Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

I agree Shiny.

Maybe this is part of the meme that Woodsman feels the Democrats are trying to do.

I's not the Russians trying to effect our election; it's another DNC dirty trick.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

This may not be wise:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...russia-n666636

I have a hard time believing that a Super-Top-Secret CIA plot is being advertised in the MSM. Looks like political theater to me. Sabre rattling.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

This may not be wise:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...russia-n666636

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Sarah Smarsh - “These facts haven’t stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class’s giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.”

The BBC piece is pretty close to what she's complaining about.

I'm not dismissing the point of her article, but writing in October while linking to polling data from May is disingenuous.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

Moving on, did you all take note of the most excellent BBC Newsnight piece Chris Coles posted. In this silly season, we have to go the foreign press to get a reasoned view of things.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04bsl5z

And this recent item from the Guardian is good complement to the Newsnight story. It touches on the Woodsman strategery and J.D. Vance is referenced, among others.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...lass-americans

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

the thing that makes all of this 'discussion' quite hilariously farcical - of whether it's the russian spooks or our very own spooks or the RNC spooks divulging all this evidence of malfeasance - while IGNORING what is actually being divulged -

is in effect saying "... at this point, what difference does it make..." that the hillamonster is crooked, bought-off and a pathological liar

but apparently, it's ONLY to the 'with her' crowd, that WHAT IS BEING DIVULGED is 'irrelevent' ?

when there's a bunch of us that think that whats coming out is VERY RELEVANT - in that IT CONFIRMS what the 'alt right' and the 'non-news' network - along with ZH et al, has been saying all along - about the most corrupt, inept and bought-off admin is US History - and THE TRUTH is FINALLY coming out:

"The Most Important WikiLeak" - How Wall Street Built The Obama Cabinet

The most important WikiLeak yet reveals how senior Wall Street bankers built the cabinet of Obama, the supposed protector of "main street."

• Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM

but.. the most RELEVANT? (and there's lots more to this)

As New Republic points out, the Froman appointments ended up being almost entirely right.

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn’t know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.

and WE WANT ANSWERS on why nobody 'with her' seems to think any of this is IMPORTANT?

[Jam]

Re: Trump to win?

you're right, we can't trust that the dnc/podesta hacks were russian, nor can we know that they're not russian.

[...]

to deny it's russia is just as ill-founded as to assert it.

So, I guess, it leaves us in a quantum superposition state of believing that Russia may or may not be involved. (Kind of like the statement in your avatar.)

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

you're right, we can't trust that the dnc/podesta hacks were russian, nor can we know that they're not russian.

your "yes-no" question to lake was disingenuous, however, because you well know that no one here is capable of giving a well-founded yes or no answer. or if someone is capable of it, they aren't likely to tell. or if they tell, they aren't likely to share the basis on which they know. or if they share the basis on which they know, we would have no way of verifying that basis, just as we have no way of verifying the sources lake supplied, nor a way of knowing whether those sources are being fooled themselves, nor whether those sources are "in" on some false flag operation.

to deny it's russia is just as ill-founded as to assert it.

It's not disingenuous at all, but rather demonstrative of the very point you just made. It's distraction and redirection and that's how I called it from go. I didn't introduce the topic, but thanks for tying it all up in a nice epistemological bow for us. Nothing much more we can say about it that hasn't been said. The waters are sufficiently muddied and we are left only the choice of whose black propaganda we like better, just the way the "community" likes it.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Trust us, we're from the government. Would we lie to you?

you're right, we can't trust that the dnc/podesta hacks were russian, nor can we know that they're not russian.

your "yes-no" question to lake was disingenuous, however, because you well know that no one here is capable of giving a well-founded yes or no answer. or if someone is capable of it, they aren't likely to tell. or if they tell, they aren't likely to share the basis on which they know. or if they share the basis on which they know, we would have no way of verifying that basis, just as we have no way of verifying the sources lake supplied, nor a way of knowing whether those sources are being fooled themselves, nor whether those sources are "in" on some false flag operation.

to deny it's russia is just as ill-founded as to assert it.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

It is difficult not to be influenced by the American MSM. If Trump is as bad as they had portrayed, he would have been in jail.

Do you think money and power don't keep people out of jail?

Can anyone male here swear to god that they had never said anything sexist in their whole lives?

It's been a long time since I was in a locker room. I would not be surprised to hear talk of appreciating certain female assets or "I'd like to" statements. Trump's came off a bit more aggressive than that. And some were admissions of past events: "I tried to".

Also, they weren't in a locker room. It was a business setting. He was sucked in by a sycophant and wasn't smart enough to play it cool.

Added to the disparaging remarks we've all seen on video and other things, I think we've seen far too much of what he thinks.

As I see it, Trump doesn't need to be the US President. Anyone in his position don't need to. He already has the wealth and TV fame which his competitors don't. In fact, by going against the establishment, the bankers, he risks damaging his own business.

The wealth and fame his competitors don't have, but not the maximum wealth and fame. I don't think he saw it as a risk when he started.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

What a mensch. Mazel-tov!

Trust us, we're from the government. Would we lie to you?

WMD's in Iraq
Iraq and 9/11
Iraq and anthrax atttacks
Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Operation Nortwoods
Operation Mongoose
Operation Bingo
Operation Dirty Trick
Operation Gladio
Operation Ajax
Lavon Affair
Operation Embarrass
Pearl Harbor attack
Lusitania attack


"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
Franklin Roosevelt. Campaign Address at Boston, Massachusetts. October 30, 1940


"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
Lyndon Johnson. Remarks in Memorial Hall, Akron University. October 21, 1964


“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
George W. Bush. Remarks by the President on Teaching American History and Civic Education. East Literature Magnet School. Nashville, Tennessee. September 17, 2002



"The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred."
Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation. The Iraq War 2003

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Nope! No Russian Jedi mind tricks whatsoever:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...k-op-ed-229740

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

What logic, Steed?

You keep moving the goal posts and alleging I've made claims I haven't. I never made a claim that "external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption." I acknowledged that and put forward another external actor that does just that.

I simply state that until someone presents some evidence - any evidence at all, not mere opinion or speculation or assertions - that the Russian Federation is actively targeting the US Democratic Party to help the Republican Party win the 2016 election, I call bullshit. As for inflexible narrative, that's all we get from you - Russia, Russia, Russia.

You ignored the question the last time and went straight for the ad hominem, so here it is again.



You don't need a 10K word salad and half a dozen links, just pick one: yes or no. If it's no, then thanks for playing. If it's yes, show us the cards.

On second though, don't worry about it. The one thing you said that's absolutely true should be the common ground we leave the matter. This topic has jumped the shark.

No worries James "Fonzie" Angleton! <-------it kinda quid pro quo fits don't cha think? ;)

And "yes", with yes being a very real possibility based on:

Independent Mandiant analysis(they nailed the Chinese PLA a few years back)

Independant Fidelis Cybersecurity analysis

Independent Crowd Strike analysis(hired by DNC)

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all...d-the-dnc-hack

The forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong. On June 20, two competing cybersecurity companies, Mandiant (part of FireEye) and Fidelis, confirmed CrowdStrike’s initial findings that Russian intelligence indeed hacked the DNC. The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys. For example: in late March the attackers registered a domain with a typo—misdepatrment[.]com—to look suspiciously like the company hired by the DNC to manage its network, MIS Department. They then linked this deceptive domain to a long-known APT 28 so-called X-Tunnel command-and-control IP address, 45.32.129[.]185.One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address—176.31.112[.]10—that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC’s servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
The evidence linking the Guccifer 2.0 account to the same Russian operators is not as solid, yet a deception operation—a GRU false flag, in technical jargon—is still highly likely. Intelligence operatives and cybersecurity professionals long knew that such false flags were becoming more common. One noteworthy example was the sabotage of France’s TV5 Monde station on 9/10 April 2015, initially claimed by the mysterious “CyberCaliphate,” a group allegedly linked to ISIS. Then, in June, the French authorities suspected the same infamous APT 28 group behind the TV5 Monde breach, in preparation since January of that year. But the DNC deception is the most detailed and most significant case study so far. The technical details are as remarkable as its strategic context.
The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named “Феликс Эдмундович,” a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.

And longstanding integrated Russian maskirovka doctrine:

Swedish analysis of Russian cyber doctrine from 2010: http://www.foi.se/reportfiles/foir_2970.pdf

CEPA report on Russian weaponised disinformation: http://www.foi.se/reportfiles/foir_2970.pdf

Ohhhh, before I forget....The 4th Anual Cyber Security Conference is being held in Riga, Latvia in 2 weeks.

Right down the road from the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia.

Pretty much the epicentre of Cyber universe the last decade(outside of China stealing everything) since Russia started messing with them in 2007.

Because the Baltics be like: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vD94dVu8lqQ

I guess they didn't get Fonzie's memo that Cyber is no longer cool.

In fact, it's never, ever, never been cooler.
-----

Maybe you can quid pro quo an equally unanswered question:

How do you explain the global consistency in analysis from non US aligned individuals, groups, and countries(Sweden) concerning the Russian Cyber threat, specifically information operations targeting foreign countries?

Is that all a CIA sayanim Jew plot too?

"Aaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!" <----- that's my Fonzie impression.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Ivanka for President.

Solves all the problems:
1. Can't be accused of sexism and abusing women;
2. Almost certainly more trustworthy in the broad public's opinion than Mrs. Clinton;
3. Slam dunk to get the "it's time for a woman in the Oval Office" vote;
4. Still married to her first spouse; highly unlikely he's a philanderer;
5. Tougher under fire than her father, with more grace;
6. Bonus Points: Will probably bring some class back to the White House, missing since the Reagan's left.

Or better yet, query DOD personnel records for a 40-50 year old attractive legal 2nd generation Latina veteran small business owner, fiscal conservative, social liberal, who runs on a platform of a 1 page tax code, all source media ownership diversity, and promising to have at least one genuinely senior corrupt/guilty person from the deep state swinging from a rope. Or failing the ability to execute one really, really bad person, bring back duelling.

Or Ross Perot dies and leaves his money to a charity with the sole intent of destroying the deep state.

A guy can dream.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Yes, the word is populism. The other thing is absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies not just to dictators but a small group of people.

Agreed. And the greater the pain felt for the average person the greater the potential risk of malignant populism.

I think the desperate need for positive change will not increase linearly, but exponentially, to parallel the increasing risk of malignant populism.



It is difficult not to be influenced by the American MSM. If Trump is as bad as they had portrayed, he would have been in jail.

Agreed on the latter(although he is the epitome of ugly ignorant American white male redux), but on the former it isn't a problem if you avoid it. With the exception of adding it to the list of what to generally avoid, an analog to doing the opposite of what Jim Kramer on CNBC tells you to do.

What about social influence? A far more powerful shaping effect. My recent Stanford cohort maintains huge daily network comes traffic. While at school and now dispersed globally, the name Trump was mud then and now in small to large groups.

What's interesting was who approached me individually(then and now). One on one conversations differ substantially. My Mainland Chinese peers universally love Trump but are afraid to say it in open forum.

Displaying open support for Trump would be akin to alumni network death, but one on one is a different story.

Personally, I found it quite challenging to take a "both are woefully inadequate" position with them and convey the criminal levels of Clinton corruption that are incongruent with my belief system.

Corruption can't be erased, but it can certainly be far less all encompassing to our national existence.


I'll be very blunt on this, if you were to compare with people who killed hundreds of thousands of babies and children in the Middle East, what's so bad about a couple of vulgar words?

Look at Duterte in the Philippines. He's running mass death squads thus far targeting only drug dealers(meth is out of control in the Philippines). My friends there love him for it. Iron fist extrajudicial mass murder. They love him for it. And they are pretty reasonable people. Things have gotten out of hand in the Philippines crime and ultra local security/governance wise. So mass extrajudicial murder makes one a hero to be placed on an alter for all to worship.

Can anyone male here swear to god that they had never said anything sexist in their whole lives? If you were a billionaire, unless you are computer nerd who needs a mama-cum-wife like Mark, there will be tons of women throwing themselves at you. We are not to judge.

I'm grateful ubiquitous digital cameras and the internet weren't prevalent during the worst of my youth. Traditional photography was bad enough for me. I'm not one to judge, but I wouldn't piss on Trump or Hillary if they were on fire.

As someone with professional experience assesing volunteers under considerable amounts of stress, Trump in his younger years is someone I'd want to have had under assessment. I suspect he would perform poorly. Just a hunch.

I've met a fair few people with similar/greater levels of wealth and/or power than Trump. He seems to act more like a Hollywood celebrity gone full retard than someone with REAL wealth/power and that's after filtering out his incredibly successful and entirely intentional free advertising doctrine.

As I see it, Trump doesn't need to be the US President. Anyone in his position don't need to. He already has the wealth and TV fame which his competitors don't. In fact, by going against the establishment, the bankers, he risks damaging his own business.

I stated here and elsewhere long ago that I believed Trump would run for the free personal brand advertising and bow out.

Why didn't Michael Bloomberg run for president? He could have easily won. His credentials and reputation are 10 times better.

Or Romney redux.....I tend to agree, but I have to admit a bias against Bloomberg.....a huge one....I just don't like the guy.

The old people that are controlling America are all their 70s and 80s, they don't have many more years to live. How often can a person in his mid-80s live to 100? Longevity is not something you can buy. They know the end game but it will happen way past them.

So you may ask don't they care about their kids? Well, they are billionaires, they can go anywhere, if need be even setup a colony on Antarctica or outer space.

If you think the current Silicon Valley tech focus on autonomous vehicles and the 2 trillion a year consolidated US transport industry is big, wait until healthcare as IT gains traction.

I am convinced after my time there recently(I am biased towards it) that life extension tech will be the biggest boom of them all when it occurs after transport tech.

I'm just waiting to see Star Wars Rogue One. The new trailer looks amazing. Although all the white middle aged guys are on Team Bad Guy(dark handsome Spaniard sidekicks don't count).

Being a white middle aged male I think I'll be at risk of having stones thrown at me or at least boo'd.

But it's about rebellion and underdogs giving the finger to The Man, so it will be worth it.