It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump volunteers are signing a lifelong contract never to criticize him

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Swills

Who mentioned Clinton?

NDA's are very common in almost any time of professional work done now a days. Even video game beta tests make you electronically sign them.

I'm not worried about a radical Trump presidency. Just keeping a sane, fair, SCOTUS.




Hillary forgot she signed 2 NDA's.







posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


Sorry but this is someone running for public office, not a job in a private buisness.

True. Trump is used to actually accomplishing things. Maybe old habits die hard?


Unless it relates to national security, everything should be open to transparency, at least after the campaign.

Did you think the campaign was over? Need a calendar?


This is why politicians get away with lying, corruption and even treason and murder, because people close to them are unable or unwilling to call out there BS.

But I thought your first sentence indicated this is not normal for politicians? Now it's the reason politicians get away with lying?

It's sorta obvious to me that someone is having trouble spinning this issue. It's not done by politicians, and it's the reason politicians get away with lying. At least you got one sentence in between the contradictions.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

My point I was getting at is politics needs MORE transparency not less.

Secrcy will only exacerbated the problem.

So no contradiction.


As for the campaign not being over? I know that too, Im fully aware how ridiculously long you drag out your elections.

My point again was secrecy is fine while the campaign is in progress, but once over, people should be free to speak out and all facts to be published.

So again no contradiction.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
In fact I'd be surprised if Hillary and all candidates for high office don't have their people sign something very similar.


Surprise!



The folks from Cincinatti.Com asked around and found that making volunteers sign NDA’s is not normal for political campaigns. Hillary Clinton doesn’t require it. Neither did Bernie Sanders. South Carolina’s GOP Chair Matt Moore also declared, “it’s not a typical procedure.”


In fact, even if you sign up to volunteer to phone bank on his website, you have to sign the same NDA... I assume so he can sue people in the future.



To sign up on Trump’s website, potential volunteers must agree to a 2,271-word non-disclosure agreement in which they also promise they won’t compete against or say anything bad about Trump, his company, his family members or products – now and forever.
...
That’s right. If you want to work for Donald Trump’s campaign, you have to promise to never work on a rival’s campaign or say anything bad about “Trump, his company, his family members or products – now and forever” just for the privilege of phone banking for him.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't get a connection but sure emails yeah !!!



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Again, there are laws which limit these contracts. For example, felonious behavior is not covered, and cannot be covered. If Trump were to commit a felony and try to use the NDA to silence witnesses, he would be laughed out of court. Who can be employed by who is a moot subject after the campaign is over.

And most restrictive, he has to show damages to prevail on any of it.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Age has NIOTHIONG to do with wussy I ASURE you.
SIZE is a YUGE factor as well to the lesser combatants of life.
PUSSY little street punk.
NOT a contest for any confrontation,RUSSIA and China are dancing HIGH ON THE HOG now, .son.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

OF course it's QUITE rational.
ACCURATE too, a coward SHOULD never have been placed into our leadership to foment a second cold war.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Freedom of the press is not freedom to slander. The purpose of the press is to report news, not spin articles.

JFK said it was the job of the press to criticize and even anger a politician.


I thought that was obvious. It's common wherever the business has proprietary or sensitive information and needs to protect it. Apparently, Trump feels his campaign strategies need protection. I don't blame him.

When did a campaign become a business? This has nothing to do with campaign strategies. He is having people sign this so they can't write a book about the campaign.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: spiritualzombie

OF course it's QUITE rational.
ACCURATE too, a coward SHOULD never have been placed into our leadership to foment a second cold war.

Do you support the draft dodging coward Trump for President?



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Criticize, yes. Anger, yes. Slander, no.

I don't think it is anyone's business what anyone else does privately, and that includes politicians. Bill Clinton's sex scandal is a good example. That was nobody's business save the three people involved. He should have just said that instead of lying; I would have respected that.

Hypocrisy? Sure, report it. But just reporting on private life details to get ratings or try to politically damage someone with half-truths (or outright lies)? That is slander.


When did a campaign become a business?

It has proprietary information that needs to be protected. It does not have to turn a financial profit for that to be true.

Nice attempt at deflection, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


I don't think it is anyone's business what anyone else does privately


If you're running for president and you're running a campaign and hiring volunteers, you're choosing to put your life up in the public eye. You may think this shouldn't have to be the case Redneck but it's reality. When you run for the highest office of the land, you're automatically giving up much of your privacy regardless. That's the sacrifice every nominee, politician and president has had to make in their time in office.

As for these contracts being none-enforcable when the campaign ends I agree. You can't make somebody sign their 1st Amendment rights away. That being said, the action from Trumps campaign in getting people to sign a contract saying they'll never say anything about him, family members or his businesses, ever? That is troubling which ever way you shape it. People are going to criticize you as president, it's reality, you need to grow thick skin to hold that position in office and it's their right as voters and citizens. Trump is trying to control people and control that freedom, that is not right and contrary to what the constitution stands for.


edit on 3-9-2016 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

So, let me get this straight... you WANT the gory details of Hillary and Bill's sex life? Or Donald and Melania's? You want to know what Hillary said when she went 'home' (living quarters) after a particularly hard day? Or maybe you want a play-by-play of Donald arguing with his son-in-law over something silly?

Those are private details of private life that should be kept private IMO.

Policy discussions with advisors, even temperament during duty are examples of the loss of privacy you speak of. Those things can be disclosed, as long as national security is not threatened. I simply draw a line between what is reasonable privacy sacrifice and what is not.

And once again, for the fourty-eleventh time, the NDA is worthless unless real damages can be shown in court. It only covers malicious attempts to damage Trump.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Again Redneck, part of being president is dealing with criticism, opposition and the public eye on your life. It's a fact. Trump isn't the exception here. If Trump and his supporters can't deal with that then he should not have chosen to run in the first place.

a reply to: TheRedneck


So, let me get this straight... you WANT the gory details of Hillary and Bill's sex life? Or Donald and Melania's?


It's not about what I want. It's about reality, it's about what sacrifices one makes when they choose to put themselves in the public eye and run for the highest office of the land. Your personal life is going to be open to criticism and exposure and I'm sorry, legally you can't stop that from happening. Trump is not going to be treated like some special snowflake, it's something he has to deal with running in these elections just like everybody else who ran before him.

I'm sorry it's hard for you deal with.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

And again, he will be criticized... if he messes up, he'll be criticized by me!

There is nothing in that NDA that prevents honest criticism after the election. I don't care how it's worded, if there is no malice or no real damages, there is nothing Trump can do about it.

Now, if a Clinton supporter were to become a phone bank operator for Trump, quit, and start a rumor about his campaign to hurt his election chances... that Clinton supporter is screwed. If that Clinton supporter passes secret campaign information to the Clinton campaign, that Clinton supporters is screwed. If that Clinton supporters starts a rumor about Trump's family, or his business dealings, or anything intended to damage Trump, that Clinton supporter is screwed.

If someone who worked on his campaign wants to criticize a later decision he makes as President, there's nothing Trump can do. That is not malicious and protected by the 1st Amendment. The NDA isn't worth the paper it is written on.

That's the law.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

I don't HAVE a choice in a two party system Carson is already out.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: buster2010

I don't HAVE a choice in a two party system Carson is already out.

Your state doesn't allow write ins?



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

More deductive reasoning actually.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Fair enough, but it leaves out the fact that Trump has built actual businesses he needs to protect and he's just doing what most businesses do to protect themselves. Why anyone would try and make it seem that NDA's are unusual is pretty suspicious don't you think? Just more spin from people we already know to be dishonest.

Don't confuse my defending the fact NDA's are normal and often needed for good reason with support of any candidate. I'm equally disgusted with both this time and support neither.

I'm not really buying that Hillary does not have some kind of agreement for protection with at the least her main people. But then she has been sooooooooo honest
I've come to the point I assume both are lying pretty much all of the time.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   


LATimes
By Associated Press Jul 12, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is seeking $10 million in damages from a former senior campaign consultant, Sam Nunberg, alleging that Nunberg leaked confidential information to reporters in violation of a nondisclosure agreement.

In a court filing obtained by the Associated Press, Nunberg accused Trump of trying to silence him "in a misguided attempt to cover up media coverage of an apparent affair" between two senior campaign staffers.

The highly unusual legal dispute reflects Trump's efforts to aggressively protect the secrecy of his campaign's inner workings.

Link


Already starting the lawsuits over his campaign.

Maybe investigate who is hired if their are such broad concerns.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join