underlying the Buddhist belief system.  When I look at Buddhists operating in a Buddhist manner I am reminded that my belief is while Buddha explained and encouraged behaviour that would make his ideals flourish, I do not think Buddha was certain reincarnation or karma existed.

Buddha knew what he was creating didn't exist. Ponder that for a moment.

If making his teachings part of a belief system that would spread better and faster needed the extra jewellery of metaphysical constructs, then allow them he did. Like Machiavelli, even the middle way is a practice in pragmatism; ends justifying means. If letting uneducated unwashed illiterate peasants encrust his ideals in ritual and if that made them happier, made them more productive and increased the chances people find harmony, that that was in essence the first compromise of Buddhism with itself.

This reality is why I define my spirituality as "pseudo-Buddhist". No, I will not chant incessantly and play silly human games. I will not pray and meditate for hours for the benefit of a cause or a person. I don't wish anyone ill, I wish all well, but conducting a ceremony made for the other purpose - to solidify the Buddhist practice - is not necessary. It doesn't exist. So in a way I can also claim to be an atheist.

What is necessary if one doesn't want to live as a nihilist or an anarchist,  is to adopt a set of operating principles, based in an understanding of humanity, that allows one to tread lightly in the universe. The eightfold path, offers a compassion and goodwill based philosophy.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

My Libertarian Platform

If I was running as a Libertarian candidate, and in the spirit of Jefferson suppose that is true, then this is what my platform planks would look like:


Individual Rights
We hold that each individual has the right to exercise sole dominion over her/his life, and to live in whatever manner she/he may choose, so long as she/he does not violate the equal rights of others.

  • Scientific evidence-based freedom products like recreational chemicals.
  • Once certified as not dangerous, legalize all marijuana products not already in law;
  • Fund scientific research into health benefits and concerns of alternative medicine like acid, peyote, etc. and ban those deemed by science to be more harmful that good. Scientific reports will form the basis of individual rights policy, not political parties / platforms.
  • Law to impose scientific consensus for medical and health-related matters over political policy;
  • Law to make Halloween a national holiday.

Government’s Role

We hold that where governments must exist, they should be stringently limited both in their structure and in their operations.

  • Immediate lay-off of 30% of executive level positions and supporting staff inside every government department, lay off half of all Assistant Deputy Minister positions and staff. 
  • Contract out all IT support.
  • Establish a whistleblower ombudsman that reports directly to Parliament in secret, funded complete with outside lawyers, to allow direct reporting of government administrative waste.
  • Fund a $50,000$ whistleblower reward system for anyone that can find drastic misuse of public funds over $100,000$ in on fiscal year or for an award of up to 10% for amounts less than $50,000$. Misuse must be documented and reviewed and approved by parliament before award.
  • All departments that return unspent funds in one fiscal year (FY) are allowed to increase budgets by 50% of that difference for the next FY exclusively. 
  • Law to require all government functions work on at least Apple, Linux/Unix, Google Chrome, and Windows operating systems to prevent monopolistic IT.
  • Digitize all polling, create unique voter database and create political forums to present all ongoing legislation, host referendums etc.

Civil Order
No conflict exists between the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property, and the government’s obligation to maintain civil order.

  • Law established to remove the government's right to involve itself in abortion, suicide prevention, addiction recovery, religion, victim support etc.
  • Retain operator's licences.
  • Law to impose victim tax on all violent crimes payable to the victim as part of all sentences. Includes automatically transferring all rights for TV, media, book, or other trade deals or any other intellectual property rights for anything related to offenders to their victims. Victim tax removes the need for government involvement other than justice system.
  • Law modifications to prevent bankruptcy for violent crime offenders.
  • Law to assign all aboriginal naming rights / trademarks to the respective aboriginal bands (i.e. Apache to the Apache people ) in perpetuity and any company that wants to use these names must seek licence directly from said peoples.

Social Concerns
Government interference in current social concerns such as pollution, consumer
protection, health care delivery, and poverty exceeds the level required for the protection of individual rights.

  • Government will lead by example, not dictate social concerns.
  • Eliminate cap and trade green house gas emission policies.
  • Retain vehicle fuel emission standards for public.
  • Law to use purchasing power of government to buy improved emission standard vehicles.
  • Law to purchase more energy efficient buildings for all future projects
  • As a good citizen, establish government donation to charities in lieu of government bureaucratic oversight for victim's rights etc.

Defence & Foreign Policy
A Libertarian government would adopt a policy of non-intervention, abstaining
totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures:

  • Withdraw all troops from foreign bases, minimum manning in NATO.
  • Decrease overseas defence spending;
  • Increase training budgets for units;
  • Develop high-tech training and system development facilities;
  • Offer to train foreign units from conflict zones here in Canada at other's expense.

Trade & Economy
The only proper role of government, in this context, is to protect property rights,
adjudicate contracts, and adjudicate disputes: to provide a legal framework for the protection of voluntary trade. The primary stakeholders are citizens:

  • Remove ALL subsidies, corporate co-funding like secured debt or guarantees, reduce all tariffs. 
  • Sell off all public / private corporate holdings on Government of Canada
  • Increase funding for environmental, corporate, trade enforcement to ensure level playing field.
  • Increase automatic injunctions, fines, and levies on illegal, unsafe imports of all kinds.
  • Law to reverse burden of proof on all imported products in civil and criminal law.
  • Create an illegal products ombudsman, where public can report unsafe, unfair, illegal domestic or imported products for immediate sanction.
  • Decrease regulations and remove old laws;
  • 3% speculator's tax on all financial transactions involving over $500million of both foreign and domestic entities using debt, credit, stocks, or other instruments by investment banks, private investors, hedge funds, originating from monies loaned from the Bank of Canada.  Payment is due in annual instalments for the duration of the loan.
  • Digitise all legal records for open search by public.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Plight of the Gecko

The following excerpt is what I deal with on a weekly basis, perhaps monthly basis from an ex-wife that was so difficult to deal with it took lawyers, years and a pile of cash to resolve. So why is it not over?  Well, read my book to understand that sometimes it's more to do with the type of personality your ex has than anything within reason you are trying to do. Am I saying I am a saint, hardly, but I can tell you I tried every reasonable tactic before I get to the point where I use the strategies I talk about in my book.   Over a ten year struggle I learned through empiricism how to handle her mentally to avoid stress on the kids. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Sometimes it means tragic emotional personal sacrifices. Sometimes I chose not to see my kids at an event so I don't stress them out with 2 parents present.

I explain in my book how I became a Buddhist in part to try and make things work better, even though sometimes this is the best "workable" I will ever get to.  Peace is illusory at best and change is constant. If you deal with someone this extreme you have to prepare yourself for the reality that might be the least worst outcome you strive for every day.

In the email trail below, I shit you not, this is about my ex-wife demanding to be in control of who feeds a gecko on her week and I just want to ensure the gecko doesn't lose his tail. At least that's what it's about from my perspective. I'm not trying to win, I wasn't even doing this to sell books, I just want to make sure my kids doesn't lose her pet. Or the tail.

I've altered the emails and names but the words and email progression is exactly as it happened.

You will note I (Dave)  start making things personal and my ex-wife (Michelle)  doesn't like it. That's because IT WORKS. Not that I am being mean for a selfish personal reason, but if you show what a bitchface looks like to a bitchface, that is the biggest driver stopping his or her bad behaviour; in this case from preventing that person from neglecting a child's needs - in this case to practice responsibility and love for a pet.  Bitchfaces are narcissistic and don't like people exposing their behavior. They like their self-constructed façade.

For me the personal battle is over, I won. I got the house and 50% custody of my 2 girls. I try to remind myself what it is I am fighting for and it's not personal glory or indignity to my ex. I really really just want to live in peace, but some people can't see they are their own worst enemy when it comes to others' needs.

Remember, I did offer to drive and I had to remind my ex-wife to help feed a pet. It wouldn't surprise me if she hoped it died so she could suggest I killed it. That's not unrealistic and I'm not saying that to make me look better.

What a bitchface can't see is that they insert themselves into situations that they don't need to and they do it for personal reasons. My ex-wife is literally and figuratively inserting herself into the care and welfare of a gecko - just so she can play the victim and complain I am stalking her, harassing her, embarrassing her, maninpulating her, accusing her, ... do you see the pattern I see?  Do you see why someone needs to stop her from acting in a way that harms kids, by whatever legal way exists?

It's all about HER attention, for her. She can't see how other people see what she's doing.  What normal ex-parent takes on the responsibility for a pet at the other parent's house?  Not a normal one is the simplest answer. And my divorce was anything but normal.

If you know someone going through something like this, you may want to tell them about this book.

The following excerpt is what I deal with on a weekly basis, perhaps monthly basis from an ex-wife that was so difficult to deal with it took lawyers, years and a pile of cash to resolve. So why is it not over?  Well, read my book to understand that sometimes it's more to do with the type of personality your ex has than anything within reason you are trying to do. Am I saying I am a saint, hardly, but I can tell you I tried every reasonable tactic before I get to the point where I use the strategies I talk about in my book. 

I explain in my book how I became a Buddhist in part to try and make things work better, even though sometimes this is the best "workable" I will ever get to.  Peace is illusory at best and change is constant. If you deal with someone this extreme you have to prepare yourself for the reality that might be the least worst outcome you strive for every day.

In the email trail below, I shit you not, this is about my ex-wife demanding to be in control of who feeds a gecko on her week and I just want to ensure the gecko doesn't lose his tail. At least that's what it's about from my perspective. I'm not trying to win, I wasn't even doing this to sell books, I just want to make sure my kids doesn't lose her pet. Or the tail.

I've altered the emails and names but the words and email progression is exactly as it happened. Sorry if the format is a little stilted, my ex-wife thinks that by responding in a new email I have forgotten or it will get missed what she said in previous ones.  Again, I'm not kidding.

You will note I (Dave)  start making things personal and my ex-wife (Michelle)  doesn't like it. That's because IT WORKS. Not that I am being mean for a selfish personal reason, but if you show what a bitchface looks like to a bitchface, that is the biggest driver stopping his or her bad behaviour; in this case from preventing that person from neglecting a child's needs - in this case to practice responsibility and love for a pet.  Bitchfaces are narcissistic and don't like people exposing their behavior. They like their self-constructed façade.

Remember, I did offer to drive and I had to remind my ex-wife to help feed a pet. It wouldn't surprise me if she hoped it died so she could suggest I killed it. That's not unrealistic and I'm not saying that to make me look better.

If you know someone going through something like this, you may want to tell them about this book.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     Fwd: Re: Darcy's Gecko
Date:     Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:02:59 -0600
From:     Dave Desperate <
To:     Neil <, Michelle Exhibit <, Laura Desperate <

Hey I'm willing to try anything to talk to a reasonable person.


We bought a gecko for Darcy and she really loves it. We don't want his tail to fall off if he's malnourished so we offered to drive Darcy to and from feeding it. We did this not for any other reason than the medical emergency of a gecko's well being. We took on the responsibility so we expected to help her.

Can you please explain to your wife in terms she will understand that we regret making things more difficult for her but we want Darcy to practice responsibility and I spill the crickets on the floor. I was the one that allowed Darcy to go to your dad's birthday dinner, I assume that was him in court for that fiasco, I learned of Michelle ordering Darcy to come to my house behind my back and I was furious she would be so hypocritical and stress a child.

But I did not do anything to stop it in the spirit of cooperation and peace. I did not stress Darcy out, I played along. I hope it was a good birthday party.

So I would like to work with you to make sure Darcy can keep the pet she loves complete with a tail.

Thank you,


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     Re: Darcy's Gecko
Date:     Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:55:58 -0600 (MDT)
From:     Michelle Exhibit <
To:     Dave Desperate <

If there is a medical emergency you can contact Neil.

From: "Dave Desperate" <
To: "Michelle Exhibit" <, "Laura Desperate" <, "DAVE Desperate" <
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 9:08:56 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Darcy's Gecko

And while you think you are discussing reasonably, you haven't answered a single question, you haven't provided a single alternative, offered no explanation for alcoholic parties I don't agree with, but want to warn us that you will block us at the slightest discomfort.  Thanks for more evidence you aren't acting reasonably. You signed a contract you are breaking because you don't act in a co-parenting manner; you act like you are in charge. But you aren't and you're not cooperating either. Explain why that's not offensive?

You want to change the optics then work on solutions not blame.

The gecko needs to be fed every 2 days and you need to participate or you need to accept that we will do it for you. What you didn't get is that we took on the job because we didn't involve you in the decision and as reasonable people we didn't speak for you nor expect you to be responsible for it. It was YOU that made yourself part of it by making it hard for Darcy to get here. You could have said it's our job to get Darcy, that would have been reasonable.  We honestly thought we should look after the gecko because it was here, I didn't think you should be responsible for it. I didn't ask for any help because we didn't need it. You are the one making it harder on yourself
and the reason why doesn't make sense. By making yourself part of it if the gecko dies if Darcy doesn't feed him your week then you're part of the reason. If you leave it up to us, it's never your problem.

We are talking about a living creature's needs. And I suck at feeding it, I drop the crickets on the floor.

There is nothing abusive other than your viewpoint. If you show up on time and the gecko is fed you don't have to worry about your feelings and I don't have to deal with a dead gecko and a sad Darcy. If I need to email to remind you then you aren't acting like a parent - so it looks like I need to remind me.

Darcy was so stressed about asking you for a ride to the gecko. That's not me, nor my actions, that's on you.



On 2016-10-21 08:37 AM, Michelle Exhibit wrote:

    In order for any required communication to continue we must keep emotion and personal feelings out of the exchange.  Keep it to the relative facts - not opinions. Failure to do so will result in important information not being relayed by either parent.  I will not accept any communications that are abusive, harassing, critical, or unnecessary.

    I have no issue with blocking either or both of you if this continues, and I am well within my rights to do so.  It is up to you to ensure the path of communication remains open.


 From: Laura Desperate <
 Date: October 20, 2016 at 12:07:49 PM MDT
 To: Michelle Exhibit <
 Subject: Re: Darcy's Gecko

 Yes I can see that you have been terrorizing her about this issue. I offered to her today when she told me about her dentist appointment.
 She was very upset that I offered that and made some ridiculous excuses as to why I am not allowed to take her and help her. Very stressed about the issue, wow what a joke. Poor kid😔shame on you super mom.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Michelle Exhibit < wrote:

 No, I didn't agree to that - I will take her out there when needed as I have been.

 As I said to Dave - stop emailing me.

 From: "Laura Desperate" <
 To: "David Desperate" <
 Cc: "Michelle Exhibit" <,
 Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:11:57 AM
 Subject: Re: Darcy's Gecko

 Ok so tues./ thurs after school it is. I'm sure Darcy will be relieved that there is a solid plan in place
 Thanks for the cooperation🐸

 Sent from my iPhone

  On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Desperate, David < wrote:


  So you are not going to answer any of my questions, as per the DIVORCE & PROPERTY AGREEMENT?
  You are refusing to communicate with me to act as a co-parent? You blocked my text messages, you block my
  phonecalls, now you are blocking my email, and you are acting as a reasonable parent in a co-parenting
  environment.  Why do you listen to a lawyer's advice over just being a reasonable person? You can't be reasonable
  without lawyer involvement?

  What would judge think of a lawyer telling her client not to co-parent as agreed to? That's breach of contract.

  You can't demand that I stop trying to repair my relationship with Rayleigh, the fact you hide her is the very REASON
  why she fears what doesn't exist. It is part and parcel of the parental alienation campaign you are conducting
  and the documentation of this email below proves it.

  Please just be reasonable, you have sued me twice, all I want is reasonable behaviour on both sides. Please just tell
  Darcy it's OK to come over any time to feed the pet she loves.



  From: Michelle Exhibit []
  Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:18 AM
  To: Desperate, David
  Subject: Re: Darcy's Gecko

  I have been advised not to engage in conversation with you.

  Stop emailing me.

  Stop messaging Rayleigh.


  From: "David Desperate" <
  To: "Laura Desperate" <, "Dave Desperate" <
  Cc: "Michelle Exhibit"

  Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 6:53:10 AM
  Subject: RE: Darcy's Gecko

  I think that just agreeing Michelle would demonstrate reasonable behavior for a cause
  that obviously isn't important to you and requires you to do nothing than to support it.

  So let's see you get ridiculous....

  D.R. Desperate
  From: Laura Desperate []
  Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:05 PM
  To: Dave Desperate
  Cc: Michelle Exhibit
  Subject: Re: Darcy's Gecko

  I will bring Darcy here every Tues and Thursday after school. We will stop and get crickets. She will be ready at the door for her mom to pick her up after work.

  Simple solution, easy consistent and no stress!
  Can we agree on this?

  Sent from my iPhone

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     Re: Fwd: Re: Darcy's Gecko
Date:     Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:14:27 -0600
From:     Dave Desperate <
To:     Michelle Exhibit <, Laura Desperate

The one thing you can be proud of with your daughters is
they are so used to being disappointed they just cover for you
without complaining about their needs left out.


On 2016-10-19 08:08 PM, Dave Desperate wrote:

 I offered to get crickets today. Darcy said you would get them.

 Laura offered to get crickets today. Darcy said you would get them.

 The gecko needs to eat fucking crickets to make sure he is healthy.
 It's not up to you to ignore what your daughter needs.

 Darcy comes through the door and immediately "oh no I'm feeding him
 worms" to cover for the fact you don't give a shit about her needs and
 didn't care to help her until I demand you act like her mother.

 I could have gotten crickets and left them in the cage for her.

 If he loses his tail it's on you for your selfishness.

 On 2016-10-19 07:41 PM, Dave Desperate wrote:
 This is one more example of your dysfunctional co-parenting cooperation.

 Darcy wanted a gecko, we went and learned about them and she promised
 to come and feed him on time. The animal planet staff explained that
 he must be fed every 2-3 days, one of
 the possible outcomes that might happen if he isn't fed is he might
 not grow or he might lose his tail.

 Me and Laura have offered to bring her over if it is a problem so her
 gecko is fed on time, not commenting in any way on any issue other
 than that. We aren't making it difficult for Darcy to help her gecko.

 We ask her if she needs a ride, she gets stressed because she feels
 like she has to check in with you. She has to ask and you make it a
 stressful event for her to deal with. She can't ask us for a ride at
 some easy time like afterschool so you don't have to be burdened by a
 task we agreed to help her with. Instead you insist to force her to go
 to you. You have no problem telling her to come over for a dinner,
 without my knowledge and in contravention of your agreement on my
 week, but refuse to allow us just to help Darcy for 20 minutes. You
 make this about you, we just want to help the gecko.

 So either offer to let her find ways to do it without your imperial
 approval, and she will not be so stressed in how you make her feel.



Thursday, October 20, 2016


Linux is an operating system built by ad-hoc bizarre attendants that you are expected to worship as if it's a cathedral.

Friday, October 7, 2016

My political inclinations

I have discovered through ego-inquiry, that my personal political philsophy aligns closest to the Libertarian ideals than either a righter wing Conservative / Republican mindset or a lefter wing Liberal / Democrat. Much farther away are the neo-fascist and socialistic mindsets that I find are just more strident people that expect you'd be better off listening to them. Big problem.

Logo of the Libertarian Party of Canada.png

I find that most people are, at least in public, more centrist than extremes and currently there a great challenge for any major party to maintain a majority quorum to lead polls and govern.  This is in part because they each bisect differing smaller groups of the mainstream centrist viewpoints. This points to a potential that the political landscape will change to meet that gap.

Enter the Libertarian philosophy. This subset covers more of the centrist mindsets than NDP, Liberal, or Conservative viewpoints provide.

With Libertarian ideals, no government would question pro-choice for womens's rights because the overriding goal is to reduce government purview into personal choice. This would upset right-wing Christians and Muslims alike (why those would find shelter in centrist parties I can't fathom) and that is exactly why a Libertarian would defeat either in a fair election.

Libertarian supports human rights and ecological rights so long as one uses the existing system to enact change. With governments imposing carbon taxes, I don't see how activists would be unhappy with that because it is forward progress towards changing behaviour. 

As I support the ideals of capitalism, despite the fecklessness and pandering of modern politicians to enforce truly capitalist rules in the spirit of Adam Smith, that makes it more appealing to the centre than socialism parties like the NDP.

When you look at the platform these common sense ideals are inside party policies:

Classical Liberalism
Fiscal conservatism
Civil libertarianism

It's hard to argue these are not views shared by many busy people that don't have the time or moral decrepitude to interfere in others' business.

Here is my prediction; as people remain unhappy with mainstream non-centrist parties, and as prosperity and social media propagate dangerous ideas, the Libertarian party will move from the fringe to governing within a century.

Friday, September 23, 2016

"At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution,"

"At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution," Piketty wrote.

People wonder why #Trump is winning even though he is just as odious as #Clinton. Most people don't understand that most things we go along with, which we believe are in our best interests, are things revolving around money. Even if we convince ourselves it isn't, we keep one eye on the prize because short of life and death it's the one thing we know is certain: the need to get and use resources affects every aspect of our lives.

Trump is offering to turn Wall Street over, which really means massive debt spending, and most voters are that desperate they want to believe him.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Do you know what will be the determinant of wealthy societies into the future?

This is from The Economist

In the future, in a world where capitalism has opened up and swallowed even the poorest of countries, it is the societies that innovate new things based on STEM / Science and Technology, that will survive better and be more prosperous. Innovation will be the driver of economies.

This Innovation Index is flawed and limited, but it underlines both an encouraging and dangerous future condition. People, companies, and nations must learn to maximize creativity to justify keeping money where they live. Labour can always be found elsewhere cheaper. And machines can do the most skilled work anywhere. That does not mean that Burundi cannot flourish, it means that Burundi must find ways to compete by aligning for the future needs and not waste its time on past fights.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Civil Discourse in the Public Square

Civil discourse in public should follow the Socratic Method, it should be the pursuit of truth in facts and ideas and making them plain for all to consider. It should be left to the intelligence of the people to realize what is true, and it should never be dictation nor ad hominem personal attacks.

The ideas and ideals must be placed before the people and the people are smart enough to decide fairly. There are never enough rabid followers to sway the outcome, there are only liars that hide truth from the public. The liars, when exposed, should be vilified by the appearance of their bias or allegiance, not their personal qualities. Even when I portrayed these ideas, I was mindful not to be too preachy for fear of stamping on my own point.

Anyone that does not treat you or your ideas in this manner gives you the evidence you need to make your own choice on what they stand for.

Manners are the grease of civilization, use them but don't let wrong ideas propagate through politeness. 

When I wrote this, the power went out, so perhaps I am angering the powers that be by speaking towards reason for all. 

What are investors in the dynamics of the economy?

I have been thinking about how investors interplay with the economy. While the facile view is that investors are the source or money, which isn't false, and they take profits, which is true, they also provide another role.

Investors, including banks, provide a forcing function "of a kind" to the market conditions of the day. Of course people have called it market forces for many years. In some ways that forcing function can provide two effects with specific behaviour apart from random action that is assumed. I will try to establish what "of a kind" means.

The first is reward and punishment for good / bad management of the company by drastic forcing of stock prices, futures etc. This everyone understands.

The second is as a resistance function for and against the current stock price trend. In general investors buy when stocks are undervalued, and sell when they net a profit. This is another one that is probably covered to death in the literature.

What isn't covered is perhaps the application of artificial intelligence to the problem. With principal component analysis, one could understand "exactly" how individual forcing functions operated. If one had that, then you have a stochastic prediction of future action when those same actors held a stock for example.

Whether by algorithm or by human behaviour, they will share a common signature. For example, one might peg a 10 or 15% profit and then always sell.  That makes it, with enough analysis and data, easier to forecast movement. Not guaranteed, not assured, but trends would improve your chances of making the statistically correct decision when faced with buy, hold, or sell.

Note, I am not a financial planner of any kind, which means I am not obligated to lie to you about investing in any way. My evidence for investment knowledge is a 20 year track record of stock investing and turning a profit, not great but consistently positive.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

The Press Policy Policy

In order to remove the chance of another Full Trumpian monster candidate, we need to make press fully accountable for how much effort they spend on hysteria instead of policy.

From now on all journalists must reduce coverage of candidates when they talk about anything other than policy. They must increase coverage of those that do present policy. The people are better served by eager parties willing to be honest for public good.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

At 11:07PM, #DonaldTrump became weaponized

I watched the Fox News "Townhall" for #DonaldTrump hosted by Sean Hannity yesterday, and at 11:07 the candidate became weaponized.

What I say was a raw raw cheer show organized by obviously biased interests - letting people speak exactly how long their scripted responses were timed to last, I saw flags and freedom and all the stuff that appeals to emotions. I saw modified policies that made more sense and seemed more reasonable. And it was all aimed at Clinton.

And then I saw the most shocking, most eventual, galvanized, weaponized, worst thing of all: a reasonable-sounding Trump. Of course the transformation has been coming a long time, but he's now weaponized - his calm and demeanor attached to real facts about Clintons now make his effective range far greater and his denial-piercing attacks unstoppable against Clinton.

Clinton supporters are like fickle friends, they are going to hold their noses and vote in fear of Trump. +Dilbert Scott Adams is voting Clinton for his safety. But if she wavers too much or gets a political body blow they may just sit on the sidelines rather than vote. They will think their position will ride out 4 years.

Trump supporters are like rabid dogs. They won't just get in your face and yell at you to vote they might try to use your hand to vote for their guy if they could.

I predicted before +Dilbert Scott Adams that Trump would win. But what I see now makes it more likely he won't just win, he's going to paste her into a dark smoking spot on the carpet.

Here are the factors behind this prediction:
  1. Trump listened to angry voters and adopted their causes.
  2. Trump is malleable yet acceptable to Christian Conservatives. He is malleable and that also appeals to Centrists who just want results.
  3. Trump was all over the map and people didn't care.
  4. The fact Trump is more idealogically Democratic makes him less scary and more acceptable to people that just want jobs. Democrats may think they are winning but Clinton is more odious to right wingers than Trump is to left wingers. Polls are off ( see below).
  5. Trump's elliptical and plain speaking teflon-coated him against media salvos.
  6. Both Trump and Clinton are accomplished liars - that's a wash with most voters.
  7. Trump's got angry on his side.
  8. Trump has hidden voters - lots of people won't tell a pollster but they are voting for him. 
  9. Trump has new voters - the previous polls and number don't account for this and any poll of 1000 people is meaningless because they don't account for skewed reality, and those pollsters are lying.
  10. The DNC has been lying about their primaries numbers.  Go back to Iowa, go back to the first state before the hysteria and before things got serious. The DNC and RNC reported the same numbers. And yet look at social media, look at rallies, and look at how many more voters turned up for Trump. It's impossible they rallied the same number, it's unlikely they had that many people when Trump had not even won one state. He was a phantom threat no one took seriously, remember?  When the DNC went second, they lied- they ginned their numbers - to make them even with Trump. They are so lost now they are lying as much to themselves as the public.    Big mistake.
  11. To my surprise, the Clinton team went straight into buying and using TV commercials right after the conventions. Why? Because they are seeing numbers far far worse than what's reported. Because they wanted to shape the conversation and define their opponent. They thought it would work - they used the right strategy and right messaging. All executed perfectly.  And - and this gets better - all that money is moving the needle zero. Why? Because it can't make a dent. Clinton needs to be ahead so far she can survive a mistake in the debates. But that's not appeared. That money didn't buy her a chance.
So here comes weaponized Trump.

While Clinton seems to think she's been smarter, calling Trump a racist and  unstable instead of driving home issues that's about to change.  The problem is that off-handed divisiveness plays to the same people that are in denial of reality, they think those arguments are making a dent. Are they?

Clinton has set herself up for total failure: her campaign made this about how capable she is: she's the most experienced, more venerable, more grandmotherly, more nuanced candidate than Trump. They have framed Trump as not capable.

But if anything goes wrong, if she makes one mistake then she can't make that bar she just set for herself.

If riots continue, if the stock market crashes, if the terrorists attack on US soil her capability is tied right to the Obama White House. If she stumbles her words or - god forbid - refuses to answer those same straight questions about her corruption, her emails, her servers, etc. in a debate he will catch her in a lie and she will be done.

Her bar of credibility is set way, way high. Trump's bar is set at he reads from a teleprompter and stays on message. The right wing party of Canada (Conservatives) tried this in the last election and lost handily to a non-capable guy that showed up with his tie on straight. This strategy is not going to win you anything if you frame yourself as fully capable like that, but if your opponent exceeds the non compos mentis bar you've made the argument for him.

What if Trump looks like a reasonable manager? What then? You don't think Trump who's managed lots of workers for many years can't show up and look respectable for a 1 hour debate?

And worse, worse is that Clinton is an amoral liar that avoids all reasonable questions about her corruption; her standard response is it's all part of a smear campaign from the right. She and Bill have been besmirched for their many tireless deeds of the poor and downtrodden. She has been persecuted, not that's she's done wrong. This might play to her voters, but will it play to reasonable centrist voters?  NO. The electorate is far larger and more mainstream than either the GOP or the DNC.

Look at Clinton Foundation tax returns they spend more on travel than they do on charities. It's not going to take long to expose her corruption. She hasn't held a news conference because she can't handle the questions. The drip drip drip water torture of corruption is going to start spilling out. What exactly does she think those debates are going to be?

In sum, Clinton is going to lose and lose big. There is only one way to stop Trump now, and that's if enough people switch from Hillary to Governor Gary Johnson and maybe that will stop the tide of misfortune that comes next.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

The Eventual Stupidity of Investors

Right now stock markets are climbing to all time highs, at a time when productivity, demand, and worker participation are at all-time lows. Add to that, ageing demographics implies higher societal welfare costs draining discretionary expenditures.  While stocks are individual gambles, they are all operating now in the same investing climate which should dictate profit selling and reducing positions in line with expectations.

Yet stocks are rising and indices are all-time in the US. This is a contradiction. The macro reason is the ultra-liquidity in larger organizations needs to go somewhere and bonds are becoming guaranteed money losing investments.  This is the reality, so people are betting on companies to at least keep their money safe.  Fat chance.

The flight to safety/ quality is a lemming charge off the cliff, the eventual stupidity of investors.  

Right now, lemmings are overconfident in the outcome of the US election, where if Trump or Clinton win there will be dramatic changes to policy and directions the nation takes. The volatility level is surprisingly low for an election year, where zero hedge indicates they must think central banks will save them.

Even if your stocks are in profitable companies, even if they execute at 80% to 100% of forecast, they are still able to return to investors %5 on investment. Why is this a problem? Right now companies are using stock buy-backs to gin up returns and keep their options profitable.

Can anyone tell me what the 5% yield means to a stock that has increased 100%? Yes, that yield - ignoring specifics - for the investor buying at twice the price is 2.5%. You are paying far more and getting far less.

Which constituency has the greatest impact when investors run up the stocks' prices? Yes, insiders with options; exactly the wrong people you want to profit from your money. Their sales will be guaranteed, your money is not.

When Icahn, Marc Faber, and Welch  as proven industrial captains are warning of collapse it's not a question of if but when. This is the summary of economics right now:

And yet, this flight may cause the bubble to burst. All it takes is one massive institutional investor to swamp sell out. If you invest in these stocks you are risking 100% of your money with a slim chance of half returns. Insiders will make a profit and you might not be able to sell in time to get out.  Yes, I concede the volatility might gain you a profit in the short term if you are smart and fast enough. How many are both of these? Most are investing on "hope" and that's why they fail.

My definition of stupidity is fighting old battles: not learning from history how to avoid dangers.   The 2008/2009 bubble was seen and people did not respond in time to avoid. The graphs are aligning to 2008 proportions.

Yet another graph with data one can't spin:

Here's another astute investor pointing out it is interest rate hikes - with so many industries depending on cheap money and massive leverage - that is the single biggest risk to future profits and even business as usual. Hanjin is not the only company that will go bankrupt through over-leveraged operations.

Even truck purchases indicate a recession is underway.

More evidence the market is in overhang mode, last week there were two inside weeks in a row. That is a black swan-type unusual event heralding doom conditions.

Jim Cramer thinks it's turned market sentiment that is punishing under-performing stocks. It's not; cautious people are sniffing around the edges of the next financial collapse. Poor performing stocks are the canary in the coal mine.  Savvy investors are not rushing back into stocks if they suspect bad news might trigger a huge drop.  That's not bad sentiment, it's people paying attention!

Here's a smarter play, pull out your money and wait till these stocks crash. That's a guaranteed way to increase your yield buying in the trough not on the the bow wake. Rebuy at reasonable prices is a smart play.

Riskier for those with balls, short Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Deregulate Marijuana

If you want to make marijuana legal, stop calling the process:

"Decriminalizing marijuana"

"Legalizing marijuana"

Both those concepts assume there is a reason why they refer to illegality and therefore they need to be illicit. Marijuana is a natural product like sugar.  It has harmful effects just like caffeine and sugar. Those concepts link it to crime.  This relationship is over simplistic to the point of rejecting the basic premise.

The "decriminalize" mindset is a holdover in the meme psyche of our prohibitionist past. There is no real reason except dogma why that is.

If you want to appeal to right wing thinkers - who work on a pro-conservative basis, you should refer to it as:

"Deregulate marijuana"

Conservatives believe in minimal government and reducing government
overreach into freedoms. To deregulate is to increase freedom and civil rights.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Perfect Futurama Quotes

For those of you who express yourself best in Futurama quotes, because it's the superior nerdy Simpsons, I present to you the Morbotron (It's not mine, I just needed a flashy way to end sentence):


Saturday, August 6, 2016

I am posting on Twitter

Some people may find even shorter discourse interesting.  I find a challenge in compressing many complicated ideas in a single tweet. Most professional people / professionals are not very good at it. Trump is the worst.

If you want some stylistic tips to emulate, here is my Twitter handle. Read how much I can cram in a tweet that's writing practice.

I will follow you back!

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Pax Trumpiana: How Dr. Paul Krugman has it backwards

I read this article, Pax Trumpiana by Dr. Paul Krugman, and I replied with a comment at the bottom.

My comment was not approved by the reviewers, so to anyone wondering if the New York Times is more democratic that Russian Television - which also removed my offensive comments - don't kid yourself. They censor ideas that offend them just as much.  It's a wonder Liberals claim Trumpians are dogmatic when they can't avoid that label themselves.

These sentences are a paraphrase of what I wrote since I thought they would be used:

Dr. Krugman you have it backwards, and normally I don't expect to say that about your viewpoints, generally I agree with them.

Most economic-political problems in the Western World are not a result of America acting as a non-Roman power, they exist precisely because America doesn't act exactly like an Imperial power. To conquer and crush opponents means they are removed political dynamics from the power struggle. Vanquished leave the field and that brings peace and stability because they are no longer contestants. To partially-defeat enemies - in a "civilized" way - means to allow the remains to fester and foment which lengthens the struggle immensely. As we see every day now with radical islamic terrorists. America is too smart by half expecting hating enemies to just retire after defeat - they just wait it out and reconstitute.

The problem is America is a Schizophrenic Empire - that oscillates from isolationist to imperialist and back - wreaking havoc for allies and enemies alike all in the name of "progress". You are the architects of your own tragedy. When America realizes - as it once did - to stamp out and defeat real enemies totally means to bring lasting peace.

Friday, July 22, 2016

A Sociopath as President

So I've been AWOL from blogging as I explore Twitter as another media outlet one can use/abuse/misuse your time with. I find it hilarious that people follow you/ unfollow you based on one -often too short - 144 character idea. It is a demonstration of the fatuousness and shallow wisdom of the average person that can hear one unfavourable idea, not chew it over for the real deeper meaning, and reflect on the reality within which that idea was presented, and thus reject the speaker outright. When I read other people's ideas, the last thing I am is dismissive.  If you are that shallow, I can assure you any great thoughts you think you have are no deeper than a kiddie wading pool.
“Great minds think alike, small minds rarely differ”
On Twitter, as here, I have posited from a state of objectivity towards US presidential candidates my views on both Hillary Clinton@HillaryClinton and Donald J Drumpf /@realDonaldTrump . In each of them, I see a looming disaster for the rest of us on the planet. That disaster comes from the very nature of their sociopathy and their personal pre-emption to others' needs. They have no problem lying to get what they want, and they will sleep well at night whether they succeed or not. That is concerning.

If you want to understand what I find so alarming about both major candidates, read this

Andrew Newton's :Sociopaths – Ten Tell Tale Signs

and tell me if they aren't worrying.  I predicted Trump would win before +Dilbert Scott Adams  because I saw how effectively Trump cleaved workers from the status quo Democrats. He did his research- or had research done by smarter people - that exploited the FoxNewsTruthiness angst.

Even stalwart leftists like Michael Moore now see the writing on the wall:

Clinton has lost and doesn't even realize it. She is sleepwalking into disaster; assuming her massive self-worth is so redeeming that most dumb bastards will agree with her.

The main problems I see with Trump are: he is a thin-skinned reactionary that has been sheltered from real performance disaster by wilful better people so much that he overestimates his own worth. Trump would start a war he didn't prepare for and he wouldn't suffer the indignity of failure. Therein lies hubris.  Remember the fever to war in Iraq, remember the buyer's remorse and the disaster afterwards. Hysteria feels great, the consequences not so much. Many Trump supporters will rue the day.

The main problems I see with Hillary Clinton; she is a self-important amoral liar more obsessed with self-image so much that the taint of failure will be obliterated along with the poor hapless victims in the way. The cost to others may be incalculable but she is certain she won't bear it. Clinton supporters are blinded to what they accept along with the candidate. Clinton would use a war to avoid admitting she made a mistake. How the Clintons conned the Left I will never understand.

I can't help it, this is what I see when Clinton speaks:

Neither is a bright hope for change.

After many months, I would much rather see @GovGaryJohnson as the president because I think he has the right mix of policies and sanity that won't make a bad situation worse. The USA needs to be a stabilizing force and not a destabilizer. 

Back to my main thesis;  I need to make clear that doesn't mean in total I don't agree with the idea of a sociopath being the president.  That's right, because I've lived in the real world long enough to know the job of a societal leader is to be willing to make choices no sane human being can make because the decision requires what is in the best interest of a wider need, the need of a people. Human emotions are the enemy of tough decisions. Sociopaths are free from that empathy that might distract and defeat a people.

I will give you an example I've used before of a president I admire greatly. I will introduce him by reputation first and then by name.
Here is an excerpt from his wikipedia page:

_____________'s main goals in office were to keep pressure on the Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. In the first year of his presidency, he threatened the use of nuclear weapons in an effort to conclude the Korean War; his New Look policy of nuclear deterrence prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for conventional military forces. He ordered coups in Iran and Guatemala. _____________ gave major aid to help France in Vietnam. He gave strong financial support to the new nation of South Vietnam. Congress agreed to his request in 1955 for the Formosa Resolution, which obliged the U.S. to militarily support the pro-Western Republic of China in Taiwan and continue the isolation of the People's Republic of China.
It seems from first glance this was a bloodthirsty sort of man, a Dracula, willing to inflict the severest indignity upon defeated foes, that he would annihilate groups of men in a nuclear explosion as a "cheaper" way to avoid casualties. Intimidating enemies with assured destruction like hanging the severed heads and mutilated bodies as a warning to their kin of what horrors one finds when they enter this foreign dukedom. This leader seems a narcissistic despot, a Hitler-like vanity, slaying foes for the sake of his new Reich.

Take away the name from the strategy, history, and accomplishments and to any sane person it would appear the man at the centre (given that in 1955 a woman president was unthinkable) is true tyrannical villainy. I doubt you realized he warned people he was prepared to use nuclear weapons, but back in that day it was not seen as abhorrent conduct but a means to saving many soldiers' lives, and he was dedicated to that end with all he had done in WWII.


I do not claim to know whether or not Eisenhower was a sociopathic type personality. I doubt it. I would extrapolate that as a soldier that knew and endured and regretted many unspeakable tragedies in pursuit of total victory in WWII Europe, he was made to act in this manner. He learned what wins in war. I like to think it was for him, like most soldiers, the pragmatism of utility hard learned in battle that makes one act as if incapable - to the outside world - of feeling for those that sacrifice. And those vanquished. A man capable of ordering good people to their death without concern and without regret. Order them to sacrifice one does in pursuit of society's goals. That cannot be indistinguishable - by deed alone - from any other single-minded sociopath.

And while Clinton and Trump have all the psychological traits that might make them practical stand-ins for the job, does anyone think they will be as great as an Eisenhower?

The fundamental difference between these two and Eisenhower comes down to a simple factor: Eisenhower was not in it for anything other than serving the people. His people. His stubborn ruthlessness in war was driven by his singular main purpose; to defeat enemies of American interests no matter what the cost.

But if either Trump or Clinton cannot rise to the level of an Eisenhower, then should you risk handing them the keys to the kingdom? Think of all the other ways they might wreak havoc amongst their own people?

The sane choice this election is @GovGaryJohnson.