Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[postman1782]

You know...some days, the jokes write themselves. Such as "it's like their cyber security was done by a ten-year-old".

Well, when you use open source software, without giving them the proper credit and whatnot, it is easily hacked.

[DarkTZeratul]

I wonder if San Mateo has any landscaping company parking lots that will host her.

If there's one thing downtown San Mateo has in short supply, it's parking lots.

[Breccia]

Well, when you use open source software, without giving them the proper credit and whatnot, it is easily hacked.

I feel this is worth further discussion.

Coming up with a social media platform is going to be very difficult. You need good software and good hardware to carry that much data in various forms that often. So I can understand why someone would want to take shortcuts. I get it.

But this isn't plastering over a hole in your apartment sheetrock with toothpaste and hoping the super doesn't notice. THis is "people put their personal info on this thing" levels of important. Nobody who knows what they're doing should expect a basic framework they found on a free site, with a coat of paint, to be useful. Just ask Jim Fucking Sterling Son.

Team Trump has to know this. The question is, what's their angle?

I suggested earlier they could pump and dump their stock, and I'm not ruling that out yet. But if they try to actually make something, yeah, if they just copy/paste something public, they shouldn't expect that to work very well very long -- with or without claiming they own it. Then there's the hardware, which Trump has been burning his bridges on that one and can't afford his own. And even if they do actually strive to make a worthwhile project, they have a time limit -- next year. They physically can't get good enough, even if they're trying. Which nobody seems to believe.

I admit this could be a simple fleecing job, but unlike a PAC you can't just have people hand you money for a product and then...do nothing. That's called income. So I'm discounting that for now, too.

My best remaining guess is, Trump wants this up and running as an excuse for people to pay for advertisements. The contract for the advertisement will say nothing about number of views, simply a flat fee for being online. That would end up short-term, but again, Trump is broke now and owes a lot. That might be enough.

I suppose he could be trying to milk some personal data, but I dunno, his fundraising site probably has all that.

I don't see a realistic long-term con that has any chance of working. What am I missing?

[Poopymonster]

I feel this is worth further discussion.

Coming up with a social media platform is going to be very difficult. You need good software and good hardware to carry that much data in various forms that often. So I can understand why someone would want to take shortcuts. I get it.

But this isn't plastering over a hole in your apartment sheetrock with toothpaste and hoping the super doesn't notice. THis is "people put their personal info on this thing" levels of important. Nobody who knows what they're doing should expect a basic framework they found on a free site, with a coat of paint, to be useful. Just ask Jim Fucking Sterling Son.

Team Trump has to know this. The question is, what's their angle?

I suggested earlier they could pump and dump their stock, and I'm not ruling that out yet. But if they try to actually make something, yeah, if they just copy/paste something public, they shouldn't expect that to work very well very long -- with or without claiming they own it. Then there's the hardware, which Trump has been burning his bridges on that one and can't afford his own. And even if they do actually strive to make a worthwhile project, they have a time limit -- next year. They physically can't get good enough, even if they're trying. Which nobody seems to believe.

I admit this could be a simple fleecing job, but unlike a PAC you can't just have people hand you money for a product and then...do nothing. That's called income. So I'm discounting that for now, too.

My best remaining guess is, Trump wants this up and running as an excuse for people to pay for advertisements. The contract for the advertisement will say nothing about number of views, simply a flat fee for being online. That would end up short-term, but again, Trump is broke now and owes a lot. That might be enough.

I suppose he could be trying to milk some personal data, but I dunno, his fundraising site probably has all that.

I don't see a realistic long-term con that has any chance of working. What am I missing?

Given his followers *cough* sensibilities and their Sincerely Held Beliefs...I'll laugh my ass off when Blacked ads popped up on the site.

[Breccia]

House Republicans unanimously decide that refusing to answer Congress's questions is not contempt.

UPDATE: Some dumbass posted what he heard incorrectly on TV without finding a linkable source.

Here are the names of the nine Republicans who voted to hold Bannon in contempt.

[Hollycakes]

Oh man, we all called this.
There's a guy in a thread here claiming psychics are real.
Maybe he's right!
Fucking GQP news writes itself.

[Ripster42]

Hopefully Garland acts on the recommendations and puts him in jail til he complies.

Bannon didn't turn his documents over...yet, but he's very likely going to jail for that and the subpoena will just get them anyhow.

Criminal contempt is different than contempt of court. It's going to require a trial and everything.

[Breccia]

Criminal contempt is different than contempt of court. It's going to require a trial and everything.

Yes. And it seems pretty textbook.

"Was there a legal subpoena?"
"Yes."
"Did he comply?"
"No."

[Ripster42]

Yes. And it seems pretty textbook.

"Was there a legal subpoena?"
"Yes."
"Did he comply?"
"No."

The point being that it might take longer than a year to resolve the case, by which time the GOP may have the majority in the house and void the subpoena nulling the entire case.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s also likely to include, “Have there been previous cases of the same type? What was the outcome?”

Generally, they drag on for years and are settled out of court after delaying long enough for the subpoena to be largely worthless.

Edit: You don't even have to go that far back for an example: eric holder.

[Breccia]

It’s also likely to include, “Have there been previous cases of the same type? What was the outcome?”

Bannon's defense is likely "Trump sued" which, again, he tried before Trump even sued so we know he's full of shit.

I've already posted on this, but if Trump wants to after-the-fact declare privilege, he should have to take the stand to explain why Bannon, not a White House employee and hadn't been for years, was able to discuss issues of National Security Lol. If he's going to try to overthrow democracy and install himself as a dictator, I want there to be consequences for that.

[Kaleredar]

Criminal contempt is different than contempt of court. It's going to require a trial and everything.

I think any situation that puts Bannon under oath is a compromising situation as far as he's concerned.

Like I said before, his fealty to Trump and the support of the Trumpkins is predicated entirely upon how much he spreads the message of Trump. Unfortunately for him, that message revolves around a very specific adherence to a whole litany of lies that can be freely expressed in public, but not so much in a court of law.

If he tries to spout those lies in a court of law, he could find himself in jail, and pleading the fifth so that he doesn't directly refute any lies would likely not work any better. Meanwhile, if he does tell the truth, or rather, refuses to carry forward Trump's lies, he risks losing Trump and his sycophant's support.

[Ripster42]

If he tries to spout those lies in a court of law, he could find himself in jail, and pleading the fifth so that he doesn't directly refute any lies would likely not work any better. Meanwhile, if he does tell the truth, or rather, refuses to carry forward Trump's lies, he risks losing Trump and his sycophant's support.

I expect it to be tied up in procedure, with bannon's lawyer filing a new motion as soon as the last one was resolved, necessitating another hearing, that will be scheduled months later. They only have to delay a year to see if the GOP takes the house. I'll be happily surprised if bannon takes the stand to plead the 5th before the next election, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Fugus]

I expect it to be tied up in procedure, with bannon's lawyer filing a new motion as soon as the last one was resolved, necessitating another hearing, that will be scheduled months later. They only have to delay a year to see if the GOP takes the house. I'll be happily surprised if bannon takes the stand to plead the 5th before the next election, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Given the nature of it, couldn’t they expedite the hearings so if they try that, the next hearing would be within the next week or less? Would put a huge damper on those attempts.

[Ripster42]

Given the nature of it, couldn’t they expedite the hearings so if they try that, the next hearing would be within the next week or less? Would put a huge damper on those attempts.

Going back to vegas' point of looking for "previous cases", no. These typically drag on for years. IANAL, but going by history, it doesn't look great.

Edit: I feel like I should point out, unless the guy bannon has working for him is doing it pro-bono (not likely) it's going to cost a crap ton of money to defend. Not a great showing from our legal system, but it's unlikely he's going to get away scot-free even if he does beat the wrap.

[Benggaul]

Thursday's report:

80,835 new cases; roughly 17k fewer than last week.

Top 10:

California: 5,958 new cases; 176 deaths
Texas: 5,537 new cases; 223 deaths
Pennsylvania: 4,998 new cases; 101 deaths
New York: 4,501 new cases; 41 deaths
Ohio: 4,084 new cases; deaths not reported
Colorado: 3,397 new cases; 28 deaths
Washington: 3,051 new cases; 45 deaths
North Carolina: 3,003 new cases; 56 deaths
Wisconsin: 2,635 new cases; 1 death
Arizona: 2,495 new cases; 49 deaths

When I talk about being worried over "long tails", California's numbers illustrate what I mean. They've been bouncing between 4-6k for weeks now; their total today is about the same as it was last Thursday. Overall they've been one of the more positive examples during this last wave given their population, but their numbers after their Summer wave last year were about half what they have now and we're a month into Fall so even under the best possible conditions we can probably expect numbers to go up at least a little everywhere within a couple months. A lower baseline would be more ideal. Elsewhere things are still heading in the right direction overall. Alaska still has upwards of 109 cases per 100k population but that's actually down from last week. South Dakota still has the worst positivity rate at around 17% but that's also down...not that it means much considering their shitty testing. They also have around 36 cases per 100k which is pretty bad (36th worst in the nation).

1,428 deaths is a whopping 600 fewer than last Thursday and brings the total to 753,747. Quite the drop, though I imagine part of that is the confluence of several states not reporting deaths on the day. We'll see how that holds up after Florida releases their numbers tomorrow. Texas is still over 200 daily. Whatever's going on with Oklahoma (I never did find any answers for their huge numbers the past few days), they seem to have taken the day off.

Related news:

What is the 'delta plus' variant of the coronavirus?--The bottom line is that right now it's not even a variant of interest, let alone concern (which is why it doesn't have a Greek assignation yet), but it's a variant that has a couple mutations that allows it to more easily infect, so scientists are keeping an eye on it just in case. I've seen it mentioned a few times on the boards, but don't freak out about it.

Florida’s governor wants a special session of the Legislature to pass new COVID laws--DeathSantis is not done killing Floridians.

'I've lost my joy': Anti-vax Republican, who worked for the Trump campaign and embraced QAnon, says she has COVID-19--She's a fucking moronic shithead and I hope she loses a lot more than just "her joy". Fuck her and the rest of the QAnon/Trump cultists.

Stay safe, folks.

[PhaelixWW]

What is the 'delta plus' variant of the coronavirus?--The bottom line is that right now it's not even a variant of interest, let alone concern (which is why it doesn't have a Greek assignation yet), but it's a variant that has a couple mutations that allows it to more easily infect, so scientists are keeping an eye on it just in case. I've seen it mentioned a few times on the boards, but don't freak out about it.

It should be noted that this is not the same "delta plus" that was talked about a few months ago. Technically, I think several offshoots of delta that have one or two additional mutations have been referred to as "delta plus", going back to AY.1. The current "delta plus" in question is AY.4.2, which has two additional mutations over the standard delta line. These mutations are not new, as they've been seen before in other variants, but they're new to delta.

Some comments on the new variant:

What mutations does AY.4.2 carry?

• A new SARS-CoV-2 lineage has gone up in frequency in the UK. It has been defined as AY.4.2. It is a descendant of the Delta (B.1.167.2) variant. It carries two characteristic mutations in the spike, Y145H and A222V.

What other variants are they present in?

• Most SARS-CoV-2 mutations have independently emerged many times in unrelated strains. Both the spike Y145H and A222V mutations have been found in various other SARS-CoV-2 lineages since the beginning of the pandemic, but have remained at low frequency until now. The first strains carrying both mutations were sequenced in April 2020. Neither are found in any Variant of Concern.

Experts don't expect it to have much of an effect on transmissibility, with maybe up to 10% increase. That's nowhere near the increase that occurred when variants like alpha or delta showed up.

[postman1782]

It’s also likely to include, “Have there been previous cases of the same type? What was the outcome?”

Well, that Susan McDougal went to jail for 18 months for not complying with the subpoena, so there should be plenty of precedent.

[Fugus]

Going back to vegas' point of looking for "previous cases", no. These typically drag on for years. IANAL, but going by history, it doesn't look great.

Edit: I feel like I should point out, unless the guy bannon has working for him is doing it pro-bono (not likely) it's going to cost a crap ton of money to defend. Not a great showing from our legal system, but it's unlikely he's going to get away scot-free even if he does beat the wrap.

Well that sucks. Hopefully they can get him.

[Levelfive]

I agree, unfortunately. It's why I think everyone needs to be held accountable for this shit. Politicians who support it? Removed from office/jail. People who took part in the shit? Prison.

The people with the power to do anything are either unwilling or they are being prevented from doing anything by people who most assuredly know better.

"The Jan. 6 protesters are being canonized for taking the law into their own hands. So is Donald Trump. So is Steve Bannon. Such is the allure of the take-no-prisoners narratives right now, that while one side feverishly props up ideas about the rule of law and independence and truth, the other side inches ever closer to saying out loud that the rule of law is immaterial—the rule of the angry patriot is the only law of the land. As Rep. Val Demings noted during the Garland hearing, the same people who were harassing and threatening and stalking local school board officials in ways that required federal protection are also harassing and threatening and stalking local election officials. They are also the same people who are harassing and threatening and terrorizing those who serve pregnant women in Texas (and being offered cash prizes for it), and they are the very same people who are terrorizing and threatening public health officials in ways that also require federal protection.

Offering new federal protections to workers who can no longer do their jobs without it may be necessary, and we can hope it helps them feel safer, but it sure doesn’t foment confidence in the rule of law. Nor does it help when it is recast as lethal authoritarianism and tyranny and used to encourage more self-help and more threats and violence. “The government is coming to arrest you over your kid’s curriculum as it cancels Christmas” isn’t true, no, but it sure is thrilling. Garland is well aware that decreasing confidence in the Justice Department is a crisis that will accelerate acts of violence and self-help. That’s why he’s trying to bore us into believing that nothing nefarious can really happen on the watch of a silver-haired man with earnest centrism. The problem is that to the bulk of the GOP, anything done to uphold the rule of law now codes as nefarious.

...

This won’t stop with violence against school officials, nurses, doctors, election officials, abortion providers. We either are about to fall into or have already lost ourselves to an abyss in which nothing matters more than how you feel about how your children feel about what’s being taught in their classrooms, how you feel about a stolen presidential election, and how you feel about COVID vaccine mandates. Anyone who tells you to feel otherwise is an authoritarian tyrant."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...e-hearing.html

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ons-are-secure

Another state election audit, another nothingberder.

Wisconsin's election was secure, surprising nobody who has actually been paying attention to reality.

The review also determined that only 24 people may have two active voter registrations and that just four possibly voted twice, rebutting a common conspiracy theory of thousands of voters casting multiple ballots.

24 duplicate registrations (minor issue) and a whopping FOUR possible double votes? That's statistically insignificant even for a less populous state like Wisconsin. Hell, that's statistically insignificant for the small down of like 20K folks that I grew up in.