Sep 5, 2017

Do you really think Trump is going to mass deport a bunch of would-be law-abiding citizens? Again, Trump is a mild reformer. And once again, he referred the issue to Congress to come up with a permanent solution because that's their job. It wasn't even supposed to be dealt with at the executive level.

 

Sep 5, 2017

They were brought here as children. This is where they grew up. They belong here.

I hope ICE does come after me lol I'm taking their a----s to court & they can pay for my way through college

 

Sep 5, 2017

Jesus, what a moron.

 

Sep 5, 2017

Are they here legally

 

Sep 5, 2017

Missing the point. They didn't choose to come here illegally. A lot of them didn't know they were undocumented until they were teens/adults & tried to get a job/drivers license. Why are we punishing them for the actions of their parents?

 

Sep 5, 2017

This peabrain really thinks half a million plus immigrants are going to be deported because of this. Then again, this is the same guy who unironically championed HRC as a paragon of virtue and hangs on Fareed Zakaria's every word.

 

Sep 5, 2017

So what happens champ? Teach.

 

Sep 5, 2017

Its their parents fault. Their parents brought them here knowing their risk. They are their guardians. If a kid kills someone because he didn't know better should the parents go to jail? They should get punished imo, as well as the kid. We're not punishing them, we are standing our ground because we aren't going to let people walk over us. Imagine how many people would just bring their kids here knowing they wont get deported. It cant happen

 

Sep 5, 2017

That might be the worst analogy of all time. Murder & being undocumented are not equivalent crimes. They are no where close to being equivalent crimes. Also, the kids did not break the law. What is a kid suppose to do if his/her parents decide to illegally bring them into the country? Are you aware of the requirements it takes to be a DACA recipient?
-Under the age of 31 as of June 2012

-came to the US while under the age of 16

-have continuously resided in the US since June 2007 to present

-are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces

-have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors of any kind

-do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

That's not to mention the $500 they have to pay every 2 years to renew their status. Not just anybody can become a DACA recepient. There are strict criteria they must meet & if they don't meet even one – they're not eligible.

 

Sep 5, 2017

The kid is breaking the law by being here. Its their parents fault. Blame the parents. Maybe their parents should make their kids break the law

I forgot you support terrorist organizations though so I don't expect you to care about the law and the legality of being a citizen

 

Sep 5, 2017

Trump could have just ended DACA and deported a bunch of people, but instead he's leaving it intact for six months to allow Congress to come up with a long-term fix. That's the lawful way, not DACA. One realistic outcome is that the criminals get the boot and the rest are granted conditional residency. Then comes the great wall to finally put this tired issue to bed. MAGA!

 

Sep 5, 2017

They aren't citizens dumb a---. That's the basis of the entire issue. Also, you might want to read this:

 

Sep 5, 2017

Lapse of terminology. With all these leftards running around talking about, "Oh, I call them citizens since they contribute to this country!" I almost forgot the difference for a second there. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

This is pure sensationalism. The program is being referred to the legislature. See my previous post.

 

Sep 5, 2017

Not nearly as embarrassing as your "anti-personality disorder" btw!

 

Sep 6, 2017

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

Spoiler

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it.

We come now to a moment of great gravity. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called http://www.disobedientmedia.com proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut.

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by http://www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”

The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States.

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it.

We come now to a moment of great gravity. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called http://www.disobedientmedia.com proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut.

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by http://www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”

The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States.

In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

To be noted in this connection: The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to. (The tool can also “de-obfuscate” what it has obfuscated.) It is not known whether this tool was deployed in the Guccifer case, but it is there for such a use.

It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring.

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

• On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

• On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.

• On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.

• On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

The Washington Post, CNN, and nearly every mainstream media outlet published the “Russia did it” story with no proof or even plausibility.

James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies posted an Intelligence Community Assessment that they had “high confidence” Russia was behind this.

The Nation notes “The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous.”

Instead of examining the DNC servers, the FBI relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike. The co-founder and chief technology officer of Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovitch, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. Crowstrike was also under the employment of the DNC.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...proven-fact-russia-did-not-hack-dnc-computers

 

Sep 6, 2017

Trump on hurricane Irma: 'it looks like it could be something that will not be good. Believe me, not good.'

Lmao he sounds so stupid basically every time he talks and sounds like an SNL parody of himself or something.

 

Sep 8, 2017

10/10 quote. I believe him, true leader.

 

Sep 8, 2017

up like donald trump! chain swung like nunchcuks ay! dont get me riled up ay! twerk like she from russha!

 

Sep 15, 2017

Lol