P
pixelsmith
Guest
Um. Do you realize you run a bizarro-land podcast and forum? Lol.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Two
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
- Status
Well, you're a participant. What do we make of that?
'We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others.' But Professor says Trump will still win
The Keys to the White House is an historically-based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.
The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of "true" always favours the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false - that is, they go against the party in power - they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years.
The Keys to the White House is an historically-based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.
The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of "true" always favours the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false - that is, they go against the party in power - they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years.
He even overcharges the RNC for campaign space.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
From Raw Story, Posted in Raw Story with permission from Newsweek. Excerpts below. Full story in link.
Newsweek bombshell: Why Russia is backing Trump — and why the Kremlin feared he was too nutty to win - by Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek, November 4, 2016
LINK: Newsweek bombshell: Why Russia is backing Trump — and why the Kremlin feared he was too nutty to win
TEXT: "In phone calls, meetings and cables, America’s European allies have expressed alarm to one another about Donald Trump’s public statements denying Moscow’s role in cyberattacks designed to interfere with the U.S. election. They fear the Republican nominee for president has emboldened the Kremlin in its unprecedented cyber-campaign to disrupt elections in multiple countries in hopes of weakening Western alliances, according to intelligence, law enforcement and other government officials in the United States and Europe.
"While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound 'guy sitting on their bed' or even a child.
"Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments 'quite disturbing' because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy."
The article continues - explosive information. Scary as all hey! Indeed, if Trump wins, a very different world. But even if he doesn't win, the political world has shifted on it's axis.
Consider this: "Trump and his campaign have also spread propaganda created as part of the Kremlin's effort, relying on bogus information generated through traditional Russian disinformation techniques. In one instance, a manipulated document was put out onto the internet anonymously by propagandists working with Russia; within hours, Trump was reciting that false information at a campaign rally. The Trump campaign has also spread claims from Sputnik, another news outlet identified by American intelligence as part of the Russian disinformation campaign. For example, almost immediately after the posting of an article by Sputnik attacking this Newsweek reporter, the Trump campaign emailed a link to the piece to American reporters, urging them to pursue the same story. [...] what led the Republican nominee to disregard the intelligence he has been provided in briefings about Moscow’s propaganda and hacking campaign."
I didn't know this: "American intelligence officials know Russia used cyberattacks and misinformation to interfere with recent elections in Western Europe, including the German elections last month that resulted in victories for right-wing populists, and the United Kingdom’s vote in June on Brexit, a referendum that called for Britain to leave the European Union."
There is this strange, perverse irony regarding Clinton's e-mails: "The State Department cyberattack [by the Russians], which began in 2014 and lasted more than a year, was particularly severe, with Russian hackers gaining entry into its unclassified system, including emails. (Clinton left the State Department in 2013, which means that if she had used its unclassified email system rather than her private server—a decision that has dogged her throughout the campaign—any of her emails on the government system could have been obtained by Russian hackers)."
There is a possibility that the Kremlin has compromising information on Trump. It's clear they don't have such on Clinton.
Newsweek bombshell: Why Russia is backing Trump — and why the Kremlin feared he was too nutty to win - by Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek, November 4, 2016
LINK: Newsweek bombshell: Why Russia is backing Trump — and why the Kremlin feared he was too nutty to win
TEXT: "In phone calls, meetings and cables, America’s European allies have expressed alarm to one another about Donald Trump’s public statements denying Moscow’s role in cyberattacks designed to interfere with the U.S. election. They fear the Republican nominee for president has emboldened the Kremlin in its unprecedented cyber-campaign to disrupt elections in multiple countries in hopes of weakening Western alliances, according to intelligence, law enforcement and other government officials in the United States and Europe.
"While American intelligence officers have privately briefed Trump about Russia’s attempts to influence the U.S. election, he has publicly dismissed that information as unreliable, instead saying this hacking of incredible sophistication and technical complexity could have been done by some 400-pound 'guy sitting on their bed' or even a child.
"Officials from two European countries told Newsweek that Trump’s comments about Russia’s hacking have alarmed several NATO partners because it suggests he either does not believe the information he receives in intelligence briefings, does not pay attention to it, does not understand it or is misleading the American public for unknown reasons. One British official said members of that government who are aware of the scope of Russia’s cyberattacks both in Western Europe and America found Trump’s comments 'quite disturbing' because they fear that, if elected, the Republican presidential nominee would continue to ignore information gathered by intelligence services in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy."
The article continues - explosive information. Scary as all hey! Indeed, if Trump wins, a very different world. But even if he doesn't win, the political world has shifted on it's axis.
Consider this: "Trump and his campaign have also spread propaganda created as part of the Kremlin's effort, relying on bogus information generated through traditional Russian disinformation techniques. In one instance, a manipulated document was put out onto the internet anonymously by propagandists working with Russia; within hours, Trump was reciting that false information at a campaign rally. The Trump campaign has also spread claims from Sputnik, another news outlet identified by American intelligence as part of the Russian disinformation campaign. For example, almost immediately after the posting of an article by Sputnik attacking this Newsweek reporter, the Trump campaign emailed a link to the piece to American reporters, urging them to pursue the same story. [...] what led the Republican nominee to disregard the intelligence he has been provided in briefings about Moscow’s propaganda and hacking campaign."
I didn't know this: "American intelligence officials know Russia used cyberattacks and misinformation to interfere with recent elections in Western Europe, including the German elections last month that resulted in victories for right-wing populists, and the United Kingdom’s vote in June on Brexit, a referendum that called for Britain to leave the European Union."
There is this strange, perverse irony regarding Clinton's e-mails: "The State Department cyberattack [by the Russians], which began in 2014 and lasted more than a year, was particularly severe, with Russian hackers gaining entry into its unclassified system, including emails. (Clinton left the State Department in 2013, which means that if she had used its unclassified email system rather than her private server—a decision that has dogged her throughout the campaign—any of her emails on the government system could have been obtained by Russian hackers)."
There is a possibility that the Kremlin has compromising information on Trump. It's clear they don't have such on Clinton.
I have to admit his policy of charging client countrys for US military help is one i think makes sense, Overcharging Iraq and afghanistan for help might bring the books back closer to balance. Let the incompetents who need your military help pay for the job, rather than the US taxpayer.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
BTW the excahnge during the Clinton-Trump debate reads all the more ominous when we realize that Clinton knew that Trump had had the same security briefing as she had from US Intelligence, backed up by allies' intel.
TEXT: "On October 7, the Obama administration finally broke its silence on America’s knowledge about the Russian campaign. 'These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,’' Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement. 'We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.' The White House stated that Obama was considering a 'proportional response'—a statement that suggested the United States would be launching cyberattacks against Russia. (Shortly afterward, Ukrainian hackers began posting emails and other documents obtained from inside the Kremlin, although it is not clear if this effort was done in coordination with the American government).
"Less than two weeks later—despite his intelligence briefings about the Russian hacking and disinformation campaign, despite the public statements by top American intelligence officials confirming its existence and despite the White House proclamation that it was preparing to respond to the unprecedented interference by Moscow—Trump once again dismissed all of the evidence and came to Russia’s defense. Intelligence and other government officials in Britain were horrified, according to one person with direct knowledge of the reaction there.
"The incident that so stunned the British officials was largely overlooked in the United States, where media analysts were more focused on Trump’s refusal to say whether he would accept the outcome of the election. Instead, it came in the course of a discussion during the third presidential debate, when the two candidates talked about the Russian hacking.
CLINTON: We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17—17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing. And I think it's time you take a stand...
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.
TRUMP: She has no idea.
CLINTON: I am quoting 17...
TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.
CLINTON: ...17 intelligence—do you doubt 17 military and civilian...
TRUMP: And our country has no idea.
CLINTON: ... agencies.
TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.
CLINTON: Well, he'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...
TRUMP: She doesn't like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
"The words that so shocked the British were 'our country has no idea,' and 'I doubt it.' All of the NATO allies are sure Russia is behind the hacking. All of America’s intelligence agencies are, too. The foreign intelligence services had been sharing what they knew about this with the Americans, and Trump had been told about it. But he blithely dismissed the conclusion of not only the United States but its allies as well, based on absolutely nothing. Trump had no apparent means of developing his own information to contradict the findings of intelligence agencies around the world. And that he would so aggressively fight to clear Putin, and cast aspersions on all Western intelligence agencies, left the British officials slack-jawed. 'They didn’t know what to think,' one former British official [said] who has spoken to numerous members of the government about Trump’s comments in that debate."
TEXT: "On October 7, the Obama administration finally broke its silence on America’s knowledge about the Russian campaign. 'These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,’' Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement. 'We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.' The White House stated that Obama was considering a 'proportional response'—a statement that suggested the United States would be launching cyberattacks against Russia. (Shortly afterward, Ukrainian hackers began posting emails and other documents obtained from inside the Kremlin, although it is not clear if this effort was done in coordination with the American government).
"Less than two weeks later—despite his intelligence briefings about the Russian hacking and disinformation campaign, despite the public statements by top American intelligence officials confirming its existence and despite the White House proclamation that it was preparing to respond to the unprecedented interference by Moscow—Trump once again dismissed all of the evidence and came to Russia’s defense. Intelligence and other government officials in Britain were horrified, according to one person with direct knowledge of the reaction there.
"The incident that so stunned the British officials was largely overlooked in the United States, where media analysts were more focused on Trump’s refusal to say whether he would accept the outcome of the election. Instead, it came in the course of a discussion during the third presidential debate, when the two candidates talked about the Russian hacking.
CLINTON: We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17—17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing. And I think it's time you take a stand...
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.
TRUMP: She has no idea.
CLINTON: I am quoting 17...
TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.
CLINTON: ...17 intelligence—do you doubt 17 military and civilian...
TRUMP: And our country has no idea.
CLINTON: ... agencies.
TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.
CLINTON: Well, he'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...
TRUMP: She doesn't like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
"The words that so shocked the British were 'our country has no idea,' and 'I doubt it.' All of the NATO allies are sure Russia is behind the hacking. All of America’s intelligence agencies are, too. The foreign intelligence services had been sharing what they knew about this with the Americans, and Trump had been told about it. But he blithely dismissed the conclusion of not only the United States but its allies as well, based on absolutely nothing. Trump had no apparent means of developing his own information to contradict the findings of intelligence agencies around the world. And that he would so aggressively fight to clear Putin, and cast aspersions on all Western intelligence agencies, left the British officials slack-jawed. 'They didn’t know what to think,' one former British official [said] who has spoken to numerous members of the government about Trump’s comments in that debate."
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Thanks.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
The Trumpism base is not logical. It's not really an honest political dialog of ideas. This is what gives it it's 'energy'. With beliefs like this, I more than ever see it as America's ISIS.
Lance Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives
By Brian Tashman | October 28, 2016
LINK: Lance Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives | Right Wing Watch
Wallnau states that "liberal organizations are actually conducting witchcraft to confuse their opponents" and he "promotes his theory that Donald Trump is the candidate that God is using to destroy the demonic stranglehold over America".
RWW News: Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives
TEXT: "Published on Oct 28, 2016"
Lance Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives
By Brian Tashman | October 28, 2016
LINK: Lance Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives | Right Wing Watch
Wallnau states that "liberal organizations are actually conducting witchcraft to confuse their opponents" and he "promotes his theory that Donald Trump is the candidate that God is using to destroy the demonic stranglehold over America".
RWW News: Wallnau: Liberals Use Witchcraft Against Conservatives
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
I'm not asking you to do anything. I am saying that, coming from my perspective on actual real world experience with these places -- and being well aware of the security problems inherent with such places -- , that my position is she was negligent. For the simple-minded: that means she cavalierly did not measure up to her job. What happened elsewhere at any other time does not excuse it. And to make it worse was her attitude afterwards, almost as bad as the people who shill for her.
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
Walter, I was looking over your credentials, and for some odd reason they don’t seem to chime in with respect to the brightest minds currently considering US-Russia relations, including Trump’s temperament and the nuclear biscuit.
What gives?
Considering you were allegedly:
Counterterrorism Ops & Consulting ’00-‘06
Special Agent, AFOSI, Counterespionage Inv & Ops – ’94 – ‘99
Operational Specialist, National Security Division, FBI – ’88 – ‘93
Russian Language, NSA Cryptologic School
Etc... etc… etc…
Not forgetting in your theories of breakaway civilizations, or, also known as the under/inner dwellers, I would very much like your opinion here. You may have special knowledge these individuals lack.
Below, is NPR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook were he discusses “Nuclear Policy & The Next President”, presented on Nov. 2.’16
Scroll down to the sixth podcast and you’re there. The podcast is 47:11 long and the first fifteen minutes may seem somewhat boring.
On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
I would like to find out just how knowledgeable you truly are in such matters, and why you would vote for someone who is utterly inept in foreign policy.
What gives?
Considering you were allegedly:
Counterterrorism Ops & Consulting ’00-‘06
Special Agent, AFOSI, Counterespionage Inv & Ops – ’94 – ‘99
Operational Specialist, National Security Division, FBI – ’88 – ‘93
Russian Language, NSA Cryptologic School
Etc... etc… etc…
Not forgetting in your theories of breakaway civilizations, or, also known as the under/inner dwellers, I would very much like your opinion here. You may have special knowledge these individuals lack.
Below, is NPR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook were he discusses “Nuclear Policy & The Next President”, presented on Nov. 2.’16
Scroll down to the sixth podcast and you’re there. The podcast is 47:11 long and the first fifteen minutes may seem somewhat boring.
On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
I would like to find out just how knowledgeable you truly are in such matters, and why you would vote for someone who is utterly inept in foreign policy.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
Not allegedly. You can ask Lance Moody and Mark Pilkington who have my DD214, and Don Ecker and Greg Bishop who have seen documented proof of my FBI employment. And you can call the LA office of the FBI and ask for Laura Eimiller in Public Affairs, my ex wife and the mother of my son. She was with me in Russian training and on the CI squad we were assigned to in Manhattan. And I could post my resume.
What I am knowledgeable in is counterintelligence investigations and collections, counterespionage operations, and counter-terrorism intelligence collections, investigations, and in threat and vulnerability assessments for overseas locations and operations. Physical surveillance is one of my specialties. I am also knowledgeable about the proper handling and dissemination of classified material on TS/SCI/SAP levels as that is the domain in which I worked daily since 1988 throughout my career, which includes serving as chief of a counterespionage ops branch for three years at Wright-Patterson AFB. If you're referring to my opinions regarding the Benghazi issue with Gene, you'll notice it stays within my bailiwick of personal professional experience. I have NEVER said I am an expert in nuclear issues, though in college I took a course in national security issues dealing with nuclear weapons and policy. I also had to sign a letter in officer recruitment phase stating I would release nuclear weapons if need be, if that makes any difference in the price of tea.
I have stated more than once that I am rooting for Trump precisely because of who he alarms and pisses off.
To be certain I'm understanding where you're coming from, are you saying that I'm not telling the truth about my background? Maybe that's not what you're implying, but clarify. Because I can provide the bonafides. Again, ask Lance Moody and Mark Pilkington, two guys who don't like me at all. Don Ecker and Greg Bishop are friends and they have seen proof as well, and many of Greg's fans hate me and have expressed to him their disapproval over his association with me. I can also post photos if someone can explain how to do that here because I've tried to upload them.
I'm not another Phil Imbrogno, believe me.
I'll listen to the NPR post.
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
That is one piss poor reason coming from such a luminary.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
Be honest. If I was voting for Hillary, you wouldn't be so pissy with me. 
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
- Status