| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:04 xDaunt wrote: There's nothing to renege on because Obama did not pardon Manning. I'm sorry he commuted the sentace down to a mere 4 more months. Of course Assange will stick to the letter but not the spirit on this one, my bad. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:05 Jaaaaasper wrote: I'm sorry he commuted the sentace down to a mere 4 more months. Of course Assange will stick to the letter but not the spirit on this one, my bad. It's a very big difference. Obama Pardoning Manning would be acknowledging Manning acted in the public good. Reducing the sentence here seem more akin to Obama feeling sorry for Manning's treatment and deciding that it was punishment enough. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 06:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: complexity doesn't mean truth can't be uncovered. or even directly make it harder to uncover. indirectly, however... it does make it harder to grab and hold on to power though, so there is little incentive to acknowledge the complexity. which does make uncovering truth harder because... really what these discussions are about is power. formal and informal, legal and social. who has it, what justifies having it, what justifies keeping it. few who discuss racial issues are discussing them as observers who are simply interested in the details and how they fit together so they can gain an accurate understanding of an engrossing topic. they're interested in wielding power or protecting the power they already wield. No disagreements here. Just want to point out that, if you look at these types of discussions throughout history, each generation always feels like they've finally figured it out to some degree, only for their world views to be upended a few generations later. Any conclusions we make about things this soft will always be tainted with bias of the present moment. Questions that are ambiguous like "was it racist that _____" will never have the concreteness of "what is One plus One" because the variables themselves are ambiguous. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Trump flying by the seat of his pants according to what's in front of him, as he did in business, and as he did in the campaign. Let's just hope the people around him steward our country well. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:04 xDaunt wrote: There's nothing to renege on because Obama did not pardon Manning. Wait, didn't you claim a week ago or so that you don't care about semantics? Which is it going to be | ||
|
farvacola
United States18821 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:20 Nyxisto wrote: Wait, didn't you claim a week ago or so that you don't care about semantics? Which is it going to be As much as I would personally enjoy it--arguing semantics about how someone feels about arguing in semantics might not be the best direction for this thread. However, if no one is against, I am fully onboard. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:21 farvacola wrote: As much as I hate defending the daunt, there is a legal and rather significant difference between the commutation of a sentence and the pardoning of the commission of a tried crime. What meaningful distinction is there in this purely political case? That Manning can't own firearms now? The important thing was getting her out of prison. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18821 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:27 Nyxisto wrote: What meaningful distinction is there in this purely political case? That Manning can't own firearms now? The important thing was getting her out of prison. I agree, which is why I think it was a smart move by Obama. For what it says about this country, there are a great many people in this country who will look a bit more positively on granting Manning leniency because of Obama's symbolic tempering of the remedy. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:27 Nyxisto wrote: What meaningful distinction is there in this purely political case? That Manning can't own firearms now? The important thing was getting her out of prison. A practical example of a difference, beyond the legal differences, is that none of the reasons that Manning were freed applied to Snowden. From the NYT article: Asked about the two clemency applications on Friday, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, discussed the “pretty stark difference” between Ms. Manning’s case for mercy and Mr. Snowden’s. While their offenses were similar, he said, there were “some important differences.” "Chelsea Manning is somebody who went through the military criminal justice process, was exposed to due process, was found guilty, was sentenced for her crimes, and she acknowledged wrongdoing,” | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:27 Nyxisto wrote: What meaningful distinction is there in this purely political case? That Manning can't own firearms now? The important thing was getting her out of prison. The difference is between saying Manning did no crime (a pardon) and that the punishment for the crime was too harsh (reduction in sentence) This is not a definition issue, these are literally two different sets of actions. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
"well a pardon would have been disastrous, but a commutation seems alright!" | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote: I'm aware of the technical difference, but it's irrelevant in a case of this scope. The huge threat to whistle-blowers on the Manning scale is to rot in a dungeon, not interference with some of their civil liberties. That's obviously how the opposition will treat it as well. Please show me one Manning opponent who will go "well a pardon would have been disastrous, but a commutation seems alright!" Although I am not a Manning opponent by any stretch--I feel that a commutation is fairly disastrous to the overall message as to expectations for whistleblowers. So you have to be wildly popular, get pressure on the administration from a percentage of the population, and have lost the current election to simply get a shorter sentence? Not all whistleblowers will have those advantages. And not all whistleblowers will have that safety. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: Although I am not a Manning opponent by any stretch--I feel that a commutation is fairly disastrous to the overall message as to expectations for whistleblowers. So you have to be wildly popular, get pressure on the administration from a percentage of the population, and have lost the current election to simply get a shorter sentence? Not all whistleblowers will have those advantages. And not all whistleblowers will have that safety. Not to mention it seems like the 2 suicides attempts & being transgender in a men's prison are also a factor here. That's the important bit, the communication has nothing to do with acknowledging the value to the American people in what Manning did, but rather excusing the sentence for other reasons. It's a completely good thing that it happened, but it's only a small step instead of a big one. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:45 Nyxisto wrote: I'm aware of the technical difference, but it's irrelevant in a case of this scope. The huge threat to whistle-blowers on the Manning scale is to rot in a dungeon, not interference with some of their civil liberties. That's obviously how the opposition will treat it as well. Please show me one Manning opponent who will go "well a pardon would have been disastrous, but a commutation seems alright!" If we find a single such person on the internet would you concede the point? and can we tone it down to a pardon would be bad, but commutation is ok? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 18 2017 07:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: Although I am not a Manning opponent by any stretch--I feel that a commutation is fairly disastrous to the overall message as to expectations for whistleblowers. So you have to be wildly popular, get pressure on the administration from a percentage of the population, and have lost the current election to simply get a shorter sentence? Not all whistleblowers will have those advantages. And not all whistleblowers will have that safety. Manning aside I think the general opinion is that the Obama administration was a pretty huge blow back for whistleblowers and that the US is a pretty bad country to leak so much information. Pretty sad but I guess that's what you have to expect. Certainly isn't going to get much better with Trump and I can't even remember Bernie talking a lot about civil liberties. Even after the whole Snowden thing blew up nobody really seemed to care. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
nevermind the invetability of being able to find someone, somehwere on the internet who believes such a thing. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
 . | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 18 2017 06:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: I understand that, from an election standpoint, that the "globalization can't be stopped" message is... deflating at best, horrifying at worse. But no amount of yelling and screaming is going to stop businesses from just going elsewhere. For example; do you know who will get hurt the most by trade wars? Middle Class and Poor America who will see the price of goods skyrocket as companies try to make up for the cost difference. Is it right of them to up the costs? I don't think so--but will they? Of course they will. Now, we could establish a governmental body who is in charge of controlling prices--I am sure that worked out well for other communist countries. Or maybe we could go full "free market" and just let god sort out the bodies? Hmm, that sounds shitty too. Or, we could face globalization as it is, a realization that we live in a global economy and that we have to adapt in a global, not local, scale. As people perceive a precipitous decline in their quality of life they tend to be open to increasingly radical solutions. Trump is probably just the first in a long string of such backlashes. Globalization isn't new. We had the Silk Road, we had centuries of sea-based trade, we had the age of imperialism, and so on. The only real differences now are that we have better transportation technology (doesn't really make all that much of a difference), two countries capable of destroying all other countries in the world in a few hours (and a few capable of killing at least some of the world), and probably most importantly, an automation-based new industrial revolution. But none of that fundamentally changes the fact that this is very reminiscent of the kinds of situations that have, in the past, led to violent revolutions: a working class that has increasingly little, and a wealthy class that is increasingly wealthy. It probably won't come to that - at least, not in the first world. It might lead to the end of the EU (a very real possibility right now), which has a lot of the same systemic issues as the US, except as a bloc instead of a nation with one leader. But what is true, as whitedoge has argued before, is that if no one has the money to buy your shit, then you're fucked. The third worlders that saw an increase in QOL due to exports are going to have issues, along with all the businesses that sold those exports. Then the financiers that are not going to get their money back, and so on. Looking at how much debt is floating around - and bad debt at that (e.g. Greece), the system really looks quite brittle. What's the solution? There isn't one that wouldn't be painful. It would probably involve protectionism in the short term, and the ability for a nation-state to establish some degree of self-sufficiency. I honestly don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, how to reverse the trend. But the trend is likely not to lead to a very positive result. The nation-state is still the most important level of government and that is not likely to change in the near future. I don't expect Trump to fix it. Hopefully he will bury TPP and TTIP and burn the remains. Also it would be nice if he were to be able to prevent a deescalation with Russia because whether or not you like Russia or what it does, no one needs that shit right now. Beyond that, just hoping for the best. | ||
| ||
BSL: ProLeague
Bracket Stage: Day 2
HBO vs Doodle
spx vs Tech
DragOn vs Hawk
Dewalt vs TerrOr
ZZZero.O372
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
GSL Code S
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
