Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I reckon you're spot on. Race-based campaigns / movements love dressing up in nostalgic national costume , trumpism seems to be just that.
That also ties in with Trump's Obama birth nonsense. When Obama was born, anti-'miscegenation' laws still existed in the US. In a sense, he embodies the triumph over segregation and racist laws.

And now the son of a KKK man, who enthusiastically followed his father's wishes by racially discriminating with his property, is here to put an end to all that nonsense.

That's the main reason I don't think Trump can win. How can such a man win votes from non-whites? I think he'll win hardly any at all. And that means he loses.
 
That also ties in with Trump's Obama birth nonsense. When Obama was born, anti-'miscegenation' laws still existed in the US. In a sense, he embodies the triumph over segregation and racist laws.

And now the son of a KKK man, who enthusiastically followed his father's wishes by racially discriminating with his property, is here to put an end to all that nonsense.

That's the main reason I don't think Trump can win. How can such a man win votes from non-whites? I think he'll win hardly any at all. And that means he loses.

According to this he's making a strong comeback in the polls . And now would be the time to do it .

Poll shows one message resonated, gave candidate significant boost
 
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?
I don't think it actually points to any particular time other the one where people like Trump could do what the fuck they liked with as little opposition as possible. His rhetoric invites people to revel in the myth that America was ever great for anyone other than people like Trump. False melancholy!
 
I don't think it actually points to any particular time other the one where people like Trump could do what the fuck they liked with as little opposition as possible. His rhetoric invites people to revel in the myth that America was ever great for anyone other than people like Trump. False melancholy!
You're right that it's left open for people to project their meanings onto it, but in the US, isn't nostalgia for a 'simpler' time in which there was work for everyone and life was fairer nostalgia for the 50s? There's virtually no nostalgia for the 50s here - go back to rebuilding after the war? Fuck that. But in the US, it is remembered for some sectors - white blue collar workers, particularly - as a relatively benign time.
 
You're right that it's left open for people to project their meanings onto it, but in the US, isn't nostalgia for a 'simpler' time in which there was work for everyone and life was fairer nostalgia for the 50s? There's virtually no nostalgia for the 50s here - go back to rebuilding after the war? Fuck that. But in the US, it is remembered for some sectors - white blue collar workers, particularly - as a relatively benign time.

We do have a sort of similar revanchism here which looks back favourably at a previous time and I have no idea when that is supposed to be.
 
You're right that it's left open for people to project their meanings onto it, but in the US, isn't nostalgia for a 'simpler' time in which there was work for everyone and life was fairer nostalgia for the 50s? There's virtually no nostalgia for the 50s here - go back to rebuilding after the war? Fuck that. But in the US, it is remembered for some sectors - white blue collar workers, particularly - as a relatively benign time.
And back then men were men and women wore dresses and didn't complain.
 
You're right that it's left open for people to project their meanings onto it, but in the US, isn't nostalgia for a 'simpler' time in which there was work for everyone and life was fairer nostalgia for the 50s? There's virtually no nostalgia for the 50s here - go back to rebuilding after the war? Fuck that. But in the US, it is remembered for some sectors - white blue collar workers, particularly - as a relatively benign time.
Blitz spirit? :D The rhetoric of convincing people that everything was okay, for everyone, and if it wasn't it was their own fault anyway... Oh just like now.... Round and round we go.
 
Last edited:
And back then men were men and women wore dresses and didn't complain.

The Russians were under the bed then too, scheming and plotting to overthrow the US and steal moms apple pie . Seems Clintons brought us back closer to the McCarthy era than Trump ever will . She can guarantee a return to the cold war and a rerun of the Cuban missile crisis too , just for that added bit of nostalgia .
 
News says it's all a publicity stunt, Russian observers are welcome as part of the usual routine oSCE observer mission but they refused to join it.
 
Blitz spirit? :D The rhetoric of convincing people that everything was okay, for everyone, and if it wasn't it was their own fault anyway... Oh just like now.... Round and round we go.

Since there was a higher amount of industrial action during WW2 than there is now I for one would welcome a return to that sort of Blitz spirit..
 
Since there was a higher amount of industrial action during WW2 than there is now I for one would welcome a return to that sort of Blitz spirit..
Not that they are referring to any of those details when the term is used though...which proves my point about using it as an example of this kind of 'myth making'.
 
News says it's all a publicity stunt, Russian observers are welcome as part of the usual routine oSCE observer mission but they refused to join it.

Us news says that I'm sure . There's a number of US states who don't let the OSCE in either . Far from welcome or routine in many parts of the US . If Russia had decided to use that mechanism they'd be accepting the banning as normal, as wel as confining their statements on what they observed , no matter what they actually observed, to the blandishments and requirements of OSCE policy . And what they've elicited ..thus far...is an open admission from one clueless state official that it's the US national security apparatus which has told them not to let the Russians observe .

No doubt they're making a point but that doesn't mean in turn it's not a valid one .
 
- same article:

Meanwhile, the kompromat campaign proceeded apace. August and September each saw six data dumps, including files from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which had also been hacked. In October, as the presidential election drew near, Guccifer published a massive cache, more than twenty-one hundred files. Three days later, WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of emails stolen from John Podesta's account.

On the day WikiLeaks published the first batch of Podesta's emails, the U. S. government took the unprecedented step of announcing that it was "confident" Russia's "seniormost officials" had authorized the DNC hacks. So far U. S. investigators have not said publicly who was responsible for the Podesta hack, but the data harvested by SecureWorks makes it clear that Fancy Bear broke into the Clinton chairman's account as early as late March. The CIA briefed Trump about the origin of the kompromat, but he continued to cite the material, telling a Pennsylvania crowd, "I love WikiLeaks!"
 
Governments have been engaging in espionage - for as long as there have been governments. There's no doubt that since WW2, most if not all wealthy nations have engaged in espionage against both potential adversaries, and so-called friends. The US, Russia, UK, France etc. maintain large security organizations devoted at least in part to these sorts of activities.

The reason seems pretty clear: with knowledge comes power.

It seems naive to believe that for some unexplained reason, Russia has stopped engaging in espionage activities targeting many aspects of the US - and is not interested in obtaining whatever information it can get its hands on about the current election.
 
Governments have been engaging in espionage - for as long as there have been governments. There's no doubt that since WW2, most if not all wealthy nations have engaged in espionage against both potential adversaries, and so-called friends. The US, Russia, UK, France etc. maintain large security organizations devoted at least in part to these sorts of activities.

The reason seems pretty clear: with knowledge comes power.

It seems naive to believe that for some unexplained reason, Russia has stopped engaging in espionage activities targeting many aspects of the US - and is not interested in obtaining whatever information it can get its hands on about the current election.

Nobody has even remotely suggested the Russians don't spy on the US . Of course they do.

What's being suggested here..and by you.. is quite different . Very different and with much more far reaching implications That go way beyond US elections .

Namely that wiki leaks are a Russian tool . That these leaked emails originate from the kremlin . That Russia is directly interfering in the US election . That any media outlet reporting on the leaks is dancing to a Russian tune . That's an entirely different ball game . And there's zero proof of that at all . And yet still you persist in spamming us with this vapid toss that has no actual substance . No matter how many times that's pointed out to you .

Eta

Like has it not dawned on you that if the Russians discovered a back door into the likely future us presidents private communications they'd keep that under wraps and not alert anyone to this massive , gaping hole in US national security ? If knowledge equals power why on earth burn your source of both that knowledge and power ? Why give your opponent direct knowledge of what your source is and allow them to blind you ?
 
Last edited:
Right..and where's the bit with the proof Russia had a hand in it ? There is none whatsoever .
This bullshit is just a massive distraction from the stuff that's actually in them . Not that you give one single flying fuck as to what actually is in them . Not one .


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
 
I don't think they alerted anyone: they got caught.
I think CR makes a good point. Whoever did the hack gave it to wikileaks, so if they got caught, which I doubt they have tbh given the backtracking of US rhetoric, it was only because they gave it to wikileaks. Doesn't sound like effective spying to me. To what end, to discredit the US election? Why bother? Surely the US needs no help in doing that all on their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom