Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 7:19 AM
264 online now:
Faith, jaywill, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 259 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,793 Year: 13,616/29,783 Month: 1,062/1,576 Week: 3/271 Day: 3/39 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
162163
164
165166167Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2446 of 2500 (838540)
08-23-2018 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2431 by Percy
08-19-2018 8:35 AM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
You seem ticked off. Are you ticked off about something, or are you just perpetually ticked off. You certainly aren't very informative. Perhaps you could grace us with an explanation for why it's "ridiculous"

It would think that most adults are aware that non disclosure agreements are very common and are routinely enforced in court in situations that do not involve national security. I've enforced them for my clients and I have signed them for clients who want extra assurance that I hold their trade secrets and inventions in confidence. If all of that is news to you, then you are not going to be satisfied with my answer because I don't plan to expand on that.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2431 by Percy, posted 08-19-2018 8:35 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2448 by Percy, posted 08-23-2018 4:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2447 of 2500 (838550)
08-23-2018 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2440 by NoNukes
08-23-2018 11:24 AM


Re: Michael Avenatti is Coming to New Hampshire
NoNukes writes:

Maybe post it to YouTube and then link to it?

I thought I might eventually end up having to upload to YouTube, but first I wanted to try embedding the video directly in a message. I started by uploading the video to the website, which was a circuitous route from my phone to my Mac laptop to my Windows development machine and from there uploading it to the website.

The board software has a whitelist of HTML tags it allows in a message. Embedding a video directly requires the HTML5 <video> and <source> tags, and no HTML5 tags are permitted in a message because HTML5 didn't exist when I wrote that code some years ago. I added those two HTML5 tags to the whitelist and they now work in messages. If there are other "message safe" HTML5 tags that people would like they should just let me know.

So now anyone wanting to embed a video directly in a message can use the HTML5 <video> and <source> tags. Just use Google to find online documentation for those tags.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2440 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2018 11:24 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2448 of 2500 (838563)
08-23-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2446 by NoNukes
08-23-2018 1:12 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:

You seem ticked off. Are you ticked off about something, or are you just perpetually ticked off. You certainly aren't very informative. Perhaps you could grace us with an explanation for why it's "ridiculous"

I would think that most adults are aware that non disclosure agreements are very common and are routinely enforced in court in situations that do not involve national security. I've enforced them for my clients and I have signed them for clients who want extra assurance that I hold their trade secrets and inventions in confidence.

You have things askew. Zaid's position is that NDA's in government are not enforceable except in matters of national security. I quoted 10 legal voices making roughly the same point. I didn't quote anyone saying anything like what you're objecting to. No one was arguing that NDA's in general aren't enforceable outside national security.

If all of that is news to you, then you are not going to be satisfied with my answer because I don't plan to expand on that.

Why would I care whether you expand on your answer to a point no one made?

There's still the open issue of how to classify a campaign. Is it part of government (the public sector) or not? You seemed to imply in your Message 2421 that it is part of the public sector, but most commentators seem to think that campaign NDA's are enforceable while government NDA's are not (except in matters of national security), implying that they don't believe campaigns are part of the public sector.

But even private sector NDA's (particularly the Trump organization non-disparagement clause) have that pesky First Amendment to deal with. Can people really sign away their right to speak on certain topics in perpetuity? I don't know if there's a legal term for this, but aren't contracts too unfairly biased toward one of the parties routinely invalidated?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2446 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2018 1:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2449 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2018 5:30 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2449 of 2500 (838570)
08-23-2018 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2448 by Percy
08-23-2018 4:04 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
You have things askew. Zaid's position is that NDA's in government are not enforceable except in matters of national security

1. Is that what the quote said? No.
2. Even after limiting the scope to the government, the quote is still nonsense and does not reflect the law.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2448 by Percy, posted 08-23-2018 4:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2450 by Percy, posted 08-24-2018 8:21 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2450 of 2500 (838589)
08-24-2018 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2449 by NoNukes
08-23-2018 5:30 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:

You have things askew. Zaid's position is that NDA's in government are not enforceable except in matters of national security

1. Is that what the quote said? No.

One of he many dangers of Trump is that his approach of just digging in and repeatedly and blatantly stating baldfaced falsehoods could become perceived as a legitimate debate device. It isn't.

I quoted Zaid saying:

quote:
As a government employee she is entitled to First Amendment protection, and no NDA can overcome it other than for classified information.

So did my paraphrase correctly capture what Zaid said? Yes. Is your misinterpretation wrong? Yes.

2. Even after limiting the scope to the government, the quote is still nonsense and does not reflect the law.

Voluble as ever. Do you think just declaring something so with no evidence or rationale makes it so? Maybe this is another thing you have in common with our president.

Look, we get it, you have a legal background. Whoop-de-do. Your law degree doesn't absolve you from having to explain your positions on matters legal, especially when so many legal voices have expressed views opposite to yours. Ignoring all the quotes I presented in Message 2431 doesn't make them go away.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2449 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2018 5:30 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2451 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2018 2:02 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2451 of 2500 (838626)
08-24-2018 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2450 by Percy
08-24-2018 8:21 AM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
Voluble as ever. Do you think just declaring something so with no evidence or rationale makes it so?

No. I am not making an argument. I am stating an opinion about something I know well because it is a part of the law that I practice. I did not have any intention of making an argument for my position. I will say this, though. Government officials discuss topics with private folks all of the time. Those discussions may involve policy, technology, and other things things that do not involve national security all of the time. The need for confidentiality does not require that national security is involved. For example, government officials review patent applications. They cannot reveal the contents of those applications to anyone even though the content may deal with a golf swing trainer made out of PVC piping. So a patent examiner must be bound by confidentiality even after he leaves government employment.

Similarly, a government official might want to reveal possibly policy details to a contractor to get an estimate. The contractor would reasonably expect to be bound by the same secrecy any other customer would require, and of course, that is exactly what does happen even if no national security secrets are involved.

A moments thought ought to make the stupidity of the pundit's claim obvious, and for that reason, I am not going to bother with making an argument. You are welcome to dispute my statement. I will probably respond at that point.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2450 by Percy, posted 08-24-2018 8:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2452 by Percy, posted 08-24-2018 4:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2452 of 2500 (838629)
08-24-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2451 by NoNukes
08-24-2018 2:02 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:

Voluble as ever. Do you think just declaring something so with no evidence or rationale makes it so?

No. I am not making an argument.

Yes, that's correct, you're not making an argument. You're just declaring something so based on the fallacy of argument from authority, in this case your own, as you state right here:

I am stating an opinion about something I know well because it is a part of the law that I practice. I did not have any intention of making an argument for my position.

That's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from one's own authority. Or maybe it should be called the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" fallacy.

I will say this, though.

Will it be relevant to anything I quoted or to the Trump NDA's that are at issue?

Government officials discuss topics with private folks all of the time. Those discussions may involve policy, technology, and other things things that do not involve national security all of the time. The need for confidentiality does not require that national security is involved. For example, government officials review patent applications. They cannot reveal the contents of those applications to anyone even though the content may deal with a golf swing trainer made out of PVC piping. So a patent examiner must be bound by confidentiality even after he leaves government employment.

Nope, no relevance. What you say is very interesting, but the discussion is about the Trump campaign and White House NDA's, not the patent office.

Similarly, a government official might want to reveal possibly policy details to a contractor to get an estimate. The contractor would reasonably expect to be bound by the same secrecy any other customer would require, and of course, that is exactly what does happen even if no national security secrets are involved.

Still no relevance. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with the Trump campaign and White House NDA's.

A moments thought ought to make the stupidity of the pundit's claim obvious,...

What pundit? You mean Zaid? He's a lawyer expressing an opinion on the legal area in which he specializes, unlike you who have wandered way off your reservation. An expert commenting outside his area of expertise is just another layman. On this topic, and on many other legal topics, you should stop namedropping the fact that you're a lawyer. You mention the stupidity being obvious, but while I agree on the sentiment I disagree on the target.

...and for that reason, I am not going to bother with making an argument.

Of course you're not going to make an argument. Better to remain silent and let it be thought that you're talking through your hat instead of attempting to explain yourself and removing all doubt.

You are welcome to dispute my statement. I will probably respond at that point.

Dispute your statement? How? You haven't made any intelligent statement. You're "informed" legal opinion seems to be that Zaid's view and the view of the other nine legal voices I quoted was that they were "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous" and "stupid". What astute legal analysis led you to this conclusion? You won't say, so forgive anyone who decides to lend you no credence.

Even if I desperately wanted to accept your position I still couldn't do so, for two obvious reasons:

  • "Wishful thinking", "ridiculous", "trust me", and "stupid" are not arguments. They're deflections.
  • Anyone accepting your position and attempting to argue it in debate would be completely helpless since you've provided no evidence or rationale.

You're commenting on things other lawyers have said. Don't you think you should accord them the same respect you no doubt believe you yourself are entitled to and critique their positions according to their legal merits or lack thereof?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2451 by NoNukes, posted 08-24-2018 2:02 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2454 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2018 1:35 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 2453 of 2500 (838641)
08-25-2018 11:10 AM


A Trump Retrospective
Trump has committed so many frauds on so many fronts that it is impossible to keep track, so based on several recent news articles here's a summary of some that are notable, with emphasis on the more recent:

  • Trump recently accidentally admitted to breaking campaign finance laws. In an interview with Ainsley Earhardt on a Fox & Friends segment Trump says that ultimately the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen MacDougall came from him, not from the campaign. He doesn't seem to understand that payments made "for the purpose of influencing an election" (like keeping information about marital misconduct from the public) are contributions to a campaign that have to be reported. Trump just inadvertently admitted to campaign financing violations.

  • In the same interview Trump not only lied about when he learned of the paramour payoffs but contradicted his past statements. A brief history. First here's Trump on Air Force One denying any knowledge of the payments by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels:

    But then Michael Cohen released a tape of him discussing the payoff of Karen MacDougall with Trump before it happened, so of course Trump knew about such payoffs when he said he didn't aboard Air Force One. Trump admits making the payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen MacDougall out of his own pocket but claims only knowing about them later, as the Cohen tape show to be an obvious lie. And all his previous denials were lies.

    Keep in mind that almost everything Trump says is a lie, so even this most recent version of the "truth" could easily be a lie. It will come as no surprise if Trump's story changes again.

  • About Michael Cohen, who hasn't flipped yet (and it isn't clear that Mueller needs him to flip), Trump recently said, "It’s called flipping, and it almost ought to be illegal." Flipping smaller fish to gain testimony against bigger fish is standard practice, it is the only way to put the big fish in jail, and it is standard practice across the US. Trump is apparently against criminals agreeing to testify against their criminal bosses. I suppose he's insisting on honor among theives.

  • Trump doesn't seem to know the history of the economy. He keeps taking credit for the economic growth that began under Obama. Here's a graph:

    The only thing Trump can take credit for is not disrupting the economic growth that was already well under way, though he seems to be trying to ruin the economy with his tariffs.

  • Speaking of tariffs, Trump doesn't understand international trade and hasn't for decades. He thinks trade deficits are bad. He doesn't understand that trade deficits are a sign of economic strength, nor that there's a structural deficit built into US trade because the dollar is the international currency of choice.

  • Limited immunity was granted to Allen Wesselberg (CFO of The Trump Organization) and David Pecker (chairman of AMI, publisher of the National Enquirer that fraudulently bought Karen MacDougall's story) for providing information and evidence in the Michael Cohen case. The Cohen case was brought by the New York City branch of the Justice Department, not the Mueller probe, but Mueller will obviously be exploring these avenues.

  • And we can't forget the Trump Tower meeting. First Trump said he knew nothing about the meeting, then it turned out he drafted the description of the meeting that Donald Jr. originally claiming writing, and the meeting was about adoptions, but then Donald Jr. emails revealed it was about getting dirt on Hillary, but nothing happened at the meeting. Given all the lies there can be little doubt that we still don't now what really happened at the meeting.

  • Neil Cavuto once worked at NPR, but now that he's at Fox News it's nice to see he hasn't lost his soul. He recently described a list of Trump, er, fibs:

    • Argued Ohio governor John Kasich was unpopular when he wasn't.
    • Claimed US Steel was building six new steel mills when they weren't.
    • Declared he had higher poll numbers than even Abraham Lincoln, when they weren't taking polls.
    • Said crime was way up in Germany when it wasn't, was actually the lowest in decades.
    • Accused foreign nations were screwing us with their tariffs on cars without mentioning our tariffs on trucks.
    • Asserted we had a massive trade deficit with Canada when we actually have a surplus.
    • Insisted he'd signed the biggest tax cut in history when he hadn't.
    • Contended he didn't benefit from that tax cut when he did.
    • Claimed to have signed more legislation than any other president when he hadn't.
    • Said Michael Cohen was a great lawyer until he wasn't.

    Covuto concluded by saying that Trump was right to tout our economic success, that doesn't absolve him for responsibility for this moral bust.

--Percy
    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2454 of 2500 (838651)
08-25-2018 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2452 by Percy
08-24-2018 4:05 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
hat's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from one's own authority.

No, it is not an argument from authority Percy. I am stating an opinion and giving you the basis of my opinion. I am telling how I am in a position to know. I am not using it to convince you. Are you rejecting my statement based on anything other than some dude you believe said the opposite? No, you are not.

Beyond that, I did cite a number of situations where government employees and contractors are subject to NDAs. Your claim that those things are irrelevant is inane. Here is another example. If the government agency, say the post office, hires a patent attorney, something they do all of the time, would you expect that the NDA that attorney signs is unenforceable? Let's stipulate that there are no national security issues and that we are talking about an invention related to sorting mail more quickly.

In short, I have provided at least some support for my conclusion. Do you have any support, whatsoever for the opposite idea?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2452 by Percy, posted 08-24-2018 4:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2455 by Percy, posted 08-25-2018 3:03 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2455 of 2500 (838663)
08-25-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2454 by NoNukes
08-25-2018 1:35 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:

That's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from one's own authority.

No, it is not an argument from authority Percy.

Yes, it's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from your own authority. Just listen to yourself in Message 2451:

NoNukes in Message 2451 writes:

I am stating an opinion about something I know well because it is a part of the law that I practice. I did not have any intention of making an argument for my position.

There you are baldly and unembarrassedly saying that you're stating an opinion for which you have no intention of advancing any supporting arguments. This is about NDA's and perpetual non-disparagement clauses, which definitely is not the part of the law that you practice, as is readily apparent. You're engaging in the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" fallacy.

I am stating an opinion...

You haven't really stated anything like an informed and useful opinion. It was more just denigration, stuff like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous".

...and giving you the basis of my opinion.

This you haven't done. You haven't even given an opinion on the topic of discussion. For example, tell us why the White House NDA non-disparagement in perpetuity clause is defensible against First Amendment concerns.

I am telling how I am in a position to know.

If you were in a position to know then your area of specialty wouldn't be patent law but something more relevant, and you'd be clearly explaining things instead of covering over your lack of expertise with irrelevant verbiage. People who know stuff can't wait to explain what they know. People who don't know stuff but who want to be perceived as knowing stuff have to find other avenues and hope they find gullible enough people.

I am not using it to convince you.

And obviously you're not convincing me, or probably anyone else. Who here is stupid enough to believe the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" argument?

Are you rejecting my statement based on anything other than some dude you believe said the opposite? No, you are not.

Since anyone can look at my Message 2431 and see that I cited ten legal voices contradicting your uninformed opinion, and since I've referred you to that message multiple times, and since that message is actually a reply to you, continuing to ignore it and to pretend it doesn't exist just shows you're involved in some kind of self-delusion.

Beyond that, I did cite a number of situations where government employees and contractors are subject to NDAs.

Did any of them have anything to do with the Trump NDA's that are the topic of discussion? That's rhetorical.

Your claim that those things are irrelevant is inane.

Your belief that they're relevant is just more self-delusion. You can only cite examples from areas of the law you're familiar with, namely patent law, and not with the area of the law actually being discussed.

Here is another example. If the government agency, say the post office, hires a patent attorney,...

Oh, geez, patent law again. Is this in any way relevant to the Trump NDA's?

...something they do all of the time, would you expect that the NDA that attorney signs is unenforceable?

Does this NDA have a non-disparagement in perpetuity clause? Is it an NDA signed by people working on a campaign or in the White House? No, I thought not.

Your examples are fine but have no relevance to the topic. The way to convince people of your position (once you've expressed one that is relevant) is to provide them enough information to argue the position themselves. I don't know about you (well, on second thought, I guess we do know about you), but I would never be stupid enough to walk into a discussion about First Amendment versus national security issues and start citing concerns about keeping patents secret.

Let's stipulate that there are no national security issues and that we are talking about an invention related to sorting mail more quickly.

How about let's stipulate that there are no national security issues and that we are talking about Alice falling down a rabbit hole. It would be as relevant.

In short, I have provided at least some support for my conclusion.

Patent law has its own courts. I think your patent secrecy examples would be laughed out of court, such as one that might hear a case concerning these White House NDA's, like the DC Circuit Court.

And concerning your conclusion, what conclusion? A conclusion implies some process of relevant deduction or induction or at least some kind of analysis, and you've provided none.

Do you have any support, whatsoever for the opposite idea?

You haven't addressed the actual topic yet, so how could there be an on-topic opposite idea? I cited ten legal voices in Message 2431 that contradict your characterization of such positions as "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous". I wasn't trying to argue the point myself, just make clear that the fact that these NDA's are not enforceable isn't just one lawyer's uninformed opinion but is in fact widely shared. Go ahead, rebut 'em, give it a try. Stop trying to bluster your way through this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2454 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2018 1:35 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2456 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2018 3:15 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2456 of 2500 (838666)
08-25-2018 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2455 by Percy
08-25-2018 3:03 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
ou haven't really stated anything like an informed and useful opinion. It was more just denigration, stuff like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous

This is just an unsupported insult. My opinion is informed by my legal experience, regardless of the fact that you personally hold that in low regard. And my informed opinion is that the idea that NDAs are unconstitutional for government employees with the exception of national security is both contrary to established law, and leads to ridiculous results. I have provided some examples which you don't find convincing.

This is not personal, Percy. So why make it personal.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2455 by Percy, posted 08-25-2018 3:03 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2458 by Percy, posted 08-26-2018 8:40 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 2459 by Phat, posted 08-26-2018 10:50 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 2457 of 2500 (838693)
08-26-2018 8:35 AM


A Republican Sees the Light
There are enough eulogistic editorials about John McCain's passing that citing one here is unnecessary, but it is fitting on this day to call attention to an editorial by a Republican who, perhaps inspired by McCain though he doesn't mention him, reveres the same issues of honesty and integrity as McCain. The New York Times has today published an editorial by Republican columnist Peter Wehner who served in the Reagan administration and in both Bush administrations. It's about how Trump has caused a turnabout in Republican values. I'm going to excerpt a lot of it:

quote:
When I first took to these pages three summers ago to write about Mr. Trump, I warned my fellow Republicans to just say no both to him and his candidacy. One of my concerns was that if Mr. Trump were to succeed, he would redefine the Republican Party in his image. That’s already happened in areas like free trade, free markets and the size of government; in attitudes toward ethnic nationalism and white identity politics; in America’s commitment to its traditional allies, in how Republicans view Russia and in their willingness to call out leaders of evil governments like North Korea rather than lavish praise on them. But in no area has Mr. Trump more fundamentally changed the Republican Party than in its attitude toward ethics and political leadership.

For decades, Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, insisted that character counted in public life. They were particularly vocal about this during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguing against “compartmentalization” — by which they meant overlooking moral turpitude in the Oval Office because you agree with the president’s policy agenda or because the economy is strong.
...
All that has changed with Mr. Trump as president. For Republicans, honor and integrity are now passé. We saw it again last week when the president’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen — standing in court before a judge, under oath — implicated Mr. Trump in criminal activity, while his former campaign chairman was convicted in another courtroom on financial fraud charges. Most Republicans in Congress were either silent or came to Mr. Trump’s defense, which is how this tiresome drama now plays itself out.

It is a stunning turnabout. A party that once spoke with urgency and apparent conviction about the importance of ethical leadership — fidelity, honesty, honor, decency, good manners, setting a good example — has hitched its wagon to the most thoroughly and comprehensively corrupt individual who has ever been elected president. Some of the men who have been elected president have been unscrupulous in certain areas — infidelity, lying, dirty tricks, financial misdeeds — but we’ve never before had the full-spectrum corruption we see in the life of Donald Trump.
...
Some of us who have been lifelong Republicans and previously served in Republican administrations held out a faint hope that our party would at some point say “Enough!”; that there would be some line Mr. Trump would cross, some boundary he would transgress, some norm he would shatter, some civic guardrail he would uproot, some action he would take, some scheme or scandal he would be involved in that would cause large numbers of Republicans to break with the president. No such luck. Mr. Trump’s corruptions have therefore become theirs. So far there’s been no bottom, and there may never be. It’s quite possible this should have been obvious to me much sooner than it was, that I was blinded to certain realities I should have recognized.
...
But the greatest damage is being done to our civic culture and our politics. Mr. Trump and the Republican Party are right now the chief emblem of corruption and cynicism in American political life, of an ethic of might makes right. Dehumanizing others is fashionable and truth is relative. (“Truth isn’t truth,” in the infamous words of Mr. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani.) They are stripping politics of its high purpose and nobility.
...
A warning to my Republican friends: The worst is yet to come. Thanks to the work of Robert Mueller — a distinguished public servant, not the leader of a “group of Angry Democrat Thugs” — we are going to discover deeper and deeper layers to Mr. Trump’s corruption. When we do, I expect Mr. Trump will unravel further as he feels more cornered, more desperate, more enraged; his behavior will become ever more erratic, disordered and crazed.


Before our nation can begin to heal from the deep wounds inflicted by Trump and reunite in seeing honor and value in committing to truth, to integrity, and to investing all human beings with worth, many more Republicans must also see the light.

In his speech at the Hillsborough Country Democratic Picnic Michael Avenatti spoke of the importance of welcoming back into the fold *some* of those Republicans who supported Trump. I put the emphasis on *some* because it was one of the few things Avenatti said that I disagree with. We must welcome all Republicans back into the fold, back into the nation of humanity, whether they remain Republicans or not. By Republicans I mean true Republicans, not the Trump faux Republicans who hate anyone different, who value party above country, and who have descended into a cult of personality.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17657
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2458 of 2500 (838694)
08-26-2018 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2456 by NoNukes
08-25-2018 3:15 PM


Re: The Omarosa Thing
NoNukes writes:

You haven't really stated anything like an informed and useful opinion. It was more just denigration, stuff like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous".

This is just an unsupported insult.

No, it isn't. Unlike you I'm willing to support anything I say. I don't say things like, "Just trust me." Plus anyone can read the thread and see that you've been denigrating opinions you haven't informed yourself about while explaining nothing relevant to the Trump NDA's. If it feels insulting to you to have this called to your attention then don't do it.

I can't carry on both sides of the discussion. You have to hold up your end, and so far you're not doing it. You're just telling us you know what you're talking about and we should just take you're word for it ("oh and by this way here's some examples from patent law"), despite that you're not giving us any reason to.

Here's where you called Zaid's position "wishful thinking" in your Message 2421:

NoNukes in Message 2421 writes:

Percy writes:

My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'


...
As for the idea that an NDA extends beyond classified information being unconstitutional, that's simply bad legal advice. Perhaps there was some context to Zaid's remarks that makes then something other than wishful thinking.

But all you read was the text to the link. Your excuse for just commenting on the link text? Here it is from your Message 2429:

NoNukes in Message 2429 writes:

I did not quote anything because you did not quote anything other than his conclusion.

Of course I didn't quote anything. I said (in Message 2421) that there's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about the enforceability of the Trump NDA's, and I provided a link to an example of such an article. What in the world possessed you to express an opinion based only on a headline? You still haven't read the article, right? You'd rather engage in this stonewalling defense of your brilliance while feigning insult instead of discussing what lawyers with relevant experience have actually said about the Trump NDA's. Anyway, you called it "ridiculous" in Message 2429:

NoNukes in Message 2429 writes:

The idea that an NDA is only constitutional when applied to national security is ridiculous.

So in my Message 2431 I provided a list of ten legal voices basically saying the same thing as Zaid, and though I keep calling your attention to that message you keep ignoring it. Why is that?

By the way, I'm not trying to send you off on reading assignments. You have every right to request that I quote the relevant portions of articles that I've cited to support what I say, but you never did, you just commented on the headline. So in case it helps move the discussion forward, here are the parts quoting Zaid from the article, which is most of it:

quote:
Mark Zaid, a Washington-based attorney who focuses on government and national security, said that if White House employees were asked to sign an NDA limiting post-employment, unclassified speech, it would represent a breach of constitutional rights.

During a phone call on Monday, Zaid told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that he had previously seen a version of a White House NDA, and that the U.S government—not a private organization (such as the Republican National Committee) or the Trump campaign)—had been party to that agreement. He could not determine whether the NDA he saw was merely an early draft or a final document.

“What it looked to be is simply a Trump Corporation NDA, converted to be used for those working in the White House,” he said.

Zaid, who works frequently on cases involving national security, free speech, and non-disclosure agreements, said that the potential use of an NDA for unclassified information would represent a remarkable split from previous administrations. In the private sector, non-disclosure agreements and non-compete clauses are not out of the ordinary, but such agreements are not typical within the government. Most government NDAs are used in relation to classified national security information.

Of course, the lack of firm details about the NDA makes it difficult to judge its legality. ( Read Jonathan V. Last on the questions that have yet to be answered about these agreements.) But, according to Zaid, “The courts have been clear that any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech.”


Back to your current message:

My opinion is informed by my legal experience,...

Opinions like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous" aren't worth much if you can't explain why.

...regardless of the fact that you personally hold that in low regard.

Don't put opinions in my mouth. Credibility is earned, not demanded. You're commenting on an area outside your expertise. Provide a well argued rationale for your opinion and I'll see what I think. Provide nothing and I'll tell you that you've provided nothing.

And my informed opinion is that the idea that NDAs are unconstitutional for government employees with the exception of national security is both contrary to established law, and leads to ridiculous results.

You're not getting the context right. The context is not government employees in general. It is not the patent office. It is not the post office.

The context is the Trump campaign and White House NDA's that contained a perpetual non-disparagement clause (among other things, but that was the outrageous clause in my opinion). Now, finally, keeping that context in mind, read through the list of ten legal voices in my Message 2431 and comment on them. I'm not asking you to follow the links because in most cases I provide a summary of what they say or a quote. We can get into more detail and follow the links later.

I have provided some examples which you don't find convincing.

And I told you why they weren't convincing (they were about patent law, not the Trump NDA's), but instead of addressing that you've just ignored it and repeated yourself.

This is not personal, Percy. So why make it personal.

Of course this isn't personal. I'm just describing what you're doing and you're taking it personally.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2456 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2018 3:15 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11146
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2459 of 2500 (838702)
08-26-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2456 by NoNukes
08-25-2018 3:15 PM


The Mental Stress Of Debate.
NN writes:

This is not personal, Percy. So why make it personal.

I see that you are taking a break. It's probably a good thing for all of us to do from time to time. We often get personally involved in winning arguments and expanding our points. In the end, we need to realize that people at this forum may never see things our way and that none of us can win every argument we engage in---no matter how reasonable and logical our position seems to us.

Enjoy some time off from this craziness. Trump has some rocky rapids ahead...and the drama will play out, in reality, the way that destiny has prepared for it. The outcome may not be what any of us think will happen or even should happen.

As for the debate, many of us...myself and perhaps Percy included---hone our arguments and debating skills here. We like to make it personal, despite our own Forum Guidelines. Others of us realize that we won't win every argument nor should we feel a need to do so. Enjoy the cooler weather ahead.

Percy writes:

I'm just describing what you're doing and you're taking it personally.

Your attentiveness to detail and to nitpick makes for well-presented arguments but can be taken personally should one of us become the recipient of your thorough way of capturing our argument and reframing it.

I never have any problem with you because we rarely engage in discourse---my nemesis is jar! One could argue that such arguments and debates should be expected at a debate posting board. It is said that one should never discuss religion nor politics---yet your favorite subject is politics and mine is religion!

Perhaps both of you should simply drop this particular argument and chalk it up as a draw.

Edited by Phat, : adding Percy to my reply


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2456 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2018 3:15 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 719
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2460 of 2500 (838976)
08-31-2018 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1117 by Diomedes
08-18-2017 1:07 PM


NAFTA
Things are looking pretty tenuous with the last minute negotiations to include Canada in NAFTA. (Or whatever it will eventually be called)

http://www.cbc.ca/...afta-trump-compromise-trudeau-1.4806240

quote:
NAFTA talks have not soured despite a report that Donald Trump told a news outlet the U.S. will make no compromises in any agreement with Canada, sources told CBC News.

Canada raised Trump's comments during negotiations between Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her counterpart, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, that are now in the final phase in Washington.

The Toronto Star reported Friday on comments Trump made, apparently off the record, in an interview with Bloomberg News suggesting the U.S. is in complete control of the negotiations and unwilling to make concessions. The U.S. president reportedly said his position was "going to be so insulting they're [Canada] not going to be able to make a deal." CBC has not independently verified the comments.


I'm hoping that this is just another case of Trump running his mouth. And that a deal will still be had by the deadline. But by the last minute nature, I am wondering if Trump will corner Trudeau and Freeland and force a deal that won't be as beneficial for Canada.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1117 by Diomedes, posted 08-18-2017 1:07 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2461 by ringo, posted 08-31-2018 3:53 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
162163
164
165166167Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018