Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

mcmoustache

Ludo wrote: »

I saw the report and read the posts (and a lot more also). Watching part 2 now. Still nothing that I can see which will stick IMHO. I wish there was, but nothing damaging compared to all the other crap around Trump.

I forgot to add earlier that Lukoil was asking about this data and how to target American voters. Lukoil is a "private" Russian company but they are often used as an arm of the state. Putin's Russia is a bit weird - the lines between public and private enterprise are rather blurred.

From the interview with the whistle-blower.

There are other dramatic documents in Wylie’s stash, including a pitch made by Cambridge Analytica to Lukoil, Russia’s second biggest oil producer. In an email dated 17 July 2014, about the US presidential primaries, Nix wrote to Wylie: “We have been asked to write a memo to Lukoil (the Russian oil and gas company) to explain to them how our services are going to apply to the petroleum business. Nix said that “they understand behavioural microtargeting in the context of elections” but that they were “failing to make the connection between voters and their consumers”. The work, he said, would be “shared with the CEO of the business”, a former Soviet oil minister and associate of Putin, Vagit Alekperov.
“It didn’t make any sense to me,” says Wylie. “I didn’t understand either the email or the pitch presentation we did. Why would a Russian oil company want to target information on American voters?”

That's not to say that those on the board of CA who were also on Trump's campaign (Bannon, Conway ) ever cooperated with those requests.

Professor Moriarty

jobbridge4life wrote: »

He admitted on tape to sexually assaulting women.

He is recorded on tape telling children he'd date them in a couple of years.

He cheated on his first wife openly, he married the woman he cheated on her with.

This is, and was, all public information. Yet the GOP accepted him.

Stormy Daniels passed a lie detector test in 2011.

I am asking you specifically what makes you so confident that this will be the deal breaker? What do you see here as the reason the GOP will finally drop Trump?

He endorsed a F***ing peadophile for Christ's sake.

Calm down. Less of the righteous indignation.

I never said I was confident, I'm just offering an opinion. Anyway, I've told you the reasons why this is different if proven. I'll say it again. Specifically, in my opinion, Trump's problem won't be his base. It will be the female GOP voter who identifies with a pregnant woman whose husband cheats on her for months with a porn star. That's of a completely different order to anything he's done before. And that's why the GOP will drop him immediately. In my opinion.

Water John

The one thing that is holding back GOP politicians is that a high % of their voters seem to be more invested in Trump than the GOP. They would need to switch that allegience to the GOP or Pence.

ECO_Mental

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ignoring his racism and hatred which much of his base approves of anyway, and how many wives he has is a matter for himself, the only proof of anything is the Grab tape. Telling underage girls that they will be ripe for picking is sleazy but not illegal in the US (it would seem). So what proof is there that he is unfit for office other than some 'locker room banter' as he calls it? You say he is sleazy and I agree. Apart from the two examples above, where is the proof?

The real politik is that he suits the GOP for now. However, as I said, he will be dropped like a hot potato if it is proven that he had an affair with a porn star while the first lady was pregnant. Much of his base would vote for him if he ate their children. But GOP politicians in the House and Senate won't risk losing their female vote by supporting Trump if Daniels has proof of what she claims. He will be toast.

I dont know about that unfortunately :rolleyes: Remember the purveyors of morals, family values, preaching from the pulpit to all of us sinners (The Evangelical Christians)........apparently do not care and have sold their values like Judas to Trump and are prepared to give him, excuse the euphemism a "mulligan" on all the down right amoral stuff The Great White Dope has committed. He can maul as many women as he wants so long as he gives them Supreme Court judges (which he has)


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/23/tony-perkins-evangelicals-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-216498


Disgusting stuff from these so called good people.....

blackwave

Water John wrote: »

I reckon Steve Bannon will be welcome in the UK, to receive an arrest warrant.

Facebook shares down 7%. That is why Zuckerberg will take notice. His Board will force him to.

Looks like Zuckerberg took notice last week and sold some of his shares ahead of what he knew was about to break judging by this.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/E696DD1E-2BA3-11E8-BDE2-17B71038A65B

Professor Moriarty

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I dont know about that unfortunately :rolleyes: Remember the purveyors of morals, family values, preaching from the pulpit to all of us sinners (The Evangelical Christians)........apparently do not care and have sold their values like Judas to Trump and are prepared to give him, excuse the euphemism a "mulligan" on all the down right amoral stuff The Great White Dope has committed. He can maul as many women as he wants so long as he gives them Supreme Court judges (which he has)


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/23/tony-perkins-evangelicals-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-216498


Disgusting stuff from these so called good people.....

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

I dunno. You might be right. However, there are many GOP voters who held their noses and voted for Trump because he was the GOP candidate. Given his approval ratings, some of them are regretting that decision. The Daniels affair would be a dangerous tipping point for the midterms for the reasons I've outlined.

everlast75

Statistics show that voters are more energised to vote for candidate A because they hate candidate B, rather than because they like candidate A.

So, people were motivated to vote for Trump because they hated Clinton - not because they liked Trump.

Funny thing is - it will now come full back around. Trump has become such an evil villain to so many that regardless of who their dem midterm candidate is, they will be motivated by hatred of Trump to get out and vote.

The dems will also put forward moderate democrats as to ensure the republicans in that district couldn't care to vote against them and combined with their dislike of Trump, they will most likely stay at home.

everlast75

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I dont know about that unfortunately :rolleyes: Remember the purveyors of morals, family values, preaching from the pulpit to all of us sinners (The Evangelical Christians)........apparently do not care and have sold their values like Judas to Trump and are prepared to give him, excuse the euphemism a "mulligan" on all the down right amoral stuff The Great White Dope has committed. He can maul as many women as he wants so long as he gives them Supreme Court judges (which he has)


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/23/tony-perkins-evangelicals-donald-trump-stormy-daniels-216498


Disgusting stuff from these so called good people.....

I read that article. Incredible mental gymnastics on their part to justify their support.

Ironic that such a staunch Christian group could make a deal with the devil...

spacecoyote

I think the stormy issue is a different one though, or it should be, to the female GOP voter.

With the "Grab em ..." piece they could justify it to themselves as "locker-room" talk & he didn't really do it.

If there is provable infidelity on a pregnant wife it's a lot harder one to justify

2 Scoops

If there was ever an example to show the utter hypocrisy of today's media and political climate here it is..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election

Loafing Oaf

everlast75 wrote: »

Oh here we go again.

Look - Clinton, and JFK while we are at it - had flaws (many both proven and contested) but Trump is in a completely different, and by different I mean leagues below, class. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you

Yeah, sheer class.

Professor Moriarty

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yeah, sheer class.

You should set up a Clinton thread.

Loafing Oaf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You should set up a Clinton thread.

Just underlining the absurdity of everlast75's claim that Trump's sexual conduct represented a new low for presidents.

aloyisious

Listening to CNN now. Stormy, according to the latest info, claims to have had unprotected vaginal sex with Don. Now that could cover a variety, putting it mildly, but the imagination boggles and that makes for great headlines.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Just underlining the absurdity of everlast75's claim that Trump's sexual conduct represented a new low for presidents.

Eh well it has.

Professor Moriarty

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Just underlining the absurdity of everlast75's claim that Trump's sexual conduct represented a new low for presidents.

Not absurd at all. While Clinton was no angel, by comparison with Trump he was a very moral person. As an aside, he was also infinitely more intelligent and effective as a POTUS. Everlast was spot on in his assessment.

Loafing Oaf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not absurd at all. While Clinton was no angel, by comparison with Trump he was a very moral person.

In terms of their sex lives? I don't see much difference...

2 Scoops

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not absurd at all. While Clinton was no angel, by comparison with Trump he was a very moral person.

I would love to have a debate about that sometime. Not the time or place though.

These details about Stormy Daniels are hugely embarrassing, almost cigar like

BabyCheeses

2 Scoops wrote: »

If there was ever an example to show the utter hypocrisy of today's media and political climate here it is..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-data-machine-facebook-election

The re-election team, Obama for America, will be inviting its supporters to log on to the campaign website via Facebook, thus allowing the campaign to access their personal data and add it to the central data store

I recommend reading a bit about consent, use of information etc when it comes to data collection instead of just posting the talking points you're handed.

For those who are interested and won't just ignore this and keep repeating the same thing they are told by others, when you collect a person's data you need to tell them what you are looking for, what you will do with the data, and the data must be destroyed when you are done with it.

I want your date of birth, gender, and favourite colour. I'm going to use this information to find what colour is preferred by different ages and genders for advertising purposes. Once I get the results I will delete the data.

vs

Tell us your favourite colour to win a prize!


I get the data and use it myself. Guess why one will get me in trouble and the other wont?

For more detail wikipedia has all answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy_law

everlast75

A nice article of CNN and the interaction between Daniels' lawyer and a lawyer on behalf of Cohen.

The link includes an entertaining 25 min clip from CNN

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/stormy-daniels-and-michael-cohen-lawyers-go-at-each-other-on-cnn?__twitter_impression=true

2 Scoops

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I recommend reading a bit about consent, use of information etc when it comes to data collection instead of just posting the talking points you're handed.

Data mining has existed since the early internet days, Facebook are the ones with the problem if it's possible for third parties to gather private information so easily and redistribute it without any oversight.

Slightly dirty, but I'd be hard pressed to believe this scenario hasn't existed for a decade. The only difference now is that a light is being shone on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/facebook-data-cambridge-analytica-sandy-parakilas

"Hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica, according to a new whistleblower.

Sandy Parakilas, the platform operations manager at Facebook responsible for policing data breaches by third-party software developers between 2011 and 2012, told the Guardian he warned senior executives at the company that its lax approach to data protection risked a major breach.

Parakilas said Facebook had terms of service and settings that “people didn’t read or understand” and the company did not use its enforcement mechanisms, including audits of external developers, to ensure data was not being misused."

Peregrinus

2 Scoops wrote: »

Data mining has existed since the early internet days, Facebook are the ones with the problem if it's possible for third parties to gather private information so easily and redistribute it without any oversight . . .

You make it sound as though, if Facebook has a problem, nobody else does.

Yes, Facebook has a problem if its data can be mined and exploited in ways that are illegal or unethical.

That doesn't mean that the people who are found to have been engaging in, or benefiting from, illegal or unethical data mining don't have a problem. They obviously do.

Banks have a problem if their security systems are vulnerable. That doesn't give bank robbers a pass.

2 Scoops

Peregrinus wrote: »

That doesn't mean that the people who are found to have been engaging in, or benefiting from, illegal or unethical data mining don't have a problem. They obviously do.

I agree, but like I said, the buck starts with facebook who seemingly allowed all this to happen.

Peregrinus

2 Scoops wrote: »

I agree, but like I said, the buck starts with facebook who seemingly allowed all this to happen.

Where the buck starts rarely matters, 2 scoops. Nobody puts a sign on their dek that says "the buck starts here".

In fact, I can't think of any reason why somebody would even raise the question of where the buck starts, except in a fairly desperate attempt to distract attention from the more pertinent question, which is where the buck stops.

2 Scoops

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where the buck starts rarely matters, 2 scoops. Nobody puts a sign on their dek that says "the buck starts here".

In fact, I can't think of any reason why somebody would even raise the question of where the buck starts, except in a fairly desperate attempt to distract attention from the more pertinent question, which is where the buck stops.

Nah, my opinion is facebook didn't care as long as they got paid for it and openly knew it was happening as per that whistleblower article.

As such the comparison between facebook and bank robbers is ludicrous. The only reason it matters now is because Trump won and Trump hysteria is all the rage.

Peregrinus

Well, we are in a thread set up specifically to discuss the Trump presidency, and in so far as Cambridge Analyitica has any connection to the Trump campaign is obviously a pertinent issue. What you say about Facebook may or may not be true; either way, it doesn't help Cambridge, and it irrelevant to the Trump presidency. Which is why I say it looks like an attempt to distract.

Manic Moran

The dems will should also put forward moderate democrats as to ensure the republicans in that district couldn't care to vote against them and combined with their dislike of Trump, they will most likely stay at home.

FIFY. I am not entirely convinced that they will. Conor Lamb shows what can happen if they do, but my guess is that they will overreach, think "Now's our chance to really put someone we want in, because nobody will vote R if Trump supports them", and still manage to turn off the voters.

Remember, quoting Tipp O'Neill, all politics is local. There is only so much damage that Trump can do to a politician at local level. Some, yes, but not as much as I think some people are anticipating.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

FIFY. I am not entirely convinced that they will. Conor Lamb shows what can happen if they do, but my guess is that they will overreach, think "Now's our chance to really put someone we want in, because nobody will vote R if Trump supports them", and still manage to turn off the voters.

Remember, quoting Tipp O'Neill, all politics is local. There is only so much damage that Trump can do to a politician at local level. Some, yes, but not as much as I think some people are anticipating.

Trump was wholly unelectable, and yet he was elected. The Dems can't afford tro run just anybody as candidates; they have to run candidates who will have greater appeal than the candidate of a party associated with Donald Trump. The Democratic candidate needs to appeal not just to voters who would never vote for a Trump-associated candidate in a fit, but to voters who would consider doing so.

That's not a terribly high bar to have to cross, but it is a bar. So, you're quite right. The Democrats need to appeal to the centre, not the margins, and they need to positions themselves so that it looks like the Republicans, not the Democrats, who flirt with extremism. The Republicans are doing all they can on their side, but with the best will in the world they can only do half the job.

2 Scoops

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Democrats need to appeal to the centre, not the margins, and they need to positions themselves so that it looks like the Republicans, not the Democrats, who flirt with extremism. The Republicans are doing all they can on their side, but with the best will in the world they can only do half the job.

EDIT: Misread your post, I agree with you.

Might be a tall order unless there are major changes to the parties leadership. I still don't know what their policies are after all this time besides embracing identity politics to levels I never thought possible. Lamb from what I could see disparaged Pelosi. Pew Research has interesting data showcasing the trend of extremities in both parties from the 90's up to present day.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf

Peregrinus

2 Scoops wrote: »

Might be a tall order unless there are major changes to the parties leadership. I still don't know what their policies are after all this time besides embracing identity politics to levels I never though possible. Lamb from what I could see disparaged Pelosi. Pew Research has interesting data showcasing the trend of extremities in both parties from the 90's up to present day. You say that Democrats need to appeal to those who would never vote for a Trump candidate, I think the opposite is true.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf

No, I think your graph confirms what I have been saying, 2 scoops.

First, let me clarify one thing. When I say that "need to appeal to the centre, not the margins", I mean of course that the Democrats need to do that if they are to win the election. (We could say the same about the Republicans, of course. The party that wins the election will be the one that captures the bulk of the the middle ground.)

And, secondly, let me correct one thing. I didn't say that the Democrats "need to appeal to those who would never vote for a Trump candidate". They already appeal to those voters, and that (as we have seen) is not enough to win the election. What they need to do is appeal to voters who would consider voting Trumpishly; they need to persuade those voters to vote Democrat instead.

In principal, this shouldn't be hard, since there are many good reasons not to vote for Trump (or Trump-associated candidates), and more good reasons are emerging every day. But they're not going to do it by taking positions further and further to the left.

Your graphs illustrates my point. Don't look at the median Democrat or Republican voter; look at the middle ground voters, since those are the ones who will decide the election. Right now, there are more Republicans in the middle ground that Democrats. Those are the Republicans that the Democrats need to convert. Trump is doing his best to make it easy for him - middle ground voters must feel distinctly queasy associating themselves with the likes of Donald Trump - but the Democrats will have to do their bit as well. They have to offer moderate Republicans a home.