WikiLeaks Calls for Pardons From President Obama -- Or President Trump (wikileaks.org) 445
"President Obama has a political moment to pardon Manning & Snowden," WikiLeaks tweeted on Friday, adding "If not, he hands a Trump presidency the freedom to take his prize." And a new online petition is also calling for a pardon of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying Assange is "a hero and must be honoured as such," attracting over 10,000 supporters in just a few days. An anonymous reader writes:
Monday WikiLeaks also announced, "irrespective of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the real victor is the U.S. public which is better informed as a result of our work." Addressing complaints that they specifically targeted Hillary Clinton's campaign, the group said "To date, we have not received information on Donald Trump's campaign, or Jill Stein's campaign, or Gary Johnson's campaign or any of the other candidates that fulfills our stated editorial criteria." But they also objected to the way their supporters were portrayed during the U.S. election, arguing that Trump and others "were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications -- because none exists."
Thursday a WikiLeaks representative expressed surprise that, despite the end of the U.S. election, Julian Assange's internet connection in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London has not yet been restored.
Thursday a WikiLeaks representative expressed surprise that, despite the end of the U.S. election, Julian Assange's internet connection in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London has not yet been restored.
Political reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Political reality (Score:5, Funny)
Obama: "A pardon? Oh, I thought you said 'drone'. My sincere apologies for this terrible terrible accident."
Re:Political reality (Score:5, Funny)
A US drone attacking the Embassy of Ecuador in the middle London.
I'll grab the popcorn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Donald Trump in November 2016:
Donald Trump in November 2012:
Re: (Score:3)
Do you understand that there is a difference between a protest and a riot?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, the Alt-right is just so well behaved, as they run around spreading rumors about bus-loads of illegal Mexicans going to the polls.
Both sides have their share of malcontents, but because you're a partisan, you are incapable of seeing just how badly your side behaved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they weren't. It was falsified, and "Project Veritas" was propogating a scam. The fact that you still don't accept that demonstrates my point. You're just as deranged as the people you hate, and just as fearful of your worldview being supplanted. If they are cowards, then so are you.
Re:Political reality (Score:5, Informative)
"Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Ironic that you'd say that, since almost every accusation Donald Trump has denied actually came first hand from video or his own Tweets.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it Is ironic, as in this election the Conservatives (ie. the *opposite* of the Progressives - go look up irony, there, sport) who will be in the White House (Trump, Guilianai, Gingrich) are *literally* the cheating husbands.
Re:Political reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, no one protested Obama's election.
http://i.imgur.com/J1hSHPi.jpg [imgur.com]
Oh wait, maybe they not only did, but did it in a way only extreme right wing protesters can (ie. racist as hell and with death threats).
Re:Political reality (Score:5, Insightful)
And which candidate was it that promised to lock up dissidents against his reign, were he to obtain power?
Re: (Score:3)
What we should do is take his claims of a rigged election with the utmost seriousness. A full investigation should be conducted. If his claims are true, then another election should be called immediately. If he is lying, then he should be indicted or impeached.
It behoves us to fiercely
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the Left is so irrelevant, why is it you concoct absurd claims like this? Clearly you still feel you need to lash out by basically inventing nonsensical and frankly utterly retarded conspiracies about the current POTUS.
Either that or you are indeed just a simpering halfwit.
Re: Political reality (Score:4, Insightful)
That's putting it likely; I'll bet that Hillary wants Assange's head on a pike. And to be honest, I'm not sure why anybody cares about him at all, to new he comes off as a total weasel.
Re: (Score:2)
He is a total weasel. He also has provided important, accurate, and relevant information to Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
He is a total weasel. He also has provided important, accurate, and relevant information to Americans.
Indeed! The recipe tip about the reason for adding the rice piecemeal during the creation of a risotto is important to me and accurate, I can guarantee it. It works very well. Not sure how it's relevant to the election.
All he did was a data dump from hacked emails. It turns out the risotto trick was one of the most useful bits of information in there. There was very little of substance.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if the information was accurate, what happened next was typical of what happens when you get large document dumps. People sift through the documents, finding passages that look incriminating or insinuate nefarious acts or conspiracies. This is what happened with Climategate, and both that and the Clinton email dumps are classic examples of quote mining, of the dishonest taking of passages out of context and using them to create a false narrative.
I doubt there's a public figure in the world that you cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For partisan hacks, however, Wikileaks has provided useful fodder that could be dressed up as ammunition and presented to low-information voters who are easily swayed by bogus headlines and cheap political spin.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I knew an Oxford education isn't what it used to be,
Not really sure why you think I went to Oxford. Anyway, either way I studied engineering (or engineering science if I went to Oxford, engineering everywhere else).
but you'd think they'd still teach the difference between universal and existential quantifiers.
on an engineering course? That's not how things work. Anyway, I'm amazed that you didn't get a passing grade in "identifying people taking the piss" from the university of life or whichever coll
Re: (Score:3)
Because you posted it a while back. Oxford computer vision, real-time tracking, no?
I was in computer vision I know people who used to be in the Oxford vision group. Plus either way that would have been a PhD.
Basic logic is actually part of engineering and computer science. Of course, classical logic and philosophy is part of a liberal arts education, obviously something you didn't receive.
It seems you really didn't receive an education in learning to spot when people are taking the piss.
You must be fucking
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "accurate."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, accurate as in the email existed.
Accurate as in some people had dinner with an "eccentric performance artist."
But also...
Accurate as in Spirit Cooking DOES involve all those things per the woman's own video.
Accurate as in the "performance artist" said during her Reddit AMA that it's only "art" when it's done in public for artistic reasons, when it's done in private she considers it something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Political reality (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I would have thought that Clinton's anon shill brigade would have been dismissed by now. Did she pay you through the end of the month?
A reasonable person might conclude at this point that, because they're still here, they're neither shills nor being paid.
An unreasonable person, unable to accept the logical or plausible because it conflicts with their deeply-held but ultimately warped worldview, might instead wonder why they hadn't been dismissed yet.
Funny, that.
Re: (Score:3)
Start taking your meds again
The other campaign (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton lost by a whisker. Clinton is Obama's friend. Wikileaks spread dirt on Clinton. Now you want Obama to give you a warm handshake and a kiss on the cheek?
Trump won over Clinton 290 to 228, which is most definitely *not* a whisker.
If you want to complain that Clinton would have won by different rules, you also have to allow that Trump would have campaigned differently under the different rules.
For example, with full popular voting Trump would have campaigned more vigorously in California and New York, to garner more of the proportional popular vote in those states.
He would have had a different campaign, and won under the different rules as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me explain Clinton got a plurality of votes not a majority. She also lost the EC by a wide margin.
People are pissed because they allowed presidential campaigning to be a docudrama and think meme's from FB are fact.
Re: (Score:3)
That is utterly useless in the context of any reasonable voting system,
Er that is how a democracy works, ie most votes should win.
failure to get a majority means another round of voting not somebody winning.
You don't need a majority, you only need more than the others, and the fact remains, Hillary got the most votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Get it? Got it? Good.
"If you want to complain that Clinton would have won by different rules, you also have to allow that Trump would have campaigned differently under the different rules."
There. I quoted the GP before I started typing my post since you show yourself incapable of reading beyond one sentence. Claiming popular vote decides elections is a different rule. When you have a different set of rules then you change the way you play the game. If popular votes decide an election there's no reason to believe if the electio
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, under different rules the candidates would have campaigned differently. But the voters would have also voted differently. I live in California, and I cast a protest vote for Gary Johnson, secure in the knowledge that my vote didn't matter anyway. In a popular vote system, I would have voted for one of the big two. Gary got about 3%, enough to easily swing the election.
Re: (Score:2)
No, she didn't.
That's why she lost.
4 years of bitching about that will just lead to another Trump landslide in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that would be good for the planet, because that would assure no more USA.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still wrong on who "my" people are. Pathetic, even for an AC, and that is saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it, the Democrats wouldn't be stupid enough to try Corruptillary again.
Who else will they pick? Bernie will be 79. Tim Kaine is too centrist to win in the primaries. Trump would love to run against Elizabeth Warren. The Democrats have a very weak bench.
Re: The other campaign (Score:2)
Either a worthy candidate will appear for the Democrats in the next four years, or they'll pick the same kind of nobody bullshit candidate that the Republicans have been running since Bush ran the first time. It doesn't seem like they'd run Hillary again, though it wouldn't surprise me if she turns up for the primaries.
Re: (Score:3)
No, she's done. I doubt she'd even want to, but even she did, the Democrats wouldn't let it happen. First and foremost, the Democrats actually have a weighed system in their superdelegates so that something like that couldn't happen.
I'm wagering they'll be pushing to the Left of the party, looking for a younger Bernie Sanders type. A lot of it also depends on whether Trump runs again. He's not a young man, and he'll be 74 by a second term. He's at the age where even rich billionaires can start suffering hea
Re: (Score:3)
Nah - the corporate wing that dominates the Democratic party would rather lose to a Republican like Donald Trump than win with a Democrat like Bernie Sanders.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have beat him this time with Jim Webb
He got less than 1% of the vote from his own party, and he has a lot of dirt that wasn't exposed because he was too insignificant to matter. For instance, he is a worse misogynist than Trump. Trump made plenty of off-hand sexist remarks, but Webb eloquently argued for sexist policies such as booting women out of the service academies.
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for Trump over Hillary but I would have voted for Jim Webb without any reservations.
The problem is that the democratic party is not what it was when he first joined- it is not the same party of FDR or JFK or even Jimmy Carter (who sucked as a president BTW) anymore. That is why Jim Webb was shut out- he is stuck in the past with the great men of the democratic party and American history. That has no place in the modern democratic party unless it can be used as a sound bite somehow to push something
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it, the Democrats wouldn't be stupid enough to try Corruptillary again.
I'm pretty sure they will be.
Re: (Score:2)
While I think Hillary's career is effectively over, and I think Sanders would have ran a different campaign and won, I am actually talking about how they've spent the last few days rioting in the streets and calling half the country stupid racists for disagreeing with them. That won't work to win hearts and minds, no matter how it plays in the bubble.
Re:The other campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Clinton did not get more votes than Trump. She got considerably less.
Finally, it was never the intent that the Electoral College proportionally reflect the populace. Each state is given one Elector for each Representative and one for each Senator. Just as Senators give small states disproportionate power, so to does the Electoral College. That's by intentional design, to prevent large populous states from overwhelming smaller ones. Nationally, the US is a federation of states, not a direct democracy. Always has been. This is all grade school civics.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but that's not to say that the states themselves couldn't insert some proportionality into their electors, and indeed that's exactly what I suggest people angry about this election should do. Rather than impotently run around the streets making noise and mayhem, start putting pressure on state legislatures to get rid of winner take all and maybe even try a different voting system, like ranked or some sort of PR.
Re: (Score:3)
Proportionally allocating electors (i.e. a system like Maine's) would result in Republic landslide victories. Take a look at the electoral map, there are more red states than blue states, and the blue states have higher populations. You'd be giving the democrats handfuls of electoral votes in places like TN, and trading that for dozens in places like NY and CA.
I tend to support Republicans more than Democrats, but I'm not in favor of changing the balance of power like that. It would be disastrous for the
Re: (Score:2)
Let me explain it to you simply.
Clinton got more votes than Trump. People are pissed because of that.
Get it? Got it? Good.
So what? That isn't what the rules were, they would have run the campaigns very differently if they had been.
How many times did Clinton or Trump go to CA? If it was popular vote, then they both would have and the results may have been different, or not, we'll never know.
You can't (or shouldn't, if you're being honest) project the existing popular vote to mean much. Lots of people in Texas, New York, and California didn't bother to vote because of the EC and their vote not counting.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times did Clinton or Trump go to CA?
They came here a few times for fund raisers. But they didn't campaign here, and (more importantly) they ran ZERO political ads here. I love having my vote not count. Please keep the Electoral College as it is!
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Texas, my vote doesn't count either.
I'm 100% for getting rid of the EC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you to some extent, the rules are the rules, and if Clinton lost, it was as much because she made the enormous mistake of assuming that this election was going to be Obama Part 3, and fought it that way. I can't say she was the only one fooled by that, I certainly assumed that this would be a traditional election and that the polls and the poll aggregators were by and large going to give Clinton a win, if a little tighter than at first assumed. What it did mean is that while Trump seemed
Re: (Score:2)
You can't turn back the tide. If those factories start up again, they'll be with greater automation. Anger and kicks to the political class's balls will not change the hard facts.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no narrative here. Manufacturing is increasingly automated, and it won't be that many years before all those cheap wage slaves in Mexico, China and India are in the same boat.
Re: (Score:3)
Finely tuned? More like remedial politics. Party labels have fuck-all to do with how liberal or conservative you are, it's your positions that define you. Here, I'll draw you a picture. With crayons:
Re: (Score:2)
"Clinton is Obama's friend." Hahahhahaha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, it was not dems voting for the trump, since he got slightly less than the typical number of votes for GOP. OTOH, the number of votes for dems plummeted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you'd call this [google.com] a landslide. Reagan's second term election... that was a landslide [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a great map. Wanna see another great one?
This one. [netdna-cdn.com]
The Dems have a problem and until they admit it we're going to see the Right resurgent. Making excuses isn't going to help.
Re:Political reality (Score:5, Informative)
Well, keep in mind those sorts of maps are a bit misleading, as it just shows any preference for Republicans above 50% in lower population areas. It does look visually striking, though.
I found that maps that show the difference in shades between red and blue tend to represent the difference a bit better. Here's a page that demonstrates several ways to represent the electoral split with more accuracy [umich.edu].
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the best uses for the pronoun "(s)he".
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Why do people lump them together? Snowden and Assange/Manning/Wikileaks are polar opposites; Snowden blew the whistle on illicit spying, Wikileaks *is* illicit spying.
How anyone can support both I have no idea.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Why do people lump them together? Snowden and Assange/Manning/Wikileaks are polar opposites; Snowden blew the whistle on illicit spying, Wikileaks *is* illicit spying.
How anyone can support both I have no idea.
It seems a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the reality of Snowden's heroic actions. It will take decades for official recognition, but like a Mandela, MLK Jnr, or Rosa Parks, I think Edward Snowden will be looked back on as a hero by future generations.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't so much how Manning leaked the documents, but how WikiLeaks messed up spectacularly afterwards. The journalists who got the Snowden documents published only what was newsworthy and acted responsibly. OTOH, WikiLeaks messed it up so badly that everyone had access to all the documents. Then for the Clinton emails, they didn't even pretend they were trying to act responsibly and directly dumped everything as fast as they could.
Re: (Score:2)
Then for the Clinton emails, they didn't even pretend they were trying to act responsibly and directly dumped everything as fast as they could.
I'm pretty sure they actually dumped them in deliberate staggered batches with announcements in between to maximise publicity rather than as fast as they could. As far as I can tell that's their explanation of what they were doing as well as how it looks.
Maybe one day someone will leak all Assange and other members of Wikileaks emails and we'll know the truth though...
This exactly. Previously the major criticism of Wikileaks was they were leaking unsanitized information, putting innocent people in repressive regimes at risk.
But this election they went in with a very clear goal of attacking Clinton by maximizing the political damage of whatever information they had. They even made a poll endorsing crazy health conspiracy theories [huffingtonpost.co.uk].
The thing is I'm not sure exactly what Assange's plan is, does he plan to retire once he gets his pardon? Trump is infamous for hostility to the
Re: (Score:2)
And snowden simply went too far to be a whistleblower. He should have stopped before speaking about spying on other nations and groups. He knew that NSA was legal on that.
And America has absolutely NO SAY on Assange. The only nation that is really interested in him, is Sweden.
Cry me a river, WikiLeaks (Score:2)
This is just meaningless, self-serving posturing on WikiLeaks' part.
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
An organization which knowingly and deliberately worked with a foreign government to affect the U.S. presidential election now wants people to listen to them and pardon people who have affected U.S. national security?
Talk about a pair of balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when Trump goes first for using his "foundation" to pay for his legal bills, his personal bills and buy him things. All of which are illegal.
Not to mention doing business with an Iranian bank which funnels money to terrorists while Iran was under sanctions, or doing business in Cuba while Cuba was under sanctions.
Assange is neither wanted nor indicted by the US (Score:2, Informative)
How is the US supposed to pardon him, when he is wanted by the Swedes for questioning?
Re:Assange is neither wanted nor indicted by the U (Score:5, Informative)
The badly written summary makes it clear that the pardon is requested for Manning and Snowden, and for some reason tries to include an unrelated mention of Assange, probably so they can have more links to click.
Re: (Score:2)
He is also wanted now by the British for bail offences and quite probably contempt of court...
Re: (Score:2)
A pardon would make him safe from all crimes committed anywhere before the pardon in the US including extradition for those crimes. In effect there would be no legal way to get him out of the US.
Re:Assange is neither wanted nor indicted by the U (Score:5, Interesting)
How is the US supposed to pardon him, when he is wanted by the Swedes for questioning?
I know a lot of people don't RTFA, but... It's a tweet, it's only 111 characters! And even if that's too hard for you, you didn't even make it to the end of the first sentence of the summary.
By the way I like dolphins. I just thought I'd share this since it is entirely as relevant to the discussion as your post was, but someone seems to be giving away free mod points, and dolphins are much cooler and more intelligent than Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
A president can pardon someone, even if currently no charges have been filed. For example, Ford pardoned Nixon for any and all actions he undertook as President.
Trump can easily pardon Assange from any prosecution by the U.S. gov't for all actions committed by Assange between 1972 to 2016.
That would no effect on whatever Sweden wants Assange for. However keep in mind that Assange only went into hiding at Ecuadorian embassy because he feared Sweden would extradite him to the USA and that he'd end up being to
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't learn that, that was an unevidenced claim he made to a British court when he was fighting extradition to Sweden. When the British courts rejected his conspiracy theory and deemed Sweden's request valid, that's when he hightailed to the Ecuadorian embassy.
It should be notes that not only does Sweden want him for allegedly sexual offenses, he is also wanted by the UK, and that even if Sweden dropped its investigation, he would almost certainly have to face a British court again.
Three Heroes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will not happen. Neither of the ones that could do it has the personal honor or the statesmanship that would require. The US has moved for 3rd-rated "leaders" to 4th rated ones now, no qualities of an actual leader in evidence anymore. Obama was probably the last one that at least tried to give the impression of being qualified for the job.
Not going to happen (Score:2)
Bull shit (Score:2)
2) Snowden deserves a medal for reporting on the spying on America by individuals, and then multiple bullets for having given out all sorts of legal stuff that the NSA did.
3) it is not our place to 'parden' assange or wikileaks. Even now, America has no rights to him. The nation that wants him is sweden. And I doubt that they will let a 2x rapists go free.
Pardon Assange for *what*? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange believes that charges against him are just an excuse to extradite him to USA. So the request is to proactively demonstrate that USA has no interest in Assange.
It doesn't make sense legally speaking, but that's the answer to your question.
Never gonna happen with Trump (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He's called for Snowden to be killed as a traitor, so I'm thinking he *probably* won't pardon the guy.
That's true. And if there's one thing Trump does, it's remain consistent in his opinions over time. /s
Snowden not Assange (Score:2)
I could see Snowden getting a pardon at some point but a plea deal that avoids jail time would be more likely especially before Trump takes office.
Rod Blagojevich needs one (Score:4, Funny)
Rod Blagojevich has done way to much time all ready.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is, Putin's
Very hopeful tweet (Score:3)
The wikileaks twitter feed [twitter.com] has this item:
Remember how you let Obama "legalize":
It's all Trump's in 69 days
This gives me a lot of hope for our future.
Something we really didn't have under Obama (despite it being his tagline).
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating how people think these days that publicly disgracing themselves is somehow acceptable or reflects well on them. It does explain a lot about the dismal state the human race is in though: Too many cave-men, like this one here.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Assange (Score:3, Insightful)
Ergo, Assange has intentionally squashed the Trump leaks and promoted the Clinton leaks in a partisan effort
Re: (Score:3)
Most of those are already public record, there's not a whole lot to leak.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And Bernie just has to flip a few Super Delegates before July!
The rules were set and Clinton happened to be on the side of being screwed by them.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules were set and Clinton happened to be on the side of being screwed by them.
Concluding Clinton was somehow screwed because the popular vote was in her favor is a non-sequitur in the current system. Winning the electoral college is how you get elected. If popular vote carried the day, the candidates would have campaigned much differently and Republicans in California/Democrats in Utah would have actually bothered to go to the poll. If people don't like the current system then change it but it isn't insightful at all to draw the wrong conclusions after the fact.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It is over. The US population has disgraced itself in the eyes of the world. (And that they voted Trump into office is just the icing on the cake, the main problem is having two completely unacceptable candidates in the first place...)
That also means the "American Century" is finally over as well. Good.
Re: (Score:2)
The US population has disgraced itself in the eyes of the world.
The world is made up of many different people, billions of them, with many different viewpoints. To try to distill that down to some tangible entity and say we are disgraced in its eyes is a colossal fallacy.
That also means the "American Century" is finally over as well. Good.
I hope the so-called American Century is over too. We have some of our own problems to take care of and I believe Trump is the man for the job.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It does more than seek to imprison, it does imprison people for opposing the party-in-power's narrative. Mark Basseley Youssef and Dinesh D'Sousa.
Neither of these individuals was imprisoned for "opposing the party-in-power's narrative." It was for violating laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I have no need to explain anything. None of your claims about Clinton had anything to do with my argument about these two individuals being punished for breaking the law, not for "opposing the party-in-power's narrative."
You, on the other hand, have a great deal of explaining to do. You make a number of unsubstantiated claims about Clinton with no evidence to back them up. It is your job, not mine, to provide evidence. But for what it's worth, I do know that the claim about Clinton paying agitators to atten
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been thinking about this in the context of global warming. While the Obama Administration did see increased use of renewables, in the end he actually did very little to curb fossil fuels. Yes, the coal-fired power plants are being idled, but that has a lot more to do with market forces (cheaper shale oil, for instance) than with any grand policy to keep goal in the ground. Trump is not going to make coal somehow viable again. As to the Paris Accord, well, I have my doubts that any major government will put that much effort into it. Canada is going to institute a carbon tax, but it starts at such a small amount that it isn't likely to significantly impact fossil fuel production and use. In the end, I doubt there will be any great impact on fossil fuel use, and the march of renewables will go on, if too slow to prevent some of the nastier aspects. I suspect that the graph of emissions after four years will look the same as if Clinton were in charge.
Trump basically promised a lot of people a lot of things he can't really deliver, or he doesn't dare deliver. Look at Obamacare, over the last two or three days it has become clear that while there will likely be changes, and heck they may even repeal it on paper, the ACA will survive in one form or another, because as angry as people are at cost increases, no one save the hardest core Libertarian types actually wants to go back.
Yes, pushing the Supreme Court further towards the Right is troubling, but it's not like Scalia and Roberts could prevent some of the very rulings that have the social conservatives all riled up. And unless Trump and the GOP brass are complete idiots, they know damned well that Trump didn't win because a bunch of social conservatives, Evangelicals, and the like put him there. They would have voted for him no matter what. So anything that pushes too far towards the social conservative spectrum and lights up the culture wars again would almost certainly damage the Republicans.
No, underneath all the bluster and bravado, I'm really beginning to feel that Trump is no revolutionary at all, and that his shtick is just that, some fancy colors on a price sticker, but the sticker still reads the same price.
Re:Nobel Peace Prize (Score:4, Funny)
You got it backward: US presidents get a Nobel prize *before* doing anything worthy of a Nobel prize.
Re:Pro-Kremlin fronts (Score:4, Insightful)
Snowden has a fuckton of Western blood on his hands
[Citation Needed]