Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[kurjak92]

ulazim u trol mod, al sto se tice ozbiljnih tema http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2403-6-reasons-why-new-civil-war-possible-terrifying.html

[urkozamanje]

Bernie: I strongly support imposing sanctions on Russia. It's unacceptable for Russia to interfere in foreign elections. There must be consequences.

 

????

Irejz, jedno pitanje: verujes li stvarno da su Rusi (Putin) "hakovali" US izbore? Znaci direktan odgovor, bez "postoje indicije" i slicno, vec ono, da li ti Irejzer Irejzerovic verujes da su Rusi (Putin) doveli Trampa na vlast?

[Radoye]

 

Nego, ako bude impeachment, pa skenjaju tramparu™ - je l' to znaci da ce automacki baba da se ustolici ili ne??

Ili ce da nadju nekog drugog majmuna za 'u tenak'?

#pitamzadruga

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

 

Pence, Ryan, Hatch, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Mattis, Sessions, Zinke, Perdue, Ross, Acosta, Price, Carson, Perry, DeVos, Shulkin, Kelly. Tim redom.

[dillinger]

Irejz, jedno pitanje: verujes li stvarno da su Rusi (Putin) "hakovali" US izbore? Znaci direktan odgovor, bez "postoje indicije" i slicno, vec ono, da li ti Irejzer Irejzerovic verujes da su Rusi (Putin) doveli Trampa na vlast?

Naravno da ne veruje ali uvek valja jebati Ruse.

[namenski]

Irejz, jedno pitanje: verujes li stvarno da su Rusi (Putin) "hakovali" US izbore? Znaci direktan odgovor, bez "postoje indicije" i slicno, vec ono, da li ti Irejzer Irejzerovic verujes da su Rusi (Putin) doveli Trampa na vlast?

Mislis Irejzer Milov Irejzerovic? 

[Eraserhead]

Jos jedna pobeda anti-establishmenta nad uzasnim terorom elita.

 

BREAKING: President Trump announces he is "canceling the Obama admin’s completely one-sided deal" to #Cuba.

[aram]

Irejz, jedno pitanje: verujes li stvarno da su Rusi (Putin) "hakovali" US izbore? Znaci direktan odgovor, bez "postoje indicije" i slicno, vec ono, da li ti Irejzer Irejzerovic verujes da su Rusi (Putin) doveli Trampa na vlast?

Da li si se i na trenutak ponadao da ces dobiti odgovor? :D

[Eraserhead]

A nisam video pitanje. Odgovor je da ne znam. A ako jesu to nije zato sto imaju snimak kako 6 striptizeta pisa po Trampu ili zato sto je njihov covek vec nego zato sto misle da bi ta budala bila dobra po njih. A posto su iste budale kao on ne kapiraju da je on najgora opcija po sve. Sad nek uzivaju.

[Friend]

Jos niko nije rekao kako je to hakovano i sta je hakovano, osim ako se misli samo na wikileaks prepisku hilari i ekipe.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Friend

[3opge]

 

Pee Pee Tape intel chatter picked up three hours before Donald Trump’s DOJ statement about leaks

 

[mlatko]

Dakle, ja iz ovoga citam da je Trump ucenjen da prizna da je ucenjen... Ako ne prizna, najebo je a sa njim i reputacija 49% americkog glasackog tela. Znaci nije da je neko direktno ucestvovao u manipulaciji glasaca nego u manipulaciji kandidata koji je bio PRISILJEN da pobedi. Win-win situacija za Trumpa samo sto sad rizikuje gnjavazu sa sudom. Ali dok se ne objavi snimak na Tw verujem mu je svejedno... sve ce to Tax payers da (mu) pozlate

[Weenie Pooh]

Jos niko nije rekao kako je to hakovano i sta je hakovano, osim ako se misli samo na wikileaks prepisku hilari i ekipe.

 

Phishing napadi su zabeleženi negde godinu dana pre izbora u jednoj ili više firmi koje prave softver/hardver koji se koristi na glasačkim mestima. Prepoznata je metodologija koju koriste grupe povezane sa FSB/GRU, zaključeno da su komunjare nasrnule na demokratiju, pa je Obama rekao Putinu "cut it out" kad su se sreli. Posle kad je prepisku Hilari i ekipe objavio WikiLeaks, ustanovljeno je da su i demokrate navatavali na phishing kao poslednje budale, pa je to sve povezano - ako su tamo bili Rusi onda su definitivno i ovde Rusi. Za DNC mejlove WikiLeaks čak kaže da im je dostavio neko iznutra, ali pošto su i DNC nekad ranije bio izložen phishing napadima, i to se rutinski pripisalo Putinu. Sve na nivou agencijskih procena, educated guesses bez ikakvih dokaza; onda tu agencijsku procenu potpiše i druga agencija, pa treća, pa tako do njih sedamnaest, mahom plaćenih da rade procene cybersecurity rizika i upiru prstom u koga im se kaže. 

 

Dakle, svo tzv. hakovanje svodi se na slanje poruka tipa "Dobar dan, mi smo iz Gugla, upišite ovde username/password da vam nešto proverimo." To su phishing napadi, ekstremno prizemne metode koje bi uz malo truda ti ili ja mogli da izvedemo. Toga ima svugde po internetu godinama unazad, radi se masovno i na slepo jer nasedne valjda jedna od milion potencijalnih žrtava. Ali kad nasedne John Podesta, onda se odmah pretpostavi da su baš ruski hakeri bili u pitanju.

 

Ideja je da su zlikovci tako dobili pristup mejlu nekog relativno bitnog, onda to iskoristili da iskamče pristup mejlu nekog još bitnijeg ("Dobar dan, mi smo John Smith, upišite ovde vaš username/password...") i tako sve u krug dok se nisu dočepali nekog stvarno bitnog i njega ucenili nekakvim tajnama iz inboksa. Onda im je taj nepoznati, neimenovani mučenik direktno pomogao da nameste izbore za Trampa, nekakvom magijom.

 

To je sve što imaju na temu hakovanja izbora - slutnje i nagađanja. To pokazuje i onaj poslednji Reality Winner leak iz NSA kojim ljudi mlataraju okolo kao da je nekakav smoking gun.

[Lord Protector]

 

 

‘The Swamp Has Got Trump Playing the Swamp’s Game’ — ‘That’s Not What Trump Was Elected to Do’

Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President Donald Trump of “playing the swamp’s game” in governing.

According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to “drain the swamp,” but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department’s investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects.

Limbaugh argued although he was playing “the swamp’s game,” he had other tools at his disposal that he has yet to use.

He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There’s nothing stopping him from doing it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds to go to Rosenstein and say, “Look, this investigation can’t be wide open for anything. You’ve gotta limit what these people can look for. You’ve gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes. You can’t have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records. There has to be a limit.”

He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, “There’s no way he can do it,” they’re talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel’s been named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.

If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump’s inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he’s doing as rather than draining the swamp he’s getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That’s what Josh here is saying.

And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government — the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.

They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today.

These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch ’cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, “We’re more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he’s God, since he’s Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him.” And they did.

Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They’re holding onto it so Trump’s in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we’ve announced the special counsel and he’s announced that the president’s under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent.

But he could still do it. It’s not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It’s pure politics. And it’s the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the swamp’s game right now. And that’s not what Trump was elected to do, and that’s not what Trump wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp’s game. I think the effort to get health care passed in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to get legislation passed.

Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine ’em, you cajole ’em, you beat ’em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed, exactly the way it’s always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because it was “all swamp all the time.”

Now, you might say, “Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp’s the swamp. There’s no other way to get a bill passed. The president’s not a dictator.” I understand that. But Trump has many more tools at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn’t say that. He’s got more tools at his disposal than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch is awesome.

Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn’t gotten close to utilizing it. It’s just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked that Trump is under investigation. You’ve heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn’t a shred of evidence even now, folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel looking into financial — there’s no evidence of anything. It’s a wild good chase.

Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation. If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay in the media, don’t misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what’s happening. But he could do it, is the point. Now, he won’t probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of it.

But the idea that he’s been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under investigation, and at that time we didn’t even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost. Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that way as well.

But he didn’t. Why? He’s new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all come together. I’m sure that’s what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that ’cause they don’t want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.

Edited June 17, 2017 by slow

[Razzmatazz]

Phishing napadi su zabeleženi negde godinu dana pre izbora u jednoj ili više firmi koje prave softver/hardver koji se koristi na glasačkim mestima. Prepoznata je metodologija koju koriste grupe povezane sa FSB/GRU, zaključeno da su komunjare nasrnule na demokratiju, pa je Obama rekao Putinu "cut it out" kad su se sreli. Posle kad je prepisku Hilari i ekipe objavio WikiLeaks, ustanovljeno je da su i demokrate navatavali na phishing kao poslednje budale, pa je to sve povezano - ako su tamo bili Rusi onda su definitivno i ovde Rusi. Za DNC mejlove WikiLeaks čak kaže da im je dostavio neko iznutra, ali pošto su i DNC nekad ranije bio izložen phishing napadima, i to se rutinski pripisalo Putinu. Sve na nivou agencijskih procena, educated guesses bez ikakvih dokaza; onda tu agencijsku procenu potpiše i druga agencija, pa treća, pa tako do njih sedamnaest, mahom plaćenih da rade procene cybersecurity rizika i upiru prstom u koga im se kaže. 

 

Dakle, svo tzv. hakovanje svodi se na slanje poruka tipa "Dobar dan, mi smo iz Gugla, upišite ovde username/password da vam nešto proverimo." To su phishing napadi, ekstremno prizemne metode koje bi uz malo truda ti ili ja mogli da izvedemo. Toga ima svugde po internetu godinama unazad, radi se masovno i na slepo jer nasedne valjda jedna od milion potencijalnih žrtava. Ali kad nasedne John Podesta, onda se odmah pretpostavi da su baš ruski hakeri bili u pitanju.

 

Ideja je da su zlikovci tako dobili pristup mejlu nekog relativno bitnog, onda to iskoristili da iskamče pristup mejlu nekog još bitnijeg ("Dobar dan, mi smo John Smith, upišite ovde vaš username/password...") i tako sve u krug dok se nisu dočepali nekog stvarno bitnog i njega ucenili nekakvim tajnama iz inboksa. Onda im je taj nepoznati, neimenovani mučenik direktno pomogao da nameste izbore za Trampa, nekakvom magijom.

 

To je sve što imaju na temu hakovanja izbora - slutnje i nagađanja. To pokazuje i onaj poslednji Reality Winner leak iz NSA kojim ljudi mlataraju okolo kao da je nekakav smoking gun.

 

Phishingom su dobili kontakte i osnovne infomacije uz čiju pomoć su napravili mail nalog koji izgleda kao da je iz te firme koja se bavi proizvodnjom hw/sw za glasačka mesta. A onda su sa tog mejla tražili uzorke podataka koje bi koristili kao test bazu itd. A pošto to nisu bili izmišljeni podaci, onda su kao ti ljudi odatle bili mikrotargetovani da glasaju ovako ili onako. Tako barem glasi zvanična verzija kroz koju sam ja proleteo.

 

Uglavnom, cela priča predstavlja olimpijski bazen prepun naduvanih govana. Niti su phishing metode rezervisane za ruje (šta misle ljudi, kako se upada na bankovne račune najlakše, ako ne soc metodama?), niti su sad brojevi glasova manipulisani i prebacivani iz jednog tabora u drugi. Jedan manji broj glasača je, zamisli, bio izložen ubeđivanju da glasa ovako ili onako. Tu vrstu napada dobijaju svi glasači kad upale tv ili kompjuter i pogledaju vesti, onako, out of the box. Cela ta operacija je mogla biti izvedena sasvim lako i od bilo kog domaćeg tima.

[Weenie Pooh]

Pa da, ali ni za taj non-kosher micro-targeting* ne postoje nikakvi dokazi. Sve što imaju je nepotvrđena indicija da je neko negde nešto pokušao da izvede, što se od starta pakuje i predstavlja kao fait-accompli. Sa Rusima to povezuju ekstremno nategnutim stručnim nagađanjima, tipa "od ranije znamo da Cozy Bear voli da peca na ovaj način, pa iako istu stvar radi još mali milion grupa po internetu, zaključujemo da su to verovatno bili baš oni."

 

*Pritom postoje Cambridge Analytics i ostale big data kompanije koje microtargeting rade savršeno legalno, i za demokrate i za republikance i za Brexit i za koga hoćeš. Zašto bi bilo kome bili potrebni hakovani ruski podaci kad imaju detaljne Fejsbuk profile glasača, boga pitaj. Zato se uz to obično nabacuje sugestija da se direktno uticalo na ishod glasanja u ključnim državama, samo što niko ne ume da objasni kako.