Like seriously. Dig deeper into the claim of Obama hates whistleblowers and you'll find it's a load of garbage. It's a talking point that people use because they know people won't dig into it, and will just associate the claim with Manning and Snowden.
I provided an extremely detailed source on the matter, actually. The full details of the saga are indefensible, not more defensible. Manning suffered in solitary for almost a year, often considered torture. Good men were hung out to dry by an unjust system. He deliberately tried to close avenues of access for the press. He left contractors out of whistleblower protection laws, people like Snowden, so that they could be abused and intimidated. One of the best reporters at The New York Times, no friend of the right but certainly a friend to him, called him the greatest threat to press freedom in a generation. The same one who uncovered Bush's wiretapping.
I see very little reason to defend his actions. They were clearly, unambiguously wrong, and I don't think it's the people who agree with that who are misinformed.
More examples of liberal whataboutism to counteract conservative whataboutism...
Bill Clinton takes advantage of an intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Liberal response... "Consenting adults". But Trump is an asshole because of high school locker room 'grab em by the pussy' comment? Again, bullshit. Bill Clinton was a skirt-chaser and probably still is. Where was the women's libbers outrage then? Abuse of power anybody? If Clinton was a doctor he would have lost his medical license but as President of the United States, crickets...
I get what you're doing here, but let's not diminish Trump by pretending that comment is his only known sin of this nature, or that there is any actual reason to believe his comment was much of a joke or exaggeration.
But you are completly correct that Bill Clinton is a serial predator and that how much the left excuses this (even the left that otherwise hates the Clintons!) is disgusting. You cannot have a consenting relationship with the gross imbalance of power that exists between the President and a white house intern, and if that wasn't sufficiently recognised in the 90s, there is certainly no reason not to recognise it now.
If Clinton's relationship was consensual, then so are relationships between teachers and students, or bosses and interns at any other job, etc.
MoreYou might not like Reagan but he got a Hell of a lot more accomplished with a hostile Congress than Obama ever did.
That's, uh, WHY I hate him, though? Getting things done is only admirable if the things you're trying to do are admirable. Reagan was a malicious snake who hid behind an affable image while systematically poisoning the well in America for race relations, labour relations, economic management and a host of other factors for generations. He was guilty as hell for Iran-Contra and should have been impeached for that, as long as we're at it.
Putting that aside, though, Obama and Reagan were dealing with entirely different situations, as a "hostile congress" is an entirely different thing post-Newt Gingrich.
Getting things done is admirable regardless of whether you agree or not. Respect is earned by accomplishments, not by a letter by your name. Reagan did some things that I liked. Putting spending pressure on the USSR by upping the military ante was genius at the time. That and Chernobyl combined to pretty much seal the fate of the Soviet Union.
Getting things done is admirable regardless of whether you agree or not. Respect is earned by accomplishments, not by a letter by your name. Reagan did some things that I liked. Putting spending pressure on the USSR by upping the military ante was genius at the time. That and Chernobyl combined to pretty much seal the fate of the Soviet Union.
Okay, but I will decline to join in your admiration for how much the Khmer Rouge managed to get done. It was certainly impressive, in a way. But not admirable.
@Ayiekie is not a simulacrum of me writing under a pseudonym. Any similarities in content or tone are purely coincidental!
(He's saving me a lot of carpal tunnel aggravation though.)
Edit: Should state that that's a generic 'he' as I'm in no ways sure of 'his' gender.
Maybe the conversation will get back on gun control, which will likely dispel any doubts on that.
In seriousness, this is why "left vs. right" is a false dichotomy. An enormous amount more goes into political positions and moral viewpoints than what side of the room your party sat on during the French Revolution.
I just want the same standards to apply from the left when it's one of their guys in office. Lyndon Johnson was a prick. I've heard folks on this forum praising him for his 'civil right's' stand while basically ignoring my pointing out his role in escalating the Vietnam War. W's war cost thousands of lives and the left bitched about it like it was WW1. Johnson's war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and all I hear is what a great President he was. Bullshit!
With all due respect, Johnson lost his chance to run for reelection due to being rejected by his own party, due in no small part to Vietnam. That's not a standard the right matched for Bush, even though it was already well-known in 2004 that his administration was guilty of either lying or gross incompetence to drag the country into war.
But still: LBJ was a corrupt bully, with contempt for the rules and norms of American governance, who started an unnecessary war that would kill millions (because I don't only care about American deaths). He also passed civil rights legislation that was a historically notable step on the road to full equality, and drew back from the precipice of nuclear war that his predecessor had almost ended the world due to. So he's a mixed bag, imo.
His predecessor called a bluff that needed to be called. I also think his predecessor would have gotten us out of Vietnam instead of escalating the war. I only have his brother's views to base that on but I think it's a safe bet. Only the Lincoln assassination was worse for this country than JFK's...
Getting things done is admirable regardless of whether you agree or not. Respect is earned by accomplishments, not by a letter by your name. Reagan did some things that I liked. Putting spending pressure on the USSR by upping the military ante was genius at the time. That and Chernobyl combined to pretty much seal the fate of the Soviet Union.
Okay, but I will decline to join in your admiration for how much the Khmer Rouge managed to get done. It was certainly impressive, in a way. But not admirable.
OK, you got me there. Reagan wasn't the Khmer Rouge or Stalin though. I was more referring to democratic politics, not full-scale revolutions/purges...
I just want the same standards to apply from the left when it's one of their guys in office. Lyndon Johnson was a prick. I've heard folks on this forum praising him for his 'civil right's' stand while basically ignoring my pointing out his role in escalating the Vietnam War. W's war cost thousands of lives and the left bitched about it like it was WW1. Johnson's war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and all I hear is what a great President he was. Bullshit!
With all due respect, Johnson lost his chance to run for reelection due to being rejected by his own party, due in no small part to Vietnam. That's not a standard the right matched for Bush, even though it was already well-known in 2004 that his administration was guilty of either lying or gross incompetence to drag the country into war.
But still: LBJ was a corrupt bully, with contempt for the rules and norms of American governance, who started an unnecessary war that would kill millions (because I don't only care about American deaths). He also passed civil rights legislation that was a historically notable step on the road to full equality, and drew back from the precipice of nuclear war that his predecessor had almost ended the world due to. So he's a mixed bag, imo.
His predecessor called a bluff that needed to be called. I also think his predecessor would have gotten us out of Vietnam instead of escalating the war. I only have his brother's views to base that on but I think it's a safe bet. Only the Lincoln assassination was worse for this country than JFK's...
JFK intensely distrusted his generals and CIA after the Bay of Pigs (and why wouldn't he have). Also, one wrong move by him or Krushchev during the Missile Crisis could have meant the end of the world (and god knows if Kennedy had listened to lunatics like Curtis LeMay, that may have happened). That said, Bobby was the true idealist. The Kennedy brothers, however, stepped on ALOT of toes. Jack the national security apparatus, Bobby with Hoffa and the mafia. I'm not saying that got them killed, but alot of people at the very least believe the mafia was involved in what happened in Dallas.
But, to your point here is what happened within one decade: the fairy-tale Prince of a President gets his head blown off by an assassin. Johnson takes over and signs the Civil Rights Act, lighting a fire in the South that has never been put out for the left. MLK is assassinated, Bobby gives the speech that calms an African-American neighborhood that night. Then Bobby is killed. Vietnam becomes a disaster quagmire, Nixon takes over and swallows the racist former Southern Dems into the party, and then Watergate completely destroys any trust anyone had left in government. Country has never been the same.
I just want the same standards to apply from the left when it's one of their guys in office. Lyndon Johnson was a prick. I've heard folks on this forum praising him for his 'civil right's' stand while basically ignoring my pointing out his role in escalating the Vietnam War. W's war cost thousands of lives and the left bitched about it like it was WW1. Johnson's war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and all I hear is what a great President he was. Bullshit!
With all due respect, Johnson lost his chance to run for reelection due to being rejected by his own party, due in no small part to Vietnam. That's not a standard the right matched for Bush, even though it was already well-known in 2004 that his administration was guilty of either lying or gross incompetence to drag the country into war.
But still: LBJ was a corrupt bully, with contempt for the rules and norms of American governance, who started an unnecessary war that would kill millions (because I don't only care about American deaths). He also passed civil rights legislation that was a historically notable step on the road to full equality, and drew back from the precipice of nuclear war that his predecessor had almost ended the world due to. So he's a mixed bag, imo.
His predecessor called a bluff that needed to be called. I also think his predecessor would have gotten us out of Vietnam instead of escalating the war. I only have his brother's views to base that on but I think it's a safe bet. Only the Lincoln assassination was worse for this country than JFK's...
JFK intensely distrusted his generals and CIA after the Bay of Pigs (and why wouldn't he have). Also, one wrong move by him or Krushchev during the Missile Crisis could have meant the end of the world (and god knows if Kennedy had listened to lunatics like Curtis LeMay, that may have happened). That said, Bobby was the true idealist. The Kennedy brothers, however, stepped on ALOT of toes. Jack the national security apparatus, Bobby Hoffa and the mafia. I'm not saying that got them killed, but alot of people at the very least believe the mafia was involved in what happened in Dallas.
Neither Kennedy, nor Khruschev wanted to 'end the world'. That's the whole nature of a 'bluff'. Khrushchev was bluffing and Kennedy somehow knew it. Whether it was pure instinct or intelligence is irrelevant. Cuba didn't get nuclear missiles and we're all safer for it. Kudos to Jack Kennedy...
Edit: It may also be that compromise ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy may just have given personal assurance to Khruschev that we wouldn't interfere in Cuba. That works for me too. We may never know if that was the case since that was long before we the people knew about every phone call our government is involved in...
"...after the unredacted cables had been leaked elsewhere..."
How did that happen? Or are you just whitewashing over it? The documents were not secured. They weren't secured because of Manning's actions. That's the end of it. The easiest way to simplify how her actions were wrong. She gave them to the wrong person.
Everything else is just noise. OMG she was tortured therefore she must be completely innocent of every charge brought before her. Give me a break.
(also feel free to add any CanCon here. I try to once and awhile).
"...after the unredacted cables had been leaked elsewhere..."
How did that happen? Or are you just whitewashing over it? The documents were not secured. They weren't secured because of Manning's actions. That's the end of it. The easiest way to simplify how her actions were wrong. She gave them to the wrong person.
Everything else is just noise. OMG she was tortured therefore she must be completely innocent of every charge brought before her. Give me a break.
(also feel free to add any CanCon here. I try to once and awhile).
Had to look up 'CanCon'. ?
By all means, I'd love to hear how things are going in other countries. Haven't heard much about Brexit in a while. Also, our Polish and German posters haven't chimed in for a while. I'm curious how things are going in that neck of the woods too...
If we have a German poster, I'd love to hear more about what's going on in Thuringia. I try to keep up with, and understand, European politics but my first hand sources are limited.
If we have a German poster, I'd love to hear more about what's going on in Thuringia. I try to keep up with, and understand, European politics but my first hand sources are limited.
Found this. Interesting, but would like to hear from an actual German.
It's just amazing that the second biggest party in that country can be treated like it is illegitimate. The people decide that, and they clearly have other opinions. I partially understand their unique situation, but mostly not, and you certainly can't call this a democracy in any sense of the term.
Still I always try to hear news from across the ocean from people "in the know", since I don't think the press gives the complete picture.
Mostly I hear alot of folks talking about it like it's a big deal, but am not quite sure why.
It's just amazing that the second biggest party in that country can be treated like it is illegitimate. The people decide that, and they clearly have other opinions. I partially understand their unique situation, but mostly not, and you certainly can't call this a democracy in any sense of the term.
Still I always try to hear news from across the ocean from people "in the know", since I don't think the press gives the complete picture.
Mostly I hear alot of folks talking about it like it's a big deal, but am not quite sure why.
It appears that the FDP made a 'deal with the devil' involving the AfD in order to take power. The AfD apparently gets most Germans' spidey-sense tingling because of their far-right policies. Understandably so due to their unique place in history if you ask me. Europe is not the panacea of liberal ideas that we're led to believe in this country. The EU's assanine immigration policies are pushing their every day citizens to the right just like here. I literally can't believe how the left in this country can't see how immigration is just big corporations' way of keeping wages lower. It's a total blind-spot that is beyond my comprehension...
. The EU's assanine immigration policies are pushing their every day citizens to the right just like here.
Pretty much, and in that sense they are filling a natural role in the political process as the focal point of opposition to Merkel's most controversial choices. They've been steadily growing despite everything that's said about them, so it's not like they aren't making an educated choice.
As an aside, I dislike granting any legitimacy to the paranoid and, frankly, insulting idea that any right wing shift in Germany inherently poses any risks, as if they are some alternate species of human.
I wouldn't call them far right, but I suppose they are relative to their own environment.
God forbid you passionately disagree with any of the 'establishment' policies. Apparently that's akin to inciting to riot these days. I'm sure CNN just wants to get the 'truth' and has no vested interest in investigating the Sanders campaign. Sigh, anybody I consider voting for must be an asshole apparently...
In relation to whistle-blowing, I don't think anyone has referred to why the Espionage Act was used to prosecute these offences under Obama. The Act was passed in 1917 as part of the US preparations for WWI and originally covered both espionage and sedition (the latter aspect was repealed in 1921). In it's original form the Act also provided for state censorship, but the Senate voted 39:38 to remove this and Wilson decided to sign rather than delay further in an attempt to put that back in (which would have been his preference).
Despite that narrow defeat for the provision on censorship, the fact that the Act was passed during war-time is crucial to understanding why it does not have the same provisions to protect free speech you would expect based on the US constitution. In particular, unlike any of the many pieces of legislation specifically covering whistle-blowing, there is no public interest defense to being charged under this Act (though that defense is typically only available to federal employees - which was the problem in the Snowden case).
The Act has been used many times to prosecute espionage over the years (see here for examples). However, essentially it's been used for its intended purpose of prosecuting espionage. The quote about there being more prosecutions under the Act than in all previous administrations specifically refers to whistle-blower prosecutions, which were not the original target of the legislation. The Obama administration chose to bring prosecutions under this Act in order to bypass any public interest defense and I agree with the view that this reflects very badly on Obama and goes entirely contrary to the intentions he stated on taking office to be more open in government and not suppress information just because that reflects badly on the government.
Personally I think there should be a general public interest defense available in all situations. That could be provided for through legislation, but it could also be done via the Supreme Court - as part of a ruling that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional, they could set out how national defense requirements interact with First Amendment provisions. The chances of either of those routes being taken under the current administration though look limited.
By all means, I'd love to hear how things are going in other countries. Haven't heard much about Brexit in a while.
The thumping majority the Conservatives won in December means they can do pretty much what they want at the moment. Hence all the major arguments about Brexit suddenly went away, the legislation for exit was passed and the UK officially became no longer part of the EU on 31 January.
In practice nothing has changed yet as the existing rules remain in place during the transition period up until 31 December. Johnson has been very clear that the transition period will not be extended and hence there will be a lot of pressure to agree a deal with the EU prior to that. Both sides are currently staking out their negotiation positions, but negotiations are not likely to start for another month or so (due to the need for a common position to be agreed by all the EU countries).
I think there's almost no prospect of a comprehensive deal being agreed in such a short space of time. Any deal is therefore likely to knock off a few particular areas (like fishing for instance), together with a framework to be used in agreeing additional provisions. Currently the EU are resisting this idea and pushing for a more comprehensive approach, but that could well change given the time pressure.
It remains possible that no deal will be agreed by the end of 2020 - it seems to me that there are those on both sides who consider that the other side would suffer worse in the event of a no deal and are therefore willing to contemplate that on the grounds that the impact would bring the other side to "see reason".
Another impact of the Conservative majority has been that the UK government has been able so far to just ignore the wishes and concerns of the devolved Scottish government - and as part of that they have refused any proposal for another independence referendum in the near future. I don't think that's caused too much concern at the moment, though that could change if there's no deal agreed with the EU (or there is a deal agreed which is seen as bad for Scotland).
In Northern Ireland a lot of the concentration has been on getting the devolved Assembly functioning again after a 3 year hiatus - that was done in January. In the immediate future Brexit is likely to continue to be a subsidiary issue. However, the different customs and trading relationships that will be established for NI are likely to be a political hot potato once those come into practice. The shifting demographics that mean there is no longer a unionist majority in NI also mean political frameworks remain very fragile and I will be surprised if there are not significant political problems there within the next couple of years.
If we have a German poster, I'd love to hear more about what's going on in Thuringia. I try to keep up with, and understand, European politics but my first hand sources are limited.
@Ammar has commented on this thread before. It's possible he might wish to respond (though it's also quite possible he might not want to and I'm not sure he's been around for a while anyway ).
Holy christ, QUIT TALKING LIKE THIS!!!! Republicans have revealed the OBVIOUS frauds they are about fiscal responsibility, and people like Pete Buttigieg want to just hand them a get-out-of-jail free card and voluntarily lock themselves in the same cell in the process. Anyone who thinks there is a single vote to be gained from this horseshit against Trump is out of their mind:
Republicans and Republican voters do NOT care about spending. There is AMPLE evidence of this at this point. They care about using it as a cudgel against Democrats. Period, end of story. Quit handing them the hammer.
"...after the unredacted cables had been leaked elsewhere..."
How did that happen? Or are you just whitewashing over it?
Yes, of course I know how that happened. You didn't even know it happened in the first place. Why does that not give you pause? Shouldn't not knowing basic facts about an issue be a reason to question firm conclusions about that issue?
The documents were not secured. They weren't secured because of Manning's actions. That's the end of it. The easiest way to simplify how her actions were wrong. She gave them to the wrong person.
That's an argument that could and has been used against literally every whistleblowing ever. According to your logic, the Pentagon Papers should never have been released either (and Daniel Ellsberg is certainly on my side on that one).
And again, your assertions of harm are the sheerest nonsense. The DOD doesn't even back you up. And even had there been harm, the fault would lie with the criminals, not the whistleblower.
I like you. I really like you. Finally somebody new to argue with...
I'm not new, actually! I was active in the old politics thread but took a hiatus from the board for a couple of years. Still, it's nice to occasionally talk to, rather than at, someone with opposing political beliefs.
His predecessor called a bluff that needed to be called.
Now that, I must question. A bluff that needed to be called? What precisely was the US putting nuclear missiles in Turkey, then, if not a bluff that also needed to be called? What was the Bay of Pigs invasion, if not a bluff... wait, actually, that was no bluff at all.
That is typical Empire logic. "When people do to us exactly what we do to them, that is intolerable." It's the same reason the US claims the right to sail battlefleets off Taiwan, but would flip their shit if a Chinese fleet sailed by Los Angeles uninvited.
Cuba had missiles to deter invasion, because the United States had given them very credible reasons to fear invasion. This is precisely the same reason Iran and North Korea seek deterrents to US invasion today, and in all cases they were objectively correct to fear US invasion.
If the US was capable of realising that Cuba is in no way an existential threat to them and it is therefore not any of their goddamn business what the regime in Cuba is doing, beyond trade ties and possible UN sanctions, the end of the world would not have almost occurred.
But it did. And never forget that the reason the world did not end was because the Soviets, collectively and individually, were less willing to destroy the human race over what was happening to effing Cuba. If there was not already a hundred good reasons to dismiss US claims to moral leadership of the world, that would be more than sufficient to do so.
Republicans and Republican voters do NOT care about spending. There is AMPLE evidence of this at this point. They care about using it as a cudgel against Democrats. Period, end of story. Quit handing them the hammer.
There is quite a bit of evidence showing that basically nobody on either side of the political divide ever actually cares enough about deficits to vote based on them, and yet politicians of both the left and right constantly try to sell themselves on reducing the deficits anyway.
Deficits aren't precisely not important, but a country's finances aren't a family's finances, and deficits do not directly impact ordinary people, so they're in fact quite right to not vote on it.
(Especially since cuts to balance the deficit almost always hit social services and not, say, the military.)
The defense of Trump has really just devolved into into kindergarten shenanigans, hasn't it?
"Trump's an admitted sexual predator, that's deplorable."
"But teacher! Bobby did it too!"
It's true that whataboutism is invalid no matter the target, but wouldn't it be so much better if Democrats could respond with how Clinton (or whomever) has been ostacised from progressive circles for being a sexual predator?
Jesus, Al Franken was only barely pushed into resigning and there was an actual picture of him (hilariously!) pretending to molest a sleeping woman that he had earlier made unwanted advances towards. And Gillibrand was actually the one ostracised for pushing for him to resign, possibly to the point of sinking her presidential run (though of course there are other factors).
(Oh hey, remember when Pete Buttigieg said he wouldn't have pressured Franken to resign? That's the kind of moral leadership we need in a post-Trump era, I guess.)
Well we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
Because I:
Still find value on the judicial system. She was found guilty by a set of her peers (that didn’t happen in Mandela’s case), and yes other members of the military are/were her peers. Therefore she is guilty of a crime, not innocent. You can proclaim she is innocent all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that she isn’t and is now again in prison (I do think the left need to hold her up here and say if she is in prison for ignoring a subpoena that she thinks is inappropriate, then all of Trump’s toadies should also be in prison for ignoring theirs until she is released as the toadies won’t get sent to prison).
Without the judicial system we would see mob rule and mob pardon. In fact we are already seeing it and it is a dangerous place to be in if you are not part of the mob. If her first amendment rights were breached, this needs to be proven in the court system, not a message board.
Are there problems with the judicial system? Yes, obviously of course. But it is still better than the alternative and those problems can be looked at critically and fixed. For example, recent years, the weight of an officers word no longer is validated above that of the one being prosecuted. (I can give examples, but this is already longer than I wanted). “Gut feelings” no longer trump a person’s liberty. Errors happen, but it is up to the judicial system and that system alone to fix those errors as soon as possible.
You are also Canadian so you must be aware of the whole SNC-Lavalin case. As much as it was inappropriate for Trudeau to stick his neck into attempting to change the outcome of that ruling, it is just as bad for Obama to have done it during this proceeding. The same type of uproar that happened when Trump stuck his neck into the Gallagher case. I find it very hypocritical for those who condemn Trump for his actions here but still think Obama should have done something during Manning’s case. There needs to be that separation of power.
It does not excuse the torture, but she is still a convicted criminal until her charges are overturned on first amendment rights and by god, that would be a slippery slope if they were IMO.
Errors happen, but it is up to the judicial system and that system alone to fix those errors as soon as possible.
@deltago I appreciate your argument, but I don't think that fixing errors is solely (or even mainly) up to the judicial system. In relation to Obama there are several features of his actions in this area I find disappointing:
- the cases taken for prosecution were selective. There seemed to be a clear intention to put fear of the consequences into potential whistle-blowers, by showing what punishments could result - but those consequences were not applied to more prominent supporters of the administration (see this story for instance).
- as was previously mentioned, the use of the Espionage Act for these prosecutions was distinctly odd and clearly intended to avoid defendants using a public interest defense (and that was totally contrary to Obama's statements on taking office about how he would treat whistle-blowing). Obama would not have needed to intervene directly in these cases to prevent prosecutions being based on the Espionage Act. He could have just issued a Presidential Directive if he really wanted to clarify his position on this (he did issue PD-19 in this area, but that was a far cry from his stated original aims).
- as was hinted at in your post, one of the contributing reasons for the increasing crackdown on whistle-blowers during the Obama years was the result of court decisions which narrowed the scope of when the Whistleblower Protection Act should apply - with the result that in practice the protection potentially provided by the Act was very rarely afforded. The proper remedy where judges have interpreted a law to mean something different than was originally intended by Congress is to amend the law to clarify that original intention. That was in fact one of the stated rationales for the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and that did clear away some of the judicial obstacles that had resulted in the WPA almost never applying in practice. However, it also seems to me to represent a missed opportunity to do much more at a time when Congress was (at least publicly) unanimously in favor of extending protections.
Comments
I provided an extremely detailed source on the matter, actually. The full details of the saga are indefensible, not more defensible. Manning suffered in solitary for almost a year, often considered torture. Good men were hung out to dry by an unjust system. He deliberately tried to close avenues of access for the press. He left contractors out of whistleblower protection laws, people like Snowden, so that they could be abused and intimidated. One of the best reporters at The New York Times, no friend of the right but certainly a friend to him, called him the greatest threat to press freedom in a generation. The same one who uncovered Bush's wiretapping.
I see very little reason to defend his actions. They were clearly, unambiguously wrong, and I don't think it's the people who agree with that who are misinformed.
@Ayiekie is not a simulacrum of me writing under a pseudonym. Any similarities in content or tone are purely coincidental!
(He's saving me a lot of carpal tunnel aggravation though.)
Edit: Should state that that's a generic 'he' as I'm in no ways sure of 'his' gender.
Getting things done is admirable regardless of whether you agree or not. Respect is earned by accomplishments, not by a letter by your name. Reagan did some things that I liked. Putting spending pressure on the USSR by upping the military ante was genius at the time. That and Chernobyl combined to pretty much seal the fate of the Soviet Union.
Okay, but I will decline to join in your admiration for how much the Khmer Rouge managed to get done. It was certainly impressive, in a way. But not admirable.
Maybe the conversation will get back on gun control, which will likely dispel any doubts on that.
In seriousness, this is why "left vs. right" is a false dichotomy. An enormous amount more goes into political positions and moral viewpoints than what side of the room your party sat on during the French Revolution.
His predecessor called a bluff that needed to be called. I also think his predecessor would have gotten us out of Vietnam instead of escalating the war. I only have his brother's views to base that on but I think it's a safe bet. Only the Lincoln assassination was worse for this country than JFK's...
OK, you got me there. Reagan wasn't the Khmer Rouge or Stalin though. I was more referring to democratic politics, not full-scale revolutions/purges...
I like you. I really like you. Finally somebody new to argue with...
JFK intensely distrusted his generals and CIA after the Bay of Pigs (and why wouldn't he have). Also, one wrong move by him or Krushchev during the Missile Crisis could have meant the end of the world (and god knows if Kennedy had listened to lunatics like Curtis LeMay, that may have happened). That said, Bobby was the true idealist. The Kennedy brothers, however, stepped on ALOT of toes. Jack the national security apparatus, Bobby with Hoffa and the mafia. I'm not saying that got them killed, but alot of people at the very least believe the mafia was involved in what happened in Dallas.
But, to your point here is what happened within one decade: the fairy-tale Prince of a President gets his head blown off by an assassin. Johnson takes over and signs the Civil Rights Act, lighting a fire in the South that has never been put out for the left. MLK is assassinated, Bobby gives the speech that calms an African-American neighborhood that night. Then Bobby is killed. Vietnam becomes a disaster quagmire, Nixon takes over and swallows the racist former Southern Dems into the party, and then Watergate completely destroys any trust anyone had left in government. Country has never been the same.
Neither Kennedy, nor Khruschev wanted to 'end the world'. That's the whole nature of a 'bluff'. Khrushchev was bluffing and Kennedy somehow knew it. Whether it was pure instinct or intelligence is irrelevant. Cuba didn't get nuclear missiles and we're all safer for it. Kudos to Jack Kennedy...
Edit: It may also be that compromise ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy may just have given personal assurance to Khruschev that we wouldn't interfere in Cuba. That works for me too. We may never know if that was the case since that was long before we the people knew about every phone call our government is involved in...
How did that happen? Or are you just whitewashing over it? The documents were not secured. They weren't secured because of Manning's actions. That's the end of it. The easiest way to simplify how her actions were wrong. She gave them to the wrong person.
Everything else is just noise. OMG she was tortured therefore she must be completely innocent of every charge brought before her. Give me a break.
(also feel free to add any CanCon here. I try to once and awhile).
Had to look up 'CanCon'. ?
By all means, I'd love to hear how things are going in other countries. Haven't heard much about Brexit in a while. Also, our Polish and German posters haven't chimed in for a while. I'm curious how things are going in that neck of the woods too...
Found this. Interesting, but would like to hear from an actual German.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/07/germany-post-merkel-future-afd-kemmerich-thuringia-election/
Still I always try to hear news from across the ocean from people "in the know", since I don't think the press gives the complete picture.
Mostly I hear alot of folks talking about it like it's a big deal, but am not quite sure why.
It appears that the FDP made a 'deal with the devil' involving the AfD in order to take power. The AfD apparently gets most Germans' spidey-sense tingling because of their far-right policies. Understandably so due to their unique place in history if you ask me. Europe is not the panacea of liberal ideas that we're led to believe in this country. The EU's assanine immigration policies are pushing their every day citizens to the right just like here. I literally can't believe how the left in this country can't see how immigration is just big corporations' way of keeping wages lower. It's a total blind-spot that is beyond my comprehension...
Pretty much, and in that sense they are filling a natural role in the political process as the focal point of opposition to Merkel's most controversial choices. They've been steadily growing despite everything that's said about them, so it's not like they aren't making an educated choice.
As an aside, I dislike granting any legitimacy to the paranoid and, frankly, insulting idea that any right wing shift in Germany inherently poses any risks, as if they are some alternate species of human.
I wouldn't call them far right, but I suppose they are relative to their own environment.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media-attacks-invs/index.html
God forbid you passionately disagree with any of the 'establishment' policies. Apparently that's akin to inciting to riot these days. I'm sure CNN just wants to get the 'truth' and has no vested interest in investigating the Sanders campaign. Sigh, anybody I consider voting for must be an asshole apparently...
Edit: On further reflection, I guess it could be both...
Despite that narrow defeat for the provision on censorship, the fact that the Act was passed during war-time is crucial to understanding why it does not have the same provisions to protect free speech you would expect based on the US constitution. In particular, unlike any of the many pieces of legislation specifically covering whistle-blowing, there is no public interest defense to being charged under this Act (though that defense is typically only available to federal employees - which was the problem in the Snowden case).
The Act has been used many times to prosecute espionage over the years (see here for examples). However, essentially it's been used for its intended purpose of prosecuting espionage. The quote about there being more prosecutions under the Act than in all previous administrations specifically refers to whistle-blower prosecutions, which were not the original target of the legislation. The Obama administration chose to bring prosecutions under this Act in order to bypass any public interest defense and I agree with the view that this reflects very badly on Obama and goes entirely contrary to the intentions he stated on taking office to be more open in government and not suppress information just because that reflects badly on the government.
Personally I think there should be a general public interest defense available in all situations. That could be provided for through legislation, but it could also be done via the Supreme Court - as part of a ruling that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional, they could set out how national defense requirements interact with First Amendment provisions. The chances of either of those routes being taken under the current administration though look limited.
The thumping majority the Conservatives won in December means they can do pretty much what they want at the moment. Hence all the major arguments about Brexit suddenly went away, the legislation for exit was passed and the UK officially became no longer part of the EU on 31 January.
In practice nothing has changed yet as the existing rules remain in place during the transition period up until 31 December. Johnson has been very clear that the transition period will not be extended and hence there will be a lot of pressure to agree a deal with the EU prior to that. Both sides are currently staking out their negotiation positions, but negotiations are not likely to start for another month or so (due to the need for a common position to be agreed by all the EU countries).
I think there's almost no prospect of a comprehensive deal being agreed in such a short space of time. Any deal is therefore likely to knock off a few particular areas (like fishing for instance), together with a framework to be used in agreeing additional provisions. Currently the EU are resisting this idea and pushing for a more comprehensive approach, but that could well change given the time pressure.
It remains possible that no deal will be agreed by the end of 2020 - it seems to me that there are those on both sides who consider that the other side would suffer worse in the event of a no deal and are therefore willing to contemplate that on the grounds that the impact would bring the other side to "see reason".
Another impact of the Conservative majority has been that the UK government has been able so far to just ignore the wishes and concerns of the devolved Scottish government - and as part of that they have refused any proposal for another independence referendum in the near future. I don't think that's caused too much concern at the moment, though that could change if there's no deal agreed with the EU (or there is a deal agreed which is seen as bad for Scotland).
In Northern Ireland a lot of the concentration has been on getting the devolved Assembly functioning again after a 3 year hiatus - that was done in January. In the immediate future Brexit is likely to continue to be a subsidiary issue. However, the different customs and trading relationships that will be established for NI are likely to be a political hot potato once those come into practice. The shifting demographics that mean there is no longer a unionist majority in NI also mean political frameworks remain very fragile and I will be surprised if there are not significant political problems there within the next couple of years.
@Ammar has commented on this thread before. It's possible he might wish to respond (though it's also quite possible he might not want to and I'm not sure he's been around for a while anyway
"Trump's an admitted sexual predator, that's deplorable."
"But teacher! Bobby did it too!"
Republicans and Republican voters do NOT care about spending. There is AMPLE evidence of this at this point. They care about using it as a cudgel against Democrats. Period, end of story. Quit handing them the hammer.
Yes, of course I know how that happened. You didn't even know it happened in the first place. Why does that not give you pause? Shouldn't not knowing basic facts about an issue be a reason to question firm conclusions about that issue?
That's an argument that could and has been used against literally every whistleblowing ever. According to your logic, the Pentagon Papers should never have been released either (and Daniel Ellsberg is certainly on my side on that one).
And again, your assertions of harm are the sheerest nonsense. The DOD doesn't even back you up. And even had there been harm, the fault would lie with the criminals, not the whistleblower.
As should be needless to say, "Obama oversaw the jail and torture of an innocent person" ≠ "Chelsea Manning was tortured, therefore innocent".
I'm not new, actually! I was active in the old politics thread but took a hiatus from the board for a couple of years. Still, it's nice to occasionally talk to, rather than at, someone with opposing political beliefs.
Now that, I must question. A bluff that needed to be called? What precisely was the US putting nuclear missiles in Turkey, then, if not a bluff that also needed to be called? What was the Bay of Pigs invasion, if not a bluff... wait, actually, that was no bluff at all.
That is typical Empire logic. "When people do to us exactly what we do to them, that is intolerable." It's the same reason the US claims the right to sail battlefleets off Taiwan, but would flip their shit if a Chinese fleet sailed by Los Angeles uninvited.
Cuba had missiles to deter invasion, because the United States had given them very credible reasons to fear invasion. This is precisely the same reason Iran and North Korea seek deterrents to US invasion today, and in all cases they were objectively correct to fear US invasion.
If the US was capable of realising that Cuba is in no way an existential threat to them and it is therefore not any of their goddamn business what the regime in Cuba is doing, beyond trade ties and possible UN sanctions, the end of the world would not have almost occurred.
But it did. And never forget that the reason the world did not end was because the Soviets, collectively and individually, were less willing to destroy the human race over what was happening to effing Cuba. If there was not already a hundred good reasons to dismiss US claims to moral leadership of the world, that would be more than sufficient to do so.
There is quite a bit of evidence showing that basically nobody on either side of the political divide ever actually cares enough about deficits to vote based on them, and yet politicians of both the left and right constantly try to sell themselves on reducing the deficits anyway.
Deficits aren't precisely not important, but a country's finances aren't a family's finances, and deficits do not directly impact ordinary people, so they're in fact quite right to not vote on it.
(Especially since cuts to balance the deficit almost always hit social services and not, say, the military.)
It's true that whataboutism is invalid no matter the target, but wouldn't it be so much better if Democrats could respond with how Clinton (or whomever) has been ostacised from progressive circles for being a sexual predator?
Jesus, Al Franken was only barely pushed into resigning and there was an actual picture of him (hilariously!) pretending to molest a sleeping woman that he had earlier made unwanted advances towards. And Gillibrand was actually the one ostracised for pushing for him to resign, possibly to the point of sinking her presidential run (though of course there are other factors).
(Oh hey, remember when Pete Buttigieg said he wouldn't have pressured Franken to resign? That's the kind of moral leadership we need in a post-Trump era, I guess.)
Because I:
Still find value on the judicial system. She was found guilty by a set of her peers (that didn’t happen in Mandela’s case), and yes other members of the military are/were her peers. Therefore she is guilty of a crime, not innocent. You can proclaim she is innocent all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that she isn’t and is now again in prison (I do think the left need to hold her up here and say if she is in prison for ignoring a subpoena that she thinks is inappropriate, then all of Trump’s toadies should also be in prison for ignoring theirs until she is released as the toadies won’t get sent to prison).
Without the judicial system we would see mob rule and mob pardon. In fact we are already seeing it and it is a dangerous place to be in if you are not part of the mob. If her first amendment rights were breached, this needs to be proven in the court system, not a message board.
Are there problems with the judicial system? Yes, obviously of course. But it is still better than the alternative and those problems can be looked at critically and fixed. For example, recent years, the weight of an officers word no longer is validated above that of the one being prosecuted. (I can give examples, but this is already longer than I wanted). “Gut feelings” no longer trump a person’s liberty. Errors happen, but it is up to the judicial system and that system alone to fix those errors as soon as possible.
You are also Canadian so you must be aware of the whole SNC-Lavalin case. As much as it was inappropriate for Trudeau to stick his neck into attempting to change the outcome of that ruling, it is just as bad for Obama to have done it during this proceeding. The same type of uproar that happened when Trump stuck his neck into the Gallagher case. I find it very hypocritical for those who condemn Trump for his actions here but still think Obama should have done something during Manning’s case. There needs to be that separation of power.
It does not excuse the torture, but she is still a convicted criminal until her charges are overturned on first amendment rights and by god, that would be a slippery slope if they were IMO.
@deltago I appreciate your argument, but I don't think that fixing errors is solely (or even mainly) up to the judicial system. In relation to Obama there are several features of his actions in this area I find disappointing:
- the cases taken for prosecution were selective. There seemed to be a clear intention to put fear of the consequences into potential whistle-blowers, by showing what punishments could result - but those consequences were not applied to more prominent supporters of the administration (see this story for instance).
- as was previously mentioned, the use of the Espionage Act for these prosecutions was distinctly odd and clearly intended to avoid defendants using a public interest defense (and that was totally contrary to Obama's statements on taking office about how he would treat whistle-blowing). Obama would not have needed to intervene directly in these cases to prevent prosecutions being based on the Espionage Act. He could have just issued a Presidential Directive if he really wanted to clarify his position on this (he did issue PD-19 in this area, but that was a far cry from his stated original aims).
- as was hinted at in your post, one of the contributing reasons for the increasing crackdown on whistle-blowers during the Obama years was the result of court decisions which narrowed the scope of when the Whistleblower Protection Act should apply - with the result that in practice the protection potentially provided by the Act was very rarely afforded. The proper remedy where judges have interpreted a law to mean something different than was originally intended by Congress is to amend the law to clarify that original intention. That was in fact one of the stated rationales for the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and that did clear away some of the judicial obstacles that had resulted in the WPA almost never applying in practice. However, it also seems to me to represent a missed opportunity to do much more at a time when Congress was (at least publicly) unanimously in favor of extending protections.