So if you watch the news you are aware of the many leaks occurring at or relating to the White House and President Trump.
So what do you think?
So what do you think?
So if you watch the news you are aware of the many leaks occurring at or relating to the White House and President Trump.
So what do you think?
when he says or proposes things that may be seen as detrimental or damaging to the country people are compelled to tell others out of concern and disgust.
As much as I like Mr. Trump and his entourage of intellectually challenged neophytes I think these “leaker” or “unnamed sources” within the White House should shut up and do their jobs. They serve the office of the President thus they should show respect to the office irrespective of what they think or feel. If they are not happy with the message or the office they should resign otherwise they are just frauds.So if you watch the news you are aware of the many leaks occurring at or relating to the White House and President Trump.
in our partisan political climate, most see their opponents as proposing "detrimental an/or damaging things for the country".
So are leaks fair play if you feel your political opponent is proposing something wrong for your country?
Is that the broad criteria making leaks Ok?
Yes, he should get rid of them. :smug:
And replace them with who?
Very few people want to work for the guy, he is likely to stab in the back before he backs a bus over you.
I was unaware that Donald Trump staffed up with his opponents...not a smart thing to do. But yes, I would do whatever I could to prevent damage to my country.
I was unaware that Donald Trump staffed up with his opponents...not a smart thing to do. But yes, I would do whatever I could to prevent damage to my country.
The sticking point is of course "...damage to my country"
To some, any of these may fit that category:
- affordable health care
- capitalism
- pro-2nd Amendment
- abortion
- wars
- foreign aid
- "removing God from government"
- infringing on separation of church and state
- pro-illegal immigration policies
- anti-immigration policies
- free trade
- taxation without representation
- government programs
- etc...
Attempting to confuse and distract is an ineffective and obvious tactic used by those with no valid argument.
I'm taking you down a path to show you that your logical argument for leaking is anything but logical.
Ummm..... He is AGAINST leaking. How did you FAIL to see that?![]()
You comments shows you are quite clueless about the subject at hand!![]()
Bravo to you on that!There are however certain aspects of the United States Constitution that are not up for debate and are considered sacred by "Patriotic" individuals. When these are compromised the reaction should be an attempt to prevent said compromise.
In short, there are many things this President does or says that run counter to hundreds of years of tradition and freedoms and decades of modern societal advancement. He also has fraudulent and dishonest tendencies well documented and verified by multiple sources and legal institutions. He has soiled the office and degraded the country both domestically and internationally.
For these reasons and others I would definitely "Leak" if he tried to do further damage.
you are narrowing your focus and that is good in my opinion. Previously, you argued for leaks based on proposals seen as detrimental or damaging to the country. very subjective and broad as anyone could say this of any president and likely have.
However, below you argue (correctly in my opinion) that a righteous cause for dissent, which may include leaks, would be based on a president whose actions run counter to or tear down the rights within the Constitution:
Bravo to you on that!
Unfortunately, your argument then veers off the rails of righteousness and lands full on in a dung heap of subjective opinion, completely unrelated to actions against the Constitution:
Just curious, what would that be the constitutional element of your thought process?These will obviously differ from your own but are based very much on my reading of the Constitution.
When you are employed by the White House are you bound by a gag clause in your employment contract? I would assume the higher up you are the more you are bound by some form of classified secrets act or whatever it's called?
You're all wet! An understood rule is not a gag order.