Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has his a separate private (non-secure) phone for non-Presidential stuff.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

Well, Obama had his phone replaced and also never tweeted major policy decisions as his primary method of announcing them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.

That’s 0 for 2.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.

'Way'.

Trump has been caught lying about his trip to Russia, the trip were the infamous pee tape was alleged to have been made. Trump has stated often, and most notably to James Comey while he was still FBI director, that the pee tape can't be real because Trump didn't even stay the night and so couldn't have made the tape. But Bloomberg went and got the flight records and sure enough, Trump was lying, he had stayed overnight. See, Trump's claim is that he left Moscow on a flight back to America as soon as the after-party was done. But what Trump concealed is that he arrived in Moscow on the Friday and stayed Friday night. So yeah, he was in Moscow over night, and when Trump claimed otherwise he was lying.

Now we all know people who've told lies to try and deny truthful allegations against them. But does anyone know a single person who's ever told a lie to deny a false allegation? I can't believe it, but I'm actually starting to believe the pee tape is real.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

 Frazzled wrote:
The Daniels attorney pushing this supports my theory that he is being compensated by the DNC, else he would not comment as it's not relevant to the case.

You are right that Avenatti is doing more than just merely representing Daniels in a purely legal case, but outside of that you're way off base. In his case prior to this, Avenatti was the lead counsel in winning a $454 million medical fraud case. Avenatti doesn't need Democrat money. Democrats need Avenatti money.

On the greater issue of Avenatti using the platform to comment outside of the Daniels' case, it's mess of an argument. Sure, Avenatti is also making a lot of trouble for Cohen, Trump and Hannity outside of Daniels' case - but each bit of that trouble only helps Daniels, as well as hurting his opponents. "How dare a lawyer gleefully put the boot in to his opponent" is a deeply ridiculous complaint.

 Frazzled wrote:
She is not a journalist, any more than MSNBC's or CNN's evening talkers.

Yeah, this is the Hannity line of defense. It's pure crap and no-one actually believes it. On a simple matter of definition, journalism includes opinion journalism. While an opinion journalist doesn't have to maintain neutrality, they still have to be truthful and disclose their personal connections. The only way you can get around that is by claiming to be in advocacy, not journalism. And no-one tunes in to any of the FOX News pundits thinking 'great I'm about to hear the PR lines of the Republican party with no regard for independent thought or analysis'. I mean sure, when they tune in that's exactly what they get, but the whole point of the exercise is FOX and its audience pretending it's something else so the audience feels better about being spoon fed that nonsense.

Not that any of that applies at all in this case, because Ingraham used her national platform to mock a highschool kid who failed to get in to his reach college. That isn't so much about breaching ethical standards, its about Ingraham being a gakky person.

 skyth wrote:
Apparently the dumpster fire is using anti-Semetic terms to insult Jewish people that disagree with him. Referring to Chuck Todd as 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd'.

I don't think that's anti-semitic. That said, I don't know why Trump didn't go for something about Todd's height, the guy is tiny.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43874891?

Hopefully he's OK, but this may be it. He is 93 and they were very close.

It will be sad if he passes, but honestly checking out in your 90s, surrounded by grandkids and great grandkids, after a life of public service at the highest level... that's just about the perfect way to go.

When I read about GHW Bush's military service, it dawned on me that Bush and Kennedy were peers, both serving in the same war. I looked it up, they were 7 years apart in age, but belonged in totally different eras of American politics. It's given me a lot to unpack. The life Kennedy could have had. The idea that America and the world changed so much in 30 years, but America's politicians were all still drawn from the same demographic. That Bill Clinton was a generational shift I hadn't really appreciated before now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

Because Obama didn't use his phone to bypass his own Chief of Staff in order to contact congress people and other key figures. This shows the dysfunction in the Trump Whitehouse, and also raises concerns about record keeping - whether those calls are logged as even happening. These are things that until very recently conservatives claimed to be very concerned about.

 d-usa wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/donald-trump-cell-phone/index.html

So in the age of "but her emails", how does everybody feel about the use of a personal cellphone and all the security vulnerabilities and lack of accountability that come with it?

It's very concerning... but, I doubt his phones are w/o any security measures. Probably not as good as Obama's blackberry... but, who knows... maybe el Trump got something better. Tech advancements still moves pretty rapidly.

Furthermore, it's a lil'different than "but her emails" in the sense that POTUS can declassify things at will... whereas HRC could not.

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it's a lil'different than "but her emails" in the sense that POTUS can declassify things at will... whereas HRC could not.

First, 'but her emails' thing wasn't just about information security, it was also about meant to be transparency and record keeping. Second, that defense is legalistic gobbledygook.

Just stop and think about the actual reason things are kept secret - so essential national security items don't fall in to the hands of rival nations. It makes sense that a president would be empowered to decide what needed to be kept secret, but it makes zero sense to conclude it doesn't matter to the country if the president is reckless with things that are meant to be kept secret.

Now, I think the national security elements of this are more than a little overblown, there's no indication Trump is using his phone for any communications that would need to be secured. But it certainly says something when people immediately launch in to such a legalistic, substance free defense of Trump.

 sebster wrote:
But does anyone know a single person who's ever told a lie to deny a false allegation?

Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

Because Obama didn't use his phone to bypass his own Chief of Staff in order to contact congress people and other key figures. This shows the dysfunction in the Trump Whitehouse, and also raises concerns about record keeping - whether those calls are logged as even happening. These are things that until very recently conservatives claimed to be very concerned about.

Oh absolutely, but that was and is a problem that exists well outside of his phone use that spreads across several other areas. Like not reporting who visits the White House or keeping his tax returns under wraps. The phone is merely a small symptom of a much, much larger problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

There is absolutely no way Trump's phone doesn't have analogous security measures.

That’s 0 for 2.

Do we have good evidence that Trump's phone has no extra security? I'm happy to admit I'm wrong is that is the case. Either way I don't mean to suggest that his phone is just as secure as Obama's (there's no way to know that for sure anyways) and I would guess that it is not as secure. But that there is no security beyond the basic amount that comes with any random smart phone?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.

Lying to deny something you actually did isn't ethical, but it is sane. Lying to deny something you didn't even do is something else entirely, that's crazy. Trump is a lot of bad things including an habitual liar, but he isn't a crazy person.

Oh absolutely, but that was and is a problem that exists well outside of his phone use that spreads across several other areas. Like not reporting who visits the White House or keeping his tax returns under wraps. The phone is merely a small symptom of a much, much larger problem.

Agreed. Thinking about it, there's actually two ways this is a symptom of something bigger. The first is that it shows the insanity inside Trump's Whitehouse - rather than the Chief of Staff being Trump's right hand man, instead he's an obstacle to whatever crazy nonsense Trump wants to do. The second and maybe bigger reason is it shows the hypocrisy of the Republican party, it is yet another instance of Republicans suddenly going quiet on something they pretended was a great outrage when a Democrat was in the Whitehouse.

 sebster wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Not to comment on the reality/falsehood of any potential tape, but let's be honest here: Trump is perhaps the one person where it's entirely plausible that this is the case. He probably heard the allegation and lied about it by reflex without even thinking if it was true or not. Remember, this is not a mentally healthy human, this is a man who thinks on the lines of 'I don't want this to be true, therefore it isn't'.

Lying to deny something you actually did isn't ethical, but it is sane. Lying to deny something you didn't even do is something else entirely, that's crazy. Trump is a lot of bad things including an habitual liar, but he isn't a crazy person.

I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such. I honestly believe that him lying as a reflex to any sort of accusation (true or fictional) is entirely plausible. I think to him it isn't even lying--he is just stating what he wants to be true and to his brain there isn't a difference between that and what is actually true, or in other words he cannot comprehend the idea of objective reality.

This article, nominally about the strange uproar over Shania Twain saying she would have liked to vote for Trump, finally helps makes sense of why someone who is caught repeatedly lying could be seen by people as 'authentic'. Twain said she would have liked to vote for Trump because she thought he was authentic. This prompted the article I've linked to that examines that very weird thing - how a serial liar could come to be seen as authentic. It wasn't because Trump supporters were ignorant of Trump's repeated lies,
"Even though most Trump supporters were willing to admit that Trump lies, they also rated him as extremely “authentic.” "

Instead Trump supporters knew he lied, bigly, and still considered him authentic. The article suggests that when voters come to see a system as illegitimate, they start to see any act that bucks the norm as positive. So Trump's obvious lies and even his racism was a feature, not a bug, because it showed Trump was bucking the rules, not playing by the game that they saw as illegitimate. So by this bizarre process, lying comes to be seen as a sign of authenticity.

For me, after two years of glib nonsense trying to explain how Trump could be seen as honest despite his lies (seriously, not literally etc), it's the closest I've come to an explanation. It also happens to help me make sense of a lot of conversations with Trump supporters, about why pointing out Trump's lies had no effect on their insistence that Trump said it like it was.

As for the part about the system no longer being legitimate, that's interesting in itself. It describes two forms of illegitimacy, the first being a representation crisis, when voters no longer believe the establishment governs on their behalf, and the second power devaluation crisis, when voters from a once dominant class see more power being given to formerly less powerful groups.

Oh, and as for Shania Twain, she's already backtracked, and honestly I'm just sad that anyone cared in the first place about how a Canadian might have theoretically voted in a US election.

EDIT - whoops, forgot the article. It's slate by the way, which I know some people hate on reflex, but whatever.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/shania-twain-and-the-crisis-of-american-democracy-really.html

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such. I honestly believe that him lying as a reflex to any sort of accusation (true or fictional) is entirely plausible. I think to him it isn't even lying--he is just stating what he wants to be true and to his brain there isn't a difference between that and what is actually true, or in other words he cannot comprehend the idea of objective reality.

I think we should be really wary of anyone trying to assess a person's mental health just from how they appear on tv. Anyhow, fair enough that we differ. I think we agree that Trump lies frequently and with little regard to being caught, we just differ on whether he would lie in such a self-destructive way as telling a disprovable lie to deny something that wasn't even true anyway. I will grant that if anyone was such a chronic liar that they would do that, it would be Trump.

Trump has been exhibiting early signs of dementia, I mean off the top of my head:

Irritability
Lack of restraint
Mood swings
Paranoia
Jumbled/rambling speech
Decrease in vocabulary
Lack of focus

I don't think it's full blown yet, probably just early symptoms that are just visibly getting worse.

With relation to the pee tape, I came up with a little theory I use to predict the outcome of any Trump related scandal or any event which seems to have multiple explanations.

When attributing motive to Trump and his team, always start first by assuming the dumbest possible reason for things to happen is true. Then, if further explanation is needed, assume the crudest and most degrading answer is true.

For this reason I think the pee tape absolutely exists, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because seeing the degradation of standards in what used to be a serious democracy is extremely upsetting.

It's the New Yorker so obligatory mountains of salt but an intersting read nevertheless. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/mcmaster-and-commander

A few sections stuck out to me

The National Security Council has a comparatively lean budget—approximately twelve million dollars—and so its staff consists largely of career professionals on loan from the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies. When Trump assumed office, N.S.C. staffers initially generated memos for him that resembled those produced for his predecessors: multi-page explications of policy and strategy. But “an edict came down,” a former staffer told me: “ ‘Thin it out.’ ” The staff dutifully trimmed the memos to a single page. “But then word comes back: ‘This is still too much.’ ” A senior Trump aide explained to the staffers that the President is “a visual person,” and asked them to express points “pictorially.”

“By the time I left, we had these cards,” the former staffer said. They are long and narrow, made of heavy stock, and emblazoned with the words “the white house” at the top. Trump receives a thick briefing book every night, but nobody harbors the illusion that he reads it. Current and former officials told me that filling out a card is the best way to raise an issue with him in writing. Everything that needs to be conveyed to the President must be boiled down, the former staffer said, to “two or three points, with the syntactical complexity of ‘See Jane run.’ ”

...Trump did not have many concrete views on foreign policy beyond bumper-sticker sentiments like “America first.” When McMaster requested Trump’s input, the President grew frustrated and defensive, as if he’d been ambushed with a pop quiz.

 Da Boss wrote:
When attributing motive to Trump and his team, always start first by assuming the dumbest possible reason for things to happen is true. Then, if further explanation is needed, assume the crudest and most degrading answer is true.

I cannot think of a single thing that breaks this rule of thumb.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.

I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.

 sebster wrote:
This article, nominally about the strange uproar over Shania Twain saying she would have liked to vote for Trump, finally helps makes sense of why someone who is caught repeatedly lying could be seen by people as 'authentic'. Twain said she would have liked to vote for Trump because she thought he was authentic. This prompted the article I've linked to that examines that very weird thing - how a serial liar could come to be seen as authentic.

In what way was he not authentic? I think President Trump has performed pretty much exactly as Candidate Trump has. The guy who got up on a podium and mocked a disabled reporter in front of thousands of people, who constantly threw out racial dogwhistles, who reflexively lied about matters great and small, and so on... well, his behavior has been pretty much exactly the same way once in office. You definitely got what was advertised on the tin.

 Ouze wrote:
In what way was he not authentic? I think President Trump has performed pretty much exactly as Candidate Trump has. The guy who got up on a podium and mocked a disabled reporter in front of thousands of people, who constantly threw out racial dogwhistles, who reflexively lied about matters great and small, and so on... well, his behavior has been pretty much exactly the same way once in office. You definitely got what was advertised on the tin.

I think the confusion came from authentic often being assumed, at least by me, to include honesty. My realisation was that people were using authentic to describe Trump with no relation to whether he was telling the truth. This is from the research piece being covered in the article I linked to;

“If the key to the authentic appeal of the lying demagogue is that he is signalling a willingness to be regarded as a pariah by the establishment, Trump was certainly a credible pariah”

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.

I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.

... ...

There is a tradition that US mental health people don't comment on the mental health of the president.

Suggestions of possible diagnoses can be made without actually meeting him, though. You simply take the symptoms and match them against the known symptoms for mental ill-health and see what matches come up. This is how questions in medical exams often work, though obviously the examples are either made up or anonymized.

To actually make a firm diagnosis and start a plan of treatment, of course a doctor would need to meet the patient, do additional tests and so on.

 sebster wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Apparently the dumpster fire is using anti-Semetic terms to insult Jewish people that disagree with him. Referring to Chuck Todd as 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd'.

I don't think that's anti-semitic. That said, I don't know why Trump didn't go for something about Todd's height, the guy is tiny.

It is absolutely an anti-Semitic dog whistle. It's part of the Nazi 'how to spot a Jew' that is also used by modern neo-nazi's. And it is applied towards a Jew. My friends that are Jewish are up in arms about this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/24/605205437/ronny-jacksons-va-nomination-hearing-in-jeopardy-amid-serious-allegations

Turns out appointing a guy because you liked how he looks at a press conference isn't a good move.

 sebster wrote:


Oh, and as for Shania Twain, she's already backtracked, and honestly I'm just sad that anyone cared in the first place about how a Canadian might have theoretically voted in a US election.

EDIT - whoops, forgot the article. It's slate by the way, which I know some people hate on reflex, but whatever.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/shania-twain-and-the-crisis-of-american-democracy-really.html

To be fair... that's like the most Canadian thing tho.

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

If you remember, he was criticized by the GOP for ditching it for his personal phone. Personally, I think they just need to take the tech toys away until their term is over. At least set an example for all these government employees that keep racking up HIPAA violations via facebook and twitter.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meh. Seems like a liberal news outlet making a big deal over something small. Afaik Obama's cell phone use never caused problems.

The special secure Blackberry phone that was given to him to replace his private cell phone?

If you remember, he was criticized by the GOP for ditching it for his personal phone.

I do remember. What you are saying is factually deficient - it's not true. Obama was a longtime Blackberry user, which was a problem because those didn't integrate very well into the WH IT infrastructure. They eventually worked out a special secure one, which he he used for the duration of his presidency and which was 100% covered by the Presidential Records Act. As late as June 2016, he was still using a secure device of which he complained often and loudly of due to it's lack of features.

Do you have a source for your claim Obama ditched his secure device in favor of an unsecured, personal cell phone? Or is that not what you're saying; and I'm misunderstanding you?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.

I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.

... ...

There is a tradition that US mental health people don't comment on the mental health of the president.

Suggestions of possible diagnoses can be made without actually meeting him, though. You simply take the symptoms and match them against the known symptoms for mental ill-health and see what matches come up. This is how questions in medical exams often work, though obviously the examples are either made up or anonymized.

To actually make a firm diagnosis and start a plan of treatment, of course a doctor would need to meet the patient, do additional tests and so on.

Not really... as a mental health professional, you simply don't "diagnose" anyone w/o seeing them in person... and any professionals doing so runs major risks to not only themselves...but, their profession. Hence why it's really frowned upon...

 Ouze wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I suppose that's where we disagree; I feel like Trump IS crazy in the sense that he is mentally ill/dysfunctional. I don't pull that out of the air either, there are plenty of professionals who have said as such.

I think any mental health professional willing to suggest a diagnosis for someone they have never met, let alone treated, really says more about themselves and their professionalism than it does about the person they are speculating on.

Normally I would agree with you.

Someone needs a refresher on the Civil War:
The 'Calexit' plan to split California from the US gets a second chance, while others are looking to break up the state

Does mention other plans for "CAL 3" and even the rural 51st state plan.

Frankly, I'm intrigued by the "CAL 3" plan, even though it'll net the democratic party 2 more almost "gimmies" senators.... any plan whereby the government can be more responsive and aligned to their constituents ought to be a net gain as a whole, no matter how one would look at it.

I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states

 d-usa wrote:
I could halfway see a GOP congress approving a Calexit plan just to get rid of all those dang liberals and then dividing up their seats between some more red states

Heh... I get there's a thread of folks who'd:

...and actively cheer for stuff like this.

But, the Civil War kinda prohibit this...doesn't it?

Where's Dakka's own historian? LORDY?

Well, I think Texas v. White (rather than the Civil War itself, set a precedent that no state can secede unilaterally.

Which leaves the question about the ability of states to request permission to secede with the permission of the other states, and then the process by which such permission would be given. Would it be an act of congress as a representative of the states, or would a majority of states have to individually ratify an approval?