Manning was commuted because (Obama logic, here) he went through the justice system and received his judgement, etc, etc, etc.


Snowden seems unlikely to receive a pardon using this same Obama logic, even though he was more selective with his disclosures, who he disclosed to, etc. because he skirted the justice system (not that I blame him).

1/18/2017 12:31:41 PM

Quote :

"He didn't pardon manning, he commuted the sentence to 7 years instead of 35, which was the longest sentence for a similar crime ever given."

I can't get behind this. People keep saying "similar crimes," but I can't seem to find any other instances of someone purposely releasing millions of classified documents without any knowledge whatsoever about what is in them. Add to this chat logs showing that Manning knew damned well that the release was huge and wrong and would potentially get people killed, and I just don't see the "similar crimes" at all. The only "similar crimes" that anyone can ever come up is on par with a dumbass downloading a file to his phone to show his buddy. They just aren't comparable.

Likewise, the "whistleblower" claims have never withstood any level of scrutiny, considering that you can't really be "blowing the whistle" when you don't even know what the hell you are releasing. Manning never articulated any defensible rationale for releasing the documents, other than "war is hell," and that's not a valid reason to release classified info. The only defensible thing that Manning released was the "collateral damage" video. If that had been it, then you could make the whistleblower claim, but not with everything else that was released.


As for Snowden, the suggestion that he needs to come home and face trial in order to get a pardon is absurd. That man is dead the moment he sets foot on America soil, and I doubt he would even make it that far. Fuck this admin for even having the gall to make such a statement

Quote :

"i'm okay with the commuted sentence, but i don't understand her being praised. are those just fringe groups or is it a popular opinion?"

I think the Manning case has been fraught from the beginning with the transgendered aspect of it. LGBT groups have praised Manning as a hero, even though a dispassionate look at those actions don't warrant the claim. Had Manning not been transgendered, I think pretty much everyone, other than the anti-war parts of the left, would had said "fuck 'em" and let that be it. Instead, Manning's difficulties grappling with gender dysphoria (and the possible way to could have led to the decision to do the release) made for a more sympathetic character to the LGBT community, causing them champion a person whom they otherwise would have ignored.

[Edited on January 18, 2017 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2017 9:59:27 PM

Quote :

" As for Snowden, the suggestion that he needs to come home and face trial in order to get a pardon is absurd. That man is dead the moment he sets foot on America soil, and I doubt he would even make it that far. Fuck this admin for even having the gall to make such a statement "

When you say dead, do you mean that literally? And if so what precedent is there for that in recent history?

1/19/2017 12:59:19 AM

Quote :

"I think the Manning case has been fraught from the beginning with the transgendered aspect of it."

she didn't come out as transgender until after the conviction, nearly 3 years after the leaks

[Edited on January 19, 2017 at 2:18 AM. Reason : autocorrect fail]

1/19/2017 2:16:56 AM

Quote :

""I think the Manning case has been fraught from the beginning with the transgendered aspect of it.""

1/19/2017 9:43:33 AM

do it

1/19/2017 11:04:34 AM

Called himself "no-drama Obama". -1 Credibility

*cue fake tears after a mass shooting*

1/19/2017 12:43:54 PM

1/19/2017 2:24:57 PM

^^^Thats pretty funny. Ultimate trolling by Obama/Biden if they did.

Quote :

"Obama cuts short sentences of 330 drug offenders in his last major act as president."

I am assuming these are non-violent drug offenders. If so +credibility.

1/19/2017 3:03:47 PM

unlikely that all of them are non-violent

1/19/2017 6:11:10 PM

unlikely?

are you able to read?

1/19/2017 6:13:43 PM

nope

1/19/2017 6:19:33 PM

Quote :

"unlikely that all of them are non-violent"

Let's see your data weirdo.

1/20/2017 1:34:07 PM

$9 Trillion in national debt added

-9 Trillion credibility

"If there was a credibility floor, he fucking broke it"

1/20/2017 1:45:44 PM

+1.2 million more people at Obama's inauguration versus Trumps.

Goes to show you how shit a candidate Clinton was really that this guy beat her with unprecedentedl low approval ratings.

[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM. Reason : At least]

1/20/2017 2:01:57 PM

I would imagine most republican voters actually have jobs and things to do... whereas there are already too many unemployed losers in D.C. that would get excited about more handouts.

(unless you count the ones paid to start protests and riots, I guess that is a job).

1/20/2017 2:13:01 PM

Rich people have paid time off. Not an excuse.

1/20/2017 2:14:48 PM

And rich/employed people are generally smart enough to know standing around a crowded street in Washington D.C is a waste of time...

Whereas your average unemployed or underemployed-Barista-Waiter SJW attendee lives for this shit. They can take a selfie with their pothead friends and get tons of likes on social media, because they support the president the media told them is cool! Or "protest" the president the media told them hates ______.


[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2017 2:21:30 PM

Quote :

"And rich/employed people are generally smart enough to know standing around a crowded street in Washington D.C is a waste of time..."

There's no correlation between having wealth and being smart. You keep on talking in circles. Have you thought about Twitter?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/pkedrosky/472069325/

1/20/2017 2:42:28 PM

Quote :

"Goes to show you how shit a candidate Clinton was really that this guy beat her with unprecedentedl low approval ratings."

the Electoral College, tho

1/20/2017 2:45:58 PM

That's fair but Trump is partially right that he probably campaigns differently if the rules are changed.

My point was that at that time Obama tapped in to something that Trump simply hasn't. Trump's coaliton was strong enough to beat a weak candidate but historically his support is very, very weak.

1/20/2017 2:49:15 PM

Quote :

" There's no correlation between having wealth and being smart."

That's why I said "employed". You changed it to "rich". I assumed you meant the same thing.

There is definitely a correlation between being dumb, unemployed, voting democrat, and rioting after a fair election.

[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2017 2:54:46 PM

Don't respond to this clown.

As he admitted today and in the past, he's a troll, that for whatever weird reason, gets turned-on by trying to rile people up on the internet. Weird, I know, but it's hard to understand the mind of an internet troll.

1/20/2017 3:04:05 PM

"Don't respond to this clown"

*Replies to every post I make with a personal insult*

1/20/2017 3:05:57 PM

In before the lock.

1/20/2017 3:44:59 PM

Quote :

"Obama tapped in to something that Trump simply hasn't. "

Obama tapped into something that I had never experienced in the previous 3 presidents or with this one. I've read that Reagan was able to excite a base at the same level as Obama, but I was way to young to experience, so IDK. The point is, Obama's campaigning was transcendent and something we will probably only witness once every generation. Unfortunately, his governing has been the complete opposite of his campaigning.

With that said. I don't think the sparse crowd is reflection of Trumps message. It's probably more a reflection that his supporters are poor and don't live near Washington D.C.

1/20/2017 4:05:13 PM

Pretty sure the "poor" ones are the ones voting for the fee handouts from democrats.

I'd imagine most Trump supporters actually have jobs and probably don't want to deal with the violent SJW babies there to protest a fair election.

1/20/2017 4:23:48 PM

Jesus fucking Christ. Trump had midday rallies that were full throughout middle America day after day. How is this even an argument?

1/20/2017 4:32:54 PM

Because his narrative

1/20/2017 4:39:09 PM

Quote :

"Jesus fucking Christ. Trump had midday rallies that were full throughout middle America day after day. How is this even an argument?"

lol

1/20/2017 5:07:15 PM

Because the rallies happened when it was still a work in progress. The job is done, the only people going to inauguration rallies are unemployed hipster trash trying to take selfies.

1/20/2017 8:51:31 PM

Sweet narrative. That's a good one.

1/20/2017 9:15:47 PM

You average Trump voter isn't going to take a day off work to travel to a shithole like DC. Whereas all the homeless unemployed losers in DC were readily available to watch a brotha get inaugurated. That isn't a narrative its demographics.

1/21/2017 12:08:46 AM

I feel so foolish for continuing to engage. I really did think for a while he was just a differing point of view. An annoying one but worth occasionally engaging. Never again.

1/21/2017 8:13:18 AM

I thought the economy was in the shittier and no one had jobs? Surely they could car pool?

OR is it all the jobs Obama created are shitty hourly jobs? Surely moving your hours to the weekend would clear up a weekday!

Or is it smart businesses minded people voted for trump? Couldn't they just get their driver to take them and work remotely?

1/21/2017 9:06:01 AM

Quote :

" I really did think for a while he was just a differing point of view."

Lol how long have you been here?

1/21/2017 10:09:09 AM

Quote :

" I really did think for a while he was just a differing point of view"

I am. This is how your side reacts to different views. You just use character attacks and spam. Sorry my posts don't align with your HuffingtonPost bullshit views of reality.

1/21/2017 7:58:35 PM

Boohoo?

1/22/2017 12:55:02 AM

as much as idiots claimed that obama was going to institute martial law, at least he didn't threaten martial law literally in his first week, or ever

1/25/2017 9:38:32 AM

Probably because when Obama won, republicans didn't riot and loot in protest.

1/25/2017 9:44:35 AM

as much as idiots claimed that obama was going to institute martial law, at least he didn't threaten martial law literally in his first week, or ever

1/25/2017 10:06:42 AM

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/305749-republicans-employ-double-standard-to-discredit

1/25/2017 10:27:47 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-221-million-palestinians-obamas-hours-44992868

Quote :

"US Sent $221 Million to Palestinians in Obama's Last Hours"

1/25/2017 7:28:13 PM

^ if you read the actual article however this money was approved by congress a couple years ago and legally released.


But sure let's call out the "pettiness" of it being at the last minute... certainly our current president would never be so petty. /sarcasm

1/26/2017 10:12:17 AM

-1000 more credibility. Can't stop virtue signaling

Quote :

"President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” "

Maybe Obama should try actually reading the executive order. Nobody is discriminated against based on what their religion is. In fact it protects minorities (something I thought the leftists liked).

Sad!

1/30/2017 3:14:14 PM

^yeah obama must really not like Catholics cause he ended wet foot dry foot on way out door using that crap logic

1/30/2017 7:21:50 PM

Trump campaigned on a muslim ban, said this repeatedly and proudly
he asked guiliani to make a muslim ban
he said in connection with the EO Christians are preferred
The EO transfers power to low-level CBP to make the call, knowing they'll single out muslims

Believing this isn't the first stage of a muslim ban is like believing poll taxes and poll tests and grandfather clauses weren't to stop blacks from voting/civil rights.

And if this ISN'T supposed to be a muslim ban, then what is it supposed to be? It doesn't make us safer based on historical precedent.

After the 90 days expires, do ppl from those countries magically become better? What about the other countries where bad people live?

What reasoning says banning the 99.99999% of people who have been traveling for years without issue to stop a HYPOTHETICAL .000001% is a good idea? Especially since this action costs is in many, many other ways in credibility with our allies and on the world stage, and in freedom at home?

Whether you admit to yourself this is the "muslim ban" or not, this is a dumb, pointless, harmful action for the US gov to take. The block on legal residents was illegal, the border patrol agents and DHS's first statement likely was in contempt of court too.

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ]

1/31/2017 12:13:41 AM

ISIS has said they want to infiltrate as refugees
They have done so in Europe (France massacre)
This doesn't affect US citizens
This is a temporary ban
This is a ban on SHITHOLE countries
This is for the security of all Americans
Virtue signal all you want nobody cares

1/31/2017 9:20:17 AM

Should have pardoned Snowden. -100.

2/10/2017 6:45:14 PM

^^in my mind I just pretend you are the greatest troll ever. The goat. Of all time.

2/10/2017 11:04:20 PM