|
Bwee posted:Yes but did you consider that this good thing is actually bad because Biden did it It is objectively good, but in the grand scheme of things, there are definitely more areas where he could do more for non-violent drug offenders with harder drugs than marijuana, but politicians generally don't want to touch harder drugs. Especially since most people in federal prison on harder drug charges are there for trafficking, which is technically non-violent, but not generally counted when they say "non-violent drug offenders." I'm just saying that commuting the sentences of a dozen people in federal prison for crack a full year before the election is probably not the hot vote-getter The Top G is thinking it is.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Skex posted:Doesn't change the fact that what I said is true. Also the only reason they were granted amnesty is that congress voted overwhelming in excess of the 2/3 requirement of the amendment to grant said amnesty and it was obvious they intended it only to apply to participants in the Civil War given that they could have easily amended the Constitution again to overturn section 3 with those numbers and they did not. Yeah, I'm aware. My point is that the ex-Confederates were violent rebels who spent four years in organized rebellion against the Union, killing more than 300,000 Union soldiers and tens of thousands of Union civilians. Yet despite this shockingly brutal war, which killed far more Americans than any previous war, the political will to punish and disenfranchise the rebels evaporated so rapidly that most of them were already free to run for office again just seven years after the end of the war. The period of time between the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the passing of the Amnesty Act was less than four years - in other words, shorter than the Civil War itself was. If the political will to enforce the Insurrection Clause could only last for a few years in the aftermath of an actual full-scale Civil War, then there's no point in even daydreaming about people being disenfranchised merely for being Confederate sympathizers. Liquid Communism posted:Admittedly, because Lincoln was assassinated and replaced by a Confederate sympathizer who intentionally spiked Reconstruction to let things go back to the status quo ante bellum as much as possible. Honestly, the Confederates probably would have been better off under Lincoln, who wanted to quickly readmit the Confederates to political power and publicly opposed Congressional Republicans' attempts to exclude and marginalize Confederate sympathizers. The assassination might very well have saved his legacy by taking him out of the picture early enough to spare him any blame for Reconstruction going wrong. Ironically, we got the 14th Amendment because Johnson was such a Confederate sympathizer. By unnecessarily antagonizing and frustrating Congress, he pushed them into taking measures they probably wouldn't have bothered with otherwise. His opposition was a major factor in convincing the Republicans that they needed to take full advantage of their majority and write their positions into the Constitution while they could. In the end, though, the Amnesty Acts removing Section Three disabilities were passed under Grant. Though Grant supported civil rights for ex-slaves and opposed the KKK, the Republican commitment to Reconstruction policies was already weakening, and an amnesty was starting to look like a solid short-term political maneuver (especially to the many Liberal Republicans who vastly underestimated Southerners' commitment to the Confederate cause and identity).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
The kid from the "Nevermind" album cover is suing Nirvana and alleging that they caused him material harm by distributing child porn of him. He originally sued several years ago, but the court ruled it was beyond the statute of limitations. Nirvana re-released the album in 2021 and the man from the album cover alleged that this reset the statute of limitations. The court has agreed with him. Whether this picture itself constitutes child phonography was not addressed in the ruling, just that the law didn't bar him from suing again because of the statute of limitations. I can't really see the guy winning this suit, but it will be interesting to watch from a legal perspective. I don't know if he actually has any hard proof that he suffered damages as a result of the cover or that the cover could be legally considered child porn in any jurisdiction in America. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1738092095414411708 quote:Federal court revives lawsuit against Nirvana over 1991 ‘Nevermind’ naked baby album cover Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
I hope this opens the door to the Blind Melon bumblebee girl getting her day in court as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Bwee posted:Yes but did you consider that this good thing is actually bad because Biden did it It's objectively good and also very small compared to possible actions in his power and in the number of people this actually impacts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's objectively good and also very small compared to possible actions in his power and in the number of people this actually impacts. You know that there is a huge body evidence demonstrating that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? So maybe if we want Presidents to do better things we should give them credit for doing good things even if they fall short of everything you imagine they can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
Skex posted:You know that there is a huge body evidence demonstrating that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? So maybe if we want Presidents to do better things we should give them credit for doing good things even if they fall short of everything you imagine they can do. I’ll be sure to pay my taxes for this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Some of it is the gap. If one goes into a store brand bag of chips is about 2-2.50. A branded chip bag might be 5-9! The price gap for name brands is insane now. Lidl sells a box of "Oat Loops" for like $1.25. Right beside them is a box of Cheerios that are going for $5.00. What am a paying for with that almost $4.00 difference? A stupid bee on the box and some annoying commercials with actors who were in The Office 15 years ago. Chips are the same there, I think they only sell the name brands to show how much higher the prices are. The name brands aren't inflated prices either for the area, my Kroger and Publix sells Cheerios for more than Lidl. It really does read as a gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Skex posted:You know that there is a huge body evidence demonstrating that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? So maybe if we want Presidents to do better things we should give them credit for doing good things even if they fall short of everything you imagine they can do. I don't think we should react to the decisions made by the President of the United States as if he was a dog we were trying to housebreak.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Skex posted:You know that there is a huge body evidence demonstrating that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? So maybe if we want Presidents to do better things we should give them credit for doing good things even if they fall short of everything you imagine they can do. I think activists who want changes in these areas should praise the move publicly and push for more instead of stating that they don't care or not giving credit. That is an important part of activism, reinforcement and applying pressure. But, I don't think either Biden is reading the Something Awful forums or activists are taking strategy notes from posters here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
Skex posted:You know that there is a huge body evidence demonstrating that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? So maybe if we want Presidents to do better things we should give them credit for doing good things even if they fall short of everything you imagine they can do. I'll be nice to Joe the next time we talk Edit: great argument for prison abolition though. Doesn't the president know that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative? Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Some of it is the gap. If one goes into a store brand bag of chips is about 2-2.50. A branded chip bag might be 5-9! If people are still buying out their stock, then why would they lower prices? People don't want to switch to generic cheerios or chips. They will grumble and pay the full price instead of switching to pay for the cheaper off-brand stuff. If they sell out all 500 of their units at $3.99 and at $5.99, then why wouldn't they keep it at $5.99?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don't think we should react to the decisions made by the President of the United States as if he was a dog we were trying to housebreak. I dunno, I think it's worth a shot to rub his nose on a student loan bill while smacking him with a rolled up newspaper I know this is a terrible way to housetrain a dog, it's a joke
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don't think we should react to the decisions made by the President of the United States as if he was a dog we were trying to housebreak. The same findings demonstrate the efficacy of and effectiveness of positive reinforcement in humans as well, but I guess recognizing that wouldn't enable a pithy bad faith response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Biden's been sent to a nice farm upstate after biting one of the Secret Service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Wow 11 people freed from prison, glad to see Biden is finally getting serious on criminal justice reform. Not sure how many of the people eligible for pardons are currently imprisoned, but for those who have already been released, just having a conviction expunged from your record is a huge, huge deal. quote:well yeah obviously, do you really believe that Joe Biden feels in his heart that these people were unjustly imprisoned? Of course he’s doing it to get votes .. Why else did he make these people wait so long anyways, why do not this day 1? Gumball Gumption posted:It's objectively good and also very small compared to possible actions in his power and in the number of people this actually impacts. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Bwee posted:Yes but did you consider that this good thing is actually bad because Biden did it Are you questioning the Top G? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:It says 11 people were granted clemency, which is a different thing from a pardon. I imagine those people didn't meet the criteria for this pardon but were serving ridiculous sentences like 60 years for being caught with a pound of weed or whatever. All of the people granted clemency were in prison for crack or cocaine. There's nobody in federal prison for marijuana possession. It shrank down from several hundred to about 80 people under Obama, shrank down to about 60 under Trump, and Biden let everyone in federal prison with certain drug offenses continue their house arrest program started under covid permanently and has since pardoned everyone with a federal marijuana possession or personal use charge. The current round of pardons are to get the criminal records off of people who were convicted of possession of marijuana in national parks or other federal government property who were not covered under the original pardon that only included people prosecuted in D.C. or directly through a federal law enforcement agency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
selec posted:I’ll be sure to pay my taxes for this year. Gumball Gumption posted:I'll be nice to Joe the next time we talk It's a blunt tool, but "mass pardons for non-violent offenders" can either be something associated with a winning candidate or a losing one. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:All of the people granted clemency were in prison for crack or cocaine. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:It says 11 people were granted clemency, which is a different thing from a pardon (which is being offered to thousands, as is extremely clearly reported in the headline). I imagine those people didn't meet the criteria for this pardon but were serving ridiculous sentences like 60 years for being caught with a pound of weed or whatever. None of the commuted sentences were for marijuana but cocaine or meth. They will all be on supervised release for 8-10 years depending on the person on release. 2 of them had their sentence changed from lifetime to 25 and 27 years. Can you read about the thing that happened before arguing with people that they're not being nice enough to the president about it? There is something honestly disrespectful about being lectured to when you're not even aware of what you're defending. It's a good thing! It's also very small!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:None of the commuted sentences were for marijuana but cocaine or meth. They will all be on supervised release for 8-10 years depending on the person on release. 2 of them had their sentence changed from lifetime to 25 and 27 years. Can you read about the thing that happened before arguing with people that they're not being nice enough to the president about it? There is something honestly disrespectful about being lectured to when you're not even aware of what you're defending. It's a good thing! It's also very small! In my defense to drill this down to "11 people released from prison" as The Top G did really understates the impact of it. Gumball Gumption posted:It's a good thing! It's also very small! Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:https://x.com/ap/status/1738187698878161327?s=46&t=bfbUdXZ7wtKr5Ce8r1pCkQ Please note that that the headline in this tweet is incorrect. Biden has made them eligible for pardons. They will have to submit an application to the Justice Department for a pardon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Please note that that the headline in this tweet is incorrect. Biden has made them eligible for pardons. They will have to submit an application to the Justice Department for a pardon. No, that is just how pardons work. Pardons and expungement are different. Nobody was currently serving any prison time or probation for federal marijuana possession, so there were no sentences to relieve them from via pardon. Pardoning them happens automatically and essentially reverses the conviction for the crime and any associated penalties. Pardoning makes them eligible for expungement, which is where you can file a paper to have your record sealed and your criminal history will look like you were never charged for the crime on background checks and official records.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Please note that that the headline in this tweet is incorrect. Biden has made them eligible for pardons. They will have to submit an application to the Justice Department for a pardon. I forget the law on this - can the President pardon "everybody who did [x]" or does it have to be individual people? If it's the latter, that might be a reason for requiring applications (although I do imagine you could, y'know, search a database or something...) Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, that is just how pardons work. I can imagine that there's a system by which somebody from the White House calls up your lawyer and says, "hey, we're going to give your guy a pardon, send over form ABC-1234 and we'll get it done." But if that's how it works I had no idea, and it seems like a weird limitation to place on the power. (At the very least, people who receive posthumous pardons didn't apply!) Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:That's a distinction worth making. I would hope that there will be some efforts, either governmental or non-governmental, to make people aware of their right to apply. Nixon was pardoned by Ford and was never charged with a crime, so there was nothing to expunge. Mark Rich avoided criminal penalties, but still had the charge on his record and was still liable for civil penalties based on the charges. That is why he never came back to the U.S., even after he was pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, that is just how pardons work. The article disagrees with you quote:President Joe Biden is making thousands of people who were convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia eligible for pardons, the White House said Friday, in his latest round of executive clemencies meant to rectify racial disparities in the justice system. quote:Those eligible can submit applications to the Justice Department’s pardon attorney office, which issues certificates of pardon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nixon was pardoned by Ford Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:and was never charged with a crime, so there was nothing to expunge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The article disagrees with you The article says: quote:Friday’s action adds additional criminal offenses to those eligible for a pardon, making even more people eligible to have their convictions expunged. None of them were currently serving any time. So, the pardon has no impact on their record or sentence directly without requesting an expungement. It is a technical difference, but still a difference. The pardon itself doesn't do anything directly for the people already out and that is why they have to apply to get the pardon certificate for expungement. It is technically applying for a pardon, but the actual reason for the application is because the President can't expunge the records by himself and all of these people have already served their sentences, so there is nothing to commute. It's lawyerly nit-picking, but it isn't like he is giving them some inferior version on purpose. The Office of the Pardon Attorney has a rundown: quote:Does a Presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted? https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=pardon%20was%20granted%3F-,No.,removed%20from%20your%20criminal%20record. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Remember when you were a kid and the phone rang and it was exciting because it meant a friend wanted to talk? No?  Misunderstood posted:Like... dissuading those voters is like breaking a spell. What they need to know isn't that Trump is a bully, or a bigot, or a dictator, or a blowhard, or a liar, they need to know that he sucks and he has bad ideas and they will make things worse in their lives. How exactly you do that when those people start checking their phones the second you mention policy, I'm not exactly sure. thats_the_neat_thing_you_dont_COPY(1).webp You take their shiny toy away and let them go back to not caring about politics. Most of the diehard Trump folks aren't going to transfer their loyalty to someone else once he's off the board, they'll just stay home like Bernie Bros when he didn't get the nomination (some of them will become stochastic terrorists instead.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
It looks to be that everyone was pardoned, but individuals pardoned won't automatically get documentation. They need to write in to request a certificate that *their name* was pardoned. https://www.justice.gov/iqextranet/EForm.aspx?__cid=Pardon_prod&__fid=5 Edit: wrong marijuana pardon announcement, may want to ignore that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The article says: If the pardon was automatic then nobody is "eligible" for a pardon because the pardon has already happened. Does the AP just not know what eligible means?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:You take their shiny toy away and let them go back to not caring about politics. Most of the diehard Trump folks aren't going to transfer their loyalty to someone else once he's off the board, they'll just stay home like Bernie Bros when he didn't get the nomination (some of them will become stochastic terrorists instead.) Per the CCES (which is the gold standard of this poo poo), fewer than 5% of Sanders primary voters did not vote in the 2016 presidential election. That's far fewer than the number that voted for Trump, in fact: https://twitter.com/b_schaffner/status/900375362604892160 For additional context, it's about the same percentage as Obama primary voters who didn't vote for President in 2008, and the Sanders->Trump set is smaller than the Clinton/Edwards/etc->McCain set https://twitter.com/aaronstrauss/status/900361632747896834 eta: my personal explanation for Obama->McCain voters is the same as Sanders->Trump and matched by the 2016 West Virginia exit polls: It was a vote against Hillary. Applying the same logic to the PUMA crowd willa give a sense that a chunk of folks lost their minds at the idea of a black president. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Dec 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:If the pardon was automatic then nobody is "eligible" for a pardon because the pardon has already happened. Does the AP just not know what eligible means? That is what a categorical pardon is. The AP headline and further into the article expands that it is primarily for expungement purposes - and is distinguished by the separate clemency proclamation for the hard drug offenders currently serving time - It's the same thing as Jimmy Carter's categorical pardon of Vietnam draft dodgers. It's getting into lawyerly nit-picking, but the implication that it is some sort of inferior version of a pardon is not correct. quote:Categorical clemency refers to clemency eligibility issued to certain groups based on shared circumstances, as opposed to eligibility or grants issued on an individualized case-by-case basis. Governors can offer eligibility or grants to groups based on various criteria, including their offenses, personal characteristics, and experiences. They can also base categorical clemency eligibility on determinations about systemic policy issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:If the pardon was automatic then nobody is "eligible" for a pardon because the pardon has already happened. Does the AP just not know what eligible means? AP can just have a poorly worded phrase. Here's the presidential proclamation: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...e-of-marijuana/ It includes : Joe Biden posted:Therefore, acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all current United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who, on or before the date of this proclamation, committed or were convicted of the offense of simple possession of marijuana, attempted simple possession of marijuana, or use of marijuana, regardless of whether they have been charged with or prosecuted for these offenses on or before the date of this proclamation, in violation of: It also goes on to discuss how if you want a certificate of pardon, you'll need to apply for it. By context, that seems to be little more that physical documentation you can pass around as proof that you were pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Ok so the pardon is automatic but actually getting value from it requires application for a proof of pardon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Ok so the pardon is automatic but actually getting value from it requires application for a proof of pardon. In this specific scenario, mostly. If they were currently incarcerated or had certain privileges restricted (this would generally be at the state level, though), then it would be different. It is the same thing with any categorical pardon and doesn't have anything to do with them getting an inferior pardon. As I said, basically lawyerly nit-picking, but it isn't an intentional or lesser pardon/process than any other categorical pardon like you were implying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If people are still buying out their stock, then why would they lower prices? They lower prices by sales. What happens is just before inventory comes in an a sale starts and they’ll do like 2 for 6 dollars or things like buy two get three free. The high price is for the price insensitive rich and people not paying attention. This is what I mean when I say they’ve bufurcated prices. They algorithms have identified this as the maxima. A high price with deep sales. It just sucks and makes everyone not the price insensitive rich extremely angry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Ok so the pardon is automatic but actually getting value from it requires application for a proof of pardon. Seems like this, or the feds keep a completely accurate database of addresses of felons who've completed their sentence. Which, uh, also feels problematic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:They lower prices by sales. What happens is just before inventory comes in an a sale starts and they’ll do like 2 for 6 dollars or things like buy two get three free. To add to this then the put the sales discounts as a “merchandising” loss, which they lump in with transportation theft on the annual report.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Seems like this, or the feds keep a completely accurate database of addresses of felons who've completed their sentence. Which, uh, also feels problematic. I have bad news if you don't want the government keeping a database of ex-convicts I have really bad news if you expect that it's accurate
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 18:31
|
|