All Things Trump

[Brian Peacock]

You're right, this is not a violation of the treaty and he did promise to do it, yet it's still a grossly stupid thing to do that makes the world less safe, as well as being something that was carried out on the back of wholly specious and misleading justification. If the idea was to tell the world that the US under Trump can no longer be trusted to honour their international agreements, meet their obligations, and keep their promises, or even to act rationally, then Trump has hit the bullseye big time. Three cheers for Trump. Hip hip......

Would you expand on or explain the ways in which the world will be less safe without the US as party to the Iran treaty?

How about for starters; it will undermine mutual goodwill between the US and it's allies along with what little trust there was between the US, Iran, and the Arab world, so it will bolster anti-western opinion in the region and embolden hardliners, it will do nothing to dampen the escalating and violent blood feud between the Arab world and israel, it will increase the likelihood of a regional nuclear arms race, and the main beneficiary of Trump's willful vandalism to the principles of international law -- and along with it the self-defeating and long-term damage it will do to the West's standing in the region and on the international stage -- will be Russia.

Every country enters into and pulls out of treaties. It's not a failure to meet obligations or keep promises. If the US failed to meet its obligations under the treaty while it is in force, yes, that would be a violation of the treaty. But, announcing withdrawal from the treaty is not a failure to honor the treaty, a failure to meet its obligations or a failure to keep promises.

All treaties are not equal.

Now, suggesting that it's not a rational decision or its a bad decision might be a good argument. Can you set out that argument?

See above. Now tell me what the US and the West, not to mentipn the people's of Iran and the Arab world, have gained by the withdrawal. How will this action make the US and the world a safer place, as Mr Trump said it will?

[Forty Two]

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

W . T . F .

Svartalf is right.

The age of consent in France is now 15. So, that means a 15 year old fucking a 40 year old is not a crime there, unless there is a lack of consent. In other jurisdictions, the age of consent in that circumstance is 16 and still others set the age at 18. So, yes, in the jurisdictions with higher ages of consent, if a couple fucks in France, it's fine, if they fuck in, say, in Norway the next day after a short plane ride, then it's rape.

I.e., the law in Norway can criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations between two French people, one 15 and one 40.

WTF again. Read what Svartalf actually posted. He basically asserted that there's nothing wrong about having sex with people who are deemed incapable of consenting to having sex with. I guess he - and you - would disagree with judge Sarah Bradley who recorded no conviction for six juveniles and handed down suspended sentences to the nine rapists of a ten year old girl because the victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them. She was too tough in her sentencing. It was, after all only statutory rape. Without that stupid law no crime would have probably taken place.

No, I don't disagree with it, because I know nothing about that case. And, I don't have a serious disagreement with what are known as "ages of consent" either. It is statutory rape for me to have sex in my State with a 17 year old. The 17 year old would be "deemed incapable" of consenting to sex with me. That same person, however, in my jurisdiction, is "deemed capable" of having sex with a 23 year old man. Also, if we met in France, the 17 year old would not be "deemed incapable" of having sex with me there.

These laws don't have anything to do with the actual capacity of specific persons to consent. They are determinations made based on public policy reasons that it is going to be deemed unconsensual, even if it can be proven 100% that it was consensual. There are very good reasons for those laws, in my view. So, I'm not suggesting the laws are stupid or should not exist. What I am saying is that Svartalf's comment was strictly correct.

It's like any age based law. In some jurisdictions, one can buy alcohol at 15 or 16, and in others not until 18, and in others not until 21. Are the people in these differing jurisdictions different species of humans that can and can't handle beer purchases until different ages? Of course not. What these laws are are policy determinations based on a variety of factors where the State has determined that a reasonable estimate of the minimum age to be able to do something responsibly is X. Opinions vary. And, any general bright line rule will be overinclusive of some people and underinclusive of others.

[L'Emmerdeur]

More on Novartis and the non-lobbyist lobbyist Cohen:

'Trump’s lawyer pitched himself as a fixer to Novartis and got paid $1.2 million'

The curious relationship between one of the world’s biggest drug makers and President Trump’s personal lawyer began early last year when Michael Cohen, a longtime fixer for the president, reached out to Novartis’s then-chief executive officer Joe Jimenez, promising help gaining access to Trump and influential officials in the new administration, according to an employee inside Novartis familiar with the matter.

Jimenez took the call and then instructed his team to reach a deal with Cohen. A one-year contract worth $1.2 million was signed with Cohen in February 2017. The company’s hope was that Cohen could help it navigate a bevy of uncertain issues facing the drug maker — from potential changes to the Affordable Care Act and tax reform to navigating reimbursement challenges for medicines.

“He reached out to us,” the Novartis employee said, providing STAT with the company’s version of events as it scrambles to contain the fallout from being entangled in the investigations surrounding Trump and his inner circle, including Cohen. “With a new administration coming in, basically, all the traditional contacts disappeared and they were all new players. We were trying to find an inroad into the administration. Cohen promised access to not just Trump, but also the circle around him. It was almost as if we were hiring him as a lobbyist.”

The employee could not explain why Novartis would have agreed to a deal with a lawyer with no background in health care and without deep Washington ties. The extent to which Novartis conducted any due diligence into Cohen or his track record as a Trump insider and Washington player is uncertain. Cohen and Jimenez — who was part of a small group of drug company CEOs invited to meet with Trump at the White House on Jan. 31, 2017 — could not be reached for comment.

In March 2017, a group of Novartis employees, mostly from the government affairs and lobbying teams, met with Cohen in New York to discuss specific issues and strategies. But the meeting was a disappointment, the insider explained, and the Novartis squad left with the impression that Cohen and Essential Consultants — the firm controlled by Cohen that Novartis was making payments to — may not be able to deliver.

“At first, it all sounded impressive, but toward the end of the meeting, everyone realized this was a probably a slippery slope to engage him. So they decided not to really engage Cohen for any activities after that,” the employee continued. Rather than attempt to cancel the contract, the company allowed it to lapse early in 2018 and not run the risk of ticking off the president. “It might have caused anger,” this person said.

[Forty Two]

"all the traditional contacts disappeared and they were all new players..."

i.e., Novartis and other companies were looking for people who could advise them on Trump, because the people that they had been paying for the last 8 years could do nothing.

Does anyone really think that it's unusual for the law firms and business associates of Presidents to take money for "consulting services"?

Is this something new?

"Essential Consulting was one of several firms we engaged in early 2017 to provide insights into understanding the new administration," AT&T said Tuesday evening. "They did no legal or lobbying work for us, and the contract ended in December 2017."

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/08/media/a ... index.html

[Hermit]

These laws don't have anything to do with the actual capacity of specific persons to consent.

That seems to be the nub of your post, and I agree with it. It was not the nub of Svartalf's post, though, and he is utterly wrong. Let me remind you of what he actually did write:

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

This is what you quite idiotically agreed with.

Svartalf is right.

[pErvinalia]

And remember we are talking about student and teacher here. Consent isn't automatic in those sorts of power relationships. You can't really have one rule for horny boy teenagers, and another for girl teenagers.

[Forty Two]

These laws don't have anything to do with the actual capacity of specific persons to consent.

That seems to be the nub of your post, and I agree with it. It was not the nub of Svartalf's post, though, and he is utterly wrong. Let me remind you of what he actually did write:

the problem with statutory rape is that the key word is statutory, and it serves to criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

This is what you quite idiotically agreed with.

Svartalf is right.

I explained, in quite a lot of detail, exactly how a statutory rape law setting an age of consent does, in fact, criminalize otherwise perfectly consensual relations.

And act that is perfectly consensual under French law, is illegal under Norwegian or Florida law.

In Florida, a 17 year old can consent to sex with a 23 year old but not a 24 year old. Thus, perfectly consensual sex is rendered illegal by the age of the older person.

That's what Svartalf is saying. The law does not take into account actual consent, because it declares that even if there is actual consent the law does not recognize that consent. The law does not say that consent was not actually there - only that it's irrelevant to the crime.

There is nothing "idiotic" about what Svartalf wrote, or my explanation of it.

Are you taking the position that statutory rape laws setting ages of consent don't criminalize [some] consensual sex? If you aren't, then you agree with Svartalf too. If you are, then you're wrong.

[Animavore]

Trump supporters trumping.

http://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-bil ... each-trump

[Animavore]

Trump administrations further attacks on science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ ... e-gas-cuts

[Forty Two]

Ellen DeGeneres asked Kamala Harris: "If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence or Jeff Sessions, who would it be? To which Kamala replied, "Does one of us have to come out alive?" Possible 2020 Democratic canddiate for President.

"When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" - Johnny Depp.

Kathy Griffin beheads the President, ISIS-style.

[Seabass]

Ellen DeGeneres asked Kamala Harris: "If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence or Jeff Sessions, who would it be? To which Kamala replied, "Does one of us have to come out alive?" Possible 2020 Democratic canddiate for President.

"When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" - Johnny Depp.

Kathy Griffin beheads the President, ISIS-style.

[L'Emmerdeur]

John Bolton is working on Making America Secure Again. Apparently he believes that a cyber-security coordinator isn't necessary for national security, nor does the US need a global health security department at the National Security Council.

'This Administration Says “We Are Working To Protect Americans Safety And Security” – Except They Aren’t'

There are two examples in the Bolton NSC that reflect [a] total disregard for our safety and security in a nutshell. The first is that Bolton wants to eliminate the position of Cyber Security Coordinator. The current person heading up this department is leaving on Friday. And, Bolton doesn’t want to fill the position, he wants to eliminate it.

The White House hasn’t said if they plan to eliminate the position, but all indications coming from it say they will eliminate the position. At a time when our country is under attack from adversaries like Russia, China and Iran in the cyber world, this administration wants to eliminate the one person in the NSC that is supposed to lead the fight against such attacks.

Bolton says the “position isn’t necessary” and that he can place it under some other department. Only, he hasn’t said where it would go and who would head it up. It is ironic that as the Mueller probe gets closer to the White House, as we are seeing more and more evidence of the Russian interference in our elections in 2016, the new head of the NSC thinks we don’t need a cyber security coordinator to advise the president.

Bolton claimed that we should “retaliate” against Russia for their hacks, but his actions says he doesn’t care if we are attacked or not. And, since he has the president’s ear, I believe this position will be eliminated and thus leave us even more vulnerable to more cyber attacks on things like our government computers, election computers, infrastructure computers, and much more.

We all read the reports of how Russians were able to hack into electrical systems even to the point they could have thrown the “off” switch and put millions of people in the dark. As a consequence of that action, Bolton and the White House says we don’t need a “cyber security coordinator”. How will that keep us safe and secure?

Then we have another problem at the NSC that can be even more dangerous than a lack of cyber security efforts. There has been a department in the NSC called the Global Health Security. Its leader is Admiral Tim Ziemer. Ziemer has suddenly announced he is leaving the department.

The reason Ziemer is leaving is quite simple. Bolton, in his “reorganization” of the NSC has decided that we don’t need a Global Health Security department. He has placed the remaining staff among various other departments.

You may ask why this is important? Because it was this department that helps lead the way in stopping possible pandemics like the Ebola outbreak a couple of years ago. It was this department that coordinated the response to these pandemics that helped keep them out of the U.S.

And, coincidently, Ziemer’s announcement came on the very day that a new Ebola pandemic was reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

[Tero]

Making America Great:
https://thinkprogress.org/harley-davids ... 0d555d762/
Trump’s tariffs, ironically enough, are only hurting Harley-Davidson even more.

The president’s implementation of tariffs on steel imports could add $30 million to the company’s costs. Even worse, European leaders have hinted at possible retaliation for the tariffs against American companies like Harley-Davidson.

[Brian Peacock]

Good to hear that The Swamp is nearly completely drained now...

[pErvinalia]

There is nothing "idiotic" about what Svartalf wrote, or my explanation of it.

Well there is, because he's saying that it's problematic that the law criminalises a relation between a teacher and teenage student.