Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
This article suggests that to the extent Russia is behind the Wikileaks revelations, the intention isn't necessarily to boost Trump so much as it is to undermine American confidence in their democratic process:



Trump a 'puppet' of Putin? WikiLeaks target isn't who you may think, Russia experts say

The article, just like every other Putin under the bed story emanating from the establishment camp, is about creating distractions from the actual content and it's political implications at every turn . Simply put..if you read the leaks and are pissed off you are evil Putins puppet . Dancing to his tune . So ignore them . It's unamerican to read them . Because they're about HRC .

Eta

And it's also a load of unfactual bollocks . As regards " the experts " Clinton has stated that 17 different US intelligence agencies concur with her view that wiki leaks are working for the Russians in releasing these e mails . The US does indeed have 17 different intelligence agencies . But for clintons allegations to be true that would mean the Coast Guard , the Drug Enforcement Agency , the Department of Energy , naval intelligence , and Air Force reconnaissance have all unearthed these facts as well .

Utter bollocks . Smoke ,mirrors and flag waving hysteria .
 
Last edited:
imagine a world where peoples inexplicably networked kettles and periphial devices were used in a massive DDoS attack. I've had enough of this year I really have. The election results come in the day I have to go for a dole scum medical and the day after mothers birthday. Just fuck 2016 already, make it stop.

turnouts will be really interesting on this one I suppose. How many people can hold their nose and vote killary because the alternative is a ham ogre and a bullshit artist. I bet turnout is down on the repub side and up on the dems. But in overall, fuck me stay home and pray for god to cover the earth in a new darkness would be my option
Hiding under the duvet does feel like a good plan at the moment in general. Still I reckon there'll be more unexpected Trump voters turning up on the day than the other way round, so if a lot of people can't stomach going out and voting for HC then it's a real possibility that the ogre / Ramsay Bolton still gets to sit on the iron throne.
 
J Ed Do you think that Hilary Clinton is different in any significant way from the run of the mill exactly what you'd expect establishment US politician though? She just looks like more of the same to me, someone who put the interests of the US and maintaining business as usual before the will of people in a poor neighbouring country for instance.

Obama was , at best, a run of the mill establishment politician who did just that . Clinton is an ideological zealot . She has much more in common with the fascistic ideologues who were advising the idiot Bush and making his decisions for him than with Bush himself . She's a true believer who instinctively identifies the ungrateful poor and anyone else who isn't " onside " as an enemy or potential enemy, rather than merely ignoring them . That's what makes her so dangerous . That and the fact there was at least liberal criticism of Bush . Criticism that did not end up with most of the liberal media denouncing you as a Russian puppet for either disagreeing with him or exposing wrongdoing . Or outright self imposed censorship . Pilger did a very good job in explaining this stuff .

What she's done regarding Russia , Libya etc isn't in US interests . Unless one truly believes the idiotic notion the US truly is exceptional. Not just militarily but morally , politically, culturally etc . That it's manifest destiny is to rule the globe . It's ideological bordering on the pathological. And not necessarily actually in US interests .
 
Just curious: if you had a vote in this election, would you vote Trump or stay home or which?

This is probably the fifth time that I have written this on the thread. I would vote for Clinton in a swing state, I would not vote if I was in a safe red or blue state.

The reason I spend so much time attacking Clinton on here is because there are actually people on here who defend her. With Trump there isn't really anything to discuss or defend, he is such a disgusting figure running on such a vile platform that there is little to talk about or consider in regards to him imo.
 
Ideological zealot for what cause Casually Red ?

American exceptionalism to the nth degree and the project for a new American century . That form of fascism which comprises neo liberalism , militarism and a belief in the manifest destiny of the US to dominate and shape the entire globe . Supremacism, über alles . No matter what the cost .
 
Twitter bots distorting perceptions of candidate support:

Philip Howard, a professor of internet studies at Oxford University's Internet Institute, estimates that fully a third of all the tweets in favour of Donald Trump — and there are millions of them — are generated by automated accounts. Both Howard and Rubec believe that some accounts can pump out as many as 10,000 pro-Trump posts a day.

Meanwhile, automated accounts appear to be responsible for only a quarter of pro-Clinton tweets. And in raw numbers, there are far fewer of those.

At its most basic, says Howard, automated posts in favour of Trump tend to outpace those in favour of Clinton at a rate of four to one.

Partisan Twitter bots distorting U.S. presidential candidates' popularity
 
Twitter bots distorting perceptions of candidate support:



Partisan Twitter bots distorting U.S. presidential candidates' popularity

This has been going on since the primaries, it's not just bots there are dedicated teams of people in call centre environments providing more sophisticated replies. The same tactics have been used by the Russian government, Better Together during the Independence referendum in Scotland and the Ecuadorean government. I think it's a really disturbing, anti-democratic development which has implications that we can't really know yet.
 
Russia has nothing to do with the leaks

from Craig Murray's blog: Blanket Corporate Media Corruption

It is worth noting that Hillary’s claim that 17 US Intelligence Agencies agree that Russia was the source of the leaks is plainly untrue. All they have said is that the leaks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed attacks.” Under extreme White House pressure to state that the Russians did it, that extremely weak statement was the only thing that the US Intelligence chiefs could cobble together. It is very plainly an admission there is no evidence that Russia did it, but the appalling corporate media have reported it as though it “proves” Hillary’s accusation of Russia is true.
...

Similarly my statement of definite knowledge that Russia is not behind the Clinton leaks has caused enormous interest in the internet. One article alone about my visit to Assange has 174,000 Facebook likes. Across all internet media we calculate over 30 million people have read my information that Russia was not responsible for these leaks. There is no doubt whatsoever that I have direct access to the correct information.

Yet not one single mainstream media journalist has attempted to contact me.

Why do you think that might be?
 
Trump will sue every woman who has accused him of sexual assault, once the election is over.

Donald Trump on Saturday pledged post-election lawsuits against every woman who has accused him of sexual assault or other inappropriate behaviour, and he charged Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic Party with orchestrating the allegations.

"Every one of these liars will be sued once the election is over," Trump said, adding, "I look so forward to doing that."

Trump vows to sue his female accusers in speech laying out agenda for 1st 100 days
 
Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator who tweets from the handle @pwnallthethings, was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious. One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police—a figure whose mythic renown was signaled by a fifteen-ton bronze statue that once stood in front of KGB headquarters. Tait tweeted an image of the document's metadata settings, which, he suggested, revealed a failure of operational security.

A second mistake had to do with the computer that had been used to control the hacking operation. Researchers found that the malicious software, or malware, used to break into the DNC was controlled by a machine that had been involved in a 2015 hack of the German parliament. German intelligence later traced the Bundestag breach to the Russian GRU, aka Fancy Bear.

There were other errors, too, including a Russian smile emoji—")))"—and emails to journalists that explicitly associated Guccifer 2.0 with DC Leaks, as the cybersecurity firm ThreatConnect pointed out. But the hackers' gravest mistake involved the emails they'd used to initiate their attack. As part of a so-called spear-phishing campaign, Fancy Bear had emailed thousands of targets around the world. The emails were designed to trick their victims into clicking a link that would install malware or send them to a fake but familiar-looking login site to harvest their passwords. The malicious links were hidden behind short URLs of the sort often used on Twitter.

To manage so many short URLs, Fancy Bear had created an automated system that used a popular link-shortening service called Bitly. The spear-phishing emails worked well—one in seven victims revealed their passwords—but the hackers forgot to set two of their Bitly accounts to "private." As a result, a cybersecurity company called SecureWorks was able to glean information about Fancy Bear's targets. Between October 2015 and May 2016, the hacking group used nine thousand links to attack about four thousand Gmail accounts, including targets in Ukraine, the Baltics, the United States, China, and Iran. Fancy Bear tried to gain access to defense ministries, embassies, and military attachés. The largest group of targets, some 40 percent, were current and former military personnel. Among the group's recent breaches were the German parliament, the Italian military, the Saudi foreign ministry, the email accounts of Philip Breedlove, Colin Powell, and John Podesta—Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman—and, of course, the DNC.

How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History
 
Casually Red Because you think he's less dangerous and different from the above, you'd vote Trump, yes?

Trump is certainly dangerous . My very first post on this thread was about how the prospect of him being elected scared the shite out of me . But I view him as less dangerous on the basis he doesn't have any actual beliefs . There is no inherent reason why he would be predisposed to persue military escalation and conflict , unlike Clinton who is wedded to a course and intends to settle long running scores . He has ridiculed the notion of American exceptionalism and been deeply critical of military misadventures and interventions . That's a straw to cling to but not necessarily a weak one . Neither is he engrossed in a long running personal feud with Putin . He'd rather co operate and get along . That means again war and escalation is less likely under him . At least in that regard . It's certainly possible he could start some other shit though, because he's a fucking idiot .

If I was a yank my personal political preference would have been to vote for Sanders . I firmly believe Sanders had an opportunity to run as an independent after the rigging of the contest was exposed , and that he could well have won had he done that . I'm annoyed, but not exactly surprised, a lot of his stance was exposed as hot air when he later backed Clinton . His primary loyalty was in the end to a party machine rather than political principles . And that surely didn't bode well for any Sanders presidency .

So we're I a yank I'd be one of the ten percent ...at least..of Sanders supporters who'd vote for Trump . To punish the political, media and financial elites and in the hope he actually breaks the US political system in the way he broke the GOP . That he causes stuff to change . Clinton for me represents 21st century fascism and there's no way on earth I could ever endorse it , normalise it or condone it .

Eta

And also because she's been personally complicit in a genocide . That of the Iraqi sanctions era . that should make one inherently unfit for office if there was an ounce of justice and decency in the world . That type of blood simply doesn't wash off . It still repulses me today every bit as much as did then .
 
Last edited:
Trump is certainly dangerous . My very first post on this thread was about how the prospect of him being elected scared the shite out of me . But I view him as less dangerous on the basis he doesn't have any actual beliefs . There is no inherent reason why he would be predisposed to persue military escalation and conflict , unlike Clinton who is wedded to a course and intends to settle long running scores . He has ridiculed the notion of American exceptionalism and been deeply critical of military misadventures and interventions . That's a straw to cling to but not necessarily a weak one . Neither is he engrossed in a long running personal feud with Putin . He'd rather co operate and get along . That means again war and escalation is less likely under him . At least in that regard . It's certainly possible he could start some other shit though, because he's a fucking idiot .

If I was a yank my personal political preference would have been to vote for Sanders . I firmly believe Sanders had an opportunity to run as an independent after the rigging of the contest was exposed , and that he could well have won had he done that . I'm annoyed, but not exactly surprised, a lot of his stance was exposed as hot air when he later backed Clinton . His primary loyalty was in the end to a party machine rather than political principles . And that surely didn't bode well for any Sanders presidency .

So we're I a yank I'd be one of the ten percent ...at least..of Sanders supporters who'd vote for Trump . To punish the political, media and financial elites and in the hope he actually breaks the US political system in the way he broke the GOP . That he causes stuff to change . Clinton for me represents 21st century fascism and there's no way on earth I could ever endorse it , normalise it or condone it .
wow. You'd vote Trump to defeat fascism. ok.
 
American exceptionalism to the nth degree and the project for a new American century . That form of fascism which comprises neo liberalism , militarism and a belief in the manifest destiny of the US to dominate and shape the entire globe . Supremacism, über alles . No matter what the cost .
Despite US bombs in Asia and North Africa, this manifest destiny stuff has rather been in retreat in recent years. The US no longer dictates policy to Latin America. In sub-Saharan Africa, China is the big player today, not the US. NATO has expanded post-Cold War and become decidedly more bellicose, however, I would argue that US global power is generally in retreat. And it is very much an empire run on debt, which both gives it its spoils of empire and leaves it vulnerable to other actors as they become less dependent on US consumption, notably of course China.

I guess the dangers of a failing empire are that it will hit out. But that's true whoever is in the White House as it is driven by conditions, not personalities.
 
Despite US bombs in Asia and North Africa, this manifest destiny stuff has rather been in retreat in recent years. The US no longer dictates policy to Latin America. In sub-Saharan Africa, China is the big player today, not the US. NATO has expanded post-Cold War and become decidedly more bellicose, however, I would argue that US global power is generally in retreat. And it is very much an empire run on debt, which both gives it its spoils of empire and leaves it vulnerable to other actors as they become less dependent on US consumption, notably of course China.

I guess the dangers of a failing empire are that it will hit out. But that's true whoever is in the White House as it is driven by conditions, not personalities.
Hence the power of 'Make America Great Again'. Look how much of Trump's economic plans are all about China, putting it in its place etc.
 
Despite US bombs in Asia and North Africa, this manifest destiny stuff has rather been in retreat in recent years. The US no longer dictates policy to Latin America. In sub-Saharan Africa, China is the big player today, not the US. NATO has expanded post-Cold War and become decidedly more bellicose, however, I would argue that US global power is generally in retreat. And it is very much an empire run on debt, which both gives it its spoils of empire and leaves it vulnerable to other actors as they become less dependent on US consumption, notably of course China.

I guess the dangers of a failing empire are that it will hit out. But that's true whoever is in the White House as it is driven by conditions, not personalities.

It's not in retreat in Clinton / Kagan land though . That's the point . Obama was not a true believer . She and her backers most certainly are .


Eta

And if one sees the hand of the US state department in Honduras as well as regarding Wilma Roussefs ousting..basically a coup...then it very much is dictating policies in Latin America. There's more multi polarity in post chavez Latin America today for sure, but lets not get carried away . Clinton will set about rectifying that . As will her back room team . The bombs that have been dropped in North Africa were her doing . We can expect a lot more once she gets the big seat . Her hearts desire .
 
Last edited:
Hence the power of 'Make America Great Again'. Look hopw much of Trump's economic plans are all about China, putting it in its place etc.
Yes, pure fantasy of course. The US owes enormous amounts of money to China. They cannot afford to piss China off, and are certainly in no position to tell China what to do.

The 'again' is the crucial bit of that slogan, as it was for Reagan. It's a dogwhistle for what? When was America great exactly? Back in the segregationist 50s? Has anyone actually asked Trump this?
 
The 'again' is the crucial bit of that slogan, as it was for Reagan. It's a dogwhistle for what? When was America great exactly? Back in the segregationist 50s? Has anyone actually asked Trump this?
I reckon you're spot on. Race-based campaigns / movements love dressing up in nostalgic national costume , trumpism seems to be just that.
 

Look at the language here

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security | Homeland Security

The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

No actual evidence, just supposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom