Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 11 2019 03:56pm)

in the same sense that the media puts Donald Trump Jr's life at risk every time they publish his name.
I've always found this to be an exceptionally dull and facile talking point. Every time Ilhan Omar's wrongdoings get mentioned by conservative media outlets, the liberals will screech in with a chorus of "~You're putting her life at risk!~". Hell, this summer news of Ilhan's affair with Tim Mynett broke and she was confronted by reporters asking about it at the MN State Fair. A matter of seconds after running away from them with 'no comment', she tweeted a random threatening hate mail she had received and her sycophants in the media then posted articles about "Ilhan receives death threats" to blot out the stories about her affair, one of the most flagrantly transparent examples of hiding behind victimhood. I mean, it was literally a matter of seconds as she ran from reporters asking about her scandal. Every politician receives hate mail and threats. There have been many arrests for those targeting left and right alike in the past few years, mostly targeting Rand Paul over and over again. Hell only he and Steve Scalice should be allowed to complain at this point. Even I have a collection of death threats I've collected just from posting anonymously online.
It was the same thing with Katie Hill, with AoC, with Maxine Waters, with this whistleblower. Any time a (liberal) public figure has stories that could reflect negatively on them brought into the limelight, they will be defended by people screaming that you're endangering their life. Meanwhile back in reality-land, Donald Trump is 100x more likely to be assassinated than any of them. Who is gunning for this whistleblower? Maybe there's some crazy person out there in MAGA-sticker covered van creating hoax bombs as a scare tactic, but there's 10,000+ in Portland alone who would pull the trigger against any Trump official if they got the opportunity

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 11 2019 03:06pm)

people in public office or writing a book that tries to call out half of america as bad people take on an amount of risk.
people who are pencil pusher govt employees secretly divulging information that are assuming they wont be made a public entity aren't.
one could argue that ratting on the POTUS caries a base level of Epstein-esque risk, but i wouldn't say those are comparable.
that what's a swing and a miss for me champ.

Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 11 2019 03:14pm)

and the obvious counterargument would be that when he conspired with adam schiff outside the whistleblower process, not to mention previous leaks and his direct involvement in joe biden's ukraine boogaloo, he made himself liable for public exposure- and under the ICWPA wasn't entitled to anonymity. But there's more than just "ratting on potus carries risk". The President was put into office in a national election with 130 million votes cast for and against and billions of dollars spent. If democrats are going to invoke a process to remove him from office as a political gambit, then its in the overwhelming public interest to know all the facts and circumstances of what led to impeachment. Secrecy here is antithetical to democracy and the credibility of our system of government. Removing a president based on facts you refuse to tell the public and actively suppress? Save that for banana republics

Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 11 2019 04:14pm)

and the obvious counterargument would be that when he conspired with adam schiff outside the whistleblower process, not to mention previous leaks and his direct involvement in joe biden's ukraine boogaloo, he made himself liable for public exposure- and under the ICWPA wasn't entitled to anonymity. But there's more than just "ratting on potus carries risk". The President was put into office in a national election with 130 million votes cast for and against and billions of dollars spent. If democrats are going to invoke a process to remove him from office as a political gambit, then its in the overwhelming public interest to know all the facts and circumstances of what led to impeachment. Secrecy here is antithetical to democracy and the credibility of our system of government. Removing a president based on facts you refuse to tell the public and actively suppress? Save that for banana republics

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 11 2019 03:18pm)

you keep saying remove, as if that's like..... a thing.

impeachment for wussy politics optics much like the machine gun is just something the founding fathers didnt count on. the constitution isn't perfect in every way. we had to get to #16 to say u cant own people after-all.

as to the accepting danger on the whistle blower. do we really think this person wasn't assured they'd be kept anon by Schiff? the guy's a weasel, of course he offered them some type of promise they'd be kept safe. so now they're in danger because Adam Schiff didn't follow the rules and likely lied about their safety? so that the president has concrete proof the democrats are acting politically?

what a great outcome....

Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 11 2019 04:25pm)

Assurances from Adam Schiff are like yellow words written in a snowbank

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 11 2019 03:28pm)

I quite agree. doesnt change the cause-effect relationship.

WB overhears a thing, WB tells AS. AS tells WB they be fine. Trump no likey AS. Trump out WB. WB = danger.

all so Trump can stick it to adam schiff and prove to america the sky is blue.

what a fucking waste of the public's time.

Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 11 2019 04:14pm)

and the obvious counterargument would be that when he conspired with adam schiff outside the whistleblower process, not to mention previous leaks and his direct involvement in joe biden's ukraine boogaloo, he made himself liable for public exposure- and under the ICWPA wasn't entitled to anonymity. But there's more than just "ratting on potus carries risk". The President was put into office in a national election with 130 million votes cast for and against and billions of dollars spent. If democrats are going to invoke a process to remove him from office as a political gambit, then its in the overwhelming public interest to know all the facts and circumstances of what led to impeachment. Secrecy here is antithetical to democracy and the credibility of our system of government. Removing a president based on facts you refuse to tell the public and actively suppress? Save that for banana republics