Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Paladin of Ice

US Politics: The Ides of Mueller

407 posts in this topic

jfc

Trump had senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.

Quote

The nondisclosure agreements, said a person who signed the document, “were meant to be very similar to the ones that some of us signed during the campaign and during the transition. I remember the president saying, ‘Has everybody signed a confidentiality agreement like they did during the campaign or we had at Trump Tower?’ ”

At that time, in February or March of 2017, the source said, “There was lots of leaking, things that just weren’t true, and a lot of things that were true and should have remained confidential. The president’s point was that they [staff] would think twice about that if they were on the hook for some serious damages.”

Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-came-with-him-to-the-white-house/2018/03/18/226f4522-29ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.56b4d9853941

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Notone said:

You can do some google search (I know another kraken) or use another search engine.

Micro targetting Obama campaign

There should've been a more critical debate about big data and the role of social media, and facebook in particular. I (quite cynically) see CA more as a symptom of a bigger problem. And I am afraid, it will be the end point of the debate, instead of the beginning.

Ok, sure. But I've been on facebook for like... a dozen years, give or take. Was micro-targetting even a word back then?
I'm not saying it wasn't possible to see it coming. It's just that this kind of big brother thing came about way faster than most of us imagined.
And anyway, what's to be done about it, really? I've always taken some precautions (my parents being in IT and all). Even if I were to get completely rid of social media, I still need to use various google services for professional reasons. Bottom line is, like millions of people, I need the internet.
I don't think it's very fair of you to blame the victims here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ran said:

It's not treason per the laws of the United States. Treason is making war on the U.S, or "adhering to its enemies". However, "enemies" is defined in law as fairly narrow: nations that have declared war on the U.S. or are involved in open warfare against it. We are not at war with Russia by any conventional sense of the word, no more than we are at war with China.

It's certainly disloyal, but it's not treason.

I don't know about that. Russia has certainly declared cyberwar against us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Whoa whoa whoa....TWO SEA LIONS?

No , two Godwins for the price of one. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I don't know about that. Russia has certainly declared cyberwar against us.

Ever since I watched the first season of The Americans I've been curious as to who way back in the chain financed that thing.  It was always disturbing to see characters who were part of the Big Scheme to take down the US be regarded as sympathetic figures because it was all about family -- just like we are -- while wait, what about killing and subversion and all the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Protecting oneself, I downloaded a VPN but half the time I forget to use it. Ive never joined FB because of a healthy skeptism over the whole Big Brother vibe it gives me. I realize of course that puts me in an extreme minority nowadays. Basically ive resisted FB so long now its like a badge of honor to stay a non participant at this point lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

No , two Godwins for the price of one. :D

Again, you are using that term wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, what CA did and Facebook’s practices allowed is not right. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t foreseeable. Any private entity that has a database of customer profiles will sell it. Or the government can request it. Or it can be hacked. So no, just using Facebook doesn’t mean you deserve to be a victim. However, being on Facebook, liking/disliking everything that comes across your feed and feeding it details about your house, your car, your family, your health problems, your job, your excellent breakfast, etc wasn’t the wisest of choices people could have made.

I know this sounds a bit harsh, and it’s not my intention to insult or offend anyone (knowing it probably will). I’m just a little confused at the outrage that this could be allowed to happen when it seems like it was inevitable. Not necessarily on this board, per se, but in general. I’ve seen more people react strongly about this than other security breaches like Equifax, etc. I think it’s probably because it feels like it’s more of a betrayal because it’s so personal. Companies never have our best interest in mind and it’s naive to think so. I don’t think it was a sudden thing - people have been selling phone numbers and email lists forever now. Facebook is that on steroids and always has been.

And yes, I use FB too. It’s convenient to keep up to date with our large group of close friends. I post in the private board we have and that’s it. I wish we could agree on another medium, but it always migrates back to FB because of the convenience factor. So yeah, I’m part of the problem too, but I try to limit my footprint. I don’t think anyone is saying don’t use the internet, you just have to be realistic about the possible repercussions and make the decision about where you draw the line. This was always a probable outcome.

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I don't know about that. Russia has certainly declared cyberwar against us.

“Cyberwar” is not “War”. Per the Supreme Court, you need assemblages of people using force. Treason has a nice ring to it, but for extremely good reasons the laws of the country make it very, very specific and with a very high bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I don’t think anyone is saying don’t use the internet, you just have to be realistic about the possible repercussions and make the decision about where you draw the line. This was always a probable outcome.

But you can't draw a line. Not when the internet is necessary to access information quickly, pay your taxes, order tons of stuff (from train tickets to rare automobile parts), exchange with colleagues and communicate with friends and family. We live in a digital age. You can limit your footprint in some ways, but unless you go full paranoid and use obscure software and crypted communications, what's most important about you is what's hardest to protect. If anything, the Facebook case isn't worrying per se because social media is relatively optional, it's worrying because of what it foretells. If it's Facebook today, it'll be the complete data on individuals within a decade. Used not just for commercial purposes (we already knew about that) but for political ones, with everythin that entails.
That's why the outrage is justified. Not so much because it's surprising, but because we want to see some kind of protections, as illusory as they may be, while there's still a chance. Otherwise we're just accepting the fact that privacy is dead and we live in the twisted brainchild of 1984 and Brave New World. We are, of course, in many ways. But that's no reason to accept it. These people need to be prosecuted and condemned, else the message it sends is that every single individual right one can think of is but a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

One could only imagine the amount of liability Trump would rack up were he held to the libel standard Maltaran is describing? With his history of lying tweets, the penalties for all that libel would exceed his net worth.

The UK also has an electoral law that election results can be annulled if the candidates who was elected lied about their opponent during the campaign. I think Trump is probably glad the US don't have that law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So public servants signing an NDA with their boss (a public servant) seems blatantly unlawful to me.

There are zero arguments I could accept to explain such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So public servants signing an NDA with their boss (a public servant) seems blatantly unlawful to me.

There are zero arguments I could accept to explain such a thing.

Workin' for Cadet Bone Spurs ain't rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I was about to post the same thing!

13 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So public servants signing an NDA with their boss (a public servant) seems blatantly unlawful to me.

There are zero arguments I could accept to explain such a thing.

The reaction from this discovery seems to be incredulity. Nobody seems in any way convinced that they'd hold in court. There is apparently a $10,000,000 fine for breaching the NDAs, which are payable to the Federal Government. That excessive amount also seems disproportionate to the action of speaking about their time in government.

From what I've read, even Fox News' "experts" think this won't hold up in any court. At least, not any court that hasn't been "fixed" by Lord Drumpf's magical, wise and majestic power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Workin' for Cadet Bone Spurs ain't rocket science.

I just want you to know that I appreciate this joke. There's not an ounce of fat on that joke, it's fucking perfect.

28 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I was about to post the same thing!

The reaction from this discovery seems to be incredulity. Nobody seems in any way convinced that they'd hold in court. There is apparently a $10,000,000 fine for breaching the NDAs, which are payable to the Federal Government. That excessive amount also seems disproportionate to the action of speaking about their time in government.

From what I've read, even Fox News' "experts" think this won't hold up in any court. At least, not any court that hasn't been "fixed" by Lord Drumpf's magical, wise and majestic power.

There's just no way. Not even the worst of the worst could spin this. You swear to the CONSTITUTION not the fucking Great Leader.

I feel like this is the thing that should destroy his presidency.

I've said that before though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I heard the night of the Pennsylvania election that I don't think anyone posted about: there are only 6 millennials in Congress. The commentator on CNN did not know if that included Lamb or if Lamb would be the 7th.

That rather surprised me - I thought there were more ambitious young people who ran for Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Something I heard the night of the Pennsylvania election that I don't think anyone posted about: there are only 6 millennials in Congress. The commentator on CNN did not know if that included Lamb or if Lamb would be the 7th.

That rather surprised me - I thought there were more ambitious young people who ran for Congress.

Well, before even beginning to speculate on why this is - and quite a few explanations obviously and immediately spring to mind - I'd like to know what the average number of MCs 35 and under are over the past, say, 40 years.  My prior is it wouldn't be that much, a mean of 15-20 at most.  

Also, after the latest round of Trump tweet-vomiting and GOP rhetorical pushback on the Sunday morning talk shows, Ty Cobb claimed once again Trump isn't considering firing Mueller:

Quote

"In response to media speculation and related questions being posed to the Administration, the White House yet again confirms that the President is not considering or discussing the firing of the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller," Cobb said in a statement to the White House press pool.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

 

Such tightly controlled votes raise the question of why authoritarians rig the system to ensure not just victory, but overwhelming victory—with vote totals of more than 80 or 90 percent in some cases. Aren’t Putin and Sisi sufficiently popular to win on their own merits?

In fact, elections can be unpredictable affairs. Overly confident rulers have often been surprised by voters who opt for democracy rather than authoritarian continuity. Thus the jarring losses for Pinochet in Chile and the ruling communist party in Poland during the 1980s. Today’s authoritarians are well versed in the history of open elections in such settings, and are determined to avoid a similar fate. Even victory at 60 percent can provoke questions about the strongman’s staying power, encouraging rivals from his own camp to mount a challenge

 

.

A Month of Potemkin Elections

Rulers in Moscow, Cairo, and Baku are eager to show their strength, but afraid to put it to a real test.

https://freedomhouse.org/blog/month-potemkin-elections


 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0