United States Trump 2nd Term - Planning and Beyond

[Zachowon]

I'm sorry, Zach, but the TLAs in Trump's first term pretty much proved that they cannot be trusted, see the Vindmann brothers , the fake FBI briefing used as a pretext for Russiagate, the FBIs behavior throughout, the CIA ignoring orders, the DIA ignoring orders, the NSA being weaponized against American citizens with the connivance of corrupt judges, etc etc etc. There are enough bad apples in the TLA barrel that trusting them with anything is too much of a risk for the Trump administration, especially considering that Trump has been very public with his plans to purge those same agencies of Obama/Biden operatives who serve the Deep State rather than the United States. He would be an utter fool to trust them in any way, shape, or form.

Frankly, at the Presidential level, if the CIA told me that the sky is blue I'd look outside on the assumption that it's probably raining and they are hoping I'll say something they can leak to their friends in the media. The CIA itself in their *publicly posted history* of his presidency admitted to withholding intelligence from him. They cannot be trusted, and Trump is being very wise in locking them out of the transition to keep them as far as possible for as long as possible.

China is the adversary, the TLAs and Deep State are the *enemy*. Until they've been reformed, they need to be treated as such.

And the FBI shouldn't be trusted. I agree.
The thing is, we have already have had a massive Chinese hack into the trunk campaign, including Trump and Vance.
Unless they all switch exclusively to using Signal, it allows China to get ahold of our government.
The Deep State can be destroyed, China can't be in a way that what they get doesn't matter.
They already own large amount of land in the US, especially around military bases.
The whole aspect of pushing China to the side when sure the Deep State exist, but cam be gutted by Trump easily.

But I just will give up this argument. Let's just hope this doesn't end with China gaining tons of classified information and leaking it, or them gaining access to the cabinet and blackmail them.

 

[LordSunhawk]

And the FBI shouldn't be trusted. I agree.
The thing is, we have already have had a massive Chinese hack into the trunk campaign, including Trump and Vance.
Unless they all switch exclusively to using Signal, it allows China to get ahold of our government.
The Deep State can be destroyed, China can't be in a way that what they get doesn't matter.
They already own large amount of land in the US, especially around military bases.
The whole aspect of pushing China to the side when sure the Deep State exist, but cam be gutted by Trump easily.

But I just will give up this argument. Let's just hope this doesn't end with China gaining tons of classified information and leaking it, or them gaining access to the cabinet and blackmail them.

The first step in destroying the Deep State is to no longer let them hide behind 'China China China' or 'Russia Russia Russia', so long as you let them do that they will continue to evade any attempt to destroy them, because they will *always* find some other enemy to use to distract from themselves.

 

[Vyor]

The first step in destroying the Deep State is to no longer let them hide behind 'China China China' or 'Russia Russia Russia', so long as you let them do that they will continue to evade any attempt to destroy them, because they will *always* find some other enemy to use to distract from themselves.

OOOOOOORRRRRRR

You just destroy them because we just sorta have that power?

 

[TheRejectionist]

Unlike you and everyone else,

Where did I heard this before, exactly worded like this or in a different shape or form? Oh I know, the forums that kicked everyone out because we had brains instead of rotting carcasses, Davos, mainstream media and social media oligarchs.

I actively know the national security issues this presents. Hell @Vyor Who works in Comp Sci understands just as much.

See, that's exactly why I don't trust anything your silly bot statements affirm. Because if you actively (active what by the way? Another coup planned? Or it is your autocorrect again?) know what is going on, I know the best bet is to trust or do the complete opposite. The bastard demon of Kissinger knew it best of situations like this:

"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

― Henry Kissinger

So, in this case, I will apply the same reasoning.

 

[Rorschach]

And the FBI shouldn't be trusted. I agree.
The thing is, we have already have had a massive Chinese hack into the trunk campaign, including Trump and Vance.
Unless they all switch exclusively to using Signal, it allows China to get ahold of our government.
The Deep State can be destroyed, China can't be in a way that what they get doesn't matter.
They already own large amount of land in the US, especially around military bases.
The whole aspect of pushing China to the side when sure the Deep State exist, but cam be gutted by Trump easily.

But I just will give up this argument. Let's just hope this doesn't end with China gaining tons of classified information and leaking it, or them gaining access to the cabinet and blackmail them.

Again this is just you being a fucking dumbass, because a private company is much less likely to leak intelligence to the chinese than the government is.

The government is fucking incompetent and as leaky as a fucking sieve.

 

[Zachowon]

Again this is just you being a fucking dumbass, because a private company is much less likely to leak intelligence to the chinese than the government is.

The government is fucking incompetent and as leaky as a fucking sieve.

Except we had a massive Telecom hack that was done by China that invovled the president and vice president elect....
But yall seem to ignore thks

 

[LordSunhawk]

I think you are missing a point as well, Zach. Yes, that telecom hack was bad and exposed data, however said data was at most fragmentary and incomplete. Plus the Chinese had to work for it and now that the campaign is aware of that threat vector they can close it via appropriate encryption and procedures which they appear to have put in place.

Cooperating with the TLAs and the Deep State is pretty much handing the enemy all of the data on a silver platter and saying 'please screw me over, secret agent man, and protect your self interest'.

 

[Zachowon]

I think you are missing a point as well, Zach. Yes, that telecom hack was bad and exposed data, however said data was at most fragmentary and incomplete. Plus the Chinese had to work for it and now that the campaign is aware of that threat vector they can close it via appropriate encryption and procedures which they appear to have put in place.

Cooperating with the TLAs and the Deep State is pretty much handing the enemy all of the data on a silver platter and saying 'please screw me over, secret agent man, and protect your self interest'.

Except...it just opens up more venues in which our adversaries can take advantage of.
Where as using GSA stuff guarantees the highest level of protection.

And...why can't he just wipe the deep state clean and not have to worry?

 

[S'task]

Here's the thing, I happen to work in a related matter and while unlike the rest of y'all I do understand where Zach is coming from, know he's coming from this in good faith, and also know he's a real person and not a bot through years of one on one interactions with him in voice and chats, not just on a forum, I ALSO happen to know what the government bureaucracy's attitude towards the IT security standards are that the very same Federal bureaucracy publishes (look, while the government is incompetent in many areas, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is one of the few that takes its job seriously and its IT security standards are considered excellent as far as I am aware).

Let's just say, the bureaucracy, aside from those explicitly tasked with trying* to enforce those standards, HATE the standards and do everything they can to avoid, bypass, or ignore them until they are FORCED to. They are more concerned with the uptime of computer systems than their security, more concerned with getting their bells and whistles and not being inconvenienced, and not having to fight with the various vendors and contractors to force them to make their systems compliant with those security standards. They would rather not have to bother with them, and have consistently resisted efforts to bring various systems into compliance with said security standards. As such, I personally would trust a company hired to provide secure communications to provide actually secure communications (assuming they state what security standards they are building to) than I trust anyone in the government to do so, as unlike the people in the government, they actually have money and reputation on the line if their security FAILS, whereas when the government has security failures the people held "accountable" are usually the lowest rung folks who didn't actually make the decisions that led to the security breech in the first place, and who merely did what they were told to do.

-----------------------
* I honestly feel sorry for the Federal bureaucrats tasked with "enforcing" the IT security standards because they are literally toothless. They have no power to shut down systems that fail security standards, and all they really can do is record and report on what the failings are. The rest of the bureaucracy hates them because they can make them look bad. They're basically Cassandra... and then guess who gets blamed when security breeches happen? Note: while these areas are often as DEI infested as the rest of the bureaucracy, it doesn't change the fact they're not even really allowed to do their jobs and unlike much of the rest of the bureaucracy their jobs actually ARE important and make sense to have people working in. Look, hate on the Federal government all you want, but these are the people who try and make sure things like citizen person information is properly secured, and even if we gutted the Federal government to its most basic function, many of their operations would still be needed.

 

[S'task]

Where as using GSA stuff guarantees the highest level of protection.

No, it really doesn't. As I stated above Zach, the Federal bureaucrats HATE having to adhere to those high security standards and cut corners and seek to avoid implementing them for as long as they possibly can. I've been watching it happen for the last ten years.

 

[Zachowon]

No, it really doesn't. As I stated above Zach, the Federal bureaucrats HATE having to adhere to those high security standards and cut corners and seek to avoid implementing them for as long as they possibly can. I've been watching it happen for the last ten years.

I guess seeing how the NSA operate makes me feel better.
They are heavily secure to the point they don't even really do anything unclassified.
But DoD has its own IT so diffrent realm I guess

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Here's the thing, I happen to work in a related matter and while unlike the rest of y'all I do understand where Zach is coming from, know he's coming from this in good faith, and also know he's a real person and not a bot through years of one on one interactions with him in voice and chats, not just on a forum, I ALSO happen to know what the government bureaucracy's attitude towards the IT security standards are that the very same Federal bureaucracy publishes (look, while the government is incompetent in many areas, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is one of the few that takes its job seriously and its IT security standards are considered excellent as far as I am aware).

Let's just say, the bureaucracy, aside from those explicitly tasked with trying* to enforce those standards, HATE the standards and do everything they can to avoid, bypass, or ignore them until they are FORCED to. They are more concerned with the uptime of computer systems than their security, more concerned with getting their bells and whistles and not being inconvenienced, and not having to fight with the various vendors and contractors to force them to make their systems compliant with those security standards. They would rather not have to bother with them, and have consistently resisted efforts to bring various systems into compliance with said security standards. As such, I personally would trust a company hired to provide secure communications to provide actually secure communications (assuming they state what security standards they are building to) than I trust anyone in the government to do so, as unlike the people in the government, they actually have money and reputation on the line if their security FAILS, whereas when the government has security failures the people held "accountable" are usually the lowest rung folks who didn't actually make the decisions that led to the security breech in the first place, and who merely did what they were told to do.

-----------------------
* I honestly feel sorry for the Federal bureaucrats tasked with "enforcing" the IT security standards because they are literally toothless. They have no power to shut down systems that fail security standards, and all they really can do is record and report on what the failings are. The rest of the bureaucracy hates them because they can make them look bad. They're basically Cassandra... and then guess who gets blamed when security breeches happen? Note: while these areas are often as DEI infested as the rest of the bureaucracy, it doesn't change the fact they're not even really allowed to do their jobs and unlike much of the rest of the bureaucracy their jobs actually ARE important and make sense to have people working in. Look, hate on the Federal government all you want, but these are the people who try and make sure things like citizen person information is properly secured, and even if we gutted the Federal government to its most basic function, many of their operations would still be needed.

sounds like working for your standard corporation. @Zachowon think I owe you an apology man. Part of the issue is that America is a socialist corporatocracy, on the surface that sounds like a contradiction but it's not when you realize a lot of business guys use thier position as a CEO as a jumping off point for politics and both government and Corporate break bread with each other daily. On top of that, they are globalist shills which means they have more of an incentive to sell secrets to foreign adversaries.

 

[Vyor]

sounds like working for your standard corporation. @Zachowon think I owe you an apology man. Part of the issue is that America is a socialist corporatocracy, on the surface that sounds like a contradiction but it's not when you realize a lot of business guys use thier position as a CEO as a jumping off point for politics and both government and Corporate break bread with each other daily. On top of that, they are globalist shills which means they have more of an incentive to sell secrets to foreign adversaries.

... wouldn't that be fascist?

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

... wouldn't that be fascist?

funny how that works huh?

 

[LordSludge]

... wouldn't that be fascist?

Kinda? When you look at the actual facts on the ground behind at least Nazi Germany [I'd need to double check on Mussolini's Italy] they kind of centralized the economy under the party, pretty similar to the Soviets, they just did it in a way that lent a veneer of deniability and were working with far more built up and developed industries that they didn't dismantle so long as they followed orders. Dejure, you still had at least a few unnationalized or temporarily nationalized independent corporations but defacto man it sure was weird how all of them did exactly what they were told to do to the letter, held their positions at the whim of the party, and most of their heads were members.

The result was you had basically everything of value to the nation as a whole controlled by either the state or a member of the party and mysteriously members of the party [who were often politicians or military personnel when they weren't already corporate magnates] kept finding themselves entrusted with holding the reins so long as they did exactly what the regime wanted on demand without question.

So, in the sense of the Nazism strain of Fascism? Yeah definitely "soft" centralization is what I at least would argue one of the things that defines it, it began as an alternative branch from socialism to compete with communism and as such a lot of its internal economic and logistical policies core to its identity are fairly well described as "Socialist-Corpocracy" where key corporations become part of the political regime and are absorbed as a semi-deniable apparatus of the state.

Probably seen in Franco or Mussolini's takes on it as well, but I haven't brushed up on them in depth for a long while so I can't say for certain.

 

[Bacle]

Except...it just opens up more venues in which our adversaries can take advantage of.
Where as using GSA stuff guarantees the highest level of protection.

And...why can't he just wipe the deep state clean and not have to worry?

Because all GSA devices will feed their contents back to the intel agencies that Trump wants to clean house in regards to.

Which would literally be Trump handing the people he wants to fire backdoor access to his entire admin and everything it does, which is just stupid.

Cleaning out the deep state is much harder if they have advanced notice and 24/7 monitoring of everything Trump says or intends to do.

And until the deep state is cleaned out, the CCP and Russians will continue to be treated with kid gloves, because it is the deep state that wants to maintain the the status quo with both, and is often in bed with both in unofficial channels.

Trump has zero reason to trust anything from the GSA or any agency tied to the deep state.

 

[Cherico]

Ok guys bad news from another thread it looks like the leftwing terrorist threats and attacks have begun.

Barcle I know your watching this thread you can say I told you so now.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Ok guys bad news from another thread it looks like the leftwing terrorist threats and attacks have begun.

Barcle I know your watching this thread you can say I told you so now.

but remeber guys, jan 6ths were the evil ones.

 

[Bacle]

Ok guys bad news from another thread it looks like the leftwing terrorist threats and attacks have begun.

Barcle I know your watching this thread you can say I told you so now.

I take no pleasure in it, because the madness I live in daily is getting worse nearly every week or so, the blue areas are likely going to do something very retarded once Trump is sworn in, and I am stuck in one of them.

It is only by the grace of god Trump didn't die in Butler, the Left has been priming their base for violence against Trump and his supporters for years, and the actions of people like the Mayor of Denver and other Blue city/state officials may end up sparking ACW 2.0 over illegal immigration/sanctuary city/state policies.

While I think the tide has turned and humanity as whole is likely headed for a golden age, the actions of some politicians in the Dems also lead me to think the start of that golden age is likely to be...rough, for those who are going to live through it, if they live in Dem areas.

The cartel/TDA lookouts disguised as 'windowwashers' are now a regular fixture at a nearby intersection to my house, and a old suite-style hotel that fell on hard times during the Wu Flu were bought out by the city and turned into 'migrant shelters', aka cartel safehouses.

When Trump tightens the noose on the cartels and pushes federal forces into Denver, I expect things to get kinetic in my neighborhood, the cartels/TDA won't go quietly.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Off topic a bit but when speaking about "butler" in an American context I have to remind myself that word is also a name of a city.