Gary Johnson: I'd Consider Pardoning Snowden, Chelsea Manning (vocativ.com) 264
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Vocativ: [Vocativ reports:] "The U.S.'s most popular third-party presidential candidate says he would 'consider' pardoning the highest profile convicts of computer-related crimes in the country, including Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht, and Jeremy Hammond. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, also reiterated his possible willingness to pardon Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency analyst who gave a cache of agency documents to journalists in 2013." "Having actually served as a governor and administered the power to grant pardons and clemency, Gary Johnson is very conscious and respectful of the need for processes for using that authority," Joe Hunter, Johnson's communications director, told Vocativ in a statement. "However, he has made it clear on numerous occasions that he would 'look seriously at' pardoning Edward Snowden, based on public information that Snowden's actions did not cause actual harm to any U.S. intelligence personnel. Likewise, he has said he would look favorably on pardoning Ross Ulbricht, consistent with his broader and long-standing commitment to pardon nonviolent drug offenders, whistleblowers, and others imprisoned under unjust and ill-advised laws," Hunter said. When Vocativ asked specifically about Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown, and Matthew Keys, Hunter responded: "The same goes for the other individuals you have mentioned -- and hundreds, if not thousands, like them. Gov. Johnson finds it to be an outrage that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, and announced in 2012 that, as President, he would promptly commence the process of pardoning nonviolent offenders who have done no real harm to others." The Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also shared her thoughts on pardoning Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Not only would she pardon Snowden, but she said she would appoint him to her cabinet.
Good Luck, Jill (Score:3)
~Yeah, I can *so* see Edward Snowden getting a confirmation from the U.S. Senate.~ It is only slightly more probable than Jill Stein getting elected to President.
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope she gets a chance to be in the debates. I'd love to see Johnson, Trump, Stein and Hilliary at each other's throats. Awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
She cant. She needs to have more than 15% in the polling to be get a debate spot. Neither will Johnson for the same reason, though Johnson is close in some polls.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a law, it's a threshold set by the organization that puts on the Presidential debates. It's there to limit the ability for a 3rd party candidate to get a speaking platform.
3rd-party=not going to be sharp at work manana (Score:2)
The U.S.'s most popular third-party presidential candidate says he would 'consider' pardoning the highest profile convicts of computer-related crimes in the country, including Chelsea Manning, Ross Ulbricht, and Jeremy Hammond.
Interesting way to put it, third-party presidential candidate, since 'coming in a distant third' would have done it.
No good option (Score:2)
The Libertarian Party is obsessed with legalizing pot and pardoning criminals that divulge national security secrets. These might be valid things to do, but are about 9,743rd on the list of barriers to living in a country that fully embraces freedom. What is a small-L libertarian supposed to do these days? Do I really have to bet all my chips on seasteading?!
In the words of Yoda (Score:2)
" Do or do not. There is no try. "
You don't consider such things. Quit being wishy-washy about it, make a damn decision and stand behind it.
You're either going to pardon someone, or you're not.
Expect more of this (Score:2)
Given that the current two candidates are basically unappointable [1], third party candidates should be looked at more seriously.
The promise of pardoning heroic men like Snowden and Manning can be a major point for some voters.
[1] Insofar as any US citizen would have to be batshit insane to vote for either of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the current two candidates are basically unappointable [1], third party candidates should be looked at more seriously.
The promise of pardoning heroic men like Snowden and Manning can be a major point for some voters.
[1] Insofar as any US citizen would have to be batshit insane to vote for either of them.
Manning would be crushed to be let out of prison. He's in buttsex paradise
Re: (Score:2)
third party candidates should be looked at more seriously.
I agree with you but both parties are using the implied threat of the other party being able to nominate three justices to the Supreme Court as a hammer to keep voters from considering the third party candidates.
+1 Snowden, Manning. -1 Ulbricht (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He should say... (Score:2)
I'd consider pardoning Snowden, Manning, and Clinton.... LOL
"Consider"? (Score:2)
Yes, Then, But (Score:2)
There is a difference (Score:2)
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting 3rd party isn't a wasted vote if you are more in line with that party that the main 2.
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:4, Informative)
If only people realized that voting FOR someone you agree with is less of a waste than voting AGAINST someone you don't agree with. Voting 3rd party isn't a wasted vote if you are more in line with that party that the main 2.
I would like to agree with you, but I suggest you look up the phenomenon called the Spoiler Effect.
CGP Grey has very well-done 6.5-minute video about it here, which is also worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
In summary: A 3rd party candidate is statistically more likely to be closer in ideology to one of the two major parties.
If you have primary parties A and B, and C is the 3rd party, C is probably more like B than A (for this example). If you and I vote for C because we hate A and like C better than B, our votes didn't count for B. So instead of a vote being a 49% A and 51% B vote, it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win. It took me some fifteen years to come to that realization, and it is still depressing. The only way C wins is if C can either pull enough votes from A and B, or draws all of B's votes. It could and has happened, but it's extraordinarily rare. Usually A or B will adopt the the strongest primary platform of C to keep those votes for themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
Yes, if you prefer a quarterly profit and then bankruptcy over long term growth.
Voting for a third party impacts politics even if that party doesn't win. It sends a message to the runner up that there are votes to gain by adopting a few third party questions.
Voting for the lesser evil only tells the two major parties that they need to be more like each other if they want more votes.
A vote for the lesser evil is a vote to make it become the greater evil, that is why you now have two large parties that only w
Re: (Score:2)
My statement as above could be simplified thus: One should consider their personal desires, and decide whether they would prefer to make a
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
Yes, if you prefer a quarterly profit and then bankruptcy over long term growth.
Voting for a third party impacts politics even if that party doesn't win. It sends a message to the runner up that there are votes to gain by adopting a few third party questions.
Voting for the lesser evil only tells the two major parties that they need to be more like each other if they want more votes.
A vote for the lesser evil is a vote to make it become the greater evil, that is why you now have two large parties that only wants to screw you over.
You can exert your influence during the primaries, that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP.
On the Republican side what would have been their 3rd party managed to actually take over the main party.
Insurgents inside of the machine are devastatingly effective. Outside, they're almost completely counter-productive. Can you imagine how much the Democratic platform would have to change just to get a fraction of one of Libertaria
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in countries with effective third parties, where FPTP is in play, it almost always tends towards a two-party system, with a third parties playing spoiler, but almost never becoming a governing party. FPTP almost inevitably shuts out third parties from power. There can be unique situations where FPTP multiparty Parliamentary countries can enter a period of minorities, this is particularly true in Canada during the mid 2000s until 2011, where a strong regional party in Quebec managed to destabilize the national parties enough to force two hung Parliaments, and it happened in the UK in 2010, where a strong regional party in Scotland (the SNP) wrestled enough votes from Labour to deprive it of power, but a similar effect with UKIP deprived the Conservatives of an absolute majority. But all in all, these are fairly rare in FPTP legislative assemblies.
It should also be noted that in the UK, in particular, it has a huge lower house, 649 seats in the House of Commons as compared to 435 in the US House of Representatives, and the House of Lords with 798 seats as compared to the US Senate's 100. This far greater number of representatives must also be factored in to any modeling of how FPTP plays out, the UK has a lot more room for third parties to find their niche with smaller Parliamentary constituencies than US districts.
If you truly want to give third parties a shot at significant power, you need to move to some sort of proportional representation. Even normal instant-runoff systems are not truly proportional, and are vulnerable to certain strategies that can give unfair advantage (with the exception of multi-member district STV, which is roughly proportional). But I'm not sure how that would even play out in US presidential elections, where by and large, the game has been rigged to make third party runs for the White House all but impossible. You'd have to make some big changes to the way the electoral college works, or abandon it entirely, but that seems pretty damned unlikely to me, since the intent of the electoral college was to create a sort of hybrid popular vote/state vote system, and any support for amending it after the 2000 election seems to have long since failed, though perhaps a very close election (which this one might be), might bring back demands to reform or eliminate the electoral college (though what kind of voting would replace it isn't clear).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP
And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear? Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winn
Re: (Score:2)
But the Constitution does impose a voting system that makes a third party's chances of winning very very very low.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. The Constitution gives the States the power of deciding how to choose Presidential electors.
Senators are "from each State, elected by the people thereof," and Representatives are "chosen every second Year by the People of the several S
Re: (Score:2)
that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP
And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear?
The fact that they typically do put their platform first above personal beliefs.
Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.
It's an awesome one.
I have no idea what any politician's personal principles are, no one does.
But I do know how they campaigned, and what they said they'd do.
The only principle they really need is that they'll be the politician they told the voters they would be.
The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be.
No, but between mass media and the first-past-the-post Presidency it's winking really hard.
Re: (Score:2)
the first-past-the-post Presidency
Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.
Re: (Score:2)
the first-past-the-post Presidency
Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.
Doesn't the candidate with the most electoral votes win? How is that not first-past-the-post?
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less."
While I agree with your sentiment, realistically, voting for a non-Republicrat will not damage the two-party system at all.
And don't get me wrong; many times I have voted for a non-Republicrat.... along with like 1 or 2% of other people, just out of protest. But I didn't fool myself into thinking it made ANY difference.... it just made me feel a little better.
Re: (Score:3)
I often vote third party, but not because I expect it to make any difference in that election. My intent is to demonstrate that there are voters like myself who are willing to show up to the polls but with values and goals which aren't well represented by the two primary parties. My hope is that the policy and next election cycle might be a little more inclined to try to capture my vote.
Re: (Score:2)
My hope is that the policy and next election cycle might be a little more inclined to try to capture my vote.
And it never does, does it? It is simply taken as a support of that party and not a vote against the two major parties, and rightly so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.
That's like saying "I think it's unsportsmanlike to hold a football. I think American Football should only be played with one's feet!" You'll just lose. Over and over again when your opponents use their hands. Handicapping yourself does nothing but work against your interests. It doesn't change the game. It doesn't change the rules... it just makes a fool out of you.
If you want to "destroy the two party system" the only way to do it is to change the rules that everybody plays by to make it advantage
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying "I think it's unsportsmanlike to hold a football. I think American Football should only be played with one's feet!" You'll just lose. Over and over again when your opponents use their hands. Handicapping yourself does nothing but work against your interests. It doesn't change the game. It doesn't change the rules... it just makes a fool out of you.
My view is that you have had a couple of centuries to demonstrate this works. And that there's a good chance that some clueless version of you will be saying similar things in another two centuries. There's no future in playing a rigged game.
It amazes me how people (including three posters in this thread so far) keep trying to claim that playing within the rules works, when it's gotten us to this point. Sorry, your argument came broken.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to change the party structure is to change how the candidates are selected IMHO.
Without leverage on the parties who would block that, it's not going to happen. I consider strong third parties necessary to getting a better election scheme to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
And what was your plan, exactly? Are you calling for an end to the First Amendment? People shouldn't be allowed to assemble and express political preferences unless it's done the way you prefer? How would you enforce that, exactly?
Vote for those "unlikable" third parties, of course.
"That they won't win" is certainly one issue, as people don't like to throw their votes away. But "these people are generally loons" is the more typical rationale. Parties that are absolutely obsessed about weed, or communism, or destroying intellectual property, or disarming the military, etc., don't fail because we have a "two party system," they fail because very few rational people would ever want to give such parties control of the government.
You just described the Democrat and Republican parties. The difference between them and the typical third party, is that they have much better propaganda and much more money to throw around to spread that propaganda, hence the common but wholly delusional concern about "loons". That concern didn't stop party voters from nominating Obama or Trump, did it?
You don't need to destroy something, you need to actually create something. How is that not obvious to you?
Because it's not true. Your proposal is so highly leveraged against you that it would take immense time,
Re: (Score:2)
In summary: A 3rd party candidate is statistically more likely to be closer in ideology to one of the two major parties.
If you have primary parties A and B, and C is the 3rd party, C is probably more like B than A (for this example). If you and I vote for C because we hate A and like C better than B, our votes didn't count for B. So instead of a vote being a 49% A and 51% B vote, it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
That's actually how Bill Clinton won in 1992. Ross Perot would likely have won, but he dropped out and only reentered the race at the last month or so. He pulled far more votes from Bush than Clinton, and Clinton ended up winning because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes extremely well with your ESP link - well done.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
it may well turn out 49% A, 41% B, and 10% C. Thus the party we least liked, A, is the winner.
That's exactly what happened in 1992. Without Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote we would have forgotten all about Bill Clinton by now, and never would have seen the bubbles he brought on and the subsequent recessions that we still haven't recovered from.
It's always in your interest to vote for the candidate closest to your preferences, even if they're not all that close. Because that influences the next candidate in the next election far more than a 3rd party candidate getting a couple of percent.
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Informative)
>"As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win"
This. +1
Our system makes it essentially IMPOSSIBLE for any non Republicrat to win in major elections. Until we change the voting system to something *SANE* that allows voters to RANK the candidates, we can't really change anything else. We end up voting AGAINST the major party we don't like instead of FOR the party we might want.
Imagine what would be possible if voters this year had the ability to RANK candidates from all the parties. People could rank some other party first with ZERO fear they are throwing their votes away. The outcome might be shocking.... especially if we knew we could do this a long time ago and drummed up more candidates.
http://fairvote.org/ [fairvote.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian system is Preferential voting, which is your instant-run off example. It is used for the house or representatives.
For the Senate we use transferable vote which is a hybrid with proportional representation.
It makes the ballot more complex but I believe more reflective of the desires of the population
Re: (Score:2)
Please rank the candidates from 1 to 10 (10 being the best):
Fred -> 1
Jim -> 1
Bob -> 1
None of the above -> 10
I'd love to see that. Here in the UK we talked about proportional representation, but it got rejected (maybe because of a terrible PR campaign by the politicians). The argument against it is that you then have a house where nothing gets done. FPTP means someone's got a majority, and so (in theory) can whip their members to vote a certain way to get things done.
I guess part of the problem i
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the advantages of preferential voting.
The party I want in power is C, then B then A. After the first round no one has 50% of the vote, but C came last and A is currently in the lead. All of A's votes are then re-counted based on their second preference, of those 80% move to B and 20% to A. B over takes A and crosses the 50% threshold.
No wasted votes and you as a voter have a method for indicating that your views are not directly in line with the winner. If that % gets big enough the polic
Only in a few swing states. Otherwise, vote platfo (Score:2)
Your analysis is correct - ONLY for those in a swing state. Most states are NOT swing states.
For most of us, there is 0% chance that our vote could possibly tilt the balance between jackass and crook. Er, Trump amd Clinton. In this particular election, we already know which way our state and its electoral votes will go. For example, my state will go to Trump, regardless of how I vote. The best we can hope for is to have some effect on his policies and on future elections.
The major parties are trying to
Re: (Score:2)
The only way C wins is if C can either pull enough votes from A and B, or draws all of B's votes. It could and has happened, but it's extraordinarily rare. Usually A or B will adopt the the strongest primary platform of C to keep those votes for themselves.
Conversely to your last point, by the time C ever challenges A and B it will need to have compromised on so many to attract A and B's existing voters that it will have become nearly identical to either A or B.
If the Green party wants to build a progressive platform that attracts 51% of the population... they'll look just like the Democratic party. If the libertarian party wants to attract 51% of the population... they'll end up just like the GOP... well... maybe not the GOP as it is today, which is kind of
Re: (Score:3)
If people continue to vote strategically like you suggest, what incentive do the politicians have to reform our voting system? I can see it now.
"Mrs. Clinton, I am voting for you solely because your opponent is so terrible. But I warn you, if you don't push hard for some sort of ranked choice vo
Re: Since neither is getting elected (Score:2)
Rational self interest be damned.
You're presupposing that you should vote to maximize your personal benefit.
Many (including the Catholic Church itself) say it's your moral duty to help the poorest in society. That could quite easily extend to voting for their self interest even at the cost of your own.
Some say it's your duty to vote for your own self interest for the good of democracy, since that's how the end goal of "well functioning democracy" is achieved.
Chivalric code says you have to do what's right,
Protest vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So if many people just split their votes with say the third and fourth parties, the Libertarians and the Greens, it's pretty much a wash and a major slap in the face to the establishment party, the one that just pretends to be two political parties, so in reality it is actually the establishment corporate party versus the second and third parties. It seems common ground is developing between the Greens and Libertarians with regard to privacy, freedom and liberty, less government control over individuals, r
Re: (Score:3)
This overlooks that A, B, and C are competitively selected, actively maneuvering to win, and influenced by previous results.
E.g., if B is slated to lose because C is attracting more liberal voters, B is likely to move left in order to capture those voters. Or if B2012 wasn't left enough B2016 may be someone more of that bent. Also, a disliked presidential candidate tends to depress the party's congressional holdings, which makes it more difficult to enact their agenda, and tends to setup a win for the oppos
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure this starting premise isn't flawed? It assumes the two major parties have sufficiently different ideologies (in practice, not in claim) to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
You're being very myopic there. If you ever want B to become more like C, you must be willing to accept B losing in the short term. If B sees many of their votes going to C, then they'll move C-wards to pick up more votes. You have to think long term. Don't think in terms of C winning, think in terms of turning B into C, or at least something close enough to C that you're happy with them.
Side-note: I have never understood why the Republicans pander to the religious extremists - would those people ever v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, what the hell is a platform worth? Sure, a President gets lucky on occasion and his party may dominate the Representatives and the Senate, but other than that, whatever platform a president may have campaigned on generally has to morph into something that can get enough votes. Even where a President's party controls Congress, that's no guarantee of smooth sailing.
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't understand how First Past the Goal Post [youtube.com] voting and the spoiler effect [youtube.com] works, do you?
--
Remove the corruption from politics: Pool ALL campaign contributions and divide them equally among all the runners every month. No more buying the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
If only the US had a voting system where such a formula made sense. Alas, it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
So Richard Nixon couldn't be pardoned either, since he was never convicted?
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Informative)
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties." [P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. "Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993)," 27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271]
Granting amnesty and calling it a "pardon" is legit. No conviction required.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok? The article, summary and the title is about granting amnesty to a group of people. But Snowden is guilty in the eyes of the law, just morally excusable (in the eyes of some), which is why he needs an amnesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to hear you try to explain that to Gerald Ford.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
That is not correct, see Nixon and Ford...
Re: (Score:2)
There's precedent. Ford pardoned Nixon.
Re: (Score:2)
Manning was a serviceman that took an oath, if that is meaning less.
Snowden is not convicted, He can't be pardoned yet.
Wrong and wrong. Maybe you're too young to remember Ford pardoning Tricky Dick [watergate.info] .
Security clearances are independent of any alleged military oaths. There's established law which (theoretically; in practice you just go to jail) allows people to report illegal activity that happens to be revealed in classified material.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The government fears it's citizens far more than any foreign entity. It has reason to considering how it has systematically worked to rob them for decades. They know that one day, when the country finally fails under the staggering debt there will be a price to pay for whoever is holding the reins at that time.
Bundy Ranch Standoff (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm..... a 1,000 Armed Americans, the largest militia formed in probably over a hundred years. And the Feds backed down....cause they were sure to get their butts kicked. Or forced it to escalate into a military confrontation which could have started a civil war.
As for the U.S. being undefeatable by it's citizens. Goat farmers with hand made AKs and improvised bombs defeated the mighty U.S. in two wars. So I wager a nation in which civilians have far better arms would do quite well against the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
The US military could have wiped out all the "goat farmers" in record time had they been allowed to.
The Us military, if sent against local rebellion or uprising or militia or any other form of armed US citizens, would most certainly not be allowed to simply wipe out everyone.
But yes, a couple ICBMs sending nuclear bombs could most certainly have wiped out everyone in record time if we wanted to use them. But we don't.
Collateral damage should be avoided if possible but it should not be an obstacle to killing the enemy. The terrorists use the US ROE's to survive. Remove those ROE's and watch what happens.
We win a few battles. The US generals and politicians are brought before an international tribunal for war-crimes, terrorism surges, and you're far more likely to see some of that US citizenr
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the rule of paradoxes.
He's both a traitor and a hero? This isn't just a difference of opinion: it's very easy to argue that he's both. It sounds paradoxical.
Whenever you see a paradox, the rule is: look for the flaw in your assumptions. Your assumptions might include:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Further it's evident that he's paid Russia for his asylum with classified information.
[citation needed]
He has claimed that he brought no information with him after he left Hong Kong. Russia is allowing him to stay because it amuses them the trouble he's causing the US / Five Eyes.
Can you layout the reasoning you used to come to your conclusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Revealing that was Treason, Germany is not a military or political enemy..
Good to see that you have no idea what treason is. Go read your constitution. It's the only crime explicitly spelled out in there, because too many yahoos like yourself threw around that term loosely at the start of the country.
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:4, Interesting)
Example: he revealed that we had an active tap on the office phone of the German Chancellor.
...That's illegal. Having an active tap on the office phone of the German chancellor is most certainly internationally illegal, and domestically illegal. We've agree not to do these sort of things and we were found out to be doing them anyway.
What do we call someone exposing a criminal activity? And what if he needs to violate some privacy concerns in order to do so?
Germany is not a military or political enemy but all countries are economic opponents.
That's some mighty fine double-think right there.
Had he just stuck to revealing the unconstitutional NSA Surveillance of US citizens he would be a hero and would have been protected by Whistleblower status
And THAT'S delusional. Do you really think Hilary would let that slide?
Yeah, the guy committed crimes to accomplish what he did. He rode roughshod all over the privacy rights of the US government. Ideally he'd be put on trial and we'd have a court determine what a just punishment would be. But sadly I do not trust my government to give him a fair trial. Indeed, there is a risk that he'd simply have an accident somewhere along the way.
And due to the overwhelming good achieved for the USA by heroic actions from a patriot, I'd like to see any convictions be pardoned. It might have been a kick in the pants for the US government, but it was a great win for the nation and the ideals it stands for.
putting lives at risk.
Who? What lives? Is the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, going to bust into the surveillance van parked outside her office and shoot the spooks with an MP7? That's an "economic opponent" as you said. No lives are at risk, just money. If that. What's really at risk is power. And we're supposed to have checks on that.
Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score:5, Insightful)
DC politicians are the traitors. They routinely pass law that violates the constitution, they've made it clear they're willing to sell our liberty to the highest bidders, and they are willing to prevaricate about it on camera. Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
They routinely pass law that violates the constitution
And in which suits have you participated, bringing those laws before a judge (or better, the Supreme Court as your way through things) in order to demonstrate this unconstitutionality?
There are plenty of people who go beyond armchair whining about it, on cases both local and federal. Recently: Heller, in DC, over unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment. Citizens United, on unconstitutional infringements on the first amendment. Judges listen, and throw out stuff that's plainly unconstitutio
Re: (Score:3)
Court? Why are you talking about courts, when your Constitution is very clear on what you are supposed to do when your government gets like this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the tragedy - as long as the government doesn't go for the guns, the populace will never use their guns for their intended purpose. It sends a wonderful message to government that the guns will never be used against them as long as they don't try to take them. That means they can screw the country over as much as they want (short of taking guns), without threat of resistance. Yaaaaaay.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not matter in 20 years (possibly less), if the US government is forced to begin defaulting on its debts. That time is coming. That, or it will be scaling back benefits and other promises / government services past the bare minimum.
What are you taking about? The US government can print the currency in which it borrows. It will never default unless it decides it wants to, for some reason. The US government literally has unlimited money. It can spend without taxing or borrowing, and it can print the money to pay its debts. There are consequences to money printing, depending on how its done. But the Fed tripled the money supply (tripled!) after 2008 and we have not had runaway inflation.
So no, the US government will not be forced t
Re: (Score:2)
They routinely pass law that violates the constitution,
You mean the same US constitution written by men who had waged war against their own parliament and king?
And who allied with that nation's enemies, the French?
Maybe the constitution needed a firm preamble: "Do what we say and not what we do.".
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, there is already a similar situation in other centers of power too, not only in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score:4, Interesting)
$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.
Elected SCOTUS judges is even worse. There are enough politicians without making what amounts to a constitutional court effectively a third legislature with the power to veto the others.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not with you that flat taxes are fundamentally unfair. Personally I would have a flat tax with a high tax free threshold.
This would reduce the tax load significantly on the lower income earners and increase their discretionary income, I don't like the idea of food stamps at all.
But with regards to fairness, I have never understood how, if I am making widgets, I will get paid $5 for the first widget I make but then get paid $3 for the 20th widget I make. Are my widgets now worth less than they were?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard. 10,000 widgets x 20% = 2,000 widgets, leaving you 8,000 widgets. 1,000 widgets x 20% = 200 widgets, leaving you 800 widgets. Which person has more widgets at the end of the day?
And your solution of an income exemption level clearly signals that you understand this, and that to make sure the tax is not so regressive that it damages the poorest, you end up having to excuse some or all of their taxes. In other words, you've just made a non-flat tax.
Re: (Score:2)
But in your example your widgets remain the same value to you as a worker. If each was $1 before tax, they are worth 80c to you after tax.
But a tax that takes 20c on the first widget but then takes 50c on the 10th widget is decreasing the incentive to work more. So it's more like 1000 widgets @ 20% leaves 800. 10000 widgets at 42% leaving 5800 widgets. Yes the person who made 10,000 widgets is better off, by more than a factor of 7. But their productivity was higher by a factor of 10.
Re: (Score:2)
The incentive still exists because you still keep a significant portion of the value.
Re: (Score:2)
$500 seems pretty damned insufficient when you've basically taken away a large portion of the working poor's discretionary income. No matter how you try to force it, flat taxes are fundamentally unfair.
You might have forgotten to take into account universal health care...
And frankly $500 buys a LOT of food, if you aren't eating steaks and junk...
But as I said at the bottom, all the numbers are subject to adjustment, of course if I were really King, I'd do detailed studies on each to make sure they made sense...
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that we put people into prison for being addicted to drugs is messed up...
Nobody is put into prison for being an addict. Nor is anybody put in prison for being an asshole. But we sure do put some of each into prison for the things they do. If you steal somebody else's stuff, it really doesn't matter if you did it because you're a drug addict or just a lazy asshole. If you are caught peddling heroin to kids, it doesn't matter if you did it because you're an addict or just an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Addicts are put in jail all the time, because most of the drugs people are addicted to are illegal to buy or possess. So yes, being an addict in many cases is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I would leave that up to the experts and the women involved instead of extra red tape imposed by lawyers and congresscritters who really have no clue and care even less. Making it illegal to save the mother in a difficult birth where the odds of the child surviving are very low anyway is the sort of nightmare that would come out o
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I'm going to totally let you search for the guns, drugs and bodies, after I try to challenge it in court. Oh, and of course I'm totally not going to tamper with or dispose evidence. No sirreee! See you in court, Mr. Swat Team."
Re: (Score:2)
The Neucal fold test to test for chromosomal abnormalities occurs at 12 weeks. If you get a bad result you then have an amniocentesis which is usually around 20 weeks. It is at this point that the parents have the information about whether their child has downs or other chromosomal abnormality. Your law would prevent an abortion of that child. You would get a lot of push back on that.
I don't consider downs syndrome to be a justification for the murder of a child.
If it is, then why can't you kill them when t
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it doesn't have an impact. Neither does voting for Trump or Clinton. Your vote means *nothing* in terms of electing someone. EVEN IN A SWING STATE. If you're so lucky, your odds go from about 1 in 10,000,000,000 to 1 in 10,000,000.
Local elections are the most important to vote in. Then it might matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm damned if I can explain the status quo. Feels like americans are just stupid, en masse?
Fear.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [hillaryclinton.com]
There's no question that this election features the two most unliked candidates. This should be an election where 3rd parties make significant inroads. On both sides they're using the retiring or passing justices as a bludgeon of fear to beat voters to fall in line and vote for the party because, "They can't let Trump/Hillary nominate that many justices".