3 ms·

For one, Obama was the worst president when it comes to prosecute whistle blowers that brought attention to illegal activities within the Government (it's like

by zeep 9y ago

For one, Obama was the worst president when it comes to prosecute whistle blowers that brought attention to illegal activities within the Government (it's like the opposite of openness)... Yeah, Obama liked to say that he was transparent or open, but actions speak louder. (I don't think that this needs references, it is a well known fact, but here you go: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/...)

kbenson 9y ago
Firstly, that article itself notes, some of those cases were likely not whistleblowers (they were just relaying government information to news agencies, and even if trying to be transparent I doubt they intended internal negotiations with North Korea and Iran to to transparent while ongoing). Secondly, that's but one aspect of administration transparency, there are many to consider, such as how much other information was released, when it was released, and how complete it was. Looking at one metric, even if it's an important one, and using it as the sole basis for making that judgement, amounts to more of a PR move and clickbait headline than useful assessment. That said, I agree, Obama didn't appear to run a very open administration. It appeared very secretive. Then again, the prosecuting of of people for leaked information rather than quiet pressure and sanctions is itself a form of transparency (it's also noted in that article that past presidents used many other techniques to pressure reporters instead of the legal system). In the end, this is a complex enough topic that without a massive investment of time and effort, most arguments are going to have a hefty amount of opinion, making useful discussion hard. It doesn't help that we don't have an easy comparison with Trump's administration. In one respect, it's likely the most open administration there's ever been. I just don't think that's by design...
- zeep 9y ago
  but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it), proofs are only asked when you talk against democrats... (Do you think that Google would fire somebody for saying what I said? I do...)
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) Actually I was implying that it may be seen that way, and even if you see it that way that doesn't fully explain what was going on. > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) Not true. There are some vocal Trump supporters here (out at least they were, they've been quiet of late). Unsupported statements are often called out on both sides. It may happen more for one side than the other, but that just means it's up to people like you to ask. If you can do it in a respectful way, you're part of the solution (and I suspect you'll get upvotes for it). That's also a very vocal set of libertarians that are happy to explain or argue the finer points of their reasoning. > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) I don't think that really has any place in this discussion, but I'll humor you. No, I don't think they would. There are many Republicans working at Google. This is about a specific aspect of the company policy which happens to align with professed democratic principles. An employee publicly called that policy into question in a way that was easy for some to see as bigotry. That's a PR nightmare, and puts a spotlight on the company in a way they don't like, all because of one person. The PR nightmare alone is enough to cause the firing. Everything else just made the decision easier.

by zeep 9y ago

kbenson 9y ago

Firstly, that article itself notes, some of those cases were likely not whistleblowers (they were just relaying government information to news agencies, and even if trying to be transparent I doubt they intended internal negotiations with North Korea and Iran to to transparent while ongoing). Secondly, that's but one aspect of administration transparency, there are many to consider, such as how much other information was released, when it was released, and how complete it was. Looking at one metric, even if it's an important one, and using it as the sole basis for making that judgement, amounts to more of a PR move and clickbait headline than useful assessment. That said, I agree, Obama didn't appear to run a very open administration. It appeared very secretive. Then again, the prosecuting of of people for leaked information rather than quiet pressure and sanctions is itself a form of transparency (it's also noted in that article that past presidents used many other techniques to pressure reporters instead of the legal system). In the end, this is a complex enough topic that without a massive investment of time and effort, most arguments are going to have a hefty amount of opinion, making useful discussion hard. It doesn't help that we don't have an easy comparison with Trump's administration. In one respect, it's likely the most open administration there's ever been. I just don't think that's by design...

zeep 9y ago
but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it), proofs are only asked when you talk against democrats... (Do you think that Google would fire somebody for saying what I said? I do...)
- kbenson 9y ago
  > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) Actually I was implying that it may be seen that way, and even if you see it that way that doesn't fully explain what was going on. > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) Not true. There are some vocal Trump supporters here (out at least they were, they've been quiet of late). Unsupported statements are often called out on both sides. It may happen more for one side than the other, but that just means it's up to people like you to ask. If you can do it in a respectful way, you're part of the solution (and I suspect you'll get upvotes for it). That's also a very vocal set of libertarians that are happy to explain or argue the finer points of their reasoning. > but since this is place a bastion of liberal Democrat support (as you put it) I don't think that really has any place in this discussion, but I'll humor you. No, I don't think they would. There are many Republicans working at Google. This is about a specific aspect of the company policy which happens to align with professed democratic principles. An employee publicly called that policy into question in a way that was easy for some to see as bigotry. That's a PR nightmare, and puts a spotlight on the company in a way they don't like, all because of one person. The PR nightmare alone is enough to cause the firing. Everything else just made the decision easier.