The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[zztop]

Romney is banned from CPAC, I guess the revenge tour is in full swing

 

[Dadsdream]

Are you suggesting that Vindman should not have raised concerns about the President unlawfully withholding funds to extort a foreign power into investigating a political rival?

Not at all. I believe he did what his conscious dictated and he knew the gravity of his accusations and the consequences.
His concerns have been fully addressed to the full extent of the law.

 

[coldseat]

Have they forced out the whistle blower yet? I'm sure that's coming. I don't even know his name, but they know who he his and they will deal with him for his "betrayal".

 

[Sandman]

Not at all. I believe he did what his conscious dictated and he knew the gravity of his accusations and the consequences.
His concerns have been fully addressed to the full extent of the law.

So, you would agree that using such terms as "rat" and "tattle-tale" are inappropriate when applied to someone that ethically fulfilled their obligations. Those terms have serious negative connotations, and it would be irresponsible to apply them to someone such as Vindman.

 

[RobF]

A rat's still a rat, Rob.

I actually like this analogy.

Because it implies that the President is running the executive branch like a mafia crime syndicate, where providing honest opinion and testimony to the House as your position and the entire Constitutional notion of checks and balances requires constitutes being a 'rat', and where loyalty to the Don trumps loyalty to the nation.

And I can't really argue with that.

 

[MT15]

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

good lord, are we all in grade school again? Seriously, this is just fantastic, dd. Your second childhood is here already.

 

[MT15]

Romney is banned from CPAC, I guess the revenge tour is in full swing

I saw that he was supposedly banned because they didn’t feel it would be “physically safe” for him to attend. This seems pretty extreme even for the current pack of jackals running CPAC.

 

[V Chip]

A rat's still a rat, Rob.
Under the Clintons, he would have died under mysterious circumstances.

 

[Dadsdream]

So, you would agree that using such terms as "rat" and "tattle-tale" are inappropriate when applied to someone that ethically fulfilled their obligations. Those terms have serious negative connotations, and it would be irresponsible to apply them to someone such as Vindman.

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

 

[Dadsdream]

good lord, are we all in grade school again? Seriously, this is just fantastic, dd. Your second childhood is here already.

You're politely joking with me.

 

[samiam5211]

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

He is in a position of trust, but it is not the President's "trust", it is the "trust" of the United States. Government employees do not take an oath to Trump.

You are calling him a rat for honoring his oath. Says more about you than it does him.

 

[Sandman]

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

If we are going by "definition" then a rat is:
2: a contemptible person: such as
a: one who betrays or deserts friends or associates

I don't see where Vindman fits this criteria. There is nothing contemptible in what he did. You have acknowledged that yourself. He performed his obligation to the American people, which has higher standards than any obligation he had to Trump. If he had not reported the activity, then he would have betrayed the United States. His position of trust was to the United States, not to Trump. You know this, but you are ignoring it so that you can insult this guy.

You state that it doesn't matter what we call him, but you specifically went out of your way to call him a "rat" and a "tattle-tale" and now you added others to the mix. You clearly don't like him, but your vilification of him is completely unwarranted. This isn't quibbling over semantics. Words matter. The words we choose matter. The words you have chosen to label Vidman with are wrong-- by definition. It does matter what we call him, if we have any desire for truth. If you want to recklessly disregard the truth of what happened and label Vidman a "rat," you have the right to do so. However, you can't complain when people completely disregard your opinions in the future because you have demonstrated that the truth doesn't matter in the formation of your opinions.

 

[brandon]

We all should be livid that Trump might sell Alaska to Russia or refuse to leave the White House if he loses the election.

Quoting for future reference.

 

[Dadsdream]

If we are going by "definition" then a rat is:
2: a contemptible person: such as
a: one who betrays or deserts friends or associates

I don't see where Vindman fits this criteria. There is nothing contemptible in what he did. You have acknowledged that yourself. He performed his obligation to the American people, which has higher standards than any obligation he had to Trump. If he had not reported the activity, then he would have betrayed the United States. His position of trust was to the United States, not to Trump. You know this, but you are ignoring it so that you can insult this guy.

You state that it doesn't matter what we call him, but you specifically went out of your way to call him a "rat" and a "tattle-tale" and now you added others to the mix. You clearly don't like him, but your vilification of him is completely unwarranted. This isn't quibbling over semantics. Words matter. The words we choose matter. The words you have chosen to label Vidman with are wrong-- by definition. It does matter what we call him, if we have any desire for truth. If you want to recklessly disregard the truth of what happened and label Vidman a "rat," you have the right to do so. However, you can't complain when people completely disregard your opinions in the future because you have demonstrated that the truth doesn't matter in the formation of your opinions.

A dispassionate academic discussion includes all possibilities.

 

[Optimus Prime]

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

So just to be clear you’re say this there is absolutely no circumstances where an employee
can or should

“report the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization”

No matter what?

If the boss is knowingly putting out a flawed product? Don’t be a rat

If the boss is stealing from employees? Don’t tattle

If the boss is cheating the customers? Don’t be a stool pigeon

If the boss is falsifying or manipulating data/test results? Don’t be an informant

If the work environment is toxic, abusive or dangerous? Don’t spy

What do you suggest that employee do?

What if the people in the chain of command are either actively participating in the bad behavior or already know about it and are either actively covering it up or just simply ignoring it?

What then?

Do nothing?

Just quit and forget about it?

 

[Sandman]

A dispassionate academic discussion includes all possibilities.

Lol. A dispassionate academic discussion would never use the terms "rat" and tattle-tale."

 

[Dadsdream]

So just to be clear you’re say this there is absolutely no circumstances where an employee
can or should

“report the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization”

No matter what?

If the boss is knowingly putting out a flawed product? Don’t be a rat

If the boss is stealing from employees? Don’t tattle

If the boss is cheating the customers? Don’t be a stool pigeon

If the boss is falsifying or manipulating data/test results? Don’t be an informant

If the work environment is toxic, abusive or dangerous? Don’t spy

What do you suggest that employee do?

What if the people in the chain of command are either actively participating in the bad behavior or already know about it and are either actively covering it up or just simply ignoring it?

What then?

Do nothing?

Just quit and forget about it?

If a person feels strongly enough about it and is willing to accept the repercussions, they are free to pursue whatever course of action they deem appropriate.

In my experience, though, people who report their boss to the Inspector General will get results, just not the results they wanted.

It's like the curse of The Monkey's Paw. Be careful what you wish for.

The Monkey's Paw

The Monkey's Paw by W. W. Jacobs

americanliterature.com

 

[dtc]

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

Dude swore an oath. One that he conscientiously upheld at great personal risk and sacrifice.

I wish we could say the same for the Republicans and those in the administration or even the POTUS.

But we can't.