The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:53 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Jamming satellites would require jamming coverage of almost 200,000 square kms. That's a fairly large area. You're suggesting that you could jam that with a single plane from the side. I guess I don't believe you. I'll go educate myself and apologize if I'm wrong.

For the weave net, you need to be able to jam the signal between my phone and Fred's, who's sitting in a cubicle 10 feet away from me. And then between Fred's phone and Sally's, another 10 feet away. And all the other phones in range of Fred's, as it's a web, not linear. This signal never goes to a cell phone provider's tower, it just goes sideways 10 feet. Again, you're suggesting you can stop that with a single plane from thousands of miles away. I don't believe you.

It's basic physics. Radio relies on the waveform of the sender to make it to the receiver un-changed. Broadcast a signal of significant power with a random waveform and you are jamming. It's very simple. Now can it be defeated? Yes. You could be underground or in a space where that jamming signal is blocked but over open country? It'll work everytime. There are also political implications - jamming a frequency somewhere could bleed into communications you want yourself or neutral parties/allies/enemies who won't look to kindly on it but it's definitely a real thing. Honestly it feels like you are tilting at windmills here. Jamming communications isn't foolproof but against our capabilities they would have *no chance* of maintaining effective communications. They'll be wasting plenty of time adapting or dealing with it nonetheless.

malchior wrote:No. You don't have access to the country's infrastructure. unless you believe your good friend Assad is going to willingly give up communication with the outside world, you don't have that level of access to the country's infrastructure. You can, at best get all it's neighbours to stop listening to it. And even that isn't going to work, because there are ways to bypass the neighbours.

Uh...remote compromise of the system? Do you think we're walking up and yanking cables out? And we could effectively do that anyway with bombs. These guys aren't a tenth the experts we are on communications. Remote compromise of our telecommunications gear is something we deal with all the time (I'm acutely aware of this fwiw). We can shut them down if we want. But we don't because we cut off everyone then. There are political dimensions naturally.

Let's put it this way. Even if you were a full blown dictatorship with complete control over your country's infrastructure, you're not going to be able to stop people from getting their messages out. Sure you can reduce the total bandwidth (I mean this as a measure of data leaving the country, not a specific measurement on a specific data line) leaving the country to a trickle, but Terrorists are going to make sure that they are part of that trickle. And all they need is a trickle. They aren't Netflix. They could do their deal in flat text over a 1300 baud modem if they need to.

Congestion management is generally non-discriminatory - you don't know if your packet will get dropped or not. Sure wait long enough and the message will get out - is it an "effective" and "reliable" means of communication. Not at all. Are their apps timing out due to packet loss? Guess they'll just re-develop them to account for the 90% packet loss, right? There are practical issues that you are likely just unaware of there. Again I think you are looking for perfect jamming when 99+% is well more than good enough. I'm also not suggesting what Trump said is good policy or even desirable but it is definitely possible.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:55 pm

I always try to break them down based on the number provided. 185,000 square miles is a box 185 miles by 1,000. From there, I could try to square it up. Ex: 370 x 500.

Then there's comparisons to states.

California clocks in at 163.7k . Minnesota and Wyoming together come in at 184.7k.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:55 pm

AWS260 wrote:
Rip wrote:
We know, since the incident of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea on the 12th April 2014, that the Russian Air Force has at its disposition a weapon which enables it to jam all radars, all control circuits, all systems for the transmission of information, etc. [6]. Since the beginning of its military deployment, Russia had installed a jamming centre at Hmeymim, to the North of Latakia. Then, suddenly, the USS Donald Cook incident occurred, but this time within a perimeter of 300 kilometres – which includes the NATO base at Incirlik (Turkey). And this is still going on. Because the event happened during a sand-storm of historical proportions, the Pentagon first thought its measuring equipment had malfunctioned, but then discovered that it had been jammed. Completely.
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/ ... 50696.html
You may want to consider providing sources that aren't conspiracy theorists. The author of that story is also the author of a book called "9/11: The Big Lie." Other current articles on Before It's News: "Adolf Hitler Lived to 95 with His Brazilian Bride" and (I am not kidding) "We Are All Being Set Up."

I don't know anything about the technology, I can't be vetting the sources at the same time. Also I don't want to, as vetting sources is too often a way to side step data to refute an argument. But having reasonably vetted sources is imperative. It's hard work staying informed.

That said, even if I ignore the source of article, and start believing that all cell phone/radio communication over an entire country can be killed with a single plane flying around it's perimeter, there are too many other holes that data can slip through.

What you're trying to accomplish has to be part of the discussion. Which, I've been assuming (and maybe wrongly?) is preventing Terrorists from organizing via the internet (or internet-like devices, presumably). As problems with and solutions for doing that surface, I'm left with the continued feeling that it just isn't possible, no matter how disruptive, expensive, and onerous the efforts.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:55 pm

AWS260 wrote:
Rip wrote:
We know, since the incident of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea on the 12th April 2014, that the Russian Air Force has at its disposition a weapon which enables it to jam all radars, all control circuits, all systems for the transmission of information, etc. [6]. Since the beginning of its military deployment, Russia had installed a jamming centre at Hmeymim, to the North of Latakia. Then, suddenly, the USS Donald Cook incident occurred, but this time within a perimeter of 300 kilometres – which includes the NATO base at Incirlik (Turkey). And this is still going on. Because the event happened during a sand-storm of historical proportions, the Pentagon first thought its measuring equipment had malfunctioned, but then discovered that it had been jammed. Completely.
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/ ... 50696.html
You may want to consider providing sources that aren't conspiracy theorists. The author of that story is also the author of a book called "9/11: The Big Lie." Other current articles on Before It's News: "Adolf Hitler Lived to 95 with His Brazilian Bride" and (I am not kidding) "We Are All Being Set Up."

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/10/sophis ... ssia-edge/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /30913397/

http://www.scmagazine.com/russia-overta ... le/450518/

Tip of the iceberg.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:58 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:I always try to break them down based on the number provided. 185,000 square miles is a box 185 miles by 1,000. From there, I could try to square it up. Ex: 370 x 500.

Then there's comparisons to states.

California clocks in at 163.7k . Minnesota and Wyoming together come in at 184.7k.

Oh yeah, I could have done it any number of ways. I didn't do it any way, until recently. I'm being pulled in too many directions at once and started taking short cuts, mentally.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:04 pm

GreenGoo wrote:That said, even if I ignore the source of article, and start believing that all cell phone/radio communication over an entire country can be killed with a single plane flying around it's perimeter, there are too many other holes that data can slip through.

Really there probably wouldn't be. The answer to that is simple - people will just walk out with the information needed. However it'll severely diminish their capabilities. Al Queda became far less effective when their freedom of movement, cash flow, and communications became disrupted.

What you're trying to accomplish has to be part of the discussion. Which, I've been assuming (and maybe wrongly?) is preventing Terrorists from organizing via the internet (or internet-like devices, presumably). As problems with and solutions for doing that surface, I'm left with the continued feeling that it just isn't possible, no matter how disruptive, expensive, and onerous the efforts.

If we wanted to we could do a lot to minimize it but there is also the element that we don't necessarily want to disrupt all operations - infiltrating and observing their chatter has a *lot* of value too. I'm sure someone at CIA was like....uh....we get a lot of actionable intelligence between we don't cut them off...so...please don't.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:10 pm

I highly doubt any endeavor in the realm of stealth technology would be considered successful if those behind it were to release to the press all their details in answer to their foe's question "Can you top this!?!".

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:11 pm

malchior wrote: Uh...remote compromise of the system? Do you think we're walking up and yanking cables out? And we could effectively do that anyway with bombs. These guys aren't a tenth the experts we are on communications. Remote compromise of our telecommunications gear is something we deal with all the time (I'm acutely aware of this fwiw). We can shut them down if we want. But we don't because we cut off everyone then. There are political dimensions naturally.

Yes actually. The more I cover the tech involved, the more literally pulling the plug seems to be the mostly likely route to success. I do not share your confidence that the US can just enter and turn off any infrastructure they want when they want to. I admit that I don't feel that war torn Syria would be ready for an e-war, I'm just not sure it's as simple as deciding to do it and then doing it. easy peasy.

If you have personal experience with this, great. I can be dubious of "because I said so" without questioning your professionalism or knowledge, so don't take it personally.

malchior wrote: Congestion management is generally non-discriminatory - you don't know if your packet will get dropped or not. Sure wait long enough and the message will get out - is it an "effective" and "reliable" means of communication. Not at all. Are their apps timing out due to packet loss? Guess they'll just re-develop them to account for the 90% packet loss, right? There are practical issues that you are likely just unaware of there. Again I think you are looking for perfect jamming when 99+% is well more than good enough. I'm also not suggesting what Trump said is good policy or even desirable but it is definitely possible.

Fair enough. Quality of that communication would inevitably deteriorate. And that might be enough. I'm not going to argue over whether these measures would result in sufficient degradation as to make communication worthless, because I don't know. If we're talking about real time coordinated detonation of multiple payloads, sure. If we're talking about picking up X on the way home from Terrorism class, maybe not. Probably(?) not.

It's true I'm looking for perfect jamming, because 99% jamming means the terrorists are still doing their thing, and if that's the case, what's the point?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:13 pm

malchior wrote: Really there probably wouldn't be. The answer to that is simple - people will just walk out with the information needed. However it'll severely diminish their capabilities.

Shrug.

Honestly I feel more beaten down than convinced. but it's enough to make me stop, so there's that.

It's a shame that we'll probably not get to see it in action. It would make for some very interesting reading.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:24 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:I always try to break them down based on the number provided. 185,000 square miles is a box 185 miles by 1,000. From there, I could try to square it up. Ex: 370 x 500.

Then there's comparisons to states.

California clocks in at 163.7k . Minnesota and Wyoming together come in at 184.7k.

BTW - just looked it up. If I put a plane up 50000 feet - I can potentially cover 235000+ sq. miles (circular naturally assuming you have a circular antenna array, etc.) since the line of sight is somewhere near 275 miles. Now there is the question of power - cell phones broadcast at 500mW. Power attentuates over distance in complicated ways but it's safe to say that a plane could carry a power source and antenna capable of broadcasting at say 1.5KW or higher and just drowning out almost anything you can think of in its line of sight. Now I'm sure there are many considerations (antenna designs for different frequencies/weather/etc). but it isn't far fetched. I seem to recall that we stationed 1 or 2 planes over Iraq to shut down their air defense capability by jamming the radar back in 2003.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:36 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Yes actually. The more I cover the tech involved, the more literally pulling the plug seems to be the mostly likely route to success. I do not share your confidence that the US can just enter and turn off any infrastructure they want when they want to. I admit that I don't feel that war torn Syria would be ready for an e-war, I'm just not sure it's as simple as deciding to do it and then doing it. easy peasy.

If you have personal experience with this, great. I can be dubious of "because I said so" without questioning your professionalism or knowledge, so don't take it personally.

That's cool and all (and I get that) but its widely believed (and described by the media) that we caused an outage accidentally in 2014 in Syria while we had set up shop inside their communications gear. It isn't even conspiracy theory to think that we have zero-days for many flavors of communications gear since they are developed domestically and we buy them for military purposes...we likely inspect the code.

malchior wrote:It's true I'm looking for perfect jamming, because 99% jamming means the terrorists are still doing their thing, and if that's the case, what's the point?

This is where I think your argument falls down. Al Queda became (mostly) ineffective when they couldn't move people around when they needed them. Why? Because they were holed up afraid to communicate with each other. They had to mule information around (literally). Terrorist attacks require a lot more coordination than people give them credit for. You have to move people/money/weapons around and they are (now) disrupted far more times than not. Do we get 100%? Obviously not but it isn't like they succeed very often either. In my book our counter-terrorism efforts have been extremely successful. Considering the desire to attack domestic targets they've essentially been unable to do anything for quite awhile in any scale.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:56 pm

I don't share your confidence or conclusions.

I wrote a bunch of stuff but then I'd have to address your responses to my stuff and I think that's enough for today.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:45 am

Just because I like the headline...

From Russia with love: Putin, Trump sing each other's praises

Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump praised each other on Thursday, saying they would welcome an improvement in the now-icy relations between their two nations. Trump - who holds the lead in opinion polls in his bid for the Republican nomination and was dubbed the "absolute leader" in the race by Putin - said that by working together, the United States and Russia could work toward defeating terrorism and "restoring world peace." The billionaire businessman's remarks were in stark contrast to his Republican rivals' rhetoric. Republicans have frequently taken to bashing Putin and have used his rocky relationship with Democratic President Barack Obama as evidence that the administration lacks strength in international affairs. Obama has been critical of Putin, and called for sanctions after Russia annexed Crimea. In recent months, the two countries have split on how to fight Islamic State in Syria. Putin has backed Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Obama has called for Assad to step down. Trump, who called Putin "highly respected," has frequently argued that his business background and ability to negotiate deals would allow him to improve relations with Russia, as well as other nations.

Putin, speaking on Thursday at his year-end news conference, told reporters he welcomed Trump's desire for better relations with Russia. “He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that. But it’s not our business to judge his merits, it’s up to the voters of the United States," Putin told reporters. "He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level relations, a deeper level of relations with Russia," Putin said. "How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it.” Trump responded that he was honored. "It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," the real estate mogul and former TV reality star said in a statement. "I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect."

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:00 pm

What's the over/under on the always important Kim Jung-un endorsement?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:06 pm

He'll lock that up as soon as he takes Dennis Rodman as his VP candidate.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:08 pm

When asked about Putin's penchant for literally murdering his domestic opponents, Trump replied "At least he's a leader."

When co-host Joe Scarborough asked Trump if he was concerned about Putin's dictatorial tactics, which include alleged killing political dissidents and journalists, the real estate magnate instead praised Putin's leadership.

"He's running his country and at least he's a leader. You know, unlike we have in this country," Trump said.

When pressed about Putin's opposition-crushing tactics, Trump said: "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. You know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on and a lot of stupidity and that's the way it is."

Putin said something nice about Trump, so he's a leader and his brand of authoritarianism simply no longer matters. Eventually Trump recovered, but... Jesus. Can you imagine the shitstorm if these words came from anyone else?

Probably in about 24 hours Trump will announce that Assad is our best friend in the region and must be supported at all costs. The rest of the Republican field will fall into line shortly after.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:14 pm

So...Trump would seemingly be impressed if Obama puts a gun to his head and splatters whatever is in his skull all over the wall. Got it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:19 pm

Holman wrote:When asked about Putin's penchant for literally murdering his domestic opponents, Trump replied "At least he's a leader."

When co-host Joe Scarborough asked Trump if he was concerned about Putin's dictatorial tactics, which include alleged killing political dissidents and journalists, the real estate magnate instead praised Putin's leadership.

"He's running his country and at least he's a leader. You know, unlike we have in this country," Trump said.

When pressed about Putin's opposition-crushing tactics, Trump said: "Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe. You know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on and a lot of stupidity and that's the way it is."
Putin said something nice about Trump, so he's a leader and his brand of authoritarianism simply no longer matters. Eventually Trump recovered, but... Jesus. Can you imagine the shitstorm if these words came from anyone else?

Probably in about 24 hours Trump will announce that Assad is our best friend in the region and must be supported at all costs. The rest of the Republican field will fall into line shortly after.

Rip has crapped all over Hillary's attempt as Secretary of State to re-establish positive diplomatic relations with Russia, and the Obama administration for being naive when it comes to Russia and Putin.

Trump has managed it by just being Trump. Well done, Trump.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:40 pm

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 4:46 pm

Rip wrote:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

Some significant number of Trump supporters, particularly those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

It's called shame. You know, like how people are less likely to admit to enjoying grapefruit rape hentai or reality TV while speaking to another human being than anonymously on the internet.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:38 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Rip wrote:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

Some significant number of Trump supporters, particularly those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.
It's called shame. You know, like how people are less likely to admit to enjoying grapefruit rape hentai or reality TV while speaking to another human being than anonymously on the internet.

Perhaps, just remember that voting booth is anonymous as well.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:42 pm

Rip wrote:Perhaps, just remember that voting booth is anonymous as well.

And that is frightening and what give him more than snowball's chance in hell of winning the primaries.

I'm not seeing it win him the general but you never know. If enough people like me refuse to vote for Clinton.

If it came down to Clinton v Trump, do you think a third person could spring up? Is there a prayer that both Sanders and a sane independent right leaning centrist run?

...

And then some aren't ashamed at all

for our country

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:48 pm

Rip wrote: Perhaps, just remember that voting booth is anonymous as well.

Of course.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:57 pm

No, I don't think a third person would show up to run.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:01 pm

Rip wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Rip wrote:http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t ... story.html

Some significant number of Trump supporters, particularly those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.
It's called shame. You know, like how people are less likely to admit to enjoying grapefruit rape hentai or reality TV while speaking to another human being than anonymously on the internet.
Perhaps, just remember that voting booth is anonymous as well.

I thought Anonymous didn't like Trump?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:42 pm

Trump beats Republicans, not Clinton, in one-on-one matchups

If the Republican primary featured a face-off between Trump and Cruz, a Texas senator, Trump would win the support of 41 percent of Republican and independent voters, the poll showed. Cruz would take 31 percent, while 28 percent said they would not vote in a Cruz-Trump contest.

If Rubio, a Florida senator, were pitted against Trump, the billionaire real-estate mogul would take 40 percent support of Republican and independent voters to Rubio's 34 percent, according to the poll. Twenty-seven percent said they would not vote. In this matchup, Trump's lead over Rubio is within the survey's credibility interval.

Despite months of leading the Republican polls, Trump would fall short in a general election competition held today against Clinton, the poll showed. In a one-on-one match-up, the former secretary of state would take 40 percent support of all voters to real estate mogul Trump's 29 percent.

Eight percent of respondents said they did not know which candidate they would support in a Clinton-Trump competition. Fourteen percent said they would not vote for either one, and another 9 percent said they would not vote at all.

No word on how Trump would fare against Sanders...

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:56 pm

Polls like that don't even reflect GOTV. A Trump candidacy would mobilize minority voters like nothing in history.

It might be the best thing Trump could possibly do for civil rights and civic engagement.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:44 pm

It also doesn't account for closet Trumpsters.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:49 pm

Rip wrote:It also doesn't account for closet Trumpsters.

You're not fooling anyone...

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:51 pm

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:51 pm

Max Peck wrote: No word on how Trump would fare against Sanders...

The magic 8-ball gives Bernie the edge. But hypothetical results for hypothetical races are hypothetical. Right now, Trump's name recognition alone trumps Sanders'.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:27 am

Rip wrote:

Just goes to show, Trump is even less trustworthy than the Clintons. He doesn't even believe in honor among thieves.

Whoops, almost forgot to Rip this post:

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:23 am

Kraken wrote:
Max Peck wrote: No word on how Trump would fare against Sanders...
The magic 8-ball gives Bernie the edge. But hypothetical results for hypothetical races are hypothetical. Right now, Trump's name recognition alone trumps Sanders'.

If we all start referring to Sanders as "the Colonel" Trump can kiss his name recognition edge goodbye.

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:00 pm

UK Family barred from plane cause they're Muslims.

I'm taking this story with a grain of salt but it's up CNN

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:35 pm

tru1cy wrote:UK Family barred from plane cause they're Muslims.

I'm taking this story with a grain of salt but it's up CNN

All over the UK media, but I never got a chance to read any of the articles. 1 dad, 1 brother of dad, 9 kids of dad. That's as far as I got.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm

The CNN article states:

a check by CNN of traveling family members on UK Electoral Roll shows an email address associated with 18-year-old Hamza Mahmoud that links to a suspicious Facebook page.

The page appears to belong to a Birmingham resident with a similar name, whose occupation is listed as Supervisor at Taliban and Leader at al-Qaeda.

When asked by reporters about the Facebook link, the family said the email listed on the electoral roll is incorrect, missing some characters, and that the son lives in London, not Birmingham.

Tariq Mahmoud confirmed his son Hamza was part of the trip, and he told CNN the family had no knowledge of the Facebook page until asked about it by a reporter.

So at least on the surface it appears they weren't screened because they are muslim. The are muslim and they were screened. As to whether or not you should bar someone from entering the US because of a Facebook page and whether or not Hamza is the same Hamza spouting Al Qeada nonsense are different questions.

...

OTOH, I do think it's interesting that airlines/customs are cross referencing known information about people and are finding email addresses and social media. I'm really not sure what to think about that. They should be doing detective work and making inferences but I'm not sure that stops and privacy protection begins. You'd think I'd have a better handle on my expectations this many years after Snowden, but nope. I still don't know what to think.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:53 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
tru1cy wrote:UK Family barred from plane cause they're Muslims.

I'm taking this story with a grain of salt but it's up CNN
All over the UK media, but I never got a chance to read any of the articles. 1 dad, 1 brother of dad, 9 kids of dad. That's as far as I got.

BBC coverage here and here.

Even their Member of Parliament can't find out why they were banned from the flight, and she's pushing the issue up to the Prime Minister's office. What really grinds my gears, aside from the opaque arbitrariness of it all, is that they are left on the hook for the airfare even though they weren't allowed on the plane. Eight or nine thousand pounds for the privilege of an anonymous bureaucratic assfucking seems... pricey.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:30 pm

Still looking out for his kids?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12 ... ump-video/

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:03 pm

Millions of French citizens are reportedly seeking American citizenship so they can vote for Trump after the above interview was released.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 2:04 pm

Rip wrote:Still looking out for his kids?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12 ... ump-video/

I understand that Trump does well among 90-year-old white guys who hate refugees.