Trump to win?

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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?

[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

[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.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

This may not be wise:

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

[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?

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.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Last 4 paragraphs of Taibbi in RS.

The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.

In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.

If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"

Trump can't win. Our national experiment can't end because one aging narcissist got bored of sex and food. Not even America deserves that. But that doesn't mean we come out ahead. We're more divided than ever, sicker than ever, dumber than ever. And there's no reason to think it won't be worse the next time.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-trump-w444943

[santafe2]

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.

Oh good, the well mannered Trump grifter with zero experience. The reality show election is almost over, let's not hope for it to get worse for at least another two years.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

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.

Completely agree. This is why I moved out of renewable energy three years ago and into the US medical business. AR and other technologies are going to be massively disruptive and much more quickly than most people understand. This should be clear to most people by 2020.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump can't win.

Apparently 270 electoral votes worth of the US electorate are coming to their senses. It's about 4:1 against the trumpster fire at this point but it's not clear that the Senate will move to the Democratic Party. If the crayon trolls lose both the Executive Branch and the Senate it's likely we can begin to move forward with the Judiciary and with any luck hear a case against Citizens United in the next four years. I'm hopeful. Bernie is hopeful. I think we're going to get through this.

My favorite part of the Taibbi piece was this:
"He was unable to stop being a reality star. Trump from the start had been playing a part, but his acting got worse and worse as time went on, until finally he couldn't keep track: Was he supposed to be a genuine traitor to his class and the savior of the common man, or just be himself, i.e., a bellicose pervert with too much time on his hands? Or were the two things the same thing? He was too dumb to figure it out, and that paralysis played itself out on the Super Bowl of political stages."

And my favorite moment of the Trump week was watching a black, gay, trumpster fascist put a protester in a choke hold and have the Trump campaign use it as a teachable moment...see...we're diverse.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

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.

Chinese cyber espionage directed at US IP is reported to have declined quite a bit in the last year, no open source clear understanding as to WHY yet:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/52959363.cms

Russian cyber operations directed at the West/US certainly sounds like it's spiked in recent years(per my previous links and a very rare case of actual cyber sabotage on Ukraine electical utilities a year ago).

Surely, the US/west aren't just sitting back and getting attacked without response or possibly even earlier Western action that the Russians could use as justification(after all, cyber is a domain the Russians are great at, it's affordable, and the easiest domain to compete/fight against wealthier and more powerful Western opposition).

One interesting footnote is that US banks invest massively in cyber security relative to their Russian peer group which could be a problem for Russian banks if they were attacked(Russians are very capable on the offensive, but could be quite vulnerable on Defense), but who really wants to go down that track of unintended consequences?

The recently created Tallinn Manual for "cyber law fare" may become as commonly recognised in the popular lexicon as the Geneva Convention some day.

I kinda yearn for the Cold War day of Voice of America, when truth was the best weapon to fight evil.

We are now locked in a world of disinformation and disruption, where truth is a rare commodity constantly under attack.

I sometimes wonder who would fear a truthful and globally directed Voice of America more?

The Russian government or the US government?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Completely agree. This is why I moved out of renewable energy three years ago and into the US medical business. AR and other technologies are going to be massively disruptive and much more quickly than most people understand. This should be clear to most people by 2020.

There are some pretty big life extension moon shot "exploration" projects as well as incremental "exploitation" projects running in Silicon Valley, including a big effort by Google.

If you have real money and power today, I'm sure you'd be quite interested in maintaining it for a few more years or decades.

My measurement is simple, just apply the same yardstick to Ray Kurzweil's predictions for longevity as we see in retrospect with 90's dot com kids.

Just add 15 years to every target date Ray publishes as long as Moore's Law holds.

The $999 full genome sequencing we have today should fall to $299 within 18-24 months.