RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Of course, I will be expecting the same standards from others, so let there be no more references to Trump's sanity or choice of hair dye. Those have been done to death, if you don't mind. . .

Don't be such a penis

Having some of your posts criticised does not give you the right to dictate what others may or may not comment on.

I love emoticons they give so much additional weight to everything I say



Also, it seems the American intelligence agencies now believe that the Russians Hacked the RNC as well as the democrats. They chose to pass on only the democrat data to WikiLeaks however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... -news&_r=2

All seems a bit woolly for me. But I would be interested in seeing what sort of digital fingerprints they are seeing in common on both accounts.

It always struck me as an internal leak was the most likely cause. Disgruntled democrat/employee peeved at Clinton's reckless disregard for the rules, or maybe a US hacker group similar, or linked to Anonymous on the search for social justice.

But, this is America and when all else fails, blame the Ruskies is the best explanation.

WaspInWales wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

rowan wrote:Of course, I will be expecting the same standards from others, so let there be no more references to Trump's sanity or choice of hair dye. Those have been done to death, if you don't mind. . .

Don't be such a penis

Having some of your posts criticised does not give you the right to dictate what others may or may not comment on.

I love emoticons they give so much additional weight to everything I say



Also, it seems the American intelligence agencies now believe that the Russians Hacked the RNC as well as the democrats. They chose to pass on only the democrat data to WikiLeaks however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... -news&_r=2

All seems a bit woolly for me. But I would be interested in seeing what sort of digital fingerprints they are seeing in common on both accounts.

It always struck me as an internal leak was the most likely cause. Disgruntled democrat/employee peeved at Clinton's reckless disregard for the rules, or maybe a US hacker group similar, or linked to Anonymous on the search for social justice.

But, this is America and when all else fails, blame the Ruskies is the best explanation.

I guess the internal leak theory would be disproved if it was possible to see the same patterns of "attack" in the code and logs for both the Democrats and the republicans servers.

I don't know how precise the science of proving the source of a cyber attack is in this day and age. I can't imagine the Russians are doing this from a fixed ip address in the kremlin. If they are responsible at all.

More of an issue for me is the decision on James Comey's part to reopen the Clinton email investigation when he did. He must have known the rumoured source of the leaks. By not disclosing this possible source he gave a very selective set of facts to the American voters at a critical time.

canta_brian wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
Don't be such a penis

Having some of your posts criticised does not give you the right to dictate what others may or may not comment on.

I love emoticons they give so much additional weight to everything I say



Also, it seems the American intelligence agencies now believe that the Russians Hacked the RNC as well as the democrats. They chose to pass on only the democrat data to WikiLeaks however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/ob ... -news&_r=2

All seems a bit woolly for me. But I would be interested in seeing what sort of digital fingerprints they are seeing in common on both accounts.

It always struck me as an internal leak was the most likely cause. Disgruntled democrat/employee peeved at Clinton's reckless disregard for the rules, or maybe a US hacker group similar, or linked to Anonymous on the search for social justice.

But, this is America and when all else fails, blame the Ruskies is the best explanation.

I guess the internal leak theory would be disproved if it was possible to see the same patterns of "attack" in the code and logs for both the Democrats and the republicans servers.

I don't know how precise the science of proving the source of a cyber attack is in this day and age. I can't imagine the Russians are doing this from a fixed ip address in the kremlin. If they are responsible at all.

More of an issue for me is the decision on James Comey's part to reopen the Clinton email investigation when he did. He must have known the rumoured source of the leaks. By not disclosing this possible source he gave a very selective set of facts to the American voters at a critical time.

A good forensics investigator can probably get the source computer and the country it was operating in. Whether that was an official state run computer or just a 'patriotic hacker' is another matter entirely.

Trump, Time magazine, and that photo...

http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-t ... tical-art/

rowan wrote:

Len wrote:WW3 talk

I think the last thing the ruling class want is the working class killing each other on an industrial scale. How will they make their money when all their workers and consumers are dead and who will look after them? How can you rule when there is nobody to rule? For these reasons I believe that unless the world is taken hostage by a bat shit dictator that ignores the corporates and does what he wants the world will never be in a state as it was 85 years ago. I don't think parliaments have control. I think they're full of shit and do as they're told.

45 minutes to get to truth?

Ffs, Saddam could've had a missile primed quicker than that

Not a fan of Molyneux at all. Opinion pieces passed off as truth and then begging for money at the end. Classy.

He's hot and cold but I thought this was one of his better efforts. Certainly put a lot of things into perspective for me. & he begs for money because he doesn't accept advertisers, which might influence his choice of content.

Nice to see Trump teaming up with Goldman Sachs.

It should send a clear message to the establishment.

Trump nominates the CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, as his choice for US secretary of state. Wonder if he could play the inauguration too.

Nothing says sticking it to the man quite like going with the CEO of an oil giant

What a fucking sell out, the thick orange cunt.

Taking the establishment down one step at a time.

What a guy.

Man of the year material.

I wonder how many rapid conversions are taking place across the rust belt? I sense a major disappointment in of offering.

Sandydragon wrote:I wonder how many rapid conversions are taking place across the rust belt? I sense a major disappointment in of offering.

It depends how much coverage its getting. One of the massive issues in the US is the partisanship of the media; its really tough to find any mainstream outlet that isn't in the pockets of the DNC or RNC.

All of these appointments have been covered at length in the whiney liberal press, as well as international outlets, but Trump supporters don't follow those; I wonder how much has been mentioned on Fox, Brietbart etc...?

I did see yesterday, however, that Fox news openly slated Trump's reactions to the CIA report on Russian interference, which is a good first step. If systematic upheaval is going to occur you need both sides of the political spectrum working together.

Unless he can convince congress to basically subsidise manufacturing and spend up large on infrastructure, they'll kill it dead. What a fucking donkey.

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I wonder how many rapid conversions are taking place across the rust belt? I sense a major disappointment in of offering.

It depends how much coverage its getting. One of the massive issues in the US is the partisanship of the media; its really tough to find any mainstream outlet that isn't in the pockets of the DNC or RNC.

All of these appointments have been covered at length in the whiney liberal press, as well as international outlets, but Trump supporters don't follow those; I wonder how much has been mentioned on Fox, Brietbart etc...?

I did see yesterday, however, that Fox news openly slated Trump's reactions to the CIA report on Russian interference, which is a good first step. If systematic upheaval is going to occur you need both sides of the political spectrum working together.

If Fox can notice that it was a fecking stupid comment to make then there is hope yet.

Just not that much.

Why didn't Trump just say if there's illegal hacking its taken place under Democratic leadership and he'll solve it?

I don't know how he'd solve it, then again I don't know how he's going to defeat ISIS in 30 days

Digby wrote:Why didn't Trump just say if there's illegal hacking its taken place under Democratic leadership and he'll solve it?

I don't know how he'd solve it, then again I don't know how he's going to defeat ISIS in 30 days

"Bomb the shit out of them," IIRC. Nixon tried that in Vietnam, and that war outlasted his presidency. I know there were some extenuating circumstances and that spot of unpleasantness at that hotel, but still.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:Why didn't Trump just say if there's illegal hacking its taken place under Democratic leadership and he'll solve it?

I don't know how he'd solve it, then again I don't know how he's going to defeat ISIS in 30 days

"Bomb the shit out of them," IIRC. Nixon tried that in Vietnam, and that war outlasted his presidency. I know there were some extenuating circumstances and that spot of unpleasantness at that hotel, but still.

Trump though has a super secret plan, and an idiot could come up with a vast bombing campaign which doesn't work, might backfire, and will cost a fortune.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

Even in an election year as shot through with conspiracy theories as this one, it would have been hard to imagine a bigger bombshell than Russia intervening to help Donald Trump. But that’s exactly what the CIA believes happened, or so unnamed “officials brief on the matter” told the Washington Post.

While Russia had long been blamed for hacking email accounts linked to the Clinton campaign, its motives had been shrouded in mystery. According to the Post, though, CIA officials recently presented Congress with a “a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources” that “electing Trump was Russia’s goal.”

Now, the CIA hasn’t made any of its evidence public, and the CIA and FBI are reportedly divided on the subject. Though it’s too soon to draw conclusions, the charges warrant a serious public investigation.

Even some Republicans who backed Trump seem to agree. “The Russians are not our friends,” said Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, announcing his support for a congressional probe. It’s “warfare,” added Senator John McCain.

There’s a grim irony to this. The CIA is accusing Russia of interfering in our free and fair elections to install a right-wing candidate it deemed more favorable to its interests. Yet during the Cold War, that’s exactly what the CIA did to the rest of the world.

Most Americans probably don’t know that history. But in much of the world it’s a crucial part of how Washington is viewed even today.

In the post-World War II years, as Moscow and Washington jockeyed for global influence, the two capitals tried to game every foreign election they could get their hands on.

From Europe to Vietnam and Chile to the Philippines, American agents delivered briefcases of cash to hand-picked politicians, launched smear campaigns against their left-leaning rivals, and spread hysterical “fake news” stories like the ones some now accuse Russia of spreading here.

Together, political scientist Dov Levin estimates, Russia and the U.S. interfered in 117 elections this way in the second half the 20th century. Even worse is what happened when the CIA’s chosen candidates lost.

In Iran, when elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh tried to nationalize the country’s BP-held oil reserves, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt led an operation to oust Mossadegh in favor of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The shah’s secret police tortured dissidents by the thousands, leading directly to the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

In Guatemala, when the democratically elected Jacobo Arbez tried to loosen the U.S.-based United Fruit company’s grip on Guatemalan land, the CIA backed a coup against him. In the decades of civil war that followed, U.S.-backed security forces were accused of carrying out a genocide against indigenous Guatemalans.

In Chile, after voters elected the socialist Salvador Allende, the CIA spearheaded a bloody coup to install the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who went on to torture and disappear tens of thousands of Chileans.

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people,” U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger purportedly said about the coup he helped orchestrate there.

And those are only the most well-known examples.

I don’t raise any of this history to excuse Russia’s alleged meddling in our election — which, if true, is outrageous. Only to suggest that now, maybe, we know how it feels. We should remember that feeling as Trump, who’s spoken fondly of authoritarian rulers from Russia to Egypt to the Philippines and beyond, comes into office.

Meanwhile, much of the world must be relieved to see the CIA take a break from subverting democracy abroad to protect it at home.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/15/ ... his-feels/

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

As if anything these overpaid dancing monkeys said prior to the election made a difference. I thought they were all moving to Canada anyway? Actors. These are the arrogant narcissistic idiots who make a very lucrative living by memorizing and acting out lines written by other people. They take themselves way too serious.

Coco wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

As if anything these overpaid dancing monkeys said prior to the election made a difference. I thought they were all moving to Canada anyway? Actors. These are the arrogant narcissistic idiots who make a very lucrative living by memorizing and acting out lines written by other people. They take themselves way too serious.

........aaaaaand CUT!, take 5 everyone.....Coco, can you try that line again? This Time really let the audience know how much you despise these actors, really cut loose and go for it.....oh and I'm wondering if the props department has some kind of weapon for you to brandish, something dark and malevolent?

Is that one from your collection of antique sex toys?