Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

woodsman, i find it interesting to note which posts you choose to respond to, and which you choose to ignore.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

this morning on npr a journalist was interviewed who had some time back written a 10,000 word piece for newsweek on libya, benghazi, etc. trump at a rally last night read a couple of line from what he said was an email by sidney blumenthal to podesta, which said hillary was indeed vulnerable to criticism about benghazi. the journalist heard trump speaking and recognized that those lines were his, from his newsweek article, and of course were lifted out of context. he also wondered how they'd gotten to trump with the blumenthal attribution. it turns out that blumenthal had forwarded the newsweek article to podesta, and it was part of the wikileaks podesta archive that was just released. the only place in public media where those lines had been quickly posted, again out of context, was at sputniknews.com, a russian source. doesn't prove anything, but the timing, the speed with which it reached trump, was remarkable.

And now the Clinton party line is to ignore the contents of the emails and advance the no-evidence lie that Trump is getting the leaks ahead of everyone else and that means he's a Russian agent. As I am fond of saying, the best propaganda is one that we already believe.

This story you advance has already been addressed by Greenwald in one of my earlier posts. There's no there there, as with everything else in this Trump as Russian Agent canard.

More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.

Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

That’s all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn’t. It was just Sputnik misreporting the email. Once Sputnik realized that its article misattributed the text to Blumenthal, it took it down. It’s not hard to imagine how a rushed, careless Sputnik staffer could glance at that email and fail to realize that Blumenthal was forwarding Eichenwald’s article rather than writing it himself. And while nobody knows how this erroneous Sputnik story made its way to Trump for him to reference in his speech, it’s very easy to imagine how a Trump staffer on a shoddy, inept campaign — which has previously cited InfoWars and white supremacist sites, among others — would have stumbled into a widely shared Sputnik story that had been published hours earlier on the internet and then passed it along to Trump for him to highlight, without realizing the reasons to be skeptical.

In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it’s worth noting. But that’s not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal.

In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It’s all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald’s increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was — a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated — into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center.

What is remarkable is the collusion and coordination among the WH, the DNC and the media to bury the mountain of evidence coming forth in these damning leaks before there is enough time for folks to start putting two and two together. If you folks think these clowns are going back to business as usual once the election is over, think again. Welcome to the new normal.

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

this morning on npr a journalist was interviewed who had some time back written a 10,000 word piece for newsweek on libya, benghazi, etc. trump at a rally last night read a couple of line from what he said was an email by sidney blumenthal to podesta, which said hillary was indeed vulnerable to criticism about benghazi. the journalist heard trump speaking and recognized that those lines were his, from his newsweek article, and of course were lifted out of context. he also wondered how they'd gotten to trump with the blumenthal attribution. it turns out that blumenthal had forwarded the newsweek article to podesta, and it was part of the wikileaks podesta archive that was just released. the only place in public media where those lines had been quickly posted, again out of context, was at sputniknews.com, a russian source. doesn't prove anything, but the timing, the speed with which it reached trump, was remarkable.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

1. Unlike Japan, cultural wise, China has no problems letting in foreigners to work or live in China, the way the UK does. It doesn't do that now because there's no need to - there's simply too many people in major Chinese cities and many Chinese fresh college graduates are unemployed. Unless you highly connected or a well known business man, you can't even get a permanent residence permit in China, all foreigners need to be employed and must be authorized by the government to stay and work in China. If China relaxes the regulations and becomes more pro-migration, it won't be difficult to see a million people migrating from Europe and America to work in China within a couple years.

2. China is starting to relax the one child policy - it is still not too late if you consider the huge population.

3. Medical care in major Chinese cities are already more advanced than in the West, combining TCM, healthy lifestyle like taichi and modern medicine. China isn't held hostage to the healthcare industry, at least at this moment.

1. It remains to be seen if the most productive immigrant workers go to China to work. China has to figure out a way to produce higher-value goods for this to occur but it appears to be a chicken-egg problem to me.

2. I'm not convinced relaxing the one-child policy is going to do anything for China other than make things even worse. Encouraging a population increase in an already overpopulated country to address China's demographic "problem" sounds very similar to the idiotic economic policies of the past few decades in the developed world.

3. As China becomes wealthier, it is also going to develop a lot more first world problems: obesity and all of the nasty problems that come from obesity. Also, it remains to be seen if good medical care in China is going to be affordable. I seriously doubt it'll become as insanely expensive as the U.S. (I don't think any country on the planet can beat the U.S. on outrageous medical costs) but I also seriously doubt good medical care will be available to any but a very few 5% or so of the population.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Call me Captain Kirk, going where no man has gone before.

You have no evidence, just thousands of words of hearsay and unattributed quotes. And then you subtly change the subject from allegations that the Russian Federation is targeting the Democratic Party so as to help Trump win to "Russian trolling." A big nothingburger is what you serve on this Lake and you keep bringing out even though we send it back to the kitchen every time.

If they had something, we would have seen it after the investigation was wrapped up. The FBI Director - curiously missing in this picture when CI is his job, how odd - and the Attorney General (or at the least a most senior DOJ official) would be at that cramped little press room giving their presser on how the bad guys were caught. They'd hand out detailed documentation on the case and an indictment with all the evidence they could share without revealing sources and methods.

Or, it would all happen in the dark and none of us would hear anything about anything. But instead, we have curiously timed press conferences delivering no new information and regurgitating the same old evidence free claims. We have fact free allegations from the subjects of those emails that "The Russkies did it" but nothing more. It does not pass the smell test.

As for your ad hominems, can you see the tears running down my face?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Wow. So exactly which of the comedy troupe are you and Woodsman in the video?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU

I think this is the exact point where iTulip has officially jumped the shark:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WvGopsM1G9g

I was not trying to be disrespectful; simply stating what I feel is the truth as I have come to see it; while at one and the same moment admitting that I may well be wrong. How does an honest comment "Jump the shark"?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

vt, the article you posted was not about demographics. it was a poll showing a plurality of people unhappy with both parties. let me remind you: demographics-statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it.
the bit i posted above discussed various demographic groups - e.g. whites with college educations, african-americans, suburban women - to try to think how they might reshuffle from their present alignment. your gallup poll was not germane.

lake - you have made clear that you at times act in a military or military-advisory capacity. at no time did it occur to me that you had hidden agendas. perhaps i am naive [per woodsman or chris coles] but that is still what i think.

woodsman- i think you are blinded by your rage and disappointment. i have great respect for your knowledge and have continually tried to draw you into civil and interesting discourse in order to learn from you. instead, since the end of the sanders campaign and your choice to make your agenda maximal destruction, i experience your posts as metaphorically spitting in my face. i think this was clearest when you said that i had intimated you were a racist, when in my mind i had done no such thing. i asked you to point out where i had done so and you told me to kiss your white ass. perhaps i should have given up right then but as i said, i have great respect for your knowledge and hoped to somehow bring our discourse - between you and me, and more broadly as well - back to some productive value.

the destruction you are wishing on our country's political system is attractive to me, too, but i fear trump would destroy much else, including things that i and - i suspect you - value. and i think your anger is wreaking destruction here, a place that i and - i suspect you - value. but perhaps you value it no more, i don't know.

i do know your animus is very unpleasant and comes out in a variety of ways. for example. your repeated need to address me as "doctor" - i can hear a snarl i think - when my profession is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. i have mentioned being a doctor when medical issues are discussed, but at no other times. but i guess you feel i somehow "pulled rank" by doing so and are angry at me for doing so. perhaps there is some other reason, but it is beyond me.

it's a sad thing, and a great loss for us all. one of the things i have long valued about itulip was the community's ability to have productive discussions among people who disagreed, whether about politics or economics. i remember banging my head repeatedly against finster and bart [remember bart?] in the early days in our discussions about the economy. but everyone hung in and was civil, and the discussion was ultimately quite productive, at least for me. i invite you once more to posit good will among the members here.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Having been on this site since its re-inception I can only say that I certainly had, some time ago, from reading your posts; long ago come to the conclusion that you are, or certainly were once; a spook. Yes, certainly, I am often wrong about such matters. It is simply that to my mind, you do seem to have so much knowledge of the genre; that you, (certainly seem to), give the game away without realising it.

Wow. So exactly which of the comedy troupe are you and Woodsman in the video?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sglyFwTjfDU

I think this is the exact point where iTulip has officially jumped the shark:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WvGopsM1G9g

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

The guy actually accused me of being a spook.....seriously?

Having been on this site since its re-inception I can only say that I certainly had, some time ago, from reading your posts; long ago come to the conclusion that you are, or certainly were once; a spook. Yes, certainly, I am often wrong about such matters. It is simply that to my mind, you do seem to have so much knowledge of the genre; that you, (certainly seem to), give the game away without realising it.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

The U.S. will continue to do fine for the next 30 years as fortress America and technology keep the economy afloat and positive demographics speed up growth.

I've no doubt that technology will keep some parts of America afloat, but it could be a double edged sword. States like California will do exceedingly well, but the US is not just California, and having some states doing much better because they can export technology only increases the wealth divide.

Asia? Well parts of it will do well.

But remember Japan and Russia are demographically deceased and China has worse demographics than the U.S. by far. India is the future of Asia and southeast will do well.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the progress that is happening in Asia in the past 20 years. China is advancing rapidly and catching up very fast on technology.

India is also progressing very well as is parts of South East Asia, particularly Indonesia. Chinese companies are investing hugely in Indian companies - http://knowstartup.com/2016/10/alibaba-paytm/

A lot of MSM new is hype and focuses only on the present, when what is more important is the rate of change. They simply can't tell the truth otherwise Americans will revolt.

China in 1996 vs 2016 is a huge difference in terms of living standards, let alone compare with 1986 when they are not much better than the North Korea today, and in comparison the rest of the developed world was better off in 1996 than 2016.

The demographics issue in China is the biggest problem that China will face, but I think is not insurmountable for the following reasons:

1. Unlike Japan, cultural wise, China has no problems letting in foreigners to work or live in China, the way the UK does. It doesn't do that now because there's no need to - there's simply too many people in major Chinese cities and many Chinese fresh college graduates are unemployed. Unless you highly connected or a well known business man, you can't even get a permanent residence permit in China, all foreigners need to be employed and must be authorized by the government to stay and work in China. If China relaxes the regulations and becomes more pro-migration, it won't be difficult to see a million people migrating from Europe and America to work in China within a couple years.

2. China is starting to relax the one child policy - it is still not too late if you consider the huge population.

3. Medical care in major Chinese cities are already more advanced than in the West, combining TCM, healthy lifestyle like taichi and modern medicine. China isn't held hostage to the healthcare industry, at least at this moment.

A video says it all..

Shanghai in 1992

23 years later

China is not stopping still at 2015, the change is in fact accelerating, the changes over the next 10 years will look nothing like what happened over the last 20 years.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Lake,

You just don't get it. Do you really believe the DNC smear machine accusations of the Russians of trying to influence this election in collusion with Trump??

Do I "believe the DNC smear machine"?

I believe neither the DNC nor the GOP. I see them and their ilk as little different from Orwell's 1984 or real world examples like the Nazi Ministry of Propoganda and Communist Party Central Committes.

Where have you been? In a time warp?

Far from it. I've been getting tutored on and monitoring a broad spectrum of alleged(as well as proven) Russian information operations in recent weeks.

My feed includes a broad spectrum of niche open source info-sec and info-ops news, and a few SMEs. The rise in Russian cyber operations(disruption/disinformation) has put even the massive persistent Chinese cyber espionage threat on the back burner chatter wise.

Russian cyber ops have been rising(very aggressively in the last 2 years) for a decade starting with the attack on Estonia in 2007. https://ccdcoe.org/index.html

That's indisputable by anyone credible in these niche communities.

Have a look around. A good look around: http://thebostontribune.com

Attribution?

That's admittedly hard. But it does possess indicators.

You may wish to ask Woodsman why it's OK to go with accusations and lack of legal attribution for US based political/covert action, but the same standard doesn't apply with others.? hmmm. Funny that.

Has Russia(formerly the Soviet Union) ever engaged in active measures to undermine the West during the initial chapters of the Cold War? Without question.

Just as the US brought down the Warsaw Pact in 1989, and ultimately the Soviet Union via clandestine/covert means(mostly non-kinetic).

People seem to forget that Putin was a KGB Colonel in the waning days of the initial Cold War and surrounds himself with people of similar education/work experience.

Yet I'm a DNC stooge and/or a "spook" by simply taking a clinical look at cyber over the last decade and repeatedly displaying my disdain for the DNC and Hillary in particular.

This entire election is about the final political realignment that has been going on for well over a decade. Americans are angry with 60% wanting to fire every politician! All of them.

What do you think the Sander's campaign was about? The DNC emails plainly tell of the plot to get rid of Bernie.

Bernie was a Democrat for about as long as Italy's Prime Ministers average tenure since WWII...which would be measured in months not years. NO ONE takes kindly to new comers.

Trump is the beginning of the end of the Republicans.

Both parties are being disintermediated due to both communication technology and their horrid behaviour. Your "research" at the bottom indicates that nicely, and equally.

Iteration 1.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

There will be as many iterations as it takes to disrupt the machine.

Woody is a well spoken messenger. You would do well to listen to him.

You've obviously drunk the Kool-Aid in mass quantities, so it's unlikely you would see or even acknowledge Woodsman's consistently one-eyed paranoid world view attacking anyone/everyone who fails to follow his rigid "US is Evil" doctrine.

The guy actually accused me of being a spook.....seriously?

And it's not the first time.

Sorry, there's lots of blame to go around. As well as lots of well motivated and capable players that fall outside of Woodsman's very limited and inflexible vision.

And to do a bit of research yourself:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/de...ical-lows.aspx

Your "research" says nothing any of us don't already know.

Americans are equally embarrassed(margin of error making it rough parity) at being associated with either major political party.

Here's some research that says everything if you can see the forest thru the trees:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/conf...titutions.aspx

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Lake,

You just don't get it. Do you really believe the DNC smear machine accusations of the Russians of trying to influence this election in collusion with Trump??

Where have you been? In a time warp?

This entire election is about the final political realignment that has been going on for well over a decade. Americans are angry with 60% wanting to fire every politician! All of them.

What do you think the Sander's campaign was about? The DNC emails plainly tell of the plot to get rid of Bernie.

Trump is the beginning of the end of the Republicans.

Woody is a well spoken messenger. You would do well to listen to him.

And to do a bit of research yourself:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/de...ical-lows.aspx

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

McCarthyite red-baiting baloney and I think you know it is Lake. I'd say shame on you but since you might be acting here in a "professional" capacity I understand that orders are orders.

Nonetheless, you have zero evidence. Total bovine scatalogy spook crap.



Boris Badenov and Natasha are more convincing, but hardly more laugh out loud funny than this Russian plot bull. Folks need to read this one again to inoculate themselves from this spy vs. spy nonsense. This isn't Italy 1948 and there's no Red Menace to scare Americans into submission. Y'all are going to have to come up with a new script.

Did you REALLY go there Woodsman? REALLY?

I've posted here for nearly a DECADE with thousands of posts and direct professional contact with quite a few forum members, including EJ....several thousand hours invested...but in reality I'm actually masquerading as "The Man"(that's sarcasm, please don't let this feed your unhealthy delusions).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1_nUVRcxNU


So I guess the Russians don't have ANY troll farms for online information operations directed at the US/West?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/ma...ency.html?_r=0

There's an additional dozen or so reputable sourced in depth articles on the same topic.

As far as direct Russian government involvement and/or direct sponsorship of cyber espionage and information operations there is a ton of credible content and evidence to be found on:

Blogs of War/Covert Contact Podcast by John Little who has outstanding balanced analysis

Black Hat Briefings Podcasts for techside

Krebs on Security website and interviews for techside

Info Ops HQ Podcast (led by Nicole Matejic, well worth googling her)

Cyber Wire Podcast, highly regarded in the industry and clearly divergent to you

War On the Rocks Podcast and website content

I can't compete with you anymore Woodsman, I'm no match for your brains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

However, I will continue to watch you in your leadership role in dragging this forum further down the gurgler of irrelevance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vp--AlWBrU

Sadly, I can't seem to look away from this trainwreck, and I'm not referring to the election.

For someone who appear to be so well read on such infamous names as James Angleton, you might want to re-read the parts where he was legendary for his intellectual inflexibility and terminal case of paranoia.

No offense woodsman, but you're not worthy of "The Man's" time to actively undermine you.....you're simply not as important as you strangely seem to think you are....and besides...you're doing a brilliant job scaring everyone away all by yourself.

Please.....continue.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

We already have the demographics: I've posted this before. All we need is the right leader with the right message:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/de...ical-lows.aspx

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Shhh, please. Watching The Donald.

i fixed it, there's an image now, but it has to be clicked to expand. btw, still interested in your thoughts on demographics of the new order.