Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders

[werepossum]

Just checking several of the top names, this looks like a list of conservative, pro-war think tank representatives. Did any of these people serve in any meaningful fashion? Like, wow, a guy that co-wrote the Patriot Act is against Trump, how convincing!

Also

"His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable."

From what I recall, a month ago they were at a debate having a contest over who could endorse torture the most. Trump won, of course, but that's what he does.

EDIT: Also, iirc Trump is the preferred candidate among veterans, and a lot of people were wrong when they thought Trump going after Dubya/the Iraq War in South Carolina would hurt him. It's like they can't realize how they make him that much stronger every time they speak out against him.

EDIT #2: The authors say they represent a broad spectrum of beliefs; I'd like someone to point out just two that are largely anti-war (I'd say just one but they could have snuck one into there I guess).

EDIT #3: The more I go through this list the more I want to vote Trump as a fuck you to all of these guys. I really genuinely hope that he runs independent if/when the Repubs decide to pull the plug.

Agreed. I cannot (and did not) vote for Trump, but if the Pubbies jury rig him out in favor of an establishment candidate, and Trump runs as an independent, then IFF Gary Johnson doesn't run I'll vote for Trump in the general. I'll also change my registration to Democrat and vote non-Repub straight down the list, hopefully Libertarian but Democrat where no Libertarian candidate is running. Not that it will make the slightest difference in deep red Tennessee where I'm a wild-eyed flaming liberal, but it'll make me feel better anyway.

Not seeing much difference in anyone likely to have a real chance, my biggest concern is that the Pubbies screw the pooch so hard that they disintegrate and the Libertarians actually become a force. Then I'll have to confront my probems with them and I'll have no safe voting harbor at all. But hey, at least the Libertarians aren't trying to tell me that America's problems are due to gays and trannies. lol

 

[Jhhnn]

Freedom of the press is a constitutional right though, and signing laws that weaken it is an exercise of presidential power. Nobody has a right to libel someone, which is why that's already illegal. What he wants to do is make it really easy for rich people and corporations to silence their critics.

Of all the many many bad ideas Trump has his attack on freedom of the press is one of the worst. Even people dumb enough to support him otherwise should be able to see that.

You're right of course.

And no, they can't see it. They're already mesmerized by the Trump persona. If they haven't seen through it by now they never will.

 

[lopri]

The Duck constantly reminds his followers that violence is an option. I suppose that is what fires them up.

 

[werepossum]

Oh look everyone, another Hillary supporter found the internet.

+1

Freedom of the press is a constitutional right though, and signing laws that weaken it is an exercise of presidential power. Nobody has a right to libel someone, which is why that's already illegal. What he wants to do is make it really easy for rich people and corporations to silence their critics.

Of all the many many bad ideas Trump has his attack on freedom of the press is one of the worst. Even people dumb enough to support him otherwise should be able to see that.

Of course, tapping their phones and punishing them for aiding whistle-blowers, that's just good government.

 

[lopri]

what a drumpftacular thing to say!

The Duck looks actually attractive in that photoshop. I will see what it looks like in my avatar.

 

[fskimospy]

+1

Of course, tapping their phones and punishing them for aiding whistle-blowers, that's just good government.

No, tapping their phones is bad. Additionally, while whistleblowers aren't members of the press, the aggressive prosecution of them is also bad governance.

Why would you think those things are good? I mean generally you seem to base your opinions on whether or not someone has the magic R next to their name though, so I guess it's nice to see you overcoming that even though it happens to be in support of some bad policies.

 

[werepossum]

No, tapping their phones is bad. Additionally, while whistleblowers aren't members of the press, the aggressive prosecution of them is also bad governance.

Why would you think those things are good? I mean generally you seem to base your opinions on whether or not someone has the magic R next to their name though, so I guess it's nice to see you overcoming that even though it happens to be in support of some bad policies.

Pointing out that this has been the policy of the Magic One, and almost certainly will be the policies of the Beastly One. Both of whom you enthusiastically support.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course, tapping their phones and punishing them for aiding whistle-blowers, that's just good government.

So security leaks to the media are good, except when it's Hillary's email server where no leaks have been shown to have occurred.

You're trying to have it both ways, huh?

 

[Fern]

Freedom of the press is a constitutional right though, and signing laws that weaken it is an exercise of presidential power. Nobody has a right to libel someone, which is why that's already illegal. What he wants to do is make it really easy for rich people and corporations to silence their critics.

Of all the many many bad ideas Trump has his attack on freedom of the press is one of the worst. Even people dumb enough to support him otherwise should be able to see that.

"Rich people and corporation"? That is the media. And in recent years the media has been increasingly involved in advocacy journalism. Maybe they need a little more 'accuracy' in their reporting.

I'm pretty sure what Trump is talking about is the "Public Figure" exception. IMO, that 'loophole' has been badly abused in recent years. I see a good reason for a somewhat different standard when editorializing about politicians but what we have now goes over the line.

IIRC, that same 'public figure' exception was invoked to protect news sources who lied about George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin case). Maybe he's not a likable guy but that rule is stupid. If you're gonna libel someone just be sure to do it a bunch so you make him a 'public figure' and thereby protect yourself.

So, I can see some modification to the rule.

BTW: You make the standard Democratic claim that it will help or protect "rich people and big corporations" but show exactly zero on how that is the case.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Pointing out that this has been the policy of the Magic One, and almost certainly will be the policies of the Beastly One. Both of whom you enthusiastically support.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. Was my post really that far over your head?

Amazingly enough, every politician has policies that I don't like. You know who else is a big fan of wiretapping people? Every single Republican candidate for the nomination and almost every congressional republican. I imagine since these policies are so horrible you would never think of supporting any of them.

Oops. They have the magic R. Forget it!

 

[werepossum]

So security leaks to the media are good, except when it's Hillary's email server where no leaks have been shown to have occurred.

You're trying to have it both ways, huh?

lol

Gee, thanks for the clarification. Was my post really that far over your head?

Amazingly enough, every politician has policies that I don't like. You know who else is a big fan of wiretapping people? Every single Republican candidate for the nomination and almost every congressional republican. I imagine since these policies are so horrible you would never think of supporting any of them.

Oops. They have the magic R. Forget it!

This particular policy you don't like is pretty much the exact one you're using against Trump, except Trump wants to do it in courts of law whereas Obama does it secretly, using the machinery of government which supposedly exists to combat terrorism. That kind of hypocrisy deserves mention.

 

[fskimospy]

"Rich people and corporation"? That is the media. And in recent years the media has been increasingly involved in advocacy journalism. Maybe they need a little more 'accuracy' in their reporting.

I'm pretty sure what Trump is talking about is the "Public Figure" exception. IMO, that 'loophole' has been badly abused in recent years. I see a good reason for a somewhat different standard when editorializing about politicians but what we have now goes over the line.

Badly abused how? Exactly what standard would you like?

IIRC, that same 'public figure' exception was invoked to protect news sources who lied about George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin case). Maybe he's not a likable guy but that rule is stupid. If you're gonna libel someone just be sure to do it a bunch so you make him a 'public figure' and thereby protect yourself.

So, I can see some modification to the rule.

That rule is actually a really good one. The U.K. had laws similar to what you seem to want for a long time but they are changing them due to how badly public figures would abuse libel law to silence critics.

The current standard for public figures is perfectly reasonable. To have libeled someone you need to either have known what you were saying was false or have been reckless. Makes perfect sense. Why change it? Additionally, someone does not become a public figure due to the libelous press coverage. That's not how the law works.

BTW: You make the standard Democratic claim that it will help or protect "rich people and big corporations" but show exactly zero on how that is the case.

Fern

How is that not obvious? Litigation is expensive. Some blog says something about you that you don't like. You threaten to sue them unless they retract it. Even if it's true and they would win, the cost of the suit would bankrupt them.

Even with our defamation and libel laws as they are Trump frequently tries to intimidate critics through threats of litigation. This would just make it a lot more effective.

 

[PCmastaRace]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Good. Duck Donald Drumpf!

 

[Jhhnn]

lol


This particular policy you don't like is pretty much the exact one you're using against Trump, except Trump wants to do it in courts of law whereas Obama does it secretly, using the machinery of government which supposedly exists to combat terrorism. That kind of hypocrisy deserves mention.

If this is the incident I recall vaguely there were no phone taps, anyway. The govt got a warrant for the phone logs to find what they wanted, iirc. Like it or not, the rule of law prevailed.

 

[fskimospy]

This particular policy you don't like is pretty much the exact one you're using against Trump, except Trump wants to do it in courts of law whereas Obama does it secretly, using the machinery of government which supposedly exists to combat terrorism. That kind of hypocrisy deserves mention.

Yeah, wiretapping and libel laws are totally the same thing.

Lolwut.

Is this going to be another one of those cases where you stubbornly declare that because you and reality don't agree that reality must be wrong and conspiring against you?

 

[Fern]

-snip-

That rule is actually a really good one. The U.K. had laws similar to what you seem to want for a long time but they are changing them due to how badly public figures would abuse libel law to silence critics.

You have no idea what I want.

The current standard for public figures is perfectly reasonable. To have libeled someone you need to either have known what you were saying was false or have been reckless. Makes perfect sense. Why change it?

Your mistaken in your explanation of the law. Here's the law as it pertains to public figures:

A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

Proving "malice" is virtually impossible.

Additionally, someone does not become a public figure due to the libelous press coverage. That's not how the law works.

That's exactly how it works:

A Florida judge has thrown out George Zimmerman's libel suit against NBC Universal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson ruled that Zimmerman, a former Sanford, Fla., Neighborhood Watch volunteer, is not entitled to money from NBC following his defamation lawsuit against the media organization.

Nelson said that Zimmerman failed to show the network acted with malice, according to The Associated Press.

How is that not obvious? Litigation is expensive. Some blog says something about you that you don't like. You threaten to sue them unless they retract it. Even if it's true and they would win, the cost of the suit would bankrupt them.

Even with our defamation and libel laws as they are Trump frequently tries to intimidate critics through threats of litigation. This would just make it a lot more effective.

Umm. That's how it is now. I don't see any change with Trump's (vague) suggestion.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, wiretapping and libel laws are totally the same thing.

Lolwut.

Is this going to be another one of those cases where you stubbornly declare that because you and reality don't agree that reality must be wrong and conspiring against you?

??? You know, when the voices tell you to type something, you really need to learn to question them.

Wiretapping THE PRESS and suing THE PRESS are both ways of going after critics in THE PRESS.

 

[Jhhnn]

??? You know, when the voices tell you to type something, you really need to learn to question them.

Wiretapping THE PRESS and suing THE PRESS are both ways of going after critics in THE PRESS.

Well, you're the guy who's big on National security concerns about Hillary's email that never hit the press so why are you so huffy about leaks endangering ongoing operations that did?

Here's the whole story-

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/fbi-ex-agent-pleads-guilty-in-leak-to-ap.html

This guy was no kind of whistleblower.

If it seems the warrants were over broad they were nonetheless entirely legal. So, Wah. What would you expect, anyway?

Maybe the Obama Admin wants to send a stronger message about leaking than commuting a sentence, ya know?

 

[fskimospy]

??? You know, when the voices tell you to type something, you really need to learn to question them.

Wiretapping THE PRESS and suing THE PRESS are both ways of going after critics in THE PRESS.

What on earth made you think I was against any actions that could affect the press ever?

I have seriously never met anyone quite so stupid that seemed to think they were quite this smart.

 

[norseamd]

Can anyone explain what they mean by this remark:

Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States.

It means he wants to use executive decisions to gift his named enemies some baked cinnamon dutch apple pies straight from the White House kitchen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War_%28disambiguation%29

 

[norseamd]

Now John McCain has also come out against Trump.

“At a time when our world has never been more complex or more in danger, as we watch the threatening actions of a neo-imperial Russia, an assertive China, an expansionist Iran, an insane North Korean ruler, and terrorist movements that are metastasizing across the Middle East and Africa, I want Republican voters to pay close attention to what our party’s most respected and knowledgeable leaders and national security experts are saying about Mr. Trump, and to think long and hard about who they want to be our next Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world,”

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/lunacy-bluster-unanswered-questions-trump-on-defense/

 

[Greenman]

Now John McCain has also come out against Trump.



http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/lunacy-bluster-unanswered-questions-trump-on-defense/

The entire Republican machine is coming out against Trump, that's what they said they were going to do. They've also started calling him raciest, and are digging into his finances in the hope finding something shady.
The republicans are setting themselves on fire to prove Trump is a spark. Hillary has to be dancing in the street every night.

 

[norseamd]

The entire Republican machine is coming out against Trump, that's what they said they were going to do. They've also started calling him raciest, and are digging into his finances in the hope finding something shady.

The republicans are setting themselves on fire to prove Trump is a spark. Hillary has to be dancing in the street every night.

I might be too, but you underestimate Trump, or at least his possibility of getting elected president, at your own peril. On a rough overview of the voter base, the minority vote seems like it would crush Trump in the general election.

 

[Meghan54]

Fern, honestly I'm confused when you criticized eskimospy's comment about how libel law works in the U.S.

This is the portion you took issue with:

The current standard for public figures is perfectly reasonable. To have libeled someone you need to either have known what you were saying was false or have been reckless.

You then said, critiquing his statement:

Your mistaken in your explanation of the law. Here's the law as it pertains to public figures:

A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

Proving "malice" is virtually impossible.

Fern

But if you look at the para'd statement, bolded for your reading ease, it says the same thing eskimospy said......libel is making a written statement that either you have knowledge of it being false or write it with reckless disregard for the truth, which either or both define malice in libel law.


And, to be honest, Trump was speaking to newspapers writing "hit pieces" that he wants to be able to attack. Unfortunately, those "hit pieces" were and are all opinion pieces, not news. As far as I know, I can hold and write any opinion without being sued, or is this your ultimate contention....that people should be able to be sued for expressing an opinion?

 

[zinfamous]

A used up piece of toilet paper has more value than that letter. All I see there is a bunch of control freaks finally not getting their way and are venting their frustration, their envy and their angst over not being able to control the freak they themselves created with their incessant dissemination of hate, fear and suspicion.

Get used to it guys, your days are numbered. Obstruct all you want. Gerrymander all you want. Corrupt all you want, spread hate and fear all you want. Restrict and disenfranchise voters all you want. But that's exactly what's alienating you further and further from the unfolding reality you guys refuse to acknowledge, the reality that YOU guys unintentionally created.

Trump is YOUR problem. You guys didn't have the slightest clue how your fucking around with people's heads would come back at you in ways you could never imagine, huh?

Well, it seems to me that Trump is the tip of the iceberg, the opening shot, the preview of things to come.

Congrats assholes. Nice job.

:thumbsup: