|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2017 10:07:30 GMT -5
Transparency goes both ways, Don. If someone thinks info needs to be revealed because crimes against humanity are being committed, they can stand up and reveal, then hope that others see it in the same way, accept that their actions were justified. Isn't that fair?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 10:26:49 GMT -5
Transparency goes both ways, Don. If someone thinks info needs to be revealed because crimes against humanity are being committed, they can stand up and reveal, then hope that others see it in the same way, accept that their actions were justified. Isn't that fair? Sure. In that fantasy world of an honest legal system. In the police-surveillance state we have today, name the last whistleblower who saw fair treatment by the political class.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2017 10:41:20 GMT -5
For every whistle-blower with noble intentions, how many leakers are there with ignoble ones, do you suppose?
Transparency is great, but it's not an all or nothing thing. Not every word spoken by people in government needs to be--or should be--a part of the public record, imo.
And again, one can both allow that Trump is bad news, be happy that this leak is damaging to him, AND criticize people in government who anonymously leak shit to the media for political reasons or to line their own pockets. Can't one? What's the problem there?
I generally dislike analogies, because they're always imperfect, often to a degree that makes them useless, but I'll offer one anyway:
I don't like child molesters. Not at all. And I'm far from alone in this regard. When a child molester gets sent to prison--because they're guilty--and subsequently gets raped and/or beaten by other inmates, I won't shed a tear. But that doesn't require me to give a pass to those inmates who did the raping/beating. That shouldn't happen, imo. And inmates who get caught doing this should be punished for their actions; so should guards or the like who allow such events to transpire.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 10:56:49 GMT -5
I have a right to review the work product of my employees, and if they keep secrets from me, they better fess up at the earliest opportunity and explain why they were keeping those secrets for some limited period of time. Not lie indefinitely, then claim immunity when busted for lying.
If, OTOH, all that talk about "by the people, for the people" is pure bullshit, I can see other viewpoints.
Government supposedly exists to serve society, not the other way around.
It's insane to offer respect and receive none in return.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 4, 2017 11:25:41 GMT -5
We already have an occupier in the Oval Office with no integrity or sense of duty who barely works and has access to sensitive info---which he shared with the Russians, but I don't see you kvetching about that. Trump, kvetch. Trump, kvetch. Trump, kvetch. Is that better? I've only said negative things about Trump in this thread (and in fact I pointed to him as a leaker, too). I've labeled him a grifter--constantly--and allowed that he's unfit for the job of President. I have no problem saying he lacks both integrity and a sense of duty to his country. Because because I'm not running around pulling out my hair, hurling insults at him, and generally behaving like a petulant six year old when the subject is Trump, I'm what? Supporting Trump. You're confused. The only hair-pulling, petulant 6-year-old-here is 71-year-old Donald John Trump. Go read the transcripts. He fussed with the Australian Prime Minister like a kid who didn't want to eat his broccoli. It's not that you're Supporting Trump (though by your own admission you follow him on Twitter which seems odd for someone Opposing Trump, but I digress) as much as you're Enabling Trump. Oh sure , you'll say negative things about Trump but it's all couched in " ohmigawd, THE LEAKS!!!! THEY'RE TURRIBLE!!!"
It doesn't make you a supporter of Trump to constantly say, "Yes, he's bad but they're worse." It does mean you hold the press and the Trump's critics to a far higher moral standard than you do Trump himself. In the way you have things pretty ass-backwards. Pearls. Clutched. It is not tossing one's principles or common sense to feel a strong sense of schadenfreude over the Orange Cheetos misfortunes, failures, and royal fuck-ups. He wanted the job (no, he really didn't) and now that he's got it he's got to take the slings and arrows that come with it (which he's far too thin-skinned to deal with any semblance of dignity and class). And please kill all that noise about how mainstream the Trump-bashing is. Trump was the titular head of the Birthers and he spent time and money attempting to prove Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Fox News rode Obama-bashing to the top of the cable news ratings. The Tea Party protests caricatured Obama as Hitler, a witch doctor and worse. Republicans disrespected the President of the United States by shouting " You Lie!" during a nationally televised joint session of Congress. For eight years, conservatives, Republicans, neo-cons and others on The Right opposed to All Things Obama mocked, scorned, and vilified him and his family in way no President had been before. It was shameful. It was disgraceful. So, spare me the sad songs about how bad Trump's got it. Nobody here cares even a little bit. Grab a box of Kleenex and go squirt a few tears in the corner for this narcissistic, vulgar, bigoted box of neuroses and a head full of bad wiring sitting under the world's worst comb over. Trump is the Worst. He's either the absolute bottom of the barrel or one of the slimy, squiggly things under the barrel. I really can't decide. I will treat him the same way he treated My President. With boundless, limitless, undying, brightly burning CONTEMPT. He deserves no less. He'll get no better. That point has come and come more times than you can possibly know. There are no limit to the number of stories news organizations turn away because they can't be verified or corroborated or the source is sketchy as hell or the probable harm caused by running with a leak outweighs the news value and the public's right to know. Journalistic ethics. Not the oxymoron you think it is. How thin is the air up there on your moral high ground? You act as if this is the first time a president has been shown up by a subordinate with an agenda to pursue or an axe to grind. Get real! A Chief Executive who can't keep his mouth shut only encourages those under him to follow in his footsteps. Trump The Blabbermouth created the conditions where this sort of thing thrives like mold. As far as none of this, including the ongoing Russian investigation not being Watergate, wind back the clock and please recall this salient truth: Watergate didn’t become Watergate overnight, either.I don't know if whatever Donald Trump is trying desperately to hide rises to the levels of high crimes and misdemeanors of Richard Nixon's malfeasance. But I don't know that it doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 15:59:56 GMT -5
Quite frankly, Trump himself is so detrimental to our relationships with foreign leaders I doubt leaks can hurt it much. www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-is-donald-trump-still-so-horribly-witless-about-the-world/ampAlso -- I really doubt there are many white house staff with access to these transcripts that are screaming liberals, right? Did Trump really keep on hordes of Obama hires? If so, with all the leaks, wouldn't his aides be keeping a close eye on them and look into them. I submit that whoever hired the people in the White House, it is on the Trump Administration to vet them.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 4, 2017 16:48:33 GMT -5
As an aside, I'd like to welcome some new members to team transparency. I hope y'all stick around after the next election. If I'm included in this welcome, thank you. Feel free to call me out if I ever rail against (non-classified) leaks on a politician I like.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 4, 2017 16:52:47 GMT -5
For every whistle-blower with noble intentions, how many leakers are there with ignoble ones, do you suppose? Transparency is great, but it's not an all or nothing thing. Not every word spoken by people in government needs to be--or should be--a part of the public record, imo. And again, one can both allow that Trump is bad news, be happy that this leak is damaging to him, AND criticize people in government who anonymously leak shit to the media for political reasons or to line their own pockets. Can't one? What's the problem there? I generally dislike analogies, because they're always imperfect, often to a degree that makes them useless, but I'll offer one anyway: I don't like child molesters. Not at all. And I'm far from alone in this regard. When a child molester gets sent to prison--because they're guilty--and subsequently gets raped and/or beaten by other inmates, I won't shed a tear. But that doesn't require me to give a pass to those inmates who did the raping/beating. That shouldn't happen, imo. And inmates who get caught doing this should be punished for their actions; so should guards or the like who allow such events to transpire. Worst. Analogy. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 21:38:09 GMT -5
For every whistle-blower with noble intentions, how many leakers are there with ignoble ones, do you suppose? Transparency is great, but it's not an all or nothing thing. Not every word spoken by people in government needs to be--or should be--a part of the public record, imo. And again, one can both allow that Trump is bad news, be happy that this leak is damaging to him, AND criticize people in government who anonymously leak shit to the media for political reasons or to line their own pockets. Can't one? What's the problem there? I generally dislike analogies, because they're always imperfect, often to a degree that makes them useless, but I'll offer one anyway: I don't like child molesters. Not at all. And I'm far from alone in this regard. When a child molester gets sent to prison--because they're guilty--and subsequently gets raped and/or beaten by other inmates, I won't shed a tear. But that doesn't require me to give a pass to those inmates who did the raping/beating. That shouldn't happen, imo. And inmates who get caught doing this should be punished for their actions; so should guards or the like who allow such events to transpire. Worst. Analogy. Ever. Yeah. I can't decide who represents whom in that analogy. I think it equates Trump with a child molester, but I'm not 100% sure.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 5, 2017 11:05:34 GMT -5
Yeah. I can't decide who represents whom in that analogy. I think it equates Trump with a child molester, but I'm not 100% sure. Correct. And the other inmates are the rest of the politicos and the media in DC. The guards are the citizens. I'd have thought you all would love these aspects of the analogy... Regardless, the central point remains: one can criticize Trump for what's in these leaked transcripts, can allow that he should be criticized, while simultaneously being unhappy with the culture of leaking in DC. No one has to back down an inch on how much they hate Trump, on how awful they think he is, to see things as above. And Don, this is funny: Your criticizing my "fantasy world" of a legal system, but you offer up this fantasy? I'm amused with the public servants-as-employees analogy, because I find that the people who most often offer it up want to be treated by customers by public servants (always being right and so forth). Regardless, if you're going to review all of the work product of every elected official, you best get busy. If you're any sort of decent boss, you can't be singling out just one employee in one moment; you need to go through it all. Where do you want the files sent?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 5, 2017 15:12:30 GMT -5
It's a bad analogy imo (assuming the molester is Trump, the prisoners are the leakers, and the prison guards are basically everyone else who isn't condemning the leaks or who aren't all that concerned about the leaks) due to the overwhelmingly criminal aspect, and the assumption of intent.
It's impossible, imo, to have a proper analogy when conflating these leaks with crimes, especially such heinous crimes. Not only has Trump not physically assaulted anyone (that we know of) or been convicted of any crimes, but also the leakers aren't committing criminal acts which everyone else is (criminally) allowing by looking the other way.
It's too extreme to work. To me, it's like if I gave rob's analogy to explain why it was so wrong when my friend in high school looked the other way while another friend told this other friend this secret that I asked her not to tell. (Slightly hyperbolic ... but only slightly.)
As far as intent, the analogy requires this idea of vigilante justice via a usually terrible act which the leakers and observers justify because of the person they're doing it to. But the leakers themselves aren't necessarily looking to punish Trump at all. Like rob said elsewhere, it could be (and imo it most likely is) for money. It could be due to concern/political beliefs (which imo is second-most likely). Which is not the same as raping a rapist, right? Unless a prisoner decided to rape a rapist due to an actual belief that all rapists must be raped to make the world a better place or something. Having said that, I suppose it's possible in some cases that leakers just hate Trump so much that they want to punish or hurt or embarrass him, but that seems much less likely to me.
As far as observers who aren't condemning these leaks (like *ahem* me), I'm sure some never-Trumpers relish the the thought of these terrible awful WH leaks and think Trump totally deserves being leaked on, or who don't care, but would if it happened to someone they like. That's about the closest the analogy gets to applicable, though I don't think the majority of "the guards" fall into those categories, either.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 6, 2017 11:01:14 GMT -5
It's not that you're Supporting Trump (though by your own admission you follow him on Twitter which seems odd for someone Opposing Trump, but I digress) I suspect a lot of people who hate Trump follow him on Twitter. As for this leaking thing - Rob, you're just doing that thing again. That thing where you totally don't support Trump and agree that he's just an ever-so-unpleasant fellow, but gollygoshdarnit, why do Trump-haters have to be so hysterical and irrational and mean and nasty when the proper way to register disapprobation of Presidential shenanigans is calmly writing genteel op-eds about how they are disappointed by Trump's ungentlemanly conduct, and might wish for a slightly greater degree of specificity in his policy proposals. Therefore, Trump opponents are every bit as much to blame for the deteriorating state of Americans politics as he is. A pox, thou sayest, a pox on both their houses! Sniff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2017 12:11:39 GMT -5
It's not that you're Supporting Trump (though by your own admission you follow him on Twitter which seems odd for someone Opposing Trump, but I digress) I suspect a lot of people who hate Trump follow him on Twitter. A ton of Trump resisters follow him. Trump is very much using his Twitter feed as an official outlet for his views, and it is pretty much the only source of news his supporters believe unquestioningly. If you don't follow the feed, you are not getting the full picture of what he's saying and what Trump followers are swallowing. E.g., Trump released his infamous "transgender people are not welcome in the military" statement solely on Twitter. His supporters are still demanding to know why the military hasn't obeyed that "order" yet. Although when I quote Trump's tweets, I do so directly, I do not follow him directly. Instead, I follow this wonderful little bot that transforms every one of Trump's asinine tweets into correct Presidential statement format. twitter.com/RealPressSecBot It allows me to follow Trump's tweets without adding to his numbers, and it takes a wee bit of the edge off the ridiculous statements themselves (since I get a little bit of a laugh at seeing how ridiculous they look in official statement format). ETA: I'm going to make a wild guess here -- I think a solid third, at least, of Trump's following consists of bots, Russian operatives, and fake accounts. (Go take a look at the number of avatar-less followers he has. Click on them. They are empty accounts.) Another quarter to a third, at least, consist of people who oppose Trump and just want to keep up with what he's doing with that account. Go take a look at the comments on his tweets -- they are full of people telling him what an asshole he is.
|
|