Trump's a hacker of the human system

[gulliver]

There are gaping vulnerabilities in our system, and Trump simply exploits them.

For example, our legal system has this idea of "intent" that is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's like putting your password on a post-it note next to your screen. To be found guilty, it has to be proven you think you're guilty.

Second, our legal system allows jury nullification. So, our very "security adjudication" system is vulnerable. This played out in two impeachments at the high crime level. It's a leading reason why Trump could be found not guilty if criminally tried, literally for anything.

Third, our legal system is wide open to social and political engineering. Witness Trump placing his own operatives, his own trojan horses, in as many seats of power as possible.

I've also noticed Trump doing classic hacker things like "script injection." He'll say things using his own name in the third person. For example, he'll say something like, "The Mueller report completely exonerates President Trump." Then news programs will quote him verbatim, in effect "reporting" that Trump was exonerated. Coincidence or Grade A hacker instinct?

We need to get serious about security.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. I think you call that being a sociopath - amoral, manipulative, narcissistic, pathological liar etc.

[gulliver]

2. Sure, but those traditional names are unwieldy when it comes to solving the problem

Trump actually benefits from them. He himself boasts (metaphorically but correctly) that he could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and shoot someone without losing support. The boast actually immunizes him. He's a hacker.

[Midnight Writer]

3. "Intent" only applies to the powerful.

Drive your buddy to a store and he robs the place and shoots someone, you are screwed regardless of your "intent".

Get caught shoplifting, it doesn't matter if your "intent" is to feed your child.

Get in a fight, it doesn't matter if your "intent" was to defend a loved one from verbal abuse.

Be a passenger in a car involved in a police chase, it doesn't matter if your "intent" was to catch a ride to work.

Beat up a kid, it doesn't matter if your "intent" was to correct their behavior.

[gulliver]

4. We need to change the laws to be much more intolerant of intent.

Maybe we make the decision on whether the defendant had intent less important by allowing a jury to decide it separately on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

The unfairness you bring up can be used to justify that change. We shouldn't have the right in America to simply hire a lawyer or lackey to tell us anything we want to do is Ok, say we believe them, and skate.