US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[The Anti-Targ]

Just now, chairman lmao said:

And again, it's been closer to six and a half

So more like the equivalent of 15 years in a women's prison.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

This is really all you need to know about the DeVos hearings.

 

Guns in and around schools means more black kids dead and fewer white kids dead. Seems like sound policy.

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Guns in and around schools means more black kids dead and fewer white kids dead. Seems like sound policy.

WHAT ABOUT THE BEARS

HAAAALP

[Commodore]

jeez, Obama also set free terrorist bomber Oscar Lopez Rivera

 

[Sivin]

Well this development is a lot more interesting than what I was up to earlier, so on to this!

Not entirely sure how I feel about this news. As a person, I am very happy for Manning and the things I have heard about her treatment is the stuff of literal nightmares. Not to mention I approve of whistle blowers in general.

As a citizen... she broke the law, and was convicted under the uniform code of military justice. I've been subject to its discipline as well (obviously for completely incomparable reasons), and well... you know what kind of stuff is off-limits when you're a soldier and divulging state secrets is a pretty obvious one. If Manning's sentence has been commuted, shouldn't Assange and Snowden be allowed to work out some kind of deal where they serve a similar sentence? I have absolutely no problem with pardons or a commuted sentence for high profile (nonviolent) crimes when the convicted is not a danger to society, but I would think such a thing should be up to the people, with at the very least a candidate running with such executive intentions made clear.

I don't know, I'm left feeling odd about this one.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, WinterFox said:

If Manning's sentence has been commuted, shouldn't Assange and Snowden be allowed to work out some kind of deal where they serve a similar sentence?

It's very, very different for a lot of reasons.

For Snowden, he has never been tried of anything and would likely not return unless he had guarantees of a whole lot of stuff. Many politicians consider Snowden to simply be a Russian spy, point blank, and it would be hard to convince them to pardon him of anything. The intelligence community feels Snowden caused actual, legitimate harm to their operations and operators. The same isn't true about Manning (though the GOP thinks otherwise, likely because Chelsea is Trans and a much more easy target). 

Assange has never been even charged with a crime in the US, and as such there's very little to pardon him for. 

[James Arryn]

I'm increasingly theorizing that many people are nostalgic about the Cold War era. Trump seems to be pushing for a revisitation, and posters in here seem to quote CW reasoning as tautologies without any real application. Seriously, I think some people feel more vital or, dunno, patriotic in that dynamic.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, James Arryn said:

I'm increasingly theorizing that many people are nostalgic about the Cold War era. Trump seems to be pushing for a revisitation, and posters in here seem to quote CW reasoning as tautologies without any real application. Seriously, I think some people feel more vital or, dunno, patriotic in that dynamic.

No I'm not engaging in "cold war reasoning". But, I feel Putin shouldn't be able to have the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. Period.

And what do you mean by "without any real application". Isn't not true that the people of the Baltic States are bit terrified right now of Putin. It's my understanding Ltihtuania re-instituted the draft awhile back.

And it isn't just do to simple "patriotism". Often, I wish the US could just go back to isolationism.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, Week said:

In reference to this exchange (I'll post - just in case you didn't click through _and_ read the article):

Murphy: Do you think guns have any place in or around schools?

DeVos: That is best left to locales and states to decide. If the underlying question is —

Murphy: You can't say definitively today that guns shouldn't be in schools?

DeVos: I will refer back to (Wyoming) Senator (Mike) Enzi and the school he was talking about in Wyoming. I think probably there, I would imagine that there is probably a gun in the schools to protect from potential grizzlies.

Murphy: If President Trump moves forward with his plan to ban gun free school zones, will you support that?

DeVos: I will support what the president-elect does. If the question is around gun violence and the results of that, please know that my heart bleeds and is broken for those families that have lost any individual due to gun violence.

Murphy: I look forward to working with you, but I also look forward to you coming to Connecticut to talk about the role of guns in schools.

It was a dishonest response where she intentionally missed the point (or she really is that dumb). 

I was just commenting on the title of the article. It's so hacky it reeks of stale Daily Show and Bill Maher type humor. Pretty funny 20 years ago but just super hacky by today's standards.

[Fragile Bird]

Was DeVos involved in running Amway? I know that her husband is named as the founder together with his partner in the Wikipedia article about Amway, but I've also seen references in stories about her saying she was involved in running the company the company. If she was, I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up.

Back in the 1980s in Canada there was quite a scandal about the way Amway brought their stuff into Canada, and they were charged under the Competition Act of Canada, eventually pleading guilty to certain criminal charges and were fined $25 M, the largest fine ever in Canadian history at the time. From Wikipedia:

Quote

Canadian tax fraud case[edit]

In 1982, Amway co-founders, Richard M. DeVos and Jay Van Andel, along with Amway's executive vice president for corporate services, William J. Mr. Discher Jr., were indicted in Canada on several criminal charges, including allegations that they underreported the value of goods brought into the country and had defrauded the Canadian government of more than $28 million from 1965 to 1980.

The charges were dropped in 1983 after Amway and its Canadian subsidiary pleaded guilty to criminal customs fraud charges. The companies paid a fine of $25 million CAD, the largest fine ever imposed in Canada at the time. In 1989 the company settled the outstanding customs duties for $45 million CAD. In a 1994 article authored by DeVos, he stated that the guilty plea was entered for technical reasons, despite believing they were innocent of the charges, and that he believed that the case had been motivated by "political reasons".

THE QUOTE ENDS HERE - STUPID QUOTE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK RIGHT

Yeah, the 'political reasons' dealt with transfer pricing, where prices are manipulated by companies in order to take advantage of the best tax situation for the company. It means the price of goods are either underestimated or overestimated, so the best valuation is achieved in the country of choice.  The US government has also gone after numerous companies over the years on the transfer pricing issue. NAFTA eliminated many of the problems between Canada and the US, because goods manufactured in each of our countries crosses the border duty free, so there's no need for artificial price manipulation. Cancelling NAFTA will bring all that shit back again.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I was just commenting on the title of the article. It's so hacky it reeks of stale Daily Show and Bill Maher type humor. Pretty funny 20 years ago but just super hacky by today's standards.

Hmmm, has more of a Colbert Report vibe to it if you ask me.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/f0uh68/the-colbert-report-threatdown---all-bear-edition

[DunderMifflin]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Hmmm, has more of a Colbert Report vibe to it if you ask me.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/f0uh68/the-colbert-report-threatdown---all-bear-edition

I'd put C-Rep in that same genre. Jon Oliver as well.

Step #1 - scour serious news for the most ridiculous thing you can find.

Step #2 - repeat ridiculous thing on your show 

 

Funny concept that got beaten into the ground to where only cringe remains.

 

I gave up on Daily Show some time in mid 2000s when I saw like 10 episodes in a row do the exact same thing. Play a Fox News clip, make a witty putdown remark, play another Fox News clip, make another witty putdown, repeat infinity.

 

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Which is why I didn't mention Manning specifically even once in that point. We have enough trans posters in these threads that we don't need to be inhospitable to them just to spite somebody who'll never frequent this forum anyway. I acknowledge I wasn't clear enough that that politeness included more people than just Manning herself.

Thanks for being the first to jump in and say this. Every time some asshole does this, when its clearly intentional, its another reminder than any time someone doesn't like you they can stomp you down in the dirt stripping your identity. Fuck that, its not OK.

Re: Chelsea more generally - as others have already pointed out the time she has served was not only in cruel and unusual circumstances (an awful lot of solitary confinement serving a sentence as a woman in a men's prison) and longer than is a typical sentence for what she did. Its more than served as a deterrent and the legal consequences are going to stick with her for the rest of her life, aside from the social and psychological ones. If you want her to suffer more at this point its purely wanting to punish someone and I'd ask those of you I consider actually decent human beings why on earth you need someone who has clearly suffered a huge amount to need to dwell in suffering so long she never even has a life?

Before she leaked the information she was quite clearly undergoing a psychological breakdown whilst on duty, she reached out to her CO to try and get help and due to being short handed it was all ignored and she was pushed to keep working and bottling everything up. Even if you oppose what she did, surely that also functions as extenuating circumstances (again - just directed at the decent people like Lany and Zabzie, certain other posters have made their feelings more than clear).

[Fragile Bird]

For those who have asked, why did Obama do it, I think the answer is clear. Obama is man who has compassion.

He also commuted the sentences of 1500 non-violent drug offenders.

[Fragile Bird]

I have just re-watched a panel with Anderson Cooper on CNN talking about Chelsea Manning, and it was quite telling to listen to Mike Rogers, a Republican who was the chair of the Intelligence committee when the Manning leak happened. He was, of course, outraged at Obama's actions. He also pointedly, and repeatedly, kept calling Manning 'he', while everyone else, including other Republicans and reporter Carl Bernstein all used 'she'.

ETA: CNN just played a piece of tape from Trump's speech at an inaugural event for the Washington diplomatic corps tonight. He introduced Pence by saying "I could picked a lotta beauties, boy, but I picked him", or words to that effect.  I mean, why do you denigrate your VP that way?

And then he introduced Tillerson, who was in the audience, by saying "He usually went into a country and took all the oil and then he left, I think he's finding politics tougher". Lol!

[DunderMifflin]

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

 

Concerning Manning, I'd let her out today if it was up to me. But as far as her treatment being cruel and unusual I have to disagree with that. Cruel yes, unusual no. In the context of American prison (and probably the world) it doesnt seem unusual at all. I guess it's all in how you define unusual, legally defined cruel and unusual punishment is extremely vague but untreated conditions, higher than normal sentencing, and solitary confinement are not at all that anamalous in prisons.

Locked in prison as a gender you are not is one thing but physically weaker and effiminate(not neccesarily gay) males can have it pretty bad in male prison as well. Or one just deemed an outcast in general is likely to have a terrifying experience. I dont know that incorrect gender imprisonment automatically means ones experience is more cruel or unusual than any of these others.

EDIT: if it's cruel and unusual in context of military prison I don't know much about that. I just don't like an idea that her treatment has been anything wildly cruel or unusual. That really paints a rosy picture of conditions of prisoners that doesn't exist.

[Mr Fixit]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

No I'm not engaging in "cold war reasoning". But, I feel Putin shouldn't be able to have the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. Period.

Which he doesn't want. Gotta love this warped media-induced frenzy. First confabulate that Putin is about to invade Baltic countries, Poland, and such. Then rush to their defense. Then maintain "we're not for Cold War, we just gotta stop Russia". 

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Let's be clear here: Deliberately misgendering someone is not OK, and doing so will earn you a vacation from your posting privileges. If you make an honest mistake (it happens), then apologize and go back and edit your post to correct the error. Thank you. [/mod]

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mr Fixit said:

Which he doesn't want. Gotta love this warped media-induced frenzy. First confabulate that Putin is about to invade Baltic countries, Poland, and such. Then rush to their defense. Then maintain "we're not for Cold War, we just gotta stop Russia". 

How do you know what he wants? Know that for sure? I don't think you do.

Please explain to us, oh enlightened one, just what Putin's long term strategic goals are.

If you have some kind of  secret source of information, which isn't in the media, by all means share it with the rest of us.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Which he doesn't want. Gotta love this warped media-induced frenzy. First confabulate that Putin is about to invade Baltic countries, Poland, and such. Then rush to their defense. Then maintain "we're not for Cold War, we just gotta stop Russia". 

Putin hasn't said the fall of the Soviet Union was a tragedy?  Putin isn't working to restore Russia to the position it held as the Soviet Union?  Doesn't Putin's ambition to push Russia back to its heights of power necessarily imply he wants the old Soviet Republics back in direct Russian control and the Warsaw Pact back in Moscow's hegemony?