Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not true. Wikileaks has released Russian Spy files.

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

The Western media digs deep into Russian affairs and Putin. Someone has to come forward and releasing damaging info about Putin. I don't believe Wikileaks released any info about Obama either.

Wikileaks actively refused leaks in relation to Russia during the presidential campaign.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

Also you're still pushing on with the Seth Rich conspiracy which is denied entirely by his family. Assange is not trustworthy, he never produced proof it was Rich.

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

Wikileaks actively refused leaks in relation to Russia during the presidential campaign.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

Also you're still pushing on with the Seth Rich conspiracy which is denied entirely by his family. Assange is not trustworthy, he never produced proof it was Rich.

Do you guys actually read the links you post?

Quote from Wikileaks
As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization

I pushing the Seth Rich story because Julian Assange confirmed he was the leaker of the emails. Wikileaks even offered a reward of 20,000 dollars for any information about the murder. Wikileaks is not in habit of offering rewards and it obvious to everyone Seth was in contact with Wikileaks. It makes a lot of sense when you look at the evidence and how the data was downloaded from the server.

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you guys actually read the links you post?

Quote from Wikileaks
As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization

I pushing the Seth Rich story because Julian Assange confirmed he was the leaker of the emails. Wikileaks even offered a reward of 20,000 dollars for any information about the murder. Wikileaks is not in habit of offering rewards and it obvious to everyone Seth was in contact with Wikileaks. It makes a lot of sense when you look at the evidence and how the data was downloaded from the server.

You should have read on. While there was previously publicly available material. This was a larger dump with previously unreleased material. It was later released and it is confirmed to have new material.

So ya, wikileaks does lie when it's in there interests. Eg saying that there were legit reasons to reject the leak which there were not.

In 2014, the BBC and other news outlets reported on the cache, which revealed details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. However, the information from that hack was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down

So Assange saying that Rich leaked to him, he never provided any proof. You can say it makes sense but nobody has ever provided proof of this claim. Meanwhile there is substantial evidence that Russia did it.

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

You should have read on. While there was previously publicly available material. This was a larger dump with previously unreleased material. It was later released and it is confirmed to have new material.

So ya, wikileaks does lie when it's in there interests. Eg saying that there were legit reasons to reject the leak which there were not.



So Assange saying that Rich leaked to him, he never provided any proof. You can say it makes sense but nobody has ever provided proof of this claim. Meanwhile there is substantial evidence that Russia did it.

The material got leaked and was not significant just as Wikileaks predicted? If truly was damaging info it would be headline news. I don't buy for one-second damaging info about Russia would not be aired on CNN and MSBC. By the way Congress passed a bill stating WikiLeaks was a non-state hostile intelligence service. They have no evidence Wikileaks is connected to Russia in a way.

If he provided proof, then other whistleblowers would not trust Wikileaks to keep their names and occupation secret. Do you know anything about journalism?

There s more proof the hack took place internally. This is a fact.

A computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
That about 180 megabite transfer rate.

That can kind of speed can not occur across an ocean to Russia on a VPN. There would be an obvious traffic delay. It speed you can achieve by using a USB-2 key, and pressing download to copy files.

batgoat

Okay so a huge data dump that Wikileaks refuse in relation to Russia, there was no way they could determine how significant it was and frankly they never check how notable a leak is. Eg their Saudi leaks primary notable aspect was naming and endangering a load of people that were accused of homosexuality or blasphemy. It was dreadful but at no point, did they attempt to check if it was of note. The documents just get trawled over afterwards. Eg the majority of the Clinton email leaks weren't of note. Eg pizzagate scandals.

In addition, Wikileaks are not very trusted any more. They already named Rich as their source so providing proof is not unreasonable at that stage.(I'm doubtful that any leaker would be good with being named either regardless of with proof) Particularly since he's dead. You'll notice that most leaks tend to go through the likes of The Guardian and others at this point. They're more trusted, they'll actually investigate the material rather than simply dumping it. And they also don't dump names of completely innocent people and endanger their lives.

So wikileaks no longer have the reputation they started with, they often leak things that aren't really noteworthy and rejected loads of leaks during the presidential campaign because that was their focus. This included them pushing conspiracies of Clinton being ill.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d6f4b2e4b00642712ebbd0

They're not apolitical in any way. They became propagandists during that campaign and that applies to the Seth Rich stuff as well.

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

Okay so a huge data dump that Wikileaks refuse in relation to Russia, there was no way they could determine how significant it was and frankly they never check how notable a leak is. Eg their Saudi leaks primary notable aspect was naming and endangering a load of people that were accused of homosexuality or blasphemy. It was dreadful but at no point, did they attempt to check if it was of note. The documents just get trawled over afterwards. Eg the majority of the Clinton email leaks weren't of note. Eg pizzagate scandals.

In addition, Wikileaks are not very trusted any more. They already named Rich as their source so providing proof is not unreasonable at that stage.(I'm doubtful that any leaker would be good with being named either regardless of with proof) Particularly since he's dead. You'll notice that most leaks tend to go through the likes of The Guardian and others at this point. They're more trusted, they'll actually investigate the material rather than simply dumping it. And they also don't dump names of completely innocent people and endanger their lives.

So wikileaks no longer have the reputation they started with, they often leak things that aren't really noteworthy and rejected loads of leaks during the presidential campaign because that was their focus. This included them pushing conspiracies of Clinton being ill.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d6f4b2e4b00642712ebbd0

They're not apolitical in any way. They became propagandists during that campaign and that applies to the Seth Rich stuff as well.

You have to pay attention to words and signals. Julian Assange brought up Seth Rich in an interview. His hinting he knew him and he was a source for them. The 20,000 dollar reward offered for information about his murder pretty much confirms that relationship. It is unreasonable because then they are exposing a source and how he leaked the information to them. Wikileaks only works if you don't reveal who the sources are and the method of collecting info. Sure I like Wikileaks to just come out and say it, but it obvious why they can't.

Hilary was ill it not a conspiracy theory. She ****ing collapsed in front of the cameras during the presidential election and had to be carried into her car. Donna Brazile Former Democratic National Committee head wrote in her book she was thinking at one stage they might have to replace her with Joe Biden.

Trump Is Right

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything concrete would have been achieved then I think she probably would have. What has Trump actually achieved with NK? Last I heard they were still developing missiles etc.

He achieved a dialogue and a working relationship (however fragile) with someone who is potentially very dangerous...

Many politicians are actually afraid to even be photographed next to such a divisive world figure - never mind cooperate with them. That is one of Trump's strong points... he has said that he is fully prepared to work with anyone he needs to, in order to get things done.

Evidently this is not just empty rhetoric either, unlike many other politicians!

MadYaker

Trump Is Right wrote: »

He achieved a dialogue and a working relationship (however fragile) with someone who is potentially very dangerous...

Many politicians are actually afraid to even be photographed next to such a divisive world figure - never mind cooperate with them. That is one of Trump's strong points... he has said that he is fully prepared to work with anyone he needs to, in order to get things done.

Evidently this is not just empty rhetoric either, unlike many other politicians!

It came to a head during his presidency, he had no choice but to deal with it. Oddly enough I think his awful personality would probably help him befriend someone like Kim, they probably have a lot in common. It's better than Nuclear war though I'll give him that. No more missile tests for a good while now either. I wouldn't be sure all of it is down to him, but he deserves a bit of credit here. It doesn't change the fact that his presidency is turning into a bit of a disaster, and has been from day one.

batgoat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You have to pay attention to words and signals. Julian Assange brought up Seth Rich in an interview. His hinting he knew him and he was a source for them. The 20,000 dollar reward offered for information about his murder pretty much confirms that relationship. It is unreasonable because then they are exposing a source and how he leaked the information to them. Wikileaks only works if you don't reveal who the sources are and the method of collecting info. Sure I like Wikileaks to just come out and say it, but it obvious why they can't.

Hilary was ill it not a conspiracy theory. She ****ing collapsed in front of the cameras during the presidential election and had to be carried into her car. Donna Brazile Former Democratic National Committee head wrote in her book she was thinking at one stage they might have to replace her with Joe Biden.

Do you think it's apolitical for a leaking site to take a poll on what illness a presidential candidate has? Your Seth Rich stuff is nonsense, it was Assange generating a conspiracy... The credibility of Wikileaks is long gone. This is a fact. Seth Rich is a conspiracy and his family say as much. You're dragging us down more of your conspiracy rabbit holes.

Blowfish

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

A computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
That about 180 megabite transfer rate.

That can kind of speed can not occur across an ocean to Russia on a VPN. There would be an obvious traffic delay. It speed you can achieve by using a USB-2 key, and pressing download to copy files.

This is completely nonsense. First off, the assumption that it would go directly from DNC to GRU is just stupid. No nation state is going to transfer data directly to themselves, for obvious reasons it'll normally go through a network of other places in order to hide the trail. In this instance, stuff was transferred to Arizona, then Illinois etc. plus DCLeaks was hosted in Malaysia and the Guccifer account updated via Romania.

Secondly, the transfer rate was completely possible in 2016. Even here in Ireland UPC were offering it in 2015.

everlast75

batgoat wrote: »

Do you think it's apolitical for a leaking site to take a poll on what illness a presidential candidate has? Your Seth Rich stuff is nonsense, it was Assange generating a conspiracy... The credibility of Wikileaks is long gone. This is a fact. Seth Rich is a conspiracy and his family say as much. You're dragging us down more of your conspiracy rabbit holes.

When Alex Jones and his cronies lose their shirt in that defamation case it'll be the fault of the corrupt judicial system.

Deep state strikes once again.

There is literally no getting through to these people.

I wonder whether this theory only came to light when Trump came on the scene or whether it was always there, and he only fed it with his BS.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's move away from the Wikileaks stuff please.

Cheerful Spring

SNIP. Any more conspiracy stuff will be met with a ban.

Cheerful Spring

Trump Is Right wrote: »

He achieved a dialogue and a working relationship (however fragile) with someone who is potentially very dangerous...

Many politicians are actually afraid to even be photographed next to such a divisive world figure - never mind cooperate with them. That is one of Trump's strong points... he has said that he is fully prepared to work with anyone he needs to, in order to get things done.

Evidently this is not just empty rhetoric either, unlike many other politicians!

Yep i agree. I think the problem is Trump will not last forever. The next president could take a different approach. North Korea sees that as an issue, how can you agree to give up arms when you making a deal with a president who could be replaced in 2020.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Stick with the Trump presidency please as opposed to the 2016 election.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep i agree. I think the problem is Trump will not last forever. The next president could take a different approach. North Korea sees that as an issue, how can you agree to give up arms when you making a deal with a president who could be replaced in 2020.

How could you make a deal with a president who might go back on his word if fox news criticises him? Trump cannot be trusted. His whole career should be enough proof of that.

aloyisious

This question might be best for some-one in the US to answer. Ref the reported disagreement between the US and Russia of their respective obligations under the last START deal under Obama [which Trump has decried as a bad deal] who IN the Trump Admin has certified that Russia has not kept to it's side of the deal? Does Don and his Admin have any actual proof that it was a bad deal for the US backed up by consequent evaluation? Who made the Russia START evaluations? He does not seem to have any trust in his own intelligence services evaluation of Iran's keeping to the deals it has with the US.

pixelburp

So, back to the administration; remember Ronny Jackson? That'd be the physician who gave Trump the medical thumbs up; the President then inexplicably nominating him to run the VA of all things, before the doctor was forced to drop out of the running due to continuing discipline problems.

Well he's still around and the White House announced he'd now act as an 'assistant' to the President and chief medical advisor. Coincidentally, or not depending on your point of view, Trump's yearly medical exam is next Friday.

For context, Jackson is accused of such actions such as providing ...

such “a large supply” of Percocet, a prescription opioid, to a White House Military Office staff member that he threw his own medical staff “into a panic” when it could not account for the missing drugs, according to a summary of questionable deeds compiled by the Democratic staff of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

It can't possibly be that hard to find staff or colleagues who aren't milling in controversy or active investigations, Washington isn't that much of a swamp - and wasn't Trump supposed to be draining it anyway? You'd think he'd reach for folks beyond reproach.

duploelabs

pixelburp wrote: »

So, back to the administration; remember Ronny Jackson? That'd be the physician who gave Trump the medical thumbs up; the President then inexplicably nominating him to run the VA of all things, before the doctor was forced to drop out of the running due to continuing discipline problems.

Well he's still around and the White House announced he'd now act as an 'assistant' to the President and chief medical advisor. Coincidentally, or not depending on your point of view, Trump's yearly medical exam is next Friday.

For context, Jackson is accused of such actions such as providing ...



It can't possibly be that hard to find staff or colleagues who aren't milling in controversy or active investigations, Washington isn't that much of a swamp - and wasn't Trump supposed to be draining it anyway? You'd think he'd reach for folks beyond reproach.

I think the law of unintended consequences means that Trump is actually draining the swamp with his hires of 'the best people'

everlast75

Hardest working president ever...


https://twitter.com/axios/status/1092139797328601088?s=19

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Hardest working president ever...


https://twitter.com/axios/status/1092139797328601088?s=19

An incompetent, lazy grifter in government housing.

Stallingrad

In school we called Executive Time Bunking Off.

dinorebel

Deleted User wrote: »

An incompetent, lazy grifter in government housing.

Pretty much everything a Republican would hate really.

spacecoyote

Story in FT this morning (can't post link due to paywall) stating that Deutsche Bank refused trump a loan in 2016 as they had a fear he wouldn't repay & they didn't fancy having to look to take property from a sitting president of the US.

Really says it all. When one of the banks that historically dug him, as well as a number of his alleged Russian friends out of holes didn't want to loan him cash, it hardly promotes trumps amazing business credentials

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

An incompetent, lazy grifter in government housing.

dinorebel wrote: »

Pretty much everything a Republican would hate really.

Pretty much everything a Republican would purport to hate.

Like every Christian evangelical would purport to hate an adulterous liar.

Though when it's their incompetent, lazy grifter or their adulterous liar, that's OK.

There's a quote from the American military regarding South American dictators of the 60s/70s:

I don't care if he's a son-of-a-bitch so long as he's our son-of-a-bitch.

Muahahaha

everlast75 wrote: »

Hardest working president ever...
]

The details of this latest leak from the WH are pretty incredible. Basically Trump gets up early in the morning and this is 'executive time' which means watching Fox News and tweeting about it. He doesn't actually go to the Oval Office till around 11 or 11.30am to start work
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/trump-executive-time-axios

What does Donald Trump do with his time? The mystery was at least partially solved on Sunday, with an extensive leak of his private schedule.

According to the website Axios, since 7 November, the day after the midterm elections, the president has spent almost 300 hours in relatively unstructured “executive time” and only 77 hours in scheduled meetings covering policy planning, legislative strategy and video recordings.

According to Axios, the “unusually voluminous leak” from an unnamed White House source gives unprecedented visibility into how Trump spends his days.

The schedules show Trump spends around 60% of each day in “executive time”, a concept introduced by former chief of staff John Kelly because the president detests being locked into a regular schedule.

In January 2018, a similar leak to the same publication introduced “executive time” to an incredulous world. It said Trump often started his official duties around 11am, and held far fewer meetings than in the early days of his presidency.

Executive time, the publication asserted then, “almost always means TV and Twitter time alone in the residence”.

This time round, a White House staffer said Trump was “always calling people, talking to people. He’s always up to something; it’s just not what you would consider typical structure”.

The latest leak appears to place Trump, an early riser, in executive time for the first five hours of any day, before he gets to the Oval Office.

He reportedly spends his mornings “in the residence, watching TV, reading the papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, members of Congress, friends, administration officials and informal advisers”.

His first meeting, generally around 11am or 11.30am, is often an intelligence briefing or a 30-minute meeting with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

The guy is completely stuck in the moment tweeting away to whatever the flavour of the day is on the news networks. He has no vision for the bigger picture instead preferring to spend five hours a day getting bogged down in the minutae of the here and now. Some leader :rolleyes:

MadYaker

Hardly surprising. He never seemed to me like the hard working type.

Frank Bullitt

I'm surprised the number is even that high.

eire4

dinorebel wrote: »

Pretty much everything a Republican would hate really.

Well that is what they say but this is about right for how the actual Republican party actually behaves.

Quin_Dub

Muahahaha wrote: »

The details of this latest leak from the WH are pretty incredible. Basically Trump gets up early in the morning and this is 'executive time' which means watching Fox News and tweeting about it. He doesn't actually go to the Oval Office till around 11 or 11.30am to start work
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/trump-executive-time-axios


The guy is completely stuck in the moment tweeting away to whatever the flavour of the day is on the news networks. He has no vision for the bigger picture instead preferring to spend five hours a day getting bogged down in the minutae of the here and now. Some leader :rolleyes:

Basically , he is still behaving like he did when living in Trump tower managing his own company..

Gets up , watches a bit of TV , calls a few friends on the phone and generally shoots the breeze until the mood takes him to wander down to the Office to "look CEO-ish".

The fact that he's actually supposed to be running a country is entirely lost on him it seems.