jooksavage wrote: » Surprise surprise it looks Dan Coats interview on MSNBC and his reaction to Trumps announcement of another meeting with Putin has landed him in it. Washington Post reporting that the administrstion is furious with Coats, who appears to be laughing at the president during the interview. Sounds like his days are numbered. Pity he didnt resign by himself when his word was being compared to Putins on Monday - that would have caused a real problem for Trump.
bobbyss wrote: » We hear so much of Russian interference in American politics and Trump denial or agreement, I don't really know. Does anyone know specifically what is meant by hacking emails? Whose emails were hacked? Why? What gain was to be gotten and how do they interfere with the election and so on?
everlast75 wrote: » Can you imagine the absolute sh1tstorm if Obama or any Dem president was so obsequious to Putin. Hell, they lambasted Obama for bowing to a Qatari* leader, nevermind contradicting his own intelligence community
prawnsambo wrote: Hacking emails is a fishing exercise. You're always likely to find something that someone said in an unguarded moment or in jest that can be made to look as if it's serious. And that's at the bottom end. There's also the possibility of finding some sort of 'smoking gun' that can be used to discredit the target(s). Even discussion of various options to a particular problem could have some off the wall propositions that wouldn't be taken seriously by the participants in the discussion, but would look bad in public. And that's the next step. Hand them to WikiLeaks for plausible deniability (for the real source) and sit back and let the damage build.
bobbyss wrote: » I see thanks. Does anyone know how many emails have been hacked and more importantly what HAS been discovered in an unguarded moment or something said in jest? Has any email been hacked which WAS damaging or influenced any election. Does anyone know?
jooksavage wrote: » To bring you up to speed:https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.htmlIt's impossible to know to what degree the hack affected the election outcome. Trump and his defenders will argue it had no effect. That argument is dishonest insofar as they'd be arguing the opposite if the shoe was on the the other foot it's completely besides the point anyway. The intent of the attack was to damage the Dems and help Trump. Within an hour of the Access Hollywood tape being reported, hacked emails were released to divert attention away from DJT and his busy hands. A crime was committed. The effectiveness or otherwise isn't the issue here - attempted murder isn't thrown out of court because the defense argues "all's well that ends well".
ELM327 wrote: » After this post I posted this. I should note I have received no PM, and would now like you to either pm the CMod Unkel, pm me to name the other motors regulars who have been to my house and in at least one or two of my american vehicles... or if not, retract your damn false and frankly libellous statement. I don't take kindly to being accused of being a spoofer when I'm damn well not.
listermint wrote: » I dont engage in nonsense. And if you think what i wrote can be construed as libellous i would suggest studying the law. It takes all sorts though, I like your Threatening behaviour though it smacks of a certain blonde haired fat american presidents actions to get his way. Good Luck, And come back to reality sometime cheers!
ELM327 wrote: » Interesting climb down there. Combined with irrational unfounded allegations of "threatening behaviour". Hang on, maybe you misspoke. Did you mean to say I wouldn't be a spoofer? Who told you to change your mind? Actually hang on lets go further. If you contact the Cmod I referenced or any of the posters that I know from the motors forum in reality (which I can give a list of by PM)that have seen my vehicles that you state I did not own, and they do not corroborate my explained list of previous and current vehicles then I shall make a charitable donation to a charity of your choosing (including charities set up specifically against Trump).
everlast75 wrote: » It appears that the role of president was ripe for corrupting. I'm just thankful that Trump et al are so grossly incompetent in whatever they do, that they will be caught. Can you imagine if someone of average or above intellect was there instead?
pixelburp wrote: » Isn't that all a little apocalyptic though? I agree that by and large the 'experiment' is showing signs of failure, but seems like the USA has greater bureaucratic, intellectual and logistical structures that'd act as a bulwark against utter collapse, compared with other large state that failed such as the USSR. Mind you, while I find the notion of it splitting up a bit of a stretch, I see a more likely path of the USA slipping into a full blown autocracy; the narrative of Trump and his most vocal supporters essentially boils down to "Wouldn't you rather have an honest, god-fearing king?" and it's disquieting how enticing it has seemed to others. All it would take would be some 'emergency legislation' here and there to neuter both Houses and bring authoritarianism to the streets.
spacecoyote wrote: » More talk from Trump about going all in on the China Trade War:https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jul/20/trump-fed-criticism-currency-war-fears-yuan-uk-public-finances-business-live One wonders, does he see this as a way to distract from the Russian stuff over the last few days? If so, its very worrying. Could he trigger a massive wholesale trade war just to shift the media focus? I think he's stubborn enough to do so
pixelburp wrote: » I said it pages & pages back, but my main fear about Trump is the precedent he's setting, and the guy who comes after is the person to worry about. As you say he's incompetent and a walking example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect for sure, but he has emboldened and normalised the right-wing, Christian extremists in America like never before. I'm willing to put money on a Presidential candidate appearing in my lifetime who, rather than being an opportunistic blowhard like Trump, will be a True Believer, and have the political clout to pull it off. You could make a case that we're already seeing it it with Ted Cruz, even Mike Pence, but neither have the kind of dangerous magnetism that I'm thinking of (and in the case of Cruz has the reverse problem in that even his own party seem to despise him)
everlast75 wrote: » 2 things. 1st off, there is an opportunity to put safe guards in place after he goes, if there is a willingness to do it of course. Secondly, Pence or Cruz, while wholly awful people, don't have the Trump factor.. the brazen bluster that works on a certain portion of people. Pence couldn't wow a crowd - no chance
