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

Are you kidding me? Just when you thought Trumps campaign couldn't get any more crazy, we have this. A contract to be signed that you can never criticize the man in your lifetime?

Earlier this week, reporters began poring over the 2,271-word nondisclosure agreement that Trump’s campaign requires its volunteers sign. The forms are extraordinarily broad, virtually prohibiting any volunteers from criticizing Trump or his family for the rest of their lifetimes, according to Rachel Sklar, a lawyer and CNN contributor.

On Twitter, Sklar noted that the forms also bar volunteers from criticizing Trump’s brands, disclosing anything personal about Trump (including his taxes), or from even employing people who work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. (That last one’s illegal, Sklar says.)

www.vox.com...

For all the talk about Trump being 'tough' and 'strong', the man can't seem to take criticism from anybody. He gets a bad reaction from media outlets, he wants to ban them, he gets criticized by a gold star family at a convention, he goes bonkers.. and now this? WTF.

And no, this is not a standard thing for campaigns:

But requiring an online volunteer to sign such a document is a requirement unique to the Trump campaign. The campaign website for his rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, requires no agreement for online volunteers to sign up and make phone calls.

"It’s not a typical procedure," said Matt Moore, chairman of the GOP in South Carolina, where campaigns had volunteers making similar calls from their homes ahead of the primary in February. Moore also oversees phone bank operations as the state seeks to elect its candidates in legislative races.

And no this isn't a 'during the campaign' thing either. This directly from his website:

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

talk.donaldjtrump.com...
Read more at wonkette.com...

But hey folks, how about this snowflake lefties and their politicians huh?

This guy and his supporters are too much.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Hitler

Second

Well with all the DNC operatives infiltrating, it's a wise precaution isn't it.

Especially after today's FBI release.

Obligatory: But, he's not Hillary.

Trump adopts a tactical scientology method, dixit.

Trump supporters really are brain dead sheeple.

And hillary supporters are...........are there any ?

a reply to: crazyewok

Hillary = borgs

I'm voting for him and will totally bash him if he puts shame on my family if elected which is American Citizens. Illegals, I do not care about. Load them up and ship them out. Should have though about that before they made the choice to become greasy unlawful residents.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Maybe not standard in politics, but it is in business. I've signed several that read the same way.

The deal is that once the employment is terminated, most courts recognize that the contract is terminated as well. As for future employment, that clause self-destructs once the campaign is over. Employers do this to try and protect themselves against espionage and disgruntled ex-employees out to make a quick buck off their back. If someone were to work for Trump, get fired, and then six months later start spreading info that they were entrusted to keep secret, then Trump has a legal claim through the contract, due to real damages.

Nothing to get excited about. SOP.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd agree that NDA's are quite normal.

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

Much ado about nothing.

Kinda lame isn't it?

If I came here to tell you that it's normal business practice , or that really this is a matter of transparency and openness which the current Potus has completey renigged on... Those statement only feel like deflection and typical "well he isn't ...;
Fill In the blank!!"

But if I defend it than I'm just a trump bot.

I'm afraid this is just a continuation of a new precedent .. I thought it was bad when Maynard had security take my friend phone as a Puscifer show for taking pictures.. Now people are arrested for filming cops.. Signing non disclosures for being on a campaign..whistleblowers prosecuted.. See where the ball starts rolling?

Sucks no matter who you want to vote for. It's not the who, ts the what.

And what's the problem?

Dems, repubs, the whole system? You tell me.


a reply to: Southern Guardian

a reply to: xuenchen

Well with all the DNC operatives infiltrating, it's a wise precaution isn't it.

Stifling freedom of speech is good? Have you been practicing your goosestepping if he gets elected.

Unconventional.

But now I'm scared, so I better vote for Hillary!

originally posted by: SteamyJeans
And what's the problem?

Dems, repubs, the whole system? You tell me.

Human beings; or if you believe some people, Reptilian Shapeshifters masquerading as human beings.

Suffice it to say, people like being controlled at the end of the day, it's easier, there's fewer decisions to make.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd agree that NDA's are quite normal.

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

Much ado about nothing.

An NDA for life is not SOP. It's BS

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well that sums up every question I had. Thankya Redneck

a reply to: olaru12

All Non-Disclosure Agreements are for life. If you can't keep from disclosing private information you should never sign one.

Some of the provisions are limited by law if there are no real damages. See my post above.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe the Trump campaign had a problem with covert Hillary supporters.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

Maybe the Trump campaign had a problem with covert Hillary supporters.

Exactly what I was thinking. Also, if someone who supports Trump to the degree that they are volunteering within his campaign, then they shouldn't be having any wish, desire, or need to disparage him in the first place, and this fact renders this thread completely worthless, invalid, and a joke.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This was also reported back in March and I did a thread on it, A Trump campaign gag order?.

The Trump campaign is now requiring some volunteers to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) before they can help the campaign — agreements that would theoretically allow Trump to sue volunteers for talking about the campaign and a process that some legal experts say is unusual and probably unenforceable.

So I'm glad to see it back in the news again because Trump supporters must just love a nontransparent gov't and Big Brother. Could you imagine this man as president? After a few months of criticism I wouldn't be surprised if he started making all the press sign NDA's and later on, every American citizen.

He's such a pansy, how anyone supports such a weakling is BEYOND ME.