kurtster wrote: 
Yes, too many people are clinging to his every word (spoken or Tweeted), and he is using it.  What he's doing is is your basic magician's misdirection - setting off a puff of smoke from his left hand while palming the ball from under one of the three cups with his right.  I'll tell you this: I don't know why he would.

 kcar wrote: 
I saw the clip.  My guess is that he is now fucking with the media, yanking their chain ... ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

of course Russia is still targeting the US, duh ...

Everyone freaks and assumes the worst.  TDS.  He's renting space in y'all's heads for free now.

 kcar wrote: 

Ask again later.

Is dementia setting in?  Has someone replaced Trump's brain with a Magic 8 ball?

Trump Appears to Say Russia Is No Longer Targeting U.S. White House Says He Was Answering a Different Question.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared to say on Wednesday that Russia was no longer targeting the United States, contradicting his own intelligence chief just a day after promising that his administration was working to prevent Kremlin interference in the upcoming midterm elections.

Hours later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump was answering a different question, and that “we believe the threat still exists.”

Mr. Trump’s comments were the latest in a dizzying collection of conflicting statements from Mr. Trump since he emerged from a private meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday in Helsinki, Finland. And they directly contradict assertions from Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, who has repeatedly said that Russia continues to try to interfere with American democracy.

And again on Monday: “We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy,” Mr. Coats said.

But on Wednesday, when the president was asked whether Russia was “still targeting” the United States, Mr. Trump said: “No.”

Google image search the word "idiot".

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Clarification by Donald J. Trump: Where he said "will" he meant "won't."

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 17, 2018

 kurtster wrote: 



"So you're saying that the FBI is not capable of properly examining the servers."


I never said that, not did the articles I pointed you to. AFAICT from the Politico article--the first link--the FBI didn't need to examine the hardware since Crowdstrike gave  the bureau images that fully detailed the software on the servers. Again, Politico points out that there are 140 servers, not just one.

Everything points to GRU hacking the DNC's system. I'm sorry but the US intelligence agencies were not and are not out to get Trump. As for Assange's claim that the Russians didn't give him the info, I haven't read about his involvement that closely. What he's claiming or suggesting as his source is not clear to me. I don't have a lot of faith in him. The Politico article IIRC quotes emails between Assange and Russians about the supply and publishing of Democratic material.


Terry Francona is a great guy and manager. Good to see him doing well. I hope Andrew Miller comes back soon. He went through hell early in his career before finally putting it all together as a reliever. 

fuckin dimwits love this criminal and will drum up any excuse as they swallow his crud
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-unwinding-of-donald-trump

The Unwinding of Donald Trump

 kurtster wrote:  

Parroting the ignorant Mr. Trump does not impress anyone paying attention.
Once blackmail material is out, it becomes valueless. 

Blackmailers demand payment of some form in return for a promise to keep the material out of sight.

Do you really think Putin would take a measly 10 million in trade for something priceless that would give him leverage over the leader of another country, his principle antagonist for many years, for as long as Trump is in office? You are more clueless than I thought if you really believe such nonsense.

 kcar wrote: 
I admit that I stopped reading the tweet after the FBI part and did not see the or anyone else part.  Bad on my part.  No excuses, would not have posted it had I read it more carefully because I knew that it was examined by CrowdStrike.

Yes, I knew that CrowdStrike did do an analysis way back when.  Not good enough, though.  It would seem that with all the concerns about foreign interference in our elections, the FBI should see them just in the name of National Security.  So you're saying that the FBI is not capable of properly examining the servers.  You may be right about the FBI's capabilities.  They sure have been deficient at finding evidence requested by Congress.  It is quite clear that the FBI was more interested in the outcome of the election on a partisan basis than anything else as we have come to find out, although I know that you certainly disagree with that.

I will not dispute whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC's servers.  It certainly wasn't hard to do.  Seems all kinds of people got in.  I will dispute your assertion that Russia was Wikileaks source.  Assange has to this day 100% credibility and has said that Russia was not his source.  I have to go with Assange on this.  

Our bullpen does have big problems.  While we may take our division, we ain't getting past the Bosox or the Yankees.  Not worth giving up the farm for a rent a player that likely will not be enough to go all the way anyway.  As we always say in Cleveburg, wait until next year ...

yet more painful irony

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
And yet the people around me are glad I'm holding it.

#CovfefeBreath 

 kurtster wrote: 
with pleasure! I don't even need to do any research as you deliver the ammunition yourself

1) The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" 

Firstly, this comment was made in 1949, shortly after WWII. Secondly, you seem to have overlooked the  "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in," part which, as time moved on became by far the prevailing motive, particularly after the Soviets got the bomb. 

2)  NATO has been a shaky organization throughout its entire existence.  France was in then they were out and now they are back.  France looks out for France and that is that.  Hitler said "Boo" and France fell.  They did teach you that in school ?  Right ? 

 seriously?  The decision of France to develop its own nuclear deterrent is appearing more and more sane by the day. 

3) Spending  - I touched on this already. US decisions to spend so much on its military are a combination of its own national interest and extremely powerful lobbying by the military-industrial complex. The US is categorically not motivated primarily by selfless obligations towards NATO but rather its own strategic advantage. And anyway, Trump's argument is contradictory. He wants other NATO states to spend more on defense (up to 2%) to counter a threat that he himself says no longer exists. Well, if you are so angry about spending so much on defense, then stop doing it!  No one is asking you to keep doing it, well at least no one can force you to!!

4) Sure members do contribute forces, but they are limited in scope and severely limited in capabilities.  This is the reason that the US refuses to put US forces under direct NATO command.    oh really?  yeah, right. 

Listen Kurtster, let me put it to you as plainly and fairly as I can. No one is disputing that the world has generally benefited from US hegemony since WWII. Firstly, during the Cold War to protect against the Soviet threat and then after the fall of the Soviet Union to intervene in various regional conflicts. But to argue as Trump has that the US has been doing this out of selflessness and the rest of the world has been freeloading  is preposterous. With a few very rare exceptions, the US has been following its own national interests (which are closely tied to the interests of large corporations) the entire time. The fact that these sometimes - but not always - align with the interests of most other western economies is fortuitous but seen from the perspective of US allies, not a causus belli. It is possible you know to establish treaties and closer ties simply by trading and negotiating.

If you are really tired of spending so much on defense, then stop doing it! I am sure other powers will adjust to the resulting power vacuum with their own strategic spending, just like they always have. And now, with a president in power who is cuddling up to proto-fascists and tyrants, I am sure that very prospect is being debated at various cabinet meetings around the world. So whose side is Trump on? Is he a threat to world peace or its guardian? What do you think, Kurtster?  What's your vision? What are you after? And how do you plan to get there?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 


Your post speaks to one of the big questions surrounding Trump: is he fit to serve as President (the 25th Amendment to the Constitution)? It would take a lot of stuff for either party to go down that road. Apparently if the President opposes the majority opinion of his VP and cabinet that he is not fit to rule, the VP and cabinet must send their declaration of unfitness for approval by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress. 

So the 25th Amendment is tougher sledding than impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors (Article 2, section 4) which if we remember Slick Willie's Wild Ride only requires a simple majority of the House of Reps to move impeachment along (2/3 majority in the Senate). And can you imagine Mike Pence actually voting to remove "Double-negative Don"? What would Mother say! 


(Marlon Bundo has a nicer cage than these illegal immigrant children 
flown in for a touching photo-op. Deportación para ti, niños!)

 kcar wrote: 
Well, he certainly did mis-speak. No one in their right mind would have said what he said. NB: "right mind."

 kurtster wrote: 


Oh playa, please show us proof of their bias affecting their work and the investigation!!! You're the one making that claim, so STEP UP AND PROVE IT. 

Actually, it'd be so much better if you'd stop posting for a while and answer your own questions—such as how Mueller et al. knew that the Russians hacked the DNC server. Feel free to use the links I provided. The first link, the one to the Politico article, is quite informative. Vox and NYT have diagrams if you're into visually oriented summaries—I certainly am. 

And get Tito and the Tribe to fix their bullpen! 

 kcar wrote: 
You lose any further credibility with me if you truly believe the bolded and that Comey had no bias as well. 

Since I have no cred with you already ... there we have it.

 kurtster wrote: 

Maybe you and your buddy Bill Mitchell can check out this neat-o new thingy on the Interwebs CALLED GOOGLE AND ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTIONS. 

Why don't you stop posting in a desperate attempt to distract this thread from Trump's complete crap-the-bed moments of the last two days and READ instead? 

Examining the physical server isn't as revealing as Trump thinks. Crowdstrike gave the FBI images of the server, which provides far more information. Read the Politico piece if you don't understand what I just wrote. 

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump Doesn’t

First off, CrowdStrike, the company the DNC brought in to initially investigate and remediate the hack, actually shared images of the DNC servers with the FBI. For the purposes of an investigation of this type, images are much more useful than handing over metal and hardware, because they are bit-by-bit copies of a crime scene taken while the crime was going on. Live hard drive and memory snapshots of blinking, powered-on machines in a network reveal significantly more forensic data than some powered-off server removed from a network. It’s the difference between watching a house over time, carefully noting down who comes and goes and when and how, versus handing over a key to a lonely boarded-up building. By physically handing over a server to the FBI as Trump suggested, the DNC would in fact have destroyed evidence. (Besides, there wasn’t just one server, but 140.)
An advanced investigation of an advanced hacking operation requires significantly more than just access to servers. Investigators want access to the attack infrastructure—the equivalent to a chain of getaway cars of a team of burglars. And the latest indictments are rich with details that likely come from intercepting command-and-control boxes (in effect, bugging those getaway cars) and have nothing to do with physical access to the DNC’s servers.


How Russian hackers stole information from Democrats, in 3 simple diagrams

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks


5 revelations from Mueller's indictment of Russians in DNC hack


How Russia Hacked the Democrats in 2016


Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search

I assume that you are talking to me. 

I hope you can last another 6 years.

cuz that's how long he'll be around.