Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".
As did I. What's more, I pointed out that the interpretation they were putting on the statute would mean that any information from a foreign source couldn't be used by a campaign, which is ludicrous and have never been claimed before, and that by exactly the same reasoning any information from a US source should be declared as a political donation, which I doubt has ever happened.
Look, I understand why people are desperate to find ways of ridding the US of the national embarrassment of having Trump as their president, but, really, on any dispassionate view this is a feeble allegation, unless it turns out that there was a quid pro quo promised by the Trump campaign.
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own company
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of people
The majority of people don't hate him
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July
Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009
George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001
Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993
George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989
Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981
Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977
Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969
John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
There are great comparison graphs in the lower part of this fivethirtyeight page - you can see all the past President numbers over the full period of their terms or just compare the first segments of their administrations. Looks like Trump was briefly ahead of Clinton and is currently ahead of Ford
Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".
No they don't, not on the critical question how far beyond cash "contribution" can be construed; they very much skate over this in the two paras beginning "The crucial phrase here..."
I am a retired lawyer in the wrong country and you are not a lawyer at all afaik (apologies if that's wrong) so we are pretty much equally unqualified to have a view on this. But I am confident the claim, *on the evidence available to date,* is baloney, and will bet accordingly.
At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
As of June 28 Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46.
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
It doesn't matter in a way. Republicans will have to exorcise Trump one how or the other. They can either scuttle the Trump ship now or they can slowly sink with it. Pandering to the committed isn't enough. You have to reach out to independents and those that might be convinced. Republicans won't be able to do that while hitched to DT.
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own company
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of people
The majority of people don't hate him
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July
Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009
George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001
Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993
George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989
Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981
Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977
Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969
John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
There are great comparison graphs in the lower part of this fivethirtyeight page - you can see all the past President numbers over the full period of their terms or just compare the first segments of their administrations. Looks like Trump was briefly ahead of Clinton and is currently ahead of Ford
Mr Wray also faced questions about emails belonging to Donald Trump Jr - the president's eldest son - arranging a meeting with a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin. The nominee told senators he was unfamiliar with the emails. Senator Lindsey Graham read out the text of the emails to him and asked if Mr Trump Jr "should have taken that meeting". "I would think you'd want to consult with some good legal advisers before you did that," said Mr Wray...
Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".
As did I. What's more, I pointed out that the interpretation they were putting on the statute would mean that any information from a foreign source couldn't be used by a campaign, which is ludicrous and have never been claimed before, and that by exactly the same reasoning any information from a US source should be declared as a political donation, which I doubt has ever happened.
I was replying to Ishmael, not you.
But you didn't really show any working yourself. First you said "nothing came of it", which as I pointed out is irrelevant to the question of whether it was solicited. Then you just asserted that information wasn't a thing of value, and added that you doubted whether it was a contribution.
Eventually you came up with the argument about the Guardian offering information. That's a better argument. But I doubt it's conclusive. Supposing a foreign supporter were to carry out several million pounds worth of market research for a US candidate, and present the data to him as a present, in order to save the candidate having to fund the market research himself. Would you really claim that such information shouldn't be covered by this law, as a "thing of value"? It seems to me that in effect such a gift of information would be for all practical purposes equivalent to a cash donation equal to the cost of gathering the information.
Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".
No they don't, not on the critical question how far beyond cash "contribution" can be construed; they very much skate over this in the two paras beginning "The crucial phrase here..."
I am a retired lawyer in the wrong country and you are not a lawyer at all afaik (apologies if that's wrong) so we are pretty much equally unqualified to have a view on this.
Well, pretty much the only opinion I'm expressing is that the question isn't entirely as crystal clear as you claimed. But no doubt anyone arguing with a lawyer is bound to end up in the wrong :-)
At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
As of June 28 Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46.
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
You are an idiot and a liar.
This site would improve immeasurably if people like you could debate things without hurling personal abuse at people that have the temerity to disagree with you
Normally I'd be calling MPs stupid for proposing something so daft, but after seeing some of the abuse they've had to deal with, I understand why they've come up with such a proposal.
Mr. Eagles, I was defrauded recently on one of my cards. I'm not proposing to ban credit or debit cards.
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
Normally I'd be calling MPs stupid for proposing something so daft, but after seeing some of the abuse they've had to deal with, I understand why they've come up with such a proposal.
It seems overkill given that the rare cases when someone does something serious they can almost always be traced by some combination of login information/email address/IP address/via the ISP. Yes, the real criminals will make sure they can't be traced, but will probably achieve that whatever is done. I doubt that the MPs proposal is practical, anyway.
Mr. Eagles, I was defrauded recently on one of my cards. I'm not proposing to ban credit or debit cards.
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
Our moral blindness to the crimes of Saudi, Gulf states and other repulsive regimes because we want to arm them shows a clear sense of priority of profit over social order in the UK. Whats wrong with a bit of hate preaching as long as they buy our bombs.
Some see the war on Yemen as a war crime, others as a sales opportunity.
Mr. Eagles, I was defrauded recently on one of my cards. I'm not proposing to ban credit or debit cards.
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
One of their fellow MPs was murdered a little over a year ago, a lot of them have to deal with death threats, threats to rape them and their families, threats to murder their family.
Yes, being defrauded on a card is a lot like that.
Mr. Eagles, I was defrauded recently on one of my cards. I'm not proposing to ban credit or debit cards.
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
One of their fellow MPs was murdered a little over a year ago, a lot of them have to deal with death threats, threats to rape them and their families, threats to murder their family.
Yes, being defrauded on a card is a lot like that.
An MP was murdered, so ban pseudonymous free speech ?
Mr. Eagles, even if you imagine such a ban can happen and be enforced online, MPs' office addresses are available (they must be). Are we going to ban anonymous post too? Or people approaching a surgery without ID?
I'm not belittling the crime of incitement or death threats, and those who make them should be pursued. I'm arguing against the remedy, which is unenforceable against criminals whilst having the additional massive drawback of removing anonymity from everybody in the country who wants to use social media.
All such a policy would do is piss off the law-abiding whilst the scum move to another medium or simply lie and pretend to be people they're not. It'll aggravate the innocent and do nothing to prevent the guilty from continuing. If banning stuff stopped it as a matter of course there'd be no murder. The resolution to a problem has to make sense and be enforceable.
Dr. Foxinsox, indeed. But if your job and your family's prosperity depends on it, the matter won't be so clear cut.
Mr. Eagles, I was defrauded recently on one of my cards. I'm not proposing to ban credit or debit cards.
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
I agree entirely with your first paragraph, but I'm not quite seeing the comparison in the second, Mr.D.
There is a definite moral benefit in pseudonymous free speech which is absent, I'd argue, in the arms trade with Saudi Arabia. We might preserve jobs supplying them with arms, but jobs dependent on providing despots with the means to kill their opponents are not a moral good.
Normally I'd be calling MPs stupid for proposing something so daft, but after seeing some of the abuse they've had to deal with, I understand why they've come up with such a proposal.
How the hell does he go from: "in what should be understood as a national emergency, this does not seem like a sensible time for an experiment..." To suggesting Priti Patel!!?
How the hell does he go from: "in what should be understood as a national emergency, this does not seem like a sensible time for an experiment..." To suggesting Priti Patel!!?
She knows where our national interests lie in the Brexit negotiations.
Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".
No they don't, not on the critical question how far beyond cash "contribution" can be construed; they very much skate over this in the two paras beginning "The crucial phrase here..."
I am a retired lawyer in the wrong country and you are not a lawyer at all afaik (apologies if that's wrong) so we are pretty much equally unqualified to have a view on this.
Well, pretty much the only opinion I'm expressing is that the question isn't entirely as crystal clear as you claimed. But no doubt anyone arguing with a lawyer is bound to end up in the wrong :-)
I would rather be too concise than not concise enough. Yes, there is obviously an argument on the lines in your (bad-mannered) post addressed to Mr Nabavi at 5.06. Yes, it might be right. I don't think it is, but who knows? The End.
At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
As of June 28 Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46.
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
You are an idiot and a liar.
"The obstruction of nominees" by a Senate and Congress controlled by Republicans. Trump is a Republican.
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own company
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of people
The majority of people don't hate him
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July
Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009
George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001
Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993
George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989
Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981
Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977
Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969
John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
What are the changes from their approval rating at election ? I think that might give a better idea as to how they were viewed.
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own company
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of people
The majority of people don't hate him
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July
Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009
George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001
Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993
George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989
Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981
Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977
Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969
John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
What are the changes from their approval rating at election ? I think that might give a better idea as to how they were viewed.
At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
As of June 28 Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46.
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
You are an idiot and a liar.
"The obstruction of nominees" by a Senate and Congress controlled by Republicans. Trump is a Republican.
Like Geoff said, you don't need a majority to do this.
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own company
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of people
The majority of people don't hate him
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July
Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009
George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001
Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993
George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989
Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981
Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977
Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969
John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
What are the changes from their approval rating at election ? I think that might give a better idea as to how they were viewed.
Comments
Look, I understand why people are desperate to find ways of ridding the US of the national embarrassment of having Trump as their president, but, really, on any dispassionate view this is a feeble allegation, unless it turns out that there was a quid pro quo promised by the Trump campaign.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
I am a retired lawyer in the wrong country and you are not a lawyer at all afaik (apologies if that's wrong) so we are pretty much equally unqualified to have a view on this. But I am confident the claim, *on the evidence available to date,* is baloney, and will bet accordingly.
The White House has taken weeks to formally submit nominations to the Senate, even after announcing the picks.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/06/trump-administration-nominees-paperwork-239124
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40573675
Mr Wray also faced questions about emails belonging to Donald Trump Jr - the president's eldest son - arranging a meeting with a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin.
The nominee told senators he was unfamiliar with the emails.
Senator Lindsey Graham read out the text of the emails to him and asked if Mr Trump Jr "should have taken that meeting".
"I would think you'd want to consult with some good legal advisers before you did that," said Mr Wray...
Will also help get us a good Brexit deal.
But you didn't really show any working yourself. First you said "nothing came of it", which as I pointed out is irrelevant to the question of whether it was solicited. Then you just asserted that information wasn't a thing of value, and added that you doubted whether it was a contribution.
Eventually you came up with the argument about the Guardian offering information. That's a better argument. But I doubt it's conclusive. Supposing a foreign supporter were to carry out several million pounds worth of market research for a US candidate, and present the data to him as a present, in order to save the candidate having to fund the market research himself. Would you really claim that such information shouldn't be covered by this law, as a "thing of value"? It seems to me that in effect such a gift of information would be for all practical purposes equivalent to a cash donation equal to the cost of gathering the information.
@4everNeverTrump: I just ran Lexis news article searches.
Trump NEVER mentioned HRC's 33,000 emails before Jun 9, 2016. After, he mentioned almost daily.
Shame about Murray's hip, but these things happen.
Hope Konta and Federer win it.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/885172634660548608
Their proposal is ridiculous. If individuals commit crimes such as incitement, then track them down, don't strip anonymity from everybody in the country because of a few idiots.
Dr. Foxinsox, a moral stand could've been taken. It would've resulted in £3bn more arms sales from France and lost us thousands of jobs, but these are the choices a government must make.
Some see the war on Yemen as a war crime, others as a sales opportunity.
Yes, being defrauded on a card is a lot like that.
I'm not quite following the logic.
https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/885187014349529088
I'm not belittling the crime of incitement or death threats, and those who make them should be pursued. I'm arguing against the remedy, which is unenforceable against criminals whilst having the additional massive drawback of removing anonymity from everybody in the country who wants to use social media.
All such a policy would do is piss off the law-abiding whilst the scum move to another medium or simply lie and pretend to be people they're not. It'll aggravate the innocent and do nothing to prevent the guilty from continuing. If banning stuff stopped it as a matter of course there'd be no murder. The resolution to a problem has to make sense and be enforceable.
Dr. Foxinsox, indeed. But if your job and your family's prosperity depends on it, the matter won't be so clear cut.
Mr. B2, I agree entirely.
There is a definite moral benefit in pseudonymous free speech which is absent, I'd argue, in the arms trade with Saudi Arabia.
We might preserve jobs supplying them with arms, but jobs dependent on providing despots with the means to kill their opponents are not a moral good.
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/why-we-need-online-alter-egos-now-more-than-ever/
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/885188469462630400
"in what should be understood as a national emergency, this does not seem like a sensible time for an experiment..."
To suggesting Priti Patel!!?
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/733018241484922880
Trump did start as less popular than any other President (although only barely worse than Reagan or Bush Sr).
But nevertheless, Trump's rating are pretty awful. He was very, very lucky to face Hillary.
I suspect that if HC had won her ratings would have shown a similar decline to Trump's.
I think its going to be harder and harder to be popular in either govern the USA or the UK without rapidly becoming deeply unpopular.
The only way for a politician to be popular will be to be not be someone else.