Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

So... who has the over/under on when Mike Lindell will run for office?

If history is any indication, it's the one place he can continue to lie with impunity and keep trying to push his special brand of crazy (and his pillows) to the ignorant (wilful or otherwise) of this country.

[Breccia]

If only there were a precedent that allows the federal government to make vaccines mandatory outside of serious (and real) medical conditions. Some Supreme Court case where they ruled it legal in a 7-2 ruling. Some case in Massachusetts maybe. Around 1905.

That isn't where I was going, but it's better than where I was going. And so far, Trump's judges haven't seemed the type to follow conspiracy theories.

Speaking of...

When you know the super big amazing event was a huge letdown.

I wish I had called out specifically ahead of time that Lindell would suddenly claim the irrefutable proof he had, was somehow damaged and hasn't reached its final form yet, and would withdraw the reward because you couldn't possibly prove the evidence was false because the evidence was damaged.

I also wish I had predicted that wouldn't even be the lamest excuse in 72 hours. It might not even be in the top three.

So... who has the over/under on when Mike Lindell will run for office?

Not even FOX News will touch him. He can't run.

[PhaelixWW]

Oh, and Lindell's security expert is still saying he found usefull stuff. Which we've heard before.

This is one of the Trumpier things out there. Admission you don't have evidence, but still claim the nothing you have somehow proves your point.

I think you actually missed the more interesting point, here.

Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures.

Mr. Merritt and Mr. Wiebe said the missing packet captures could be a result of either the format the data was sent in or they were withheld by the source of the information, Dennis L. Montgomery.

Mr. Montgomery is a former government contractor who developed cyber tools named HAMMER and SCORECARD, which were allegedly used by the U.S. to influence foreign elections. Mr. Montgomery came forward with the data after he said the tools were being used to influence U.S. elections, according to Mr. Wiebe.

Mr. Merritt confirmed that Mr. Montgomery was the source of the data.

But the data Mr. Montgomery sent contains no packet captures and cannot be used to validate Mr. Lindell’s marquee theory, which he planned to unveil at the symposium, said the two experts.

Mr. Montgomery reportedly suffered a stroke on the eve of the symposium and has not been in contact with Mr. Lindell’s team or any cyber experts at the symposium.

He has been behind several other high-profile conspiracy theories, including allegations that U.S. security agencies wiretapped Trump Tower while Mr. Trump was running for president in 2016.

Mr. Montgomery said he presented the wiretap evidence to then-FBI Director James B. Comey, who dismissed the information. Mr. Montgomery later sued Mr. Comey, alleging a cover-up. The lawsuit was dropped.

Mr. Montgomery has also publicly claimed that the 2020 election was manipulated, which former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Christopher Krebs said was a “hoax.”

Some more background on Mr. Montgomery:

After the 9/11 terror attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies flush with money began pumping defense contractors with cash in the hopes of averting another terror attack.

One of the recipients of that windfall was Dennis Montgomery, a Reno, Nevada, software designer and frequent gambler who claimed to have come with software that would help the CIA penetrate deep inside al Qaeda’s systems.

At various times, Montgomery insisted his programs could identify terrorists’ faces and weapons through drone footage, or spot submarines deep underwater, receiving millions in contracts from the Air Force and the military’s Special Operations Command. But the jewel of Montgomery’s company was a program he claimed could detect messages to al Qaeda sleeper cells hidden in broadcasts from Qatar’s al Jazeera network.

CIA employees intrigued by the supposed Al Jazeera decoding technology moved into Montgomery’s Nevada office, and Montgomery’s companies received at least $20 million from the U.S. government for what was then considered “the most important, most sensitive” technology in the agency’s repertoire, the New York Times reported in 2011.

“They began to believe, in this kind of war fever, that you could find Al Qaeda messages hidden in al Jazeera broadcasts,” New York Times reporter James Risen, who wrote a book about Montgomery’s business, said in 2014.

Montgomery’s supposed insights on al Qaeda reached the highest levels of the U.S. government, with insight that Montgomery provided prompting the George W. Bush administration to raise the terror threat level to “orange,” its second-highest rating.

In Dec. 2003, according to a Playboy report, Montgomery claimed he had discovered information in a TV broadcast proving that al Qaeda hijackers were set to hijack planes flying to the United States from Europe and Mexico.

President Bush himself blocked the flights, ordering them to turn around or stay on the ground. The administration even considered shooting down the planes based on Montgomery’s information, according to the Times.

But according to reports and former employees, Montgomery’s supposed technology was all a hoax. One employee quoted in the Playboy report claimed Montgomery had ordered him to fake a test for U.S. military officials, tricking the officials into believing Montgomery’s software could detect weapons in drone footage.

French intelligence officials, furious that Montgomery’s data had been used to ground French planes, debunked the “technology” and reportedly convinced CIA officials to drop Montgomery, according to the Times.

“We got played,” an ex-intelligence official told the Times in 2011.

- - - Updated - - -

Not even FOX News will touch him. He can't run.

I didn't specify that it had to be Congress or higher. State legislature, perhaps?

Really, though, with all the new gerrymandered House districts in 2022, even Congress isn't out of reach, if he's willing to relocate and continues to have Trump's (and therefore his fanbase's) backing.

Honestly, if Magic the Gathering can win a seat, then so can Mr. P(illow)tatohead.

[Belize]

MagicMike on that magicmeth
From the tweet, tweekt? lol

"Mike Lindell is legit upset that some people want to break for lunch in this "cyber symposium," yelling that he's gonna stay up on stage for 3 days straight.

"There's no breaks! ... You guys can go eat. That’s fine, but I ain’t eating! I’m staying up here for 72 hours..."

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/s...703568395?s=20

Definitely cocaine, or some derivative of it.

[Edge-]

Definitely cocaine, or some derivative of it.

Maybe Mike Lindell and Rick James have something in common.

[Breccia]

I didn't specify that it had to be Congress or higher. State legislature, perhaps?

I think he's too rich and too crazy to settle for a local seat.

[PhaelixWW]

I think he's too rich and too crazy to settle for a local seat.

Mike Lindell has a higher net favorability than outgoing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jim Jordan, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll.

[Edge-]

Mike Lindell has a higher net favorability than outgoing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jim Jordan, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll.

Man, I have a sneaking suspicion this is more a factor of, "Lindell is hardly as known as those other folks" even if he's frequently in the news. He hardly gets the same kind of political hits as the politicians he's compared to, so it makes some sense.

[PhaelixWW]

Man, I have a sneaking suspicion this is more a factor of, "Lindell is hardly as known as those other folks" even if he's frequently in the news. He hardly gets the same kind of political hits as the politicians he's compared to, so it makes some sense.

Well, "net favorability" ignores the "not sure" response.

AOC was at -8 net (32% Favorable / 40% Not Favorable / 27% Not Sure). Mike Lindell was -4 (26% / 30% / 44%).

Hilariously, Lindsey Graham was at -15 (27% / 42% / 31%).

[jonnysensible]

wasnt there a poll about people believing the election was stolen and people believing violence is necessary to reinstall trump the other day. i swear i saw it somewhere. It explains mike lindells support tbh.

[PhaelixWW]

wasnt there a poll about people believing the election was stolen and people believing violence is necessary to reinstall trump the other day. i swear i saw it somewhere. It explains mike lindells support tbh.

Certainly, violence would be necessary to reinstall Trump as president, as there are no legal means of overturning the result of the election.

I don't see it linked here, but there is indeed a poll suggesting that.

NPR: A 'Scary' Survey Finding: 4 In 10 Republicans Say Political Violence May Be Necessary

The mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol may have been a fringe group of extremists, but politically motivated violence has the support of a significant share of the U.S. public, according to a new survey by the American Enterprise Institute.

The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."

Now, to be fair, this wording does not specify that it is only in regards only to current events. People could have polled "yes" if they felt like it was reinforcing the validity of the Founders' justification, but forecast to some hypothetical future. Simply voting "yes" on this doesn't mean that they think we're there, right now.

[Katchii]

Certainly, violence would be necessary to reinstall Trump as president, as there are no legal means of overturning the result of the election.

I don't see it linked here, but there is indeed a poll suggesting that.

NPR: A 'Scary' Survey Finding: 4 In 10 Republicans Say Political Violence May Be Necessary

Now, to be fair, this wording does not specify that it is only in regards only to current events. People could have polled "yes" if they felt like it was reinforcing the validity of the Founders' justification, but forecast to some hypothetical future. Simply voting "yes" on this doesn't mean that they think we're there, right now.

WTF is "political violence?"

I mean, here is a definition, but what I mean is how is that acceptable just because it has a fancy definition?

Wouldn't violence of any kind be met with the same level if legal issues regardless of if was politically motivated or not?

[Draco-Onis]

Well they could order it based on current precedent, which would defeat any lower courts attempting to challenge it.

Perhaps it would make its way to the Supreme Court eventually and the trump installed judges would overturn the precedent, but… that could take months to happen. And in the intervening time it would be the law.

That's probably all we could do on most things, I forsee after they overturn Roe V. Wade a slew of "state rights" decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, to be fair, this wording does not specify that it is only in regards only to current events. People could have polled "yes" if they felt like it was reinforcing the validity of the Founders' justification, but forecast to some hypothetical future. Simply voting "yes" on this doesn't mean that they think we're there, right now.

To be unfair that's about the same percentage that want Trump run in 2024 (44-50%) and be president again so it tracks perfectly. If you still support the guy that lead an insurrection you would be totally fine with violence.

[PhaelixWW]

To be unfair that's about the same percentage that want Trump run in 2024 (44-50%) and be president again so it tracks perfectly. If you still support the guy that lead an insurrection you would be totally fine with violence.

No, it doesn't track perfectly at all.

The same question garnered a 31% from Independents and 17% from Democrats, so you can't really draw some kind of 1-to-1 parallel to Trump support. Trump supporters don't actually believe it was a violent insurrection to begin with. "Just a tour of the Capitol," I guess.

[Edge-]

I honestly don't know where to put this shit any more (maybe just add it to the Gaetz thread?), but add another to the list.

Trump-loving Minnesota GOP strategist arrested for underage sex trafficking

I'll eat a hat if anyone can show me the QAnon nutcases giving a shit about this.

Man, I know the pedo issue isn't limited to political parties (a NY Democrat just got pinched for going after a 17 year old recently), but damn if it doesn't seem far more common amongst conservatives. Especially folks in the Trump orbit.

Weird given all the "SAVE THE CHILDREN!" nonsense from the Q idiots. Or not, because that's a lie they tell themselves to begin with.

[Elegiac]

Mike Lindell has a higher net favorability than outgoing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jim Jordan, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll.

Glad to see the right wing hatchet campaign against AOC has apparently borne fruit. /s

Says a lot about the level of political education in this country.

[Draco-Onis]

No, it doesn't track perfectly at all.

The same question garnered a 31% from Independents and 17% from Democrats, so you can't really draw some kind of 1-to-1 parallel to Trump support. Trump supporters don't actually believe it was a violent insurrection to begin with. "Just a tour of the Capitol," I guess.

I don't think we should try to make sense of these groups of people, they are filled with contradictions that said you could be right.

[Poopymonster]

Man, I know the pedo issue isn't limited to political parties (a NY Democrat just got pinched for going after a 17 year old recently), but damn if it doesn't seem far more common amongst conservatives. Especially folks in the Trump orbit.

Weird given all the "SAVE THE CHILDREN!*" nonsense from the Q idiots. Or not, because that's a lie they tell themselves to begin with.

*for me later.

[beanman12345]

God I want to see Lindell interviewed after this stupid symposium wraps up. The moment he found out Dominion’s lawsuit will move forward was pure gold.

He did a huge rant where he basically said america is over. It was all in the context of the lawsuit, he was banking on this being thown out, and now that it's not, he knows he's going bankrupt. Guy got his 15 minutes of fame and fortune and soon now he will fade into obscurity.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, I have a sneaking suspicion this is more a factor of, "Lindell is hardly as known as those other folks" even if he's frequently in the news. He hardly gets the same kind of political hits as the politicians he's compared to, so it makes some sense.

Also considering in that poll the not sures are disproportionate against the other's mentioned, you instead call him "mypillowguy" instead of his birth name and people have a face to the name, those numbers change drastically for him.

Also he's in MN so he'd likely have to move.

[Kaleredar]

Glad to see the right wing hatchet campaign against AOC has apparently borne fruit. /s

Says a lot about the level of political education in this country.

I can't say with any first-hand authority on exactly how Fox and other right-wing mouthpieces fronting as new are dealing with mypillowguy, but if I had to guess they're more or less continuing their constant ongoing slander of people like AOC while remaining fairly silent on the specifics of Lindell.

So I find it likely that conservatives have, by and large, been kept from hearing any real specifics about Lindell, unless they believe in the nonsense he's spewing already.

- - - Updated - - -

That's probably all we could do on most things, I forsee after they overturn Roe V. Wade a slew of "state rights" decisions.

It's a bit harder to overturn Roe v. Wade seeing as what it ultimately comes down to is bodily autonomy.

You can't just go to the supreme court and say "hey I want this law overturned," you have to have a ruling that gets appealed up to it. It's somewhat difficult for me to imagine some legal case in which Roe v. Wade is upheld, but that a chain of judges then find merit enough in getting it appealed upwards on the supposed notion that... the woman in the case had no right to get an abortion, I guess... and then that climbs its way through courts without them simply tossing it out, all the way up to the supreme court.

Besides, I really don't think republican politicians want Roe v. Wade overturned. It's far more useful to them as a political talking point to make their base angry at the "baby killers" than banning abortions ever would be.