Trump to win?

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Perhaps it is worth relating that the BBC TV Newsnight recently shewed us that many voters were so pissed off with the conventional political system, that they are disregarding the Trump bad publicity and are determined to vote for him as the only way out of their perceived dilemma.

The Trump fans of Ohio

What's the appeal of Donald Trump? Gabriel Gatehouse reports from Youngstone, Ohio.

Release date:

12 October 2016
Duration:

14 minutes

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

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

What do say of that Director Dulles?



I think you are naive, Jk. But only a little less than Woodsman for obvious reasons. And for those reasons this is his last word on the matter, thanks.

i certainly am uneducated and very likely naive about the the hidden gov't and its operatives and apparatuses. you've accused [is that the right word?] lake of being a spook, but you yourself are the person who has written the most here about spooks, conspiracies, the yankee-cowboy war, alan dulles, and so on. this is obviously an interest of yours....

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

There's a "e" and two "l"'s in Dulles. The old man would be seriously miffed.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

There's a "e" and two "l"'s in Dulles. The old man would be seriously miffed.

ok, "allen" my apologies

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

I can see that almost everyone who is not American on this forum is trying to convey the message - something very wrong is happening to the US politics/government and if not stopped may lead to something disastrous - disastrous not only to Americans, or the whole world.

One may say Americans are fine. I'm sure Germans are fine, today, as they were 80 years ago, they are the same people? The same with Japanese people 80 years ago. The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

Agreed.

Populism is an incredibly powerful tool/vision/strategy for change.

Sadly, most who would leverage populism ultimately use it for evil.

I don't think I need to list sources and evidence for that, the worst horrors in human history started with populist campaigns for change.

Whether it is a violent revolution, non violent resistance, authoritarian state, or deep state hiding behind the vaneer of democracy it is always a small group on the fringe. Always.

Populism can only seize that fulcrum when the pain experienced by the masses is no longer able to be mitigated by the few in control doling out painkillers.

Populists and VCs are both looking for the same thing, to invest in painkillers for profit.

-----

I have absolutely no horse in this race.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable for President. Neither.

It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

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.

The question at issue is this - is the Russian Federation actively targeting the US Democratic Party to help the Republican Party win the 2016 election.

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.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Seems like the Russians may be on Clinton's team:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nergy-company/

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Agreed.

Populism is an incredibly powerful tool/vision/strategy for change.

Sadly, most who would leverage populism ultimately use it for evil.

I don't think I need to list sources and evidence for that, the worst horrors in human history started with populist campaigns for change.

Whether it is a violent revolution, non violent resistance, authoritarian state, or deep state hiding behind the vaneer of democracy it is always a small group on the fringe. Always.

Populism can only seize that fulcrum when the pain experienced by the masses is no longer able to be mitigated by the few in control doling out painkillers.

Populists and VCs are both looking for the same thing, to invest in painkillers for profit.

-----

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.

I have absolutely no horse in this race.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable for President. Neither.

It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

...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.

...

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.

[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.

[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?

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?

Nope! No Russian Jedi mind tricks whatsoever:

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

[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

[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.