• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whistleblower's complaint is out

cpwill said:
No, it isn't. For a variety of reasons, including:

1. Executive level communications that remain confidential allow foreign leaders to be more candid with our own, particularly about sensitive matters. Clearer and more honest communications with other world leaders, especially in sensitive areas of foreign policy, is a good thing.

2. Executive level communications that remain confidential allow foreign leaders and our own to actually negotiate. Making Diplomacy more effective through the ability to achieve compromise is a good thing.

3. Executive level communications that remain confidential means that our President and foreign leaders can deconflict efforts, align resources, and cooperate more effectively. Working with partners abroad is a good thing.

4. Executive level communications that remain confidential allows leaders to build trust and personal relationships, which can pay huge dividends during times of tension or crises. That's a good thing.



So on and so forth. Just because Trump does something doesn't make it bad. A President flying on Air Force One Isn't corrupt because Trump does it, a President having a Secret Service detail isn't fascistic because Trump does it, a President pardoning a Turkey isn't crazy because Trump does it, and a President having confidential discussions with world leaders doesn't cease to be part of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations because Trump does it.

Insisting that it is so, however, confirms Trump defender claims that calls for his impeachment are generally motivated not by sober judgement of his actions, but rather by simple dislike of the man.
Click to expand...

Whistleblower must remain anon, yes? Issue must be investigated, yes? Can't keep dictator wannabe from unleashing his deplorables on him, yes?

Keep defending a terrible man, see how that goes.
 
beefheart said:
Whistleblower must remain anon, yes? Issue must be investigated, yes? Can't keep dictator wannabe from unleashing his deplorables on him, yes?

Keep defending a terrible man, see how that goes.
Click to expand...

1. I'll admit, I'm not as familiar with the relevant process for the wb, as I should be. Presumably, though, the issue should pretty heavily favor anonymity, and I imagine their employment with CIA (assuming the NYT piece is correct) alone should rule in favor of that. Certainly that individual doesn't need the hatred of the mob raining down on them and their family.

2. Yes, it should be investigated. I understand that is occurring, which is good. Ditto for Biden's family's potential pitching of influence.

3. I've said multiple times now that Trump's actions here are impeachable and it would be better for the country if Democrats did so. That doesn't mean, however, that (for example) Obama is a dictator wannabe because his communications with other world leaders were confidential, any more than for Carter, Bush, Kennedy, Trump, or any other President. Keep making a stupid argument, accusing anyone who points out where you are wrong of being a cultist (which is kinda ironic, now that I think about it), and see how it works out for you.*


*Hint: It reduces the power of the actual arguments in favor of impeachment by association. It allow Trump's defenders to point to it to make the argument that his accusers aren't credible.

Imagine if Republicans had argued that Obama should be impeached because he wore the tan suit. That's what you look like right now.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
1. I'll admit, I'm not as familiar with the relevant process for the wb, as I should be. Presumably, though, the issue should pretty heavily favor anonymity, and I imagine their employment with CIA (assuming the NYT piece is correct) alone should rule in favor of that. Certainly that individual doesn't need the hatred of the mob raining down on them and their family.

2. Yes, it should be investigated. I understand that is occurring, which is good. Ditto for Biden's family's potential pitching of influence.

3. I've said multiple times now that Trump's actions here are impeachable and it would be better for the country if Democrats did so. That doesn't mean, however, that (for example) Obama is a dictator wannabe because his communications with other world leaders were confidential, any more than for Carter, Bush, Kennedy, Trump, or any other President. Keep making a stupid argument, accusing anyone who points out where you are wrong of being a cultist (which is kinda ironic, now that I think about it), and see how it works out for you.*


*Hint: It reduces the power of the actual arguments in favor of impeachment by association. It allow Trump's defenders to point to it to make the argument that his accusers aren't credible.

Imagine if Republicans had argued that Obama should be impeached because he wore the tan suit. That's what you look like right now.
Click to expand...

Your cult leader wants to out someone who went by the book, using the anonymous whistle blower defense to root out wrongdoing.

How pathetic is it that you still support the cult leader when he is outright threatening a US citizen that is making a complaint within the confines of the law?

Not hatred raining down, just people who actually want the rule of law to be followed by a party that makes a mockery of their pretend support of it.

Shame on you.
 
beefheart said:
Your cult leader wants to out someone who went by the book, using the anonymous whistle blower defense to root out wrongdoing.

How pathetic is it that you still support the cult leader when he is outright threatening a US citizen that is making a complaint within the confines of the law?

Not hatred raining down, just people who actually want the rule of law to be followed by a party that makes a mockery of their pretend support of it.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...
You're not even reading the posts you are responding to anymore, are you.
 
cpwill said:
No - they all did it because it is the wise and correct thing to do. As I pointed out to you, which you ignored. Simply because Trump has done something doesn't make that thing bad.
Click to expand...

Well, it kinda does. ;)
 
cpwill said:
Pretty much that first paragraph. If Presidential level talks were discoverable, all it would do is make them useless, as foreign leaders would reduce the entirety of their discussion to pre-figured, non-sensitive talking points.
Click to expand...
I'm sensitive to that aspect of this. In that regard I follow the sentiments of Ambassador McFaul. Public release of the record is not good, but the contents, in my view, are worse. Usually these conversations are very scripted, so I'm less concerned about the last point. But, the risk to the process is real.

Here's the real issue, though, in my view: oversight, even when it involves the most secret and sensitive matters (and probably especially so), is absolutely vital to the functioning of our nation. Normally it is done behind closed doors and through classified channels. The reason THIS matter is exposed is because of the effort to hide it.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
No, it isn't. For a variety of reasons, including:

1. Executive level communications that remain confidential allow foreign leaders to be more candid with our own, particularly about sensitive matters. Clearer and more honest communications with other world leaders, especially in sensitive areas of foreign policy, is a good thing.

2. Executive level communications that remain confidential allow foreign leaders and our own to actually negotiate. Making Diplomacy more effective through the ability to achieve compromise is a good thing.

3. Executive level communications that remain confidential means that our President and foreign leaders can deconflict efforts, align resources, and cooperate more effectively. Working with partners abroad is a good thing.

4. Executive level communications that remain confidential allows leaders to build trust and personal relationships, which can pay huge dividends during times of tension or crises. That's a good thing.



So on and so forth. Just because Trump does something doesn't make it bad. A President flying on Air Force One Isn't corrupt because Trump does it, a President having a Secret Service detail isn't fascistic because Trump does it, a President pardoning a Turkey isn't crazy because Trump does it, and a President having confidential discussions with world leaders doesn't cease to be part of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations because Trump does it.

Insisting that it is so, however, confirms Trump defender claims that calls for his impeachment are generally motivated not by sober judgement of his actions, but rather by simple dislike of the man.
Click to expand...

I agree with each of your numbered points, but the last paragraph is a non sequitur. Just because it is confidential does not mean that it is free of censure. That makes no sense.
 
NWRatCon said:
I agree with each of your numbered points, but the last paragraph is a non sequitur. Just because it is confidential does not mean that it is free of censure. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the argument I was responding to, which was that Presidential communications with other world leaders being confidential was inherently bad, because Trump was bad. I agree wholeheartedly that Trump's actions were atrocious, and even impeachment-worthy. That doesn't make the system of secure communications evil by association.
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm sensitive to that aspect of this. In that regard I follow the sentiments of Ambassador McFaul. Public release of the record is not good, but the contents, in my view, are worse. Usually these conversations are very scripted, so I'm less concerned about the last point. But, the risk to the process is real.

Here's the real issue, though, in my view: oversight, even when it involves the most secret and sensitive matters (and probably especially so), is absolutely vital to the functioning of our nation. Normally it is done behind closed doors and through classified channels. The reason THIS matter is exposed is because of the effort to hide it.
Click to expand...
Concur except for the last bit; this matter is recieving the attention it is because if a whistleblower complaint.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Visbek said:
In this case, it's not that they are amateurs. It's that they know Trump is a loose cannon. If the document was readily available it could have leaked, as have numerous similar documents during Trump's term. Someone (probably not Trump though) decided they needed to lock this down to prevent it from getting out.

This also raises the possibility that there are other documents which were improperly classified, not out of security concerns or ineptitude, but to bury documents that might embarrass or even incriminate the POTUS.
Click to expand...
How is concerns of documents being leaked not a security concern? How is that not a justification for them to put a higher standard of access protocols in place?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Concur except for the last bit; this matter is recieving the attention it is because if a whistleblower complaint.
Click to expand...
Except the whistleblower complaint would have remained confidential had the effort to hide it not created suspicion. It's a counterfactual, of course, to speculate about what might have happened had normal procedures been followed. So, that's just my opinion. We'll never actually know, because that is not what happened.

I'm very concerned, and I've stated this before, that security protocols were violated and now there is a rationale to expose more such communications. This seems to be playing into the hands of certain foreign powers, too, which makes me even more suspicious.
 
5tenxkv0aqp31.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom