Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

pixelburp

I'm guessing Ralph Peters has either had his contract cancelled, is moving network, retiring, or has some memoirs coming out; thus he's claiming retroactive hindsight & the moral high-ground he never really occupied to begin with.

See also any Republican senator not running for re-election, and suddenly struck with a conscience and desire to speak out against Trump (eg, Jeff Flake)

2 Scoops

Shouldn't act so surprised honestly, it's not like Bret Baier or Chris Wallace or anyone else fairly neutral has decided to pack it in. The guy is a war monger and openly voted for Clinton.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Shouldn't act so surprised honestly, it's not like Bret Baier or Chris Wallace or anyone else fairly neutral has decided to pack it in. The guy is a war monger and openly voted for Clinton.

Sounds like they were happy to wheel him out when it suited their agenda.

The guy spoke a lot of sense, regardless of what way he voted.

Oh - and the irony of fox complaining about Hillary's lack of security measures. A quick look at the number of people with temporary security clearance in the white house, or the fact that Wolff had unfettered access to top level meetings because Trump thought he was writing a flattering book, the numbers of leaks from the White House etc etc etc etc

Professor Moriarty

2 Scoops wrote: »

Totally based on assumption, you don't know that. This is what the Guardian says

"Obama’s new database would be gathered by asking individual volunteers to log into Obama’s reelection site using their Facebook credentials. “Consciously or otherwise,” The Guardian states, “the individual volunteer will be injecting all the information they store publicly on their Facebook page — home location, date of birth, interests and, crucially, network of friends — directly into the central Obama database."

So?

Trump's campaign stopped using the data in September as the RNC data was more accurate, the primaries would have been a whitewash regardless.

So he was using them from June 16th to September as the Republican candidate. Okay.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/

So he used Cambridge Analytica from June to September 2016. But from your article: "The Trump contact with the firm ended on Election Day 2016 and has not been part of the Trump re-election campaign process."

You're right. Trump's campaign was very much mired in Cambridge Analytica.

Professor Moriarty

That's weird. 2 Scoops's post disappeared while I was answering it. Too many scoops, I suppose.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Something called 'media bias fact check' marked them as middling. Seems like it's a really small outfit with a catchy name (there are some right-wing sites like it, the washingtontimes and others, all piggy backing on WaPO). A quick look at some of their headlines seem to show a left-wing bias. Looks like a couple uni grads doing some minimal journalism for clicks. I'd skip 'em personally, don't seem to have the resources to do a lot of fact-checking/cross-referencing.

Catchy name though.

I was browsing the media-world & came across this story: https://washingtonpress.com/2018/03/20/a-proud-neo-nazi-just-secured-the-republican-partys-nomination-for-congress-in-illinois/

It left me shaking my head wondering if the US parties have/can have any control over people seeking nomination using the party name to seek election and if it is a partial explanation for what has happened to the GOP over the past two years.


Voting data has Bernie Sanders as cleaning up in Illlinois ln 2016 and with the below it should be a safe seat for the Dems, if the gent above is the only GOP nominee. Maybe the GOP has chosen NOT to waste money running for the seat.

Incumbent in 3rd District
Daniel Lipinski
Democrat
Since Jan 4, 2005

Nody

Associations for Trump's duties in the USA vs. the associations against them by The Economist...



As a side note those for tariffs adds up to less than 150 companies vs; well 300k in US Chamber of Commerce, 65k in national Small Business Association, 18k in National Retail Federation...

Trump will be great for business, right?

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Sounds like they were happy to wheel him out when it suited their agenda.

The guy spoke a lot of sense, regardless of what way he voted.

Oh - and the irony of fox complaining about Hillary's lack of security measures. A quick look at the number of people with temporary security clearance in the white house, or the fact that Wolff had unfettered access to top level meetings because Trump thought he was writing a flattering book, the numbers of leaks from the White House etc etc etc etc

I tended to think he spoke level-headed whenever I saw him on Fox as he disagreed pointing out the holes in some other media contributors thoughts and stated opinions. The hosts i saw him on with didn't interrupt him with stupid questions or comments {no hannities] seeming to rely on his judgement on the topic being discussed. I compared him against some other retired US Military officers speaking their minds in the media and he seemed composed in comparison, mild even.

Hande hoche!

aloyisious wrote: »

I was browsing the media-world & came across this story: https://washingtonpress.com/2018/03/20/a-proud-neo-nazi-just-secured-the-republican-partys-nomination-for-congress-in-illinois/

It left me shaking my head wondering if the US parties have/can have any control over people seeking nomination using the party name to seek election and if it is a partial explanation for what has happened to the GOP over the past two years.


Voting data has Bernie Sanders as cleaning up in Illlinois ln 2016 and with the below it should be a safe seat for the Dems, if the gent above is the only GOP nominee. Maybe the GOP has chosen NOT to waste money running for the seat.

Incumbent in 3rd District
Daniel Lipinski
Democrat
Since Jan 4, 2005

Interesting read. Seemingly Jones has run a number of times in the past and previously they had him thrown off the 2016 ballot. He was also quite switched on by leaving it late to file his petition. They also didn't have a write in candidate lined up. So the Republicans in Illinois seemed to have messed up quite a bit.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/how-holocaust-denier-jones-got-on-ballot-illinois-gop-let-guard-down/

Ludo

His latest 2 tweets are stunning. He blames Bush, Obama and Clinton for not being able to get on with Putin. Blames past US presidents ...definitely not Putin.
Also refers to Putin as President Putin, but past US presidents are just Obama, Clinton and Bush. Very telling who he gives a title to.

And he wonders why people think Putin has something on him.

pixelburp

Yet his supporters will pivot, and merely imply that Trump is being a diplomatic genius. Even if 'blaming the previous government' is standard operating procedure (FG did that often enough during the early years of the post 2008 recession, blaming FF for everything), Trump lashes out so consistently at everyone else, it's easy to see why his support is eroding. Apart from anything else, it's such bad leadership to find everyone at fault, except you. You'd wonder: under other circumstances where he's not an unpopular president, would Trump stepping down from the head of his corporation be of benefit to the company?

Ludo

pixelburp wrote: »

. You'd wonder: under other circumstances where he's not an unpopular president, would Trump stepping down from the head of his corporation be of benefit to the company?

If the USA was a publicly traded company, he would have been ousted a year ago.

The coming arms race?

pixelburp

Ludo wrote: »

If the USA was a publicly traded company, he would have been ousted a year ago.

I'd like to think that the era of Trump will finally put paid to the fallacy that business leaders automatically make great political or economic leaders, but I'm sure in years to come we'll see the same mistakes made by a populous won over by wealth.

mcmoustache

Anyone remember an unannounced trip by Kushner to Riyadh followed by a purge of the royal family?

The Intercept has an interesting story out.

What exactly Kushner and the Saudi royal talked about in Riyadh may be known only to them, but after the meeting, Crown Prince Mohammed told confidants that Kushner had discussed the names of Saudis disloyal to the crown prince, according to three sources who have been in contact with members of the Saudi and Emirati royal families since the crackdown. Kushner, through his attorney’s spokesperson, denies having done so.

That's a bit bold, isn't it? I wonder where Kushner got that info and why he would share it. Actually, fúck it. it doesn't even need explaining. I had a long day at work and want my bed.

aloyisious

The WaPo HAS an opinion-piece on it's online front page on NDA's signed by W/House staffers with the Trump Admin. It's report say's they may be in breach of federal law by signing any such agreements... I hit my WaPo paywall limit days ago..

This is a link to a search on the topic of such NDA's, however it may only be an opinion on such agreements.

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-President-require-NDAs-be-signed-by-White-House-staff-as-a-condition-of-employment-Would-they-have-any-force-of-law

ECO_Mental

aloyisious wrote: »

The WaPo HAS an opinion-piece on it's online front page on NDA's signed by W/House staffers with the Trump Admin. It's report say's they may be in breach of federal law by signing any such agreements... I hit my WaPo paywall limit days ago..

This is a link to a search on the topic of such NDA's, however it may only be an opinion on such agreements.

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-President-require-NDAs-be-signed-by-White-House-staff-as-a-condition-of-employment-Would-they-have-any-force-of-law

I was only thinking about this over the last few days, how come all the people that have been fired and shafted by Trump have not said one bad word about him in the press after they left? I found that really strange but maybe he does have NDA's. He is a sneaky fecker

Beechwoodspark

John Brennan Obama’s former cia chief has made public comments speculating that Russia has blackmailed the Don. Of course the Reps going out of their way to dismiss it all.

Leroy42

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

John Brennan Obama’s former cia chief has made public comments speculating that Russia has blackmailed the Don. Of course the Reps going out of their way to dismiss it all.

Well tbf, on what basis is he making such a claim? Has he seen the evidence, or is it just speculation.

Just because he was once in the CIA, doesn't mean he knows anything.

Speculation. It demeans the media to run a story like that.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well tbf, on what basis is he making such a claim? Has he seen the evidence, or is it just speculation.

Just because he was once in the CIA, doesn't mean he knows anything.

Speculation. It demeans the media to run a story like that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/john-brennan-trump-putin.html

Seems a very fair article to me.

"As C.I.A. director, Mr. Brennan was never known as particularly chatty around the news media or in public. And since leaving office, Mr. Brennan has taken to starting conversations with journalists by telling them, “I’m not going to be an anonymous source for any stories.”"

He further says "But last weekend, Mr. Brennan — in response to Mr. Trump’s praise for the firing of the former deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew G. McCabe — issued a remarkable condemnation of the president. “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history,”

The speculation "“The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump, and may have things that they could expose,”

Maybe based on "Mr. Brennan was running the C.I.A. when a salacious dossier surfaced in 2016 that claimed the Russians had compromising information on Mr. Trump. If there were any current or former American officials who might know if there was truth behind the allegations in the dossier, Mr. Brennan would most likely be one of them."

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/976654851684945920

So.... Mexico is not paying for it then

Beechwoodspark

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well tbf, on what basis is he making such a claim? Has he seen the evidence, or is it just speculation.

Just because he was once in the CIA, doesn't mean he knows anything.

Speculation. It demeans the media to run a story like that.

I wouldn’t blindly accept everything he said and I realise he was and is an Obama loyalist but come on, He was the cia chief. I’d say he knows a lot

Leroy42

Are those numbers on top of the spending already in place? With the recent tax reform, was the additional $700bn part of the calculations?

But just looking at that number $700bn in one year on the military. I mean it is actually quite bonkers. And they have been stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan for how long now?

robinph

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I was only thinking about this over the last few days, how come all the people that have been fired and shafted by Trump have not said one bad word about him in the press after they left? I found that really strange but maybe he does have NDA's. He is a sneaky fecker

How can it possibly be legitimate for a state employee to sign an NDA between themselves and the private citizen Trump? Between themselves and the USA yes as far as not releasing state secrets, but the goings on of Trump the individual nope.

Leroy42

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I wouldn’t blindly accept everything he said and I realise he was and is an Obama loyalist but come on, He was the cia chief. I’d say he knows a lot

Yes, I am not saying that he is simply making things up, but he was head of the CIA, if he 'knew' this short of stuff why didn't he do something about it?

It staggers me that the CIA allowed a situation whereby the elected POTUS may not only be compromised, but was such even before becoming POTUS and they had indications that it was that way.

Leroy42

robinph wrote: »

How can it possibly be legitimate for a state employee to sign an NDA between themselves and the private citizen Trump? Between themselves and the USA yes as far as not releasing state secrets, but the goings on of Trump the individual nope.

Well, as far as I know, any contract is legitimate once freely entered into by both parties and both were aware of it.

I know, for example, that an employee cannot sign away their entitlements under law (holidays etc in Ireland for eg) but an NDA I wouldn't bet is covered under that and the person is free to not sign it.

I am neither a US lawyer of a solicitor in Ireland so this is just my thinking.

Trent Houseboat

I'm pretty sure all Whitehouse communications are recorded and archived. They will be later available under FOI. I doubt any showbiz NDA would supersede the Presidential Records Act.

Beechwoodspark

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, I am not saying that he is simply making things up, but he was head of the CIA, if he 'knew' this short of stuff why didn't he do something about it?

It staggers me that the CIA allowed a situation whereby the elected POTUS may not only be compromised, but was such even before becoming POTUS and they had indications that it was that way.

Plenty of warning was given however people dismissed it and continue to dismiss it and trump himself has been hounding the Agencies since he has got in. And he’s hardly been enthusiastic about the Mueller investigation!

robinph

But if you were working for a company and your manager came along and got you to sign an NDA between yourself and them, not with the company, then I'd expect the company to have something to say about that.

The staff surely work for the USA. The president is the current manager.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, as far as I know, any contract is legitimate once freely entered into by both parties and both were aware of it.

I know, for example, that an employee cannot sign away their entitlements under law (holidays etc in Ireland for eg) but an NDA I wouldn't bet is covered under that and the person is free to not sign it.

I am neither a US lawyer of a solicitor in Ireland so this is just my thinking.

Depends on what is covered in the NDA I reckon. Certainly anything illegal could not be covered. However simply not bad mouthing the company or giving away technical secrets can be covered.

It also depends on the counter party. If it is Trump as opposed to the US government for instance then there is much less that they can cover as their initial government contract should not be breached by this.

Also it depends, can a private individual force someone to sign a contract under threat of firing them? I could understand this if the US government needed to update contracts and needed staff to sign it but an individual who has the power to fire them is on much much dodgier ground. That could be used for all sorts of abuse if they really needed the job.

A lot depends on the text and US law (which I am not intimately familiar with but tends to be low on the employees rights side of things).

I not saying there is anything wrong with their legality but I can see several scenarios where people would want to look into it closer.